Quantcast
Channel: Jillie's Take!
Viewing all 78 articles
Browse latest View live

THINKING ABOUT SENDING YOUR TEEN TO A WILDERNESS PROGRAM ? THINK AGAIN....THE AARON BACON STORY BY NICK GAGLIA

$
0
0


AARON BACON - full movie from Nick Gaglia on Vimeo.

Inspired by the book Help at Any Cost by Maia Szalavitz, Aaron Bacon is based on the true story of a troubled 16-year-old boy who dies as a result of malpractice and abuse in a tough-love, wilderness, drug treatment facility.
 
In 2009, the film made its world premiere at the Shanghai International Film Festival, where Danny Boyle (Oscar-winning director of Slumdog Millionaire) chaired the international jury.

"Powerful film!" -- Fox News

"A powerful, enthralling, and engrossing film with a superb script, direction, and editing by Nick Gaglia, who is on his way to becoming a master of the film medium!" -- WOR Radio

NickGaglia.com




GEORGIA - DHS AND DFCS - CHANGING OF THE GUARD DOES NOT EXACTLY CLEAN HOUSE

$
0
0

 
Georgia - The summer brought changes to the hierarchy at Georgia's Department of Human Services and the Department of Family and Children's Services.
 
Clyde Reese - Out as DHS Commissioner - In as Commissioner at the Department of Community Health (DCH)

No tears here... Our dealings as parents and advocates with former DHS Commissioner Clyde Reese were less than stellar, actually non-existent, although repeatedly attempted by advocates, during the Ridge Creek School fiasco.

DHS/ORCC lack of accountability, lack of oversight, and  lack of transparency allowed the debacle to continue. However, moving Mr. Reese to the DCH is not exactly proactive, nor progressive in an administrative attempt to fix the problems repeatedly cited in reports such as Kenny A.,  the Children's Rights Org, and the Georgia Advocacy Office.

Ron Scroggy - Out as DFCS Director - In as Executive Director of Georgia Association of Homes and Services for Children (GAHSC)


Ron Scroggy heralded from Inner Harbour Youth Villages as the former CEO, where ORCC survey reports on Youth Villages provided egregious incidents of non-compliance. Hiring Mr. Scroggy as Director of DFCS appeared to be a conflict of interest to begin with, offering up just another avenue for the "fox to guard the henhouse." Mr.Scroggy is now at GAHSC, which is far from comforting.

Both gentlemen appeared to do a remarkable job insulating Georgia's DHS and DFCS from any transparency and accountability.  Under Mr. Scroggy's tenure, DFCS offices were raided by the FBI and charges were brought against underlings.  Advocate's general opinion - the FBI raided the wrong offices.

Do not bang the drums quite yet... Governor Deal just shifted the players around to different departments providing each player with a different venue for the same apparent inepitude, lack of integrity, and complicit behavior.

Dave Statton,  former Director of the ORCC, who abruptly cleaned out his desk in 2011, the morning after our parent/advocate conference call, holds the trump cards relating to his immediate exit - among other issues. Were you really given a RIFF? Perhaps it is time to release the conference call... what say you Mr. Statton?
How do you really feel about subjectively changing survey reports before release?


http://www.childrensrights.org/news-events/press/metro-atlanta-backslides-on-protecting-kids-in-foster-care/
 

UPDATE - ATLANTA - ETHICS COMMISSION - STACEY KALBERMAN , SHERILYN STREICKER, AND NATHAN DEAL SAGA

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY - CONFIRMATION - ANOTHER CHILD'S LIFE IS LOST - "SUICIDE COMPLETION"

$
0
0
DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY
http://www.diamondranchacademy.com/
UTAH DHS LICENSE #  20018

"WE ARE DIFFERENT - BY DESIGN"


HURRICANE, UTAH - 11-01-2013
 
Recently, there have been several inquiries and testaments from parents regarding placement of their children in various facilities across the U.S.  Diamond Ranch Academy (DRA) is one such facility, as there have been numerous Internet postings alleging a recent death of a child at DRA.
 
 
The State of Utah's DHS Licensing Division has confirmed that approximately six weeks ago, there was another child's death at Diamond Ranch Academy.  This time, a young boy (name withheld out of respect for the young man and his family), perished after completing a suicide attempt.
 
Since prior postings have alluded to or described his suicide attempt, it has been confirmed by a Utah State Official that his precious life ended in a shower, hanging from a belt attached to a shower rod.
 
According to the State, the police and DHS investigations are near closure.  DHS recommended
corrective action at DRA, which has taken place.  One corrective act  was installing collapsible shower rods and shower heads, so that they remain innocuous.
 
Excuse:  "The staff gets complacent." Another word for negligent.
 
A State source conveyed, "the child that completed  his suicide attempt was taken off suicide watch by the tending Psychiatrist/Psychologist two days before."  Negligence?
 
Question:  Why was a suicidal child at DRA to begin with?  Why was he not transferred to a Mental Health facility?
 
DHS stated that their county receives "on average,  one call a year relating to a child's suicide."
 
Since the investigation is near finalized,  whether charges shall be filed remain to be determined. 
 
Another quote from a State Official, who was very professional and kind, yet seemingly naive, "DRA is one of the better ones. I believe they can make a difference with these children."
 
 
Jilliestake response:  
 
 
DRA surely did "make a difference." 
 
"We are different - by design" -  as in shower rods and shower heads?  
 
DRA appears in dire need of a fresh marketing campaign to bounce back from apparent, egregious negligence. One imagines, DRA  and its adjunct mental health care providers,  pray the death of this young man is kept "under wraps."
 
But, hey, they can always count on Dr. Drew Pinsky (aka Dr. Drew) for a stellar recommendation.
 
Quoted  from the DRA website, "As seen On Dr. Phil's Life Changers"
 

"I don't make this recommendation casually;
this is from years of experience in dealing
with people with behavioral problems.."

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v0YojzS9KU#t=37

 
http://www.diamondranchacademy.com/

 

It is more than evident, that the laws in Utah and across the country regarding Teen Residential Treatment Facilities, Wilderness Programs, and the like,  must change to protect our young.

There is no accountability.

Educational Consultants that send children and youths to these facilites, still do not fathom that they are mandated reporters.

This is not the first child's life that was lost or destroyed, nor will it be the last, if there is no accountability or humanity.

 

As advocates for children, DRA is not recommended for placement.
 

WE EXTEND OUR SINCERE SORROW TO THE FAMILY, UPON THE LOSS OF YOUR SON.

 

 

 

 

Notes:

In all fairness to  Dr. Drew Pinsky, Josh Shipp also arranged for a teenager to attend DRA on his former show, "Teen Trouble."

According to Diamond Ranch Academy's website, they are a licensed youth "residential treatment center."

Owners/Founders:

Rob and Sherri Dias
 
Utah administrative code for Licensed treatment facilities.
 
 Definition of a licensed residential treatment center in Utah. 

http://www.planning.utah.gov/Index_files/PDFs/ut3.57.pdf

UTAH DHS

http://www.dhs.utah.gov/

Hurricane, Utah Police Department

http://www.cityofhurricane.com/categories/departments/police-dept/

UTAH - WAS HURRICANE HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL COACH BRIAN VAIFANUA, FORMER OWNER OF "PARADISE COVE" TEEN GULAG, FINALLY FIRED?

$
0
0
HURRICANE HIGH SCHOOL
HURRICANE, UTAH
http://www.hhs.wash.k12.ut.us/




Brian Vaifanua 
HURRICANE, UTAH - How does the likes of Brian Vaifanua become the basketball coach and athletic director of Hurricane High School? Apparently, he is not the "Lone Ranger." If reports ring true and Mr. Vaifanua was indeed fired, how long did the Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools take to render such a decision? Were they not apprised of Mr. Vaifanua's background?  Questions need to be answered by whomever hired Mr. Vaifanua, their vetting process for hiring, and whether Mr. Vaifanua disclosed his past.

Mr. Jody Rich is the current Principal... "Mr. Rich... what is your professional take? Nepotism? Ineptitude? Negligence?"

Is this the Mr. Jody Rich that heralds from Diamond Ranch Academy?

By the end of August 2013, congratulations were extended to the new coach of Hurricane High School, Mr. Todd Langston. On November 5, 2013, the Deseret News reported twenty-two teams for the 2013-2014 basketball season will have new coaches.

What one will not find in the Deseret News, is an answer as to, "Why was Mr. Vaifanuua  fired? Or, was he allowed to resign?"  It is doubtful whether this would be reported on FOX 13 NEWS KSTU as family is employed at FOX. Not to mention having friends with the last name of Lichfield... Ring any bells?

A survivor of Paradise Cove reported on Reddit TroubledTeens that Mr. Rich confirmed Mr. Vaifanua had indeed been fired (via a telephone call to him on November 27, 2013-- near three months later).
He wrote, "I got a phone call today from Jody rich the principal of hurricane high school confirming that basketball coach Brian vaifanua the sick bastard that ran paradise cove a teen torture camp in Western Samoa that hog tied and beat at least a thousand of us "troubled teens" has official confirmied he has been fired thanks to the work of me and the other guys that were imprisoned there."
Another question:  With all these connections, how did the Board of Education pull this off?  In Southern Utah, no less.

It appears Mr. Vaifanua's 'connections' to the horrific Troubled Teen Industry are quite numerous, including extended family, friends, and colleagues (Duane Lee, brother-in-law and former Director of Paradise Cove).

Mr. Vaifanua, heralds as the former owner and director of the noted abusive Paradise Cove facility in Western Samoa (under the former WWASPS that was headquartered in St. George, Utah).  Paradise Cove was closed by the Samoan government for credible allegations of child abuse - no thanks to the US who just issued a warning to US parents. Question? Why were there no indictments of Mr. Vaifanua and the lot of them? The DOJ states it was Samoa and they had no jurisdiction.  However, these children were US citizens, abused under Mr. Vaifanua's (a US citizen of Samoan heritage) care, according to reports. Instead, Mr. Vaifanua was free to do a stint as the Director of Midwest Academy in Iowa.

     PARADISE COVE - SAMOA - AS REPORTED ON CBS NEWS "48 HOURS"

It appears Mr. Vaifanua was not alone in seeking employment with children after the closing of a teen facility such as Paradise Cove... He has plenty of company, which borders on absurdity.

Dace Goulding, co-owner of the former abusive Darrington Academy, was also listed as an owner of Casa by the Sea in Mexico, which was shut down for child abuse allegations. In addition, Goulding was involved with High Impact in Mexico, which was shut down for child abuse allegations. Darrington Academy was shuttered amidst child abuse allegations. It appears Mr. Goulding gets around, as it is reported that he, too, worked at Paradise Cove (Mr.Vaifanua/Mr. Goulding connection). According to school records, Mr. Goulding is now in the employ of Desert Hills Middle School as a Social Studies teacher and coach.

Another character was Richard Darrington, co-owner of the former Darrington Academy in Georgia, along with Mr. Goulding. Mr. Darrington was arrested in 2009 for aggravated battery, invasion of privacy, and first degree cruelty to children.

Mr. Darrington (holding only a substitute teaching license in Nevada), sought employment at Whittell High School and was hired as the Dean of Students. Until, Whittell H.S. found existing battery charges and a "9 count indictment" against Mr. Darrington (and three colleagues) that was awaiting him in Georgia. Nevada revoked his substitute teaching license.

Update: October 2013 charges brought in the indictment of Mr. Darrington in Georgia were dropped... "nolle prosequi"... why?

In 2011, Mr. Darrington's three colleagues entered into a negotiated guilty plea relating to charges of first degree cruelty to children and invasion of privacy.

Obviously, being part of the "9 count indictment" was not enough to keep him in Georgia.

Why not start an association for alleged abusers?  There appear to be several possible applicants.

Perhaps, Mr. Viafanua will end up at Diamond Ranch Academy.


More important questions... Where are they now? Why are they not forbidden to be around children?

Why are they not in jail, along with the entire WWASPS predators and creators, like the Lichfield family?

It is simple: Money, power, politics, corruption, and a majority of those in the governing body in Washington that could care less about the quality of life and rights of our children--unless... it is their offspring.




Note:  Jilliestake reached out to the below entities for this article to no avail on November 27, 2013.  Jilliestake welcomes their comments.

The School Board of Washington County could not be reached for comment and/or confirmation. There was no answer.

Hurricane High School could not be reached for comment and/or confirmation. A recorded message:  "Due to the apparently high volume of calls..."


Resources:

[1] http://wwaspsurvivors.com/wwasp-programs/paradise-cove/
[2] http://wwaspsurvivors.com/wwasp-programs/casa-by-the-sea/
[3] http://wwaspsurvivors.com/wwasp-programs/high-impact/
[4] http://wwaspsurvivors.com/wwasp-programs/darrington-academy/
[5] http://www.heal-online.org/wwasp120609.pdf
[6] http://www.cafety.org/solutions-and-successes/763-school-official-arrested-ga-darrington-academy

Reddit Troubled Teens:
https://www.facebook.com/RedditTroubledTeens?fref=ts
Note: Quote left in tact with grammatical errors for authenticity.

Desert News:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865589970/High-school-boys-basketball-Team-by-team-2013-14-schedules.html

Hurricane High School:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hurricane-High-School-Boys-Basketball/215606452995
"Congratulations to Todd Langston the new head coach of the Hurricane Tiger boys basketball team."


WWASPS - World Wide Association of Specialty Schools:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Association_of_Specialty_Programs_and_Schools

Utah Washington County School District:
http://www.washk12.org/
435-673-3553

Hurricane High School, Hurricane, Utah:
435-635-3280

Mr.  Jody Rich: Named Principal of Hurricane High School the summer of 2012:
http://www.kcsg.com/view/full_story/18969108/article-Jody-Rich-Named-Hurricane-High-School-Principal--Sheri-Fisher--Assistant-Principal

Diamond Ranch Academy: Re  A Jody Rich Consultant/Counselor - update:

http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/accred/Reports/DOCS/Diamond-Ranch-VT-Report-2012.aspx

Mr. Dace Goulding:

http://dhms.washk12.org/uploads/DHMS%20Student%20Planner%202013-2014%20Online%20Copy.pdf

Blog error edited... apologies. "Ms." Rich was corrected to "Mr." Rich.
Article updated.



TONYA BOGA RESIGNS AS GEORGIA'S DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE

$
0
0
Tonya Boga


Georgia - Tonya Boga has resigned as Director of the Office of the Child Advocate. An attorney in her own right, perhaps Ms. Boga will return to practice, as her license to practice law is active.
 
In 2012, Ms. Boga stated in an interview with Channel 2 News investigative reporter Aaron Diamant, "I see us as a voice for the children of the state of Georgia." Ms. Boga went on to say, "I think there needs to be more training, and DFCS is working on that training." [1] [2]
 
These statements indicate more smoke and mirrors. Blame the work force, not  the upper echelon of supervisors and directors. How proactive is it to train more DFCS/CPS investigators/agents, if it is the supervisors, who are afforded carte blanche in subjective editing of final survey reports? 
 
In  a 2011 interview, a DFCS/CPS/ORCC investigator disclosed, off the record for fear of reprisal, that a report the investigator submitted was ignored, and this was not the first time.  "You stay in line. You don't ask questions; not if you wish to keep your job." There was no question the fear factor was overwhelming. 
 
As 'real' child advocates, we found that several of our complaints filed with the ORCC under DHS, including DFCS and the subsequent finalized survey reports generated by those entities, were either missing in the final survey report, changed, or the original complaint was not addressed in the final survey report with coinciding complaint identifiers.
 
As 'real' child advocates, we met with Tonya Boga in the Fall of 2011. On our own time, we went to the Governor's Office. We offered documented evidence and testimony to the Governor's Office, along with Ms. Boga and her entourage at the OCA -- including recommended oversight reforms and regulations based on our experience with the  "kid gloves" handling of a facility.  We found nepotism, ineptitude, and apparent corruption-rampant. All of which, indicated the problems are systemic as other facilities generate reports with the same failures and 'nothing' is done. "We are not in the business to shut these facilities down," as one Director stated. 

 "We the People" thought the creed for agencies under the arm of  DHS, such as DFCS, the ORCC,  and CPS, was to protect the children, not the facility. Think again.
 
We found the directors to be incompetent, not the investigators/agents. If the directors and supervisors are not incompetent, then their plight of containment, an insular quest, shines a worse light toward their embracement of corruption.

Governor Deal: “It is one of those oversight areas, where I think any time we have an extra set of eyes that are looking at a situation, perhaps we can avoid bad things happening,” he said of the office. [1]

Governor Deal's politics and rhetoric aside, in our advocacy for the safety of children and transparency, obviously his 'blanket' statement did not apply. "DEAL would not deal with Ryan and Dunne and get the deal done," retorts a child advocate.
 
When the Georgia Bureau of Investigation raided the Muscogee County DFCS alleging "false statements and writings, concealment of facts, fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions, and subornation of false swearing," industry people were shocked.  Georgia goes after one of their own?  Why Muscogee?  Our postion, "they raided the wrong office."[3]
 
Two years later, "We are still investigating."  Now, Ms. Boga is gone.
 
If one is hopeful that a new Director of the Office of the Child Advocate will be a visionary, do not hold ones breath.

Oversight with no accountability, simply will not work.



[1] http://wabe.org/post/deal-expand-office-child-advocate-agency-head-resgines
 
[2] http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/child-advocate-puts-pressure-dfcs-over-child-cruel/nLMfC/

[3] http://www.wtvm.com/story/19460720/2012/09/05/dfcs-employees-arrested-for-allegedly-falsifying-child-abuse-reports

DHS -    Department of Human Services
DFCS -  Department of Family and Children's Services
CPS   -   Child Protective Services
ORCC - Office of Regulatory Child Care
OCA -   Office of the Child Advocate
 


"EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS FOR DUMMIES": REFERRALS OF EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANTS TO ABUSIVE RESIDENTIAL TEEN PROGRAMS THAT USE NON-EVIDENCE BASED THERAPY

$
0
0

..SMARMY INGREDIENTS THAT ARE MOST DESERVING OF ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1981 ...

For many families, by the time they end up at an educational consultant's office they have exhausted every community resource available, or they are emotionally exhausted because there is little, if any, community help for their child.  In many instances, they have exhausted their financial resources, too. This needs to change.  Change takes forever, time is of the essence, fear for your child takes over, and boom.  They have got you hook, line, and sinker.

You bought into the "Teen Help Industry," herein referred to as the "industry," you feel aweight has been lifted from your being as your child is 'safely' tucked away in a facility program. You sleep soundly for the first time in what seems ages; until, you receive "the call."

THE CALL - A TRUE INCIDENT:
  • Your child cannot talk because their heavy sobs are incapacitating their speech.
  • You have a 15-minute, monitored telephone call with your child.
  • You think you heard your child say "there was blood everywhere, I had to walk through blood."
  • The monitor/counselor keeps interrupting.
  • You and your child's 15-minute telephone conversation is up.
  • You tell your child to put the counselor/monitor on the phone.
  • You affirm that you wish to speak with your child immediately, without monitoring, stating that the telephone conversation was inaudible as your child was near hysterics.
  • You are a zillion miles away, angst is rising, your pulse is rapid, you are ready to vomit, and the monitor/counselor that is less than half your age states, "it is against the rules."
  • You reiterate that you do not give a damn, "I want my child placed on the phone -  NOW!"
  • The monitor replies that they "must get permission from their supervisor."
  • While your child's sobs permeate, you lose it.  "Either put my child on the phone, take your body out of the room, or I will call the police."
  • BINGO!
Reality sinks in, you realize that your previous interrupted sleep patterns were a gift, sleepless nights return with a vengeance, and your real nightmare has just begun.

Your educational consultant will not return your call.  "But, they are a member of IECA."

Those that have not been inducted into this abhorrent "industry," and are  contemplating utilizing their offerings - this is for you.

TIPS FOR DUMMIES

ETHICS

"In the United States, educational consultants are not bound by any particular statutory rules for practitioners."  However, many professional organizations have established standards for professional consultants by which their members pledge to abide - in this case, IECA (Independent Educational Consultants Association.)

http://www.educationalconsulting.org/PDF/IECA_Principles_of_Good_Practice.pdf

In other words, to become an educational consultant requires no state licensing, no state oversight, certainly no academic degree, and absolutley no accountability.  In all fairness, there are educational consultants that have advanced degrees, whom are licensed or accredited psychologists, counselors, social workers, etc., that have branched out into this very lucrative world of  educational consulting for "at risk" teenagers and youth offenders.

What confounds the mind, is how an academic can justify sending children and youths to programs that utilize non-evidence based therapies, especially in wilderness boot camps.  The industry is more than willing to provide their "own research," which is beyond laughable. This is abominable.

The educational consultant community (IECA) has now embraced our Special Needs Children, which is apparently on their hit parade. More and more facilities,schools,and academies market and advertise themselves to Special Needs Children and their families.  Twenty or so years ago, the money-maker was the coming of age of ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) to follow, then ODD (Opposition Defiant Disorder). Addictions were a given.  Now the children and youth targeted are those diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders and of course "pill-poppers." All these diagnosis not only keep the pharmaceutical companies euphoric, but the educational consultants and the programs to which they refer to, are running with it.

More alarming are school/academy/facility programs that appear to be on the rise and market for adjudicated youth deemed sexual predators, or those with sexual addictions.  In lieu of jail, (hearts go out to those victims who were offended and both families) youth sexual offenders are placed in facility programs, often with the help of an educational consultant and attorney. Once these offenders start "grooming" or offend at one of these facility programs, they are moved to another facility that will accept them.  Herein lies the problem.  If, as has happened, the offenders are accepted into an unethical facility  (Therapeutic Boarding School, Wilderness, etc.) for the bang of the buck and commingled with Special Needs Children, it is a proven recipe for disaster - a human toll, a tragedy that could have been prevented. Most offenses are kept in-house, never to be reported by the facility or educational consultant. If you expect that an educational consultant would divulge this, your naivety needs a reality check.

Perhaps educational consultants do not know what a "mandated" reporter's responsibility is, not to mention their lack of ethical standards. 

One important aspect of the educational consultant's success is their keen ability to market themselves to clients.  In addition, they must establish connections, a network with their brethren and the facilities where they attempt to place children.  One palm simply greases the other.  Those educational consultants that do speak out  are ostracized, hung, quartered, and black-balled.

HOW NOT TO FEED THE EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT AND THE PROGRAMS THEY REFER TO
  • Parental trust, blind faith, and fear will be quite palatable to the educational consultant.
INSIDE THE LURE:

All glorious and picture perfect to induce, until you:
  • DO YOUR HOMEWORK:  Educate yourself.  The Internet affords access to most everything.
  • Review your educational consultant's qualifications through state licensing boards for psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, etc.  They may not need to be licensed as an educational consultant, but if they present one of the above "shingles" they should be licensed by the state.
  • Search the Internet for complaints.  Weigh them, without input from the educational consultant.  "Reputation Defender," although good, cannot expunge everything.  You may be under stress, wrought with worry, but you are not inept.
  • Do not accept phone numbers of previous clients as proof of merit, ethics, and success for obvious reasons.
  • If the educational consultant touts that they are a member of their own association, IECA, take it with a grain of salt, along with other nuances.  To be a member of IECA, one must pay their dues and then complain about IECA.
  • If the educational consultant taps a NATSAP ( National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs) program - run.  NATSAP is useless.
  • Ask the educational consultant for the names of facility programs to which they have referred clients.  Browse the Internet checking for complaints, news reports, previous and current lawsuits.
  • Call the local sheriff's office and inquire as to how many 911 calls were placed to the department from the facility program the educational consultant is recommending. 911 call logs from children,  parents, staff, DFCS, or other state agencies are public information and may be requested.
  • Check with the state's Department of Human Services, Department of Mental Health, or similar state agency to find out if there is oversight of the recommended facility, if the facility is licensed by the state, and whether incident reports are available.  Do not take any one's word.  Licensing is only effective if the state supports their own regulations.  State agencies often funnel children and youths into these programs, so they will not cut off the hand that feeds them.
  • Remember, as in other markets, industry-wide "friendships' and compensation all too often obscures the ability to be truthful.
After all this, it is still a "crap-shoot." The odds are not favorable. You are the fish treading in dark unnatural, uncharted waters. The "bait" is well-positioned.

THE BAIT
  • Emotionally distressed, seeking a safe environment for ones child, devastation - a quite lucrative bounty.
DO NOT TAKE THE BAIT - MAJOR ALARMS
THIS CANNOT BE EMPHASIZED ENOUGH:
  • Never place your child in any program where there is no outside access.
  • Never place your child in a program where their telephone calls and mail is monitored to and from the parent.  No matter what is dreamt up to console you about this program policy, this is for containment only and dangerous.
  • If the program stipulates the children lie and manipulate as an answer to your concerns - run.  You alone know your child and when they are fabricating.  Look into your child's eyes, their heart, and you will have your answer.
  • If the educational consultant recommends a facility/school/academy in Costa Rica or overseas - run.
  • Never place your child in a facility program where the medication is not dispensed by an R.N.
  • If the educational consultant states that they have visited the facility program, remember, these facilities put forth their best behavior creating a facade.  The same facade would apply to a parent visit or state agency visit.  No educational consultant has witnessed a child hanging from a tree or had to walk through a blood-drenched dorm floor from a suicide attempt.  If the educational consultant witnessed inexcusable therapy sessions, you will not be advised.
  • Under no circumstances sign a contract absolving the educational consultant of liability.
  • Ask the educational consultant if they are mandatory reporters regarding incidents they are privy to at the the programs to which they refer.
  • Ask the educational consultant if they receive compensation from the facility program to which they refer.
  • If any individual markets himself/herself as a "parent advocate" and refers children and youths to one of these facilities/programs - sprint.  Chances are they receive compensation on both ends - one is unethical, known as "kick-backs."
  • Know that the marketing of these facility programs intentionally affords a vision of therapy and continuing a child's education (another lure) under one roof. Look at it as a one-stop drop-off service to 'fix' any anomaly known to teen-kind. 
WHAT THE EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT SHOULD ADVISE WHEN MAKING REFERRALS TO PROGRAMS

If an educational consultant did their homework and was ethical, they would have already thoroughly vetted the facility/program;  history has shown this is not the case.
History has also shown their disclosure to be less than forthcoming.
  • Psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, social workers, doctors, etc., those that claim to be licensed, accredited, and affiliated with the program - check their references within the state, which can be found at state licensing boards and the state's Department of Education. Seek out those professionals that are no longer affiliated with the facility/school/academy.  What they have to say may just shock you.
  • Special Needs Children - Check the facility program's capabilities, accreditation (which appears to mean nothing these days) of their Special Needs Educational Program, counseling, and the credentials of those individuals to whom you are entrusting your child into their care.
  • Again, check with the state's Department of Human Services or similar to find out if there is oversight of the recommended facility, if it is licensed by the state, and whether incident reports are accessible. Do they follow through with mandatory reporting, accountability, or just shelve a report , and not prosecute. 
  • Never place your child in a facility program that does not show proof of insurance for fraud, negligence,abuse, accident, and professional liability. Check the state statutes for fraud.
  • Do not fall prey to paying advanced tuition for a discount or otherwise. Do not pay deposits unless the deposit is held in escrow. Read the fine print.  Have a contract attorney read the contract. Check the state statutes regarding a facility/program that has a "rolling enrollment" which allows for the lawful return of deposits and tuition.
  • It is imperative that you out-source any psychological testing, free from the program to ensure there is no scam, double-dipping or program surcharge, so that the testing is completed as paid for by a licensed, ethical psychiatrist, or psychologist that is in no way affiliated or compensated by the facility program.  In addition, as despicable as it is, those affiliated with programs have been asked to change diagnosis to make the child/youth acceptable to the program offered.
  • Enrollment statistics  - Ask for the number of clients that do not complete the program.  You will not get the truth.
  • Under no circumstances place your child with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s) in a wilderness program.
  • Under no circumstances send your child from a Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) to a Therapeutic Boarding School or a Wilderness program that purports to be a Residential Treatment Facility (RTF) or Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF).  The states will have a listing of licensed RTF's, PRTF's, and other mental health facilities.
  • Internet search - Again, there is a plethora of information available.  Search complaints and lawsuits.
The above is nowhere near a "fail-safe." 

IMPERATIVE - ASK THE EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT:

  • Does the facility program commingle children with DJJ youth placements, DFCS state placements through waivers (facility is not fully vetted or licensed) or otherwise, in-state or out-of-state youth that are court-ordered or more important adjudicated to placement in lieu of jail, with private pay placements including Special Needs Children.
  • Does the facility program commingle children that are victims of sexual assaults with youth that are adjudicated sexual predators?  Groomers?
BY NOW

You are totally disillusioned and disgusted.  Your child deserves help within your community and under your watch, but there is little help, if any.  Most psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, pediatricians, teachers, judges, attorneys, etc., have not been educated in the fraud, abuse, and neglect associated within this industry.

These are the sad facts with the only remedy lying within the communities themselves, so that out-sourcing of our young to these abusive, fraudulent facility programs becomes a blemish on our history. 

You may be thinking, "are you out of your mind?"  "How can I do all this?"
The important question is, "how can you not?" 

Be your child's advocate and their solace.  Your "bounty" is your humanity.  Do not strip your child of theirs. 

FIGHT BACK AND SUPPORT H.R. 1981 "STOP CHILD ABUSE IN RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR TEENS ACT OF 2013."


It is not perfect, but it is all we have.  Partisanship has no place where the well-being and life of any child is concerned.

And that's my take.
Jillie Ryan
"For the Children Left Behind" and those to come.

Other resources:


Those ethical academia and foundations that are in support of H.R. 1981 appear far more appealing, although in the novice stage of truly understanding this horrific, multi-billion-dollar industry, than paper pushers and corporate lobbyists of abuse.

http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/SCARPTA2013-BillText.pdf

 
Additionally
Although this is for the State of Virginia, licenses and certifications may be looked up nationwide:

https://secure01.virginiainteractive.org/dhp/cgi-bin/search_publicdb.cgi

https://www.certificationmatters.org/is-your-doctor-board-certified/search-now.aspx

Copyright © 2013 Jilliestake - All rights reserved.

FAMILY SUES PHIL MCGRAW (DR. PHIL), BAIN CAPITAL, CRC HEALTH/ASPEN EDUCATIONAL GROUP, AND ISLAND VIEW 'ACADEMY' IN UTAH

$
0
0
 
 
It is about time. Earlier this month, reports leaking out of Island View indicated an allegation that a "wrist" was "broken" of a young girl during a restraint administered by staff, which obviously went south... Island View markets themselves as a "Compassionate and comprehensive therapeutic academy for struggling teens."*
 


Dr. Phil McGraw arrives at the Museum of Television and Radio's annual gala in Beverly Hills, Calif., in this Oct. 30, 2006, file photo. The family of a teen girl who claims she was berated on television by Dr. Phil and then sent to a Utah residential treatment center where she was falsely imprisoned, has filed a civil complaint in federal court. (Matt Sayles, Associated Press)
Phil McGraw

Family sues Dr. Phil, Utah treatment center

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 29 2014 5:03 p.m. MST

SYRACUSE — The family of a teenage girl who claims she was
berated on television by Dr. Phil and then sent to a residential treatment center in Utah where she was falsely imprisoned, has filed a civil lawsuit. Terri and David Myers, on behalf of their 15-year-old daughter, filed the complaint
in federal court in Salt Lake City on Monday against the Dr.
Phil Organization, Bain Capital, CRC Health Group,
Aspen Educational Group, Island View Academy in Syracuse and a teacher at the academy.

In February of 2013, Terri Myer went on the "Dr. Phil" show
with her daughter. In the episode, the daughter admitted to having sex with adult men she met online,
which the family called "bizarre and dangerous conduct"
in their lawsuit.

The family claims Dr. Phil, Phil McGraw, subjected the mother
and daughter to "his brand of blunt ridicule." He offered to help the family by paying for the daughter to enroll at Island View Academy, a co-ed residential treatment center for troubled youth located in Syracuse.

The parents enrolled the girl. In their suit, they now call the facility a "private prison" and claim their daughter was placed there "for the purpose of forcing her to become obedient instead of truant by depriving her of freedom,
privacy, education, and subjecting her to involuntary servitude, and unjust unusual punishments."

In one incident, the daughter apparently refused to obey staff members who told her to get off of her bed. When staff members tried to pull her off,her right arm "was badly and perhaps irreparably broken, and its main nerve severely damaged," the lawsuit states.

The family also claims their daughter's constitutional rights were violated and she was falsely imprisoned, as well as conspiracy and fraud.
Attempts to reach the Island View Academy and the "Dr. Phil" show or comments were unsuccessful.

Email: preavy@deseretnews.com                                   
Twitter: DNewsCrimeTeam
Copyright 2014, Deseret News Publishing Company
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/865595153/Family-sues-Dr-Phil-Utah-treatment-center.html
http://islandview.crchealth.com/
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/30/64963.htm








 
 

Is Justice Forthcoming for Survivors of New Bethany Home for Girls?

$
0
0



One day the storms will lift and I shall soar free.


Jilliestake supports the survivors of abuse at the hands of Mack Ford and his New Bethany Home for Girls in Arcadia, Louisiana (closed 2001). Additionally, it is reported that Mack Ford owned other abusive facilities in Longstreet and Waterboro, S.C. [1]

Indictments, adjudication, vindication, and peace for his victims is warranted.

To read further and offer ones' support, please use these links:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/04/to_new_bethany_and_back_one_wo.html

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/04/new_bethany_home_for_girls_end.html#incart_river_default


[1]  http://louisianavoice.com/2013/09/18/questions-abound-as-more-horror-stories-emerge-from-new-bethany-home-for-girls-and-boys-in-arcadia-and-longstreet/

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY FILES DEFAMATON LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SCHOFIELDS

$
0
0

Diamond Ranch Academy


Public 'figures' Michael John Schofield, (author of the controversial memoir, January  First, alternating President of the Jani Foundation, Inc.--depending on the month and  former co-host of the now defunct Bipolar Nation Radio at LA Talk Radio) and Susan Schofield (former host of Bipolar Nation Radio, until the show was canned by LA Talk Radio owner Sam Hasson, and heir apparent acting as President of the Jani Foundation) have been hit with a lawsuit filed by Diamond Ranch Academy in Hurricane,  Utah alleging defamation, libel, et al.

According to record, DRA takes issue with Ms. Schofield's well-known media rants, such as: 


  •  “DRA runs ‘a death camp’ and is involved in a ‘Holocaust.’”

    The Schofields are already under fire and scrutiny from advocates stemming from various allegations of fraud, numerous violations of 501 C(3) charities regarding Federal and State statutes, not the least of which involves the commingling of Jani Foundation funds for private use. Jani Foundation bank records appear to indicate egregious, reckless, blatant violations of public trust to benefit the Schofields.

    As advocates for children's rights, we in no way support the Therapeutic Teen Industry as is our right. On the other hand, supporting apparent grifters is not an option for advocates, as integrity is imperative in exposing the truth.


    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. SUSAN SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD:



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 13



    STEVEN R. BANGERTER (SBN 10051)

    WILLIAM E. FRAZIER (SBN 11447)

    DANIEL P. WILDE (SBN 11800)

    BANGERTER SHEPPARD, PC

    720 S. River Road, Suite A-200

    St. George, UT 84780

    Telephone:

    Facsimile:

    dwilde@

    Attorneys for Plaintiff,

    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.



    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.,

    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL

    SCHOFIELD,

    Defendants.

    Case No.: 1:14-cv-00103-DBP



    COMPLAINT

    Magistrate: Dustin B. Pead



    DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL



    Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. hereby complains against

    Defendants SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD as follows:



    NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. By this action, DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. seeks to recover damages for defamatory statements made by SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD. DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. is a therapeutic boarding school and licensed residential youth treatment facility located in Hurricane, Utah. SUSAN



    2

    SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, speaking publicly about DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff, in relation to the facilities, therapies, modalities and services provided by DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, made, and continue to make public statements concerning DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff which were false, unsupported, offensive, defamatory and injurious to DIAMOND RANCH Academy’s professional reputation.



    JURISDICTION

    2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc.’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.



    3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants because they have transacted business in the State of Utah in connection with the subject matter of this Complaint, caused harm to DRA in the State of Utah, and continuously transmitted defamatory statements in this judicial district.



    4. Defendants are thus subject to jurisdiction in this State pursuant to Utah’s long arm statute, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-205(1) and (3), and they have sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the due process clause of the United States Constitution.



    VENUE

    5. Venue is proper in the District of Utah, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Complaint occurred in this District and defendants are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 13





    3

    PARTIES



    6. Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. (hereinafter “DRA”), is and at all relevant times was, a Utah corporation, with its principal place of business located in Hurricane, Utah.



    7. Based upon information and belief, Defendant, SUSAN SCHOFIELD is a citizen and resident of the State of California.



    8. Based upon information and belief, Defendant, MICHAEL SCHOFIELD is a citizen and resident of the State of California.



    9. Defendants SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD will be hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Schofields”).



    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS



    10. The Schofields have never attended, nor ever been on the premises of DRA.



    11. The Schofields have never spoken to any employee or owner of DRA.



    12. Without ever having spoken to DRA’s owners or employees, and without ever having attended or been on the premises of DRA, the Schofields have maliciously and falsely attacked DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, business model, its employees, and its owners, through numerous defamatory statements of fact made to many thousands of people through their internet radio show (Bipolar Nation Radio), Facebook pages (www.facebook.com/schofieldfamily, www.facebook.com/SusanSchofieldsBipolarNation), blogs and other media and social media outlets, both in writing and orally.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 3 of 13



    4

    13. The following items are specific examples of the false, unfounded, malicious and defamatory statements originally published and/or re-published by the Schofields to others (together, hereinafter referred to as “Defamatory Statements”):



    a. That DRA “kidnaps” and improperly strip searches its students, and then requires them to shower with the door open;

    b. That DRA ignores student health issues;

    c. That DRA hires “unqualified” employees;

    d. That DRA manipulates the parents of its students and misrepresents its services;

    e. That DRA is involved in, and operates a “multi-million dollar racketeering game”

    f. That DRA “intimidates”, “severely abuses”, “beats”, “starves”, “rapes”, “tortures”, and “accidentally murders” its students;

    g. That DRA “murders” its students;

    h. That DRA runs a “death camp”, and is involved in a “holocaust”;

    i. That operates as a “holding tank” and is a “killing field”; and

    j. That DRA’s operations and facilities are akin to a “Japanese internment camp”.

    14. Upon information and belief, the Schofields have also made other defamatory statements.

    15. Each of the Defamatory Statements identified above in paragraph 13 is false.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 4 of 13

    5





    16. Based upon information and belief, the Schofields delivered the Defamatory Statements to others with intent to harm DRA’s business and community position, as established through the Defamatory Statements and the context in which those statements were made.



    17. Based upon information and belief, the Schofields have published, and continue to publish the Defamatory Statements to others through their radio show, Facebook pages, blogs and other media and social media outlets. The Defamatory Statements were published by the Schofields beginning at least as early as March 2012, and continuing through the date of the filing of this Complaint, and were published with the intent that they be heard by persons in the State of Utah and throughout the country.



    18. Upon information and belief, the Defamatory Statements were published with the intent that persons in the State of Utah would hear such statements, and with the intent that DRA’s business in Utah would be harmed. The damaging results thereof have been felt by DRA in the State of Utah.



    19. Each of the Defamatory Statements was republished by the Schofields on August 10, 2014 via bipolarnationradio.podbean.com.



    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION



    (Libel against all Defendants)



    20. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as though fully set forth herein.

    21. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 5 of 13





    6



    22. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.



    23. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.



    24. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements through their internet radio show and on their Facebook pages, blogs, and other media and social media outlets.



    25. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.



    26. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.



    27. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.



    28. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.



    29. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 6 of 13





    7

    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION



    (Libel Per Se against all Defendants)



    30. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein.



    31. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.



    32. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.



    33. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.



    34. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements through their internet radio show and on their Facebook pages, blogs, and other media and social media outlets.



    35. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.



    36. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.



    37. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 7 of 13





    8

    38. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.



    39. Through the Defamatory Statements, the Schofields have accused DRA of engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial profit.



    40. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.



    41. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.



    42. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.



    43. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION



    (Slander against all Defendants)



    44. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth herein.



    45. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.



    46. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 8 of 13





    9



    47. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.



    48. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said Defamatory Statements to others through their internet radio show and through other oral means and methods.



    49. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.



    50. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.



    51. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.



    52. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.



    53. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.





    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 9 of 13





    10



    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION



    (Slander Per Se against all Defendants)



    54. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth herein.



    55. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.



    56. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.



    57. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.



    58. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said defamatory statements to others through their internet radio show and through other oral means and methods.



    59. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.



    60. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.



    61. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 10 of 13





    11



    62. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.



    63. Through the Defamatory Statements, the Schofields have accused DRA of engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial profit.





    64. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.



    65. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.



    66. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.



    67. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION



    (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

    against all Defendants)



    68. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 67 as though fully set forth herein.



    69. DRA is in the business of educating and rehabilitating children with challenging circumstances and/or diagnoses.



    70. DRA’s business is greatly affected by “word or mouth” referrals from parents, professionals, alumni, and from internet advertising.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 11 of 13



    12



    71. The Schofields intentionally and willfully published false and misleading information (the Defamatory Statements) about DRA to the internet through their radio broadcasts and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.



    72. Upon information and belief, the Schofields also published the Defamatory Statements in other ways and through other means and methods.



    73. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the Defamatory Statements.



    74. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements with the intent to damage the reputation and prospective economic advantage of DRA.



    75. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields proximately caused DRA to suffer damage to its name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, as well as economic loss and costs associated with correcting the Defamatory Statements made to others through the internet and by other means and methods.



    76. As a direct and proximate result of the Schofields’ conduct, DRA has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but on information and belief, in an amount not less than $1,000,000. DRA is entitled to general and special damages.



    77. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice, and were made with the intent to damage DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 12 of 13





    13

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF



    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:



    1. That judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants;

    2. For general and special damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 on its First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Libel, Libel Per Se, Slander, Slander Per Se, and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage in an amount to be proven at trial;

    3. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from making further defamatory statements about Plaintiff;

    4. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit;

    5. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example;

    6. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

    7. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.



    JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

    Plaintiff hereby requests to have a trial by jury in relation to the Counts and theissues that are properly the subject of such a trial.



    DATED: August 28, 2014 Bangerter Sheppard & Frazier, PC

    By /s/ Steven R. Bangerter_____

    STEVEN R. BANGERTER

    Attorneys for Plaintiff,

    Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc



    *NOTE: THIS CASE HAS BEEN MODIFIED INTO MS WORD.

    TO READ "ANSWER TO COMPLAINT":

    http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/10/diamond-ranch-academy-vs-schofields.html


    DR. PHIL, ISLAND VIEW ACADEMY, CRC HEALTH ET AL - SUED BY FAMILY - READ COMPLAINT

    $
    0
    0
    Phil McGraw

    OPINION:

    Unqualified and uneducated in the Troubled Teen Industry (TTI), television 'showmen' like "Dr. Phil" just never learn, nor do the networks seeking the bottom line in sending children to documented, abusive facilities across not only the US, but the world. After the producer or director yells cut, these showmen sleep at night, while children are lost in the wilderness, broken physically and mentally, held in isolation, or reported to have perished. Why? Follow the money.

    Documented evidence with the government Accountability Office and the United Nations attest to abuse, deaths, and the need for regulations (state regulations, if any, appear virtually non-existent and apparently laden with cover-ups) of an industry that markets to [fix] any tween or teen anomaly known to mankind.

    The Dr. Phil's of the world  apparently accept no accountability, as viewed in this lawsuit.

    With foresight leading up to and beyond Obamacare, marketing for children with ADD-->ADHD--> ODD would take a backseat, until another convenient 'acronym' emerged requiring drugs. With Obamacare, our Special Needs Children and Mentally Challenged Children, especially on the autism spectrum, became prime targets. Not to mention those tweens and teens with drug addiction. With Obamacare came limited, if any, insurance company coverage without such diagnosis in the 'old' TTI market. The sell off of facilities formerly owned by Bain Capital's CRC Health, under Aspen Education, was another warning sign.

    Bain Capital/CRC's buying of methadone clinics across the country is another warning sign.[1] Other entities are building opulent rehab centers. Why? Drug addiction rehabilitation is covered under a multitude of policies. With a failure rate reported at over 90%, these facilities become a revolving door- a very lucrative cash cow.

    Does this indicate that we will now see a continuous parade of children that are Special Needs, Mentally Challenged, or those facing the horrors of addiction on shows like "Dr. Phil?" What a ratings bonanza!

    These "showmen," are much like Bain/CRC in the health industry; they saw what was 'lucrative'... ignoring their professional oaths as M.D.'s and PhD's, and grabbed the opportunity to make a killing marketing anything from fake 'miracle' vitamins to placing children in these facilities - some 'trade'!

    The lawsuit remains active.

    THE COMPLAINT:

    Thomas M. Burton (USB 00518)(CSB035856)
    P.O. Box 1619
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
    (801) 918-1656
    thomasburtonlaw@aol.com

    FILED

    U.S. DISTRICT COURT
    2014 JAN 21 a 2:00
    DISTRICT OF UTAH
    BY: _______________
    DEPUTY CLERK

    THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
    TERRI AND DAVID MYERS, individuals
    or and on behalf of themselves and as
    guardians ad litem for SM, a minor.
    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    DR. PHIL ORGANIZATION; BAIN
    CAPITAL; CRC HEALTH GROUP; ASPEN
    EDUCATION GROUP; ISLAND VIEW
    ACADEMY; RYAN MORTENSON; and
    DOES I through X, inclusive,
    Defendants

    Case No.

    COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY;
    FALSE IMPRISONMENT: BREACH OF
    FIDUCIARY DUTY; CONSPIRACY AND
    FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT; and
    ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD;
    and DEPRIVATION OF
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
    FREEDOM;

    Case: 1:14cv00007
    Assigned To : Pead, Dustin B.
    Assign. Date : 1/27/2014
    Description: Myers et al v. Dr. Phil
    Organization

    Come now the plaintiffs, Terry Myers, David Myers, and SM, who allege as

    follows:

    1

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 25

    NATURE OF THE CASE

    1. This case charges Philip McGraw, Ph.D. (Dr. Phil), a vaunted television
    psychologist, for soliciting and exploiting the David and Terri Myers family whose suffering 15 year old daughter was caught soliciting sex on the internet. This sensational news attracted Dr. Phil because it fit the show's traditional format.

    2. Being primarily interested in his show's ratings, Dr. Phil concealed from the family his having little personal interest in their daughter's plight. Plaintiffs' ignorance of his true motives allowed Dr. Phil to induced them to submit to his brand of blunt ridicule for their not being more vigilant. He thus proceeded to condemn Terri Myers for not knowing where her daughter was and berating the daughter for seeking sex on the Internet.

    3. He charged Terri Myers of failing her daughter by "a country mile" and the daughter of total naivete in thinking that her Internet contacts might be having emotional problems just as she was. Dr. Phil's psychological remedy was to offer free treatment for the daughter at Island View, a Utah punitive behavior modification lock-down facility. Dr. Phil, however, knew or should have known, that any placement at Island View would subject SM to such a demented regimen that she would be at risk of her problems' being exacerbated.

    2

     Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 2 of 25

    4. Dr. Phil never addressed the trauma this young woman had already suffered by having the 19-year old that she and an equally young femalefriend had just had sex with, shot to death in front of them by a the molester's friend, a jealous teen-aged male. Dr. Phil thus ignored the causes of SM's trauma and then exacerbated that trauma by paying Island View to lock her up far from home in a private prison. At Island View, mindless guards mangled her arm, causing severe and irreparable orthopedic and neurological damage.

    5. Dr. Phil has shown himself to be a showman more interested in ratings than a psychologist devoted to healing. Dr. Phil, on information and belief, was paid either in money or notoriety, or both, for endorsing not only Island View, but also a raft of CRC compounds just as abusive.

    6. Compounds like Island View market themselves as boarding schools, academies, therapeutic treatment centers, ranches, or wilderness experience designed to straighten out truant or failing teens. Theirfailures to do so are endemic and epidemic. They leave a trail of post traumatic stress and nightmares. Their extravagant fees suggest great expertise and cloak minimal credentials.

    7.  SM was thrust into Island View without the slightest understanding of what she was getting into, and had no choice in the matter. For Dr. Phil,

    3

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 3 of 25

    she represented one in a string of damaged teenagers that he boasted helping, accompanied by his psychological opinions that such tough love was just the treatment they needed. There was no forum for complaint, explanation, appeal, or grievance against the placement, before, during, or after it occurred. The only option was to bear it, for Island View, like all other such places was locked and closely guarded.

    8. Once confined, no contact with the outside world was allowed and S----- knew that any disparaging remark or complaint about the prison would be punished by isolation and losing all privileges earned, meaning making the teenager start at the bottom anew to rise from level to level by successfully completing mindless tasks of blind obedience enforced by cruel punishment.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    9. This action arises under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Title 28 of the United States Code, §§ 1332, and Articles 1 and 7 to the Utah Constitution. This court has

    4

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 4 of 25

    jurisdiction of this cause under and by virtue of Title 28 of the United States Code, §§ 1331, diversity of citizenship.

    PARTIES

    10. Plaintiffs are all citizens of the State of Missouri. David and Terri Myers are the guardians ad litem of their daughter, SM, a minor, who is also a citizen of Missouri.

    11. The Dr. Phil Organization is a group of organizations that are citizen of California.

    12. Bain Capital is an asset management and financial services company based in Boston, Massachusetts and is a citizen of Massachusetts.

    13. CRC Health Group is the largest provider of specialized behavioral health care services in the United States and is headquartered in Cupertino, California.

    14. Aspen Education Group was acquired by Bain Capital for $300 million. Bain bought it because in 2005, the New York Times reported that analysts estimated that companies like Aspen had profits between 10 and 20 percent of their revenues. It is a citizen of California.

    15. Island View Academy is a Utah licensed residential treatment center owned by Aspen Education Group and is a citizen of the State of Utah.

    16. Ryan Mortensen is a math teacher employed by Island View Academy and a citizen of the State of Utah.
    5

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 5 of 25

    17. Doe defendants I through X are persons presently unknown regarding their activity and responsibility for failing to secure SM's health, safety, and welfare against the injury that occurred. They will be added to the complaint when their identity or responsibility are ascertained. In all things herein alleged and at all times material, all defendants were acting as agents of, or joint venturers with, the other defendants. They are all citizens of States other than the State of Utah

    FACTS

    18. David and Terri Myers reported their 15 year-old daughter, SM, missing when she did not return home. She was with a 15 year-old female friend, both having consensual sex with an adult male when another man arrived and killed in front of them the individual with whom they had been involved. SM, in response to having had sex under age amounting to rape, started seeking for sex on line with older men. This bizarre and dangerous behavior deeply concerned the parents, who thereafter enter a year of therapy provided by the State of Missouri. Much of what the therapist recommended did not seem appropriate, proper, or helpful, and they decided to seek professional help from Dr. Philip McGraw, known to them by his syndicated television show.

    19. The Dr. Phil staff then invited the Myers family onto the Dr. Phil show that aired on February 23, 2013. Dr. Phil berated the mother on the show

    6

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 6 of 25

    for not knowing what her daughter was doing and berated SM for pursuing sex on line. He further recommended and offered to pay for behavior modification for SM at Island View Academy in Layton, Utah. Although licensed as a therapeutic residential treatment center, it was in reality a private prison that locked up SM for the purpose of forcing her to become obedient instead of truant by depriving her of freedom, privacy, education, and subjecting her to involuntary servitude, and unjust unusual punishments. In spite of seeking profession help from Dr. Phil, he had no empathy for SM, just condemnation of her parents for not exercising more control, and contempt for SM's bizarre and dangerous conduct. To compound SM's risk of injury, Dr. Phil gave her the gift of Island View Academy.

    20.Island View offered no sophisticated psychological analysis, evaluation, and treatment, but just punishment for underlying and untreated psychological problems. Part of the punishment was pushing SM around and forcing certain behaviors upon her.

    21. When a math teacher, Ryan Mortensen, told her to stay after school, she refused and went to her room. He then came after her and ordered her to an isolation room for time out. She refused that too in emphatic and obscene language and told him to leave her alone. He then pulled her off her bed, and called for help from three others to enforce his command. In

    7

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 7 of 25

    the melee that ensued, there was a loud "pop" that stopped everyone in his
    tracks. SM's right (dominant) arm was badly and perhaps irreparably broken, and its main nerve severely damaged. Given the rapes and murder she had been through, the last thing any untrained male should have done was to assault her.

    CLAIM ONE

    (False Imprisonment)

    22. Defendants falsely imprisoned SM without any legitimate purpose, and solely for their profit and benefit.

    23. The acts to which SM was subject included the following:

    a. She was intentionally separated from her parents against their respective wills, and without authority of judicial review.

    b. By not permitting direct contact with one or both parents on a regular basis.

    c. By refusing to consider SM's views in matters affecting her.

    d. By not allowing SM freedom of expression by arbitrarily interfering with her privacy.

    8

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 8 of 25

    e. By subjecting SM to forms of physical and mental violence, injury and abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, and maltreatment.

    f. By failing to identify, report, investigate, and follow up on Island View's maltreatment of SM.

    g. By failing to provide adequate and special assistance to SM, who had emotional disabilities due to Island View's perverse treatment that was perpetrated by other and various forms of abusive maltreatment.

    h. By failing to provide the highest attainable standards of health and facilities for SM's treatment and rehabilitation.

    i. By failing to ensure provisions for necessary medical assistance and health care for SM.

    j. By failing to provide nutritious food.

    k. By failing to assure periodic reviews of the care being provided to SM.

    I. By failing to recognize SM's right to an education, regarding which SM was deprived while at Island View.

    m. By failing to assure that the education given at Island View conformed to the minimum standards laid down by the standards of the

    9

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 9 of 25

    State of Utah.

    n. By failing to recognize SM's right to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to her age, and to participat freely in cultural life, which, as a captive, she could not do.

    o. By exploiting SM by requiring her to work at mindless chores that interfered with her education or were harmful to her physical health and mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

    p. By subjecting SM to torture or other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment.

    q. By depriving SM of her liberty unlawfully and arbitrarily.

    r. By depriving SM of the right to maintain contact with her family, to correspondence and visits.

    s. By failing to create an environment, which fostered SM's health, self-respect and dignity.

    t. By failing to take appropriate measures to promote SM's physical and psychological recovery and social re-integration.

    u. By deliberately wrenching her right arm so as to cause permanent physical and neurological damage.

    10

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 10 of 25

    v. By directly and indirectly compelling SM to confess guilt, even to things she had not done, in order to satisfy her captors' demands and escape their taunting.

    w. By failing to respect SM's privacy at all stages of her confinement.
    24. Defendants perpetrated a breach of their duty toward SM and intentionally caused SM's damages.

    25. The Defendants are jointly and individually liable for the neglect described.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment herein.

    CIAIM'IWO

    Negligence- Personal Injury)

    26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous allegations above stated.

    27. In addition to allegations of neglect, as described hereafter, the Island View acted in breach of its duty to provide a safe, nurturing, fair, clean, competent, facility and staff to help SM heal from psychological and

    11

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 11 of 25

    emotional maladies troubling her.

    28. Defendants negligently selected and placed offending directors, teachers, supervisors, and staff in positions of trust, confidence and authority and in direct, unsupervised contact with SM, when they either had no knowledge of the directors, teachers, supervisors, and staffs backgrounds or had actual or apparent knowledge of these individuals' dangerous propensities toward physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuse of their students. Defendants failed to establish written and effective guidelines and procedures to safeguard SM.

    29.Defendants failed to provide proper training to their directors, teachers, supervisors, and staff.

    30. Defendants encouraged, through their pattern and practice, the herein described acts of wrongful and illegal conduct by staff and employees.

    31. Defendants failed to warn the Myers of the offending directors, teachers, supervisors, and staffs dangerous propensities to abuse teenagers entrusted to their care. Indeed, it was their pattern and practice to encourage abusive

    12

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 12 of 25

    behavior toward SM, thus causing added mental and emotional distress.

    32. Defendants were under a duty to disclose the extent of the problem of physical, emotional, mental, and gender abuse by the directors, teachers, supervisors, and staff towards minors such as SM, and the severe psychological problems that would result from such abuse if not properly treated, but failed to make such disclosures, causing the minors in their charge mental and emotional distress.

    33. Defendants failed to notify state and governmental authorities of known and suspected abuse when they were required by law they do so.

    34· Defendants were, given their absolute control over SM, to provide reasonable instruction to and supervision of their teachers, supervisors,
    and staff in order to provide a safe environment. Due to neglecting to do so, a gang of four staff so severely wrenched SM' s right arm as to have permanently maimed both bones and nerves.

    35· Defendants failed to provide nutritious food, clothing, shelter, and education, even though they represented to the Myers that they were doing

    13

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 13 of 25

    so, to the detriment of SM's well being.

    36. Defendants were negligent in adopting and implementing programs, regimens, and tactics specifically designed to induce anger, helplessness,
    and worthlessness in SM and other inmates, much to their mental and emotional distress.

    37. Defendants were negligent in their policy to have minors who had advanced in the program to higher levels sometimes appointed to indoctrinate, berate, or spy and report on new or less advanced minors, and Defendants knew and encouraged advanced level minors to psychologically, physically, and verbally abuse lower level minors, much to their mental and emotional distress.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

    CLAIM THREE

    (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

    38. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior paragraphs and state:

    39. Because of its complete control over SM, Island View owed her the highest duty of trust and confidence and was required to act in her best interest.

    14

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 14 of 25

    40. Island View's actions and inactions, described herein, in view of the high degree of control having been given by her parents, including full and complete custody over her, violated that relationship when they failed to act with the highest degree of trust and confidence to protect SM from physical, emotional and mental abuse.

    41. SM, locked up at Island View, and disciplined severely for any minor infraction of mindless rules, was unable to care for or make decisions for herself, and, being entrusted to Island View's care as a virtual prisoner, was owed a fiduciary duty.

    42. By failing to take steps to prevent, detect, and minimize the harm from a round of daily abuse, Island View breached its fiduciary duty to SM.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

    CLAIM FOUR

     (Conspiracy and Fraudulent Concealment)

    43· Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior paragraphs and state that

    Defendants:

    44· Fraudulently concealed the fact that Island View engaged in a pattern and

    15

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 15 of 25

    practice of forcing SM to work several hours per day for the duration of her attendance without any compensation whatsoever.

    45· Suppressed and minimized public knowledge of the rampant physical, emotional, mental, and gender abuse of SM by teachers, supervisors, and staff, and planned to take a uniform position and approach of denial as to the handling of reports of abuse.

    46. Island View and its staff and employees fraudulently concealed by their web site, endorsements, and other means the fact that they have committed acts of negligence, gross negligence, misrepresentations, fraud and the other wrongful conduct described herein, and have engaged in concerted action to commit such wrongful acts.

    47· In the absence of this concealment, public authorities, the media, and others would have issued general and specific warnings to the parents of children enrolled at Island View.

    48. Had Island View not practiced concealment, and a proper warning been issued, the physical, emotional, mental, and sexual abuse would never

    16

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 16 of 25

    have continued. Moreover, the theft of the value of SM's work, deprivation of her educational opportunities, and permanent damage to her future earning capacity, would not have occurred had a proper warning been issued. Thus, Defendants' actions in furtherance of this conspiracy to conceal are a proximate cause of the injury and damages herein.

    49· As a part of their conspiracy to conceal the physical, mental, emotional, and sexual abuse of children by the offending teachers, supervisors, andstaff, as well as the theft of the value of SM's work and her opportunity to receive even a minimally sufficient education, Defendants jointly followed a practice of refusing to stamp out suspected abuse despite actual notice and knowledge of the risk.
    50. Defendants jointly concealed and failed aggressively to address abuse issues by such actions as failing to promulgate proper and effective policies for the appointment and training of teachers, supervisors, and staff.

    51. The purpose of this conspiracy was to prevent criminal prosecution, avoid adverse publicity, prevent claims for damages by the numerous child

    17

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 17 of 25

    victims and their parents, and to avoid exposure of this conspiracy designed to conceal the claims arising from the conduct of these teachers, supervisors, and staff.

    52. Further, Defendants, in furtherance of the overall conspiracy engaged in affirmative acts to conceal acts of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and gross negligence.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated

    CLAIM FIVE

    (Actual and Constructive Fraud)

    53· Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above stated allegations and state:

    54· As fiduciaries of SM, Defendants, individually and collectively, owed a duty to SM, her parents, and the viewing public of Dr. Phil's television program that touted its providing Island View to Plaintiffs, to inform them all of the following facts:

    18

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 18 of 25

    (a) Island View was staffed by unqualified individuals;

    (b) Island View did not contain sufficient staffing to prevent, detect, and minimize the effects of incidents of abuse;

    (c) SM was being used for child labor;

    (d) Island View was below child safety standards that would reasonably be anticipated;

    (e) SM's education would be minimal to non-existent;

    (f) SM would not receive high school diplomas or transferrable credits; and

    (g) SM would be harmed by the methods used to discipline her.

    55. None of the above disclosures was made to SM, her parents, or the television viewing public.

    56. Because the stated adverse facts were true, relevant, and the Myers relied on the absence of the adverse facts, the Defendants had a duty to disclose these conditions.

    57. By reason of the failure to make these disclosures to SM and her parents, and their resulting detrimental reliance thereon, Defendants, individually collectively, are guilty of actual and

    19

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 19 of 25

    constructive fraud. The misrepresentations, and misrepresentations by silence were made to SM and her parents from the beginning by phone conversations both before and throughout SM's period of time at Island View.

    58. These repeated intentional misrepresentations made by Defendants to SM and her parents were done in order to induce them to place and maintain SM at Island View.

    59. Defendants lied to SM's parents in promotional and marketing materials which represented Island View to be a safe and secure environment, where SM would be well cared for, and provided a good education, medical care, and therapy. Defendants'representations were knowingly and actually false.

    6o. Because all Defendants acted in concert, they are all liable for the misrepresentations alleged herein.

    61. SM and her parents relied on these representations to their detriment; SM was emotionally and physically harmed at Island View and her parents did not receive the quality care, services, and facilities, destined for SM.

    20

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 20 of 25

    62. Upon information and belief, the Defendants knew when they made these representations that they were false or at least misleading and were made to induce Dr. Phil to place and maintain SM at Island View in order to secure the monthly fees from and the publicity for the Dr. Phil organization.

    63. Upon information and belief, the Defendants were aware that the facilities were not safe; the children were being harmed emotionally, physically, medically, and educationally, by unqualified and masochistic staff.

    64. Upon information and belief, the Defendants were aware that the harm caused to children at these facilities, including SM, was so grave that the Utah Department of Human Services should have stepped in and shut down Island View, but it did not.

    CLAIM SIX

    (Thirteenth Amendment)

     65. Defendants violated SM's civil rights protected by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the following respects:

    21

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 21 of 25

    (Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery)

    a. holding SM a physical and psychological captive to the Defendants' demands and compelling her to serve Defendants' interests in gaining notoriety, advertising revenues, audience approval, and approval from SM's desperate and deluded parents;

    b. keeping SM, by physical means and other coercion with no means to escape and no choice or viable alternative except to perform services for the Defendants;

    c. Keeping SM separated from her home and family;

    d. Depriving SM of her ability to engage in or determine her own course of action or way of life;

    e. Exploiting SM's vulnerability for the purpose of breaking down her free will, and causing her to become a compliant and mindless slave of Island View Academy's demented behavior modification program that has no stated goal or treatment plan as to SM;

    f. Intentionally subjugating SM's will, desires, innate

     22

    Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 22 of 25

     drives and natural instincts to Defendants' will and whims;

    g. Keeping SM continually and constantly confined in unnatural, stressful, and torturous circumstances;

    h. Forcing SM to subject herself wholly and completely to Defendants' control, and mental, emotional, and physical demands so as to make her lose her individual identity and will.

     (Thirteenth Amendment: Involuntary Servitude)

    66. Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment also abolishes "involuntary servitude", a term with a broader meaning than slavery, abolishing any state of bondage in this country, of whatever name or form. While the outer limits of the common law prohibition against "involuntary servitude" are not currently established, at a minimum, and as used in this case, it involves the rights to one's own life and liberty, to labor for one's own benefit, and to be free

     23

     Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 23 of 25

    from physical subjugation or coercion by another.

    67. Conspiracy: defendants, and each of them conspired to deprive SM of her constitutional rights by imposing upon her without any grounds whatsoever and without the least investigation of her individual needs, educationally, psychologically, socially or medically, and the matching of those needs, if any, to a comprehensive treatment plan individually suited to each of them, with some assessment as to the length of treatment, the capability of the particular institution best equipped to provide such treatment, the expected length of such treatment; the specific goals of such treatment; and the specific manner and methodology of meeting the treatment goals. It is obvious that locking SM up without an assessment in which she and her parents would participate, and putting her in the full and complete custody of captors of no particular merit and throwing her in with other persons whose ages, conditions, experience, problems, and

     24

     Case 1:14-cv-00007-TC Document 1 Filed 01/27/14 Page 24 of 25

    influence upon SM were unknown or of no interest, was on its face, damaging.

    68. As a proximate result of the acts and conduct of the defendants, theplaintiff SM has been and is being damaged in the privileges and immunities of national and state citizenship, and is suffering grievous mental and emotional distress.

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

    a. Special damages according to proof.

    b. General damages according to proof.

    c. Punitive damages according to proof.

    d. The costs of suit.

    e. Such other relief as is warranted.

     Dated: January 13, 2014

    ~ I

    Thomas M. Burton

    25

    NOTE: This complaint has been modified into MS WORD.
                  The minor child's name has been removed, as was left in error in the filing.


    [1] http://www.bostonglhttp://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/04/12/while-heroin-epidemic-rages-bain-seeks-profit-drug-treatment-centers/SVDjqnSOcsZKzhoTm6imKJ/story.html

    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. THE SCHOFIELDS - ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS OF DEFAMATION ET AL

    $
    0
    0
    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY

     
    UTAH- October 24, 2014 Diamond Ranch Academy vs. Susan Schofield/Michael Schofield
     
    Diamond Ranch Academy's attorneys finally received their answer to their lawsuit filed against 'public' figures (real or imagined) Susan and Michael Schofield. Better late, than never!
     
    OPINION:
     
    In reading the Schofield's answer to allegations filed with the court, it makes one ponder... whatever is in the water in Utah--do not drink it.
     
    All allegations are denied,  claiming "public privilege, hyperbole," etc.  "Trial by jury" is requested.
     
    Indeed, if this goes to trial... so will  'Holocausting kids,''Japanese Internment Camps,' and 'Death Camps' along with other allegations inherent in Ms. Schofield's 'hyperbole' directed at Diamond Ranch Academy.
     
    TAKE: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
     
    Although this has no Adam's Rib potential --this trial would be worth the flight... Did Abbott and Costello do a court gig? Wait... perhaps The Three Stooges.
     
     
    THE ANSWER TO COMPLAINT:
    *Modified into MS Word document.


    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 12

     

    David C. Reymann (8495) (dreymann@parrbrown.com)

    Rachel Lassig Wertheimer (13893) (rwertheimer@parrbrown.com)

    PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.

    101 South 200 East, Suite 700

    Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

    Telephone: (801) 532-7840

     

    Attorneys for Defendants
    Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield

     

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.,
    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    SUSAN SCHOFIELD, an individual, and
    MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, an individual,
    Defendants.

    ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS SUSAN
    SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD

     (Jury Demanded)

    Case No. 1:14-cv-00103-DBP
    Judge Ted Stewart

     
    Defendants Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield (collectively, the “Schofields”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby answer the Complaint against them filed on or about August 28, 2014 (“Complaint”), by Plaintiff Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc. (“DRA”), and for their defenses state and aver as follows:

     
    FIRST DEFENSE

     
    The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

     
    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 12

     
    SECOND DEFENSE

    The Schofields respond to the specifically numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows, specifically reserving the right to amend and/or supplement their responses as further discovery and investigation may warrant.

     
    [NATURE OF ACTION]

     
    1. Admit that DRA seeks to recover damages for allegedly defamatory statements made by the Schofields but deny that DRA has stated any proper cause of action against the Schofields. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny that DRA is a therapeutic boarding school and licensed residential youth treatment facility located in Hurricane, Utah. Deny each and every remaining allegation.

    [JURISDICTION]

     
    2. The allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the Schofields deny that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.

    3. The allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the Schofields deny the allegations, including that this Court has personal jurisdiction over them.

    4. The allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the Schofields deny that this Court has personal jurisdiction over them.

    2

    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 12

    [VENUE]

     
    5. The allegations of this paragraph set forth a legal conclusion regarding the propriety of venue in this Court, and therefore no response is required. To the extent any response is required, the Schofields deny the allegations, including that venue is proper in this Court.

    [PARTIES]

     
    6. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.

    7. Admit.

    8. Admit.

    9. The allegation in this paragraph does not require a response.

    [FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS]

     
    10. Admit.

    11. The Schofields have not, to their knowledge, ever spoken to any employee or owner of DRA, and therefore admit.

    12. Deny.

     
    13. Allege that the publications referred to in this paragraph, to the extent they exist, speak for themselves, deny all allegations inconsistent with their full content and context, and deny all remaining allegations.

     14. Deny.

    15. Deny.

    16. Deny.

    3

    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 12

     
    17. Deny.

    18. Deny.

    19. Deny.

    [FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION]

    [(Libel against all Defendants)]

     
    20. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

     
    21. Deny.

    22. Deny.

    23. Deny.

    24. Deny.

    25. Deny.

    26. Deny.

    27. Deny.

    28. Deny.

    29. Deny.

     
    [SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION]

     
    [(Libel Per Se against all Defendants)]

     
    30. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

    31. Deny.

    32. Deny.

    33. Deny.

     
    4

     
    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 5 of 12

     
    34. Deny.

    35. Deny.

    36. Deny.

    37. Deny.

    38. Deny.

    39. Deny.

    40. Deny.

    41. Deny.

    42. Deny.

    43. Deny.

    [THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION]

    [(Slander against all Defendants)]

     
    44. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

     
    45. Deny.

    46. Deny.

    47. Deny.

    48. Deny.

    49. Deny.

    50. Deny.

    51. Deny.

    52. Deny.

    53. Deny.

    5

     
    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 6 of 12

     
    [FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION]

    [(Slander Per Se against all Defendants)]

    54. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

     
    55. Deny.

    56. Deny.

    57. Deny.

    58. Deny.

    59. Deny.

    60. Deny.

    61. Deny.

    62. Deny.

    63. Deny.

    64. Deny.

    65. Deny.

    66. Deny.

    67. Deny.

    [FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION]

     
    [(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against all Defendants)]

     
    68. The Schofields incorporate their responses to the foregoing paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

     
    69. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.

    6

     
    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 7 of 12

     
    70. For lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, deny.

     
    71. Deny.

    72. Deny.

    73. Deny.

    74. Deny.

    75. Deny.

    76. Deny.

    77. Deny.

    THIRD DEFENSE

    The Schofields deny each and every allegation in the Complaint that is not expressly admitted herein.

     
    FOURTH DEFENSE

    This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Schofields.

    FIFTH DEFENSE

    Venue in this Court is improper.

    SIXTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

    SEVENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by laches.

    EIGHTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by estoppel and/or waiver.

     
    7

    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 8 of 12

     
    NINTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because the statements in the complained-of internet radio broadcasts and other sources are true or substantially true.

     
    TENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because the statements in the complained-of internet radio broadcasts and other sources are incapable of conveying defamatory meaning, constitute nonactionable opinion, and/or constitute rhetorical hyperbole.

    ELEVENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the common law fair comment and/or fair report privileges.

     
    TWELFTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under Utah Code § 45-2-3 and/or § 45-2-10 and/or California Civil Code § 47.

    THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the common law privilege concerning publications made to protect the legitimate interest of the publisher.

    FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are privileged because the complained-of internet radio broadcasts and other sources concerned matters of legitimate public interest and were published by the Schofields without malice.

    8

     
    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 9 of 12

     
    FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under Article I, sections 1 and 15 of the Utah Constitution and/or under Article I, sections 1 and 2 of the California Constitution.

     
    SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the incremental harm doctrine.

    EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

    DRA has suffered no compensable damages as a result of the Schofields’ alleged conduct.

    NINETEENTH DEFENSE

    DRA has failed to mitigate any damages it claims to have sustained as a result of the Schofields’ alleged conduct.

    TWENTIETH DEFENSE

    Some or all of the damages of which DRA complains were the result of the fault and/or actions of DRA itself, were the result of the fault and/or actions of persons or entities over whom or over which the Schofields had no control, and/or were the result of intervening causes.

     
    TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred under 47 U.S.C. § 230 and/or Utah Code § 45-2-5.
     

    9

     
    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 10 of 12

     
    TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because DRA has failed to adequately plead and/or cannot prove special damages.

    TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

    At all times relevant to this action the Schofields exercised the requisite degree of care and prudence in undertaking any of the conduct of which DRA complains.

    TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred because DRA is, or at all times relevant to this action was, a general or limited-purpose public figure, and the Schofields did not act with actual malice.

    TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the single publication rule.

    TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

    Some or all of DRA’s claims are barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

    TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

    DRA’s claims are without merit and not brought or asserted in good faith, but instead are brought to chill the Schofields’ valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. DRA’s claims arise from the Schofields’ acts in furtherance of their right of free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue. As a result, DRA’s claims are subject to a special motion to strike under California Code

     
    10

     
    Case 1:14-cv-00103-TS Document 16 Filed 10/24/14 Page 11 of 12

     
    of Civil Procedure § 425.16. Upon prevailing on the special motion to strike the Schofields are entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and costs.

     
    WHEREFORE, the Schofields demand that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and on the merits; that the Schofields be awarded their costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this matter; and that the Schofields be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems just.

     
    JURY DEMAND

    The Schofields hereby demand a jury for all issues triable thereto.

    DATED this 24th day of October 2014.

     

    PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.
    /s/ Rachel Lassig Wertheimer

    David C. Reymann

    Rachel Lassig Wertheimer
    Attorneys for Defendants
    Susan Schofield and Michael Schofield

    11


    TO READ COMPLAINT-->DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. SUSAN SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD

    http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/09/diamond-ranch-academy-files-defamaton.html


     
     

     

     
     
     
     
     
     
    

    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY DOUBLES DOWN WITH FILING ANOTHER LAWSUIT...

    $
    0
    0


    Is Diamond Ranch Academy going for a trifecta? Beyond?

     

    Utah - Diamond Ranch Academy (DRA) filed their second lawsuit for libel et al, on October 16th, 2014, against an activist for children's rights requesting a jury trial. 

    Is the courthouse large enough? Honestly, one envisions taking a ticket to this venue, with the line reaching around the courthouse. 

    THE COMPLAINT:
       Note: Modified into MS Word--- Defendant's name removed, along with other identifiers.


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 1 of 13



    STEVEN R. BANGERTER----- 
    WILLIAM E. FRAZIER -----

    DANIEL P. WILDE --------

    BANGERTER SHEPPARD & FRAZIER, PC

    720 S. River Road, Suite A-200

    St. George, UT 84780

    Telephone: ---------------

    Facsimile: ---------------  

    dwilde@----------------



    Attorneys for Plaintiff,

    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH


    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.,

    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    C------ F----,

    Defendant.



    Case No.:

    COMPLAINT

    Judge:

    DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL



    Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. hereby complains against Defendant C------ F---- as follows:



    NATURE OF THE ACTION



    1. By this action, DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. seeks to recover damages for defamatory statements made by C ------ F-----. DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. is a therapeutic boarding school and licensed residential youth treatment facility located in Hurricane, Utah. C---- F----, speaking publicly about

    1


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 2 of 13


    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff, in relation to the facilities, therapies, modalities and services provided by DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, made, and continues to make public statements concerning DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff which were false, unsupported, offensive, defamatory and injurious to DIAMOND RANCH Academy’s professional reputation.



    JURISDICTION



    2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc.’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.

    3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant because she has transacted business in the State of Utah in connection with the subject matter of this Complaint, caused harm to DRA in the State of Utah, and continuously transmitted defamatory statements in this judicial district.

    4. Defendant is thus subject to jurisdiction in this State pursuant to Utah’s long arm statute, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-205(1) and (3), and she has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the due process clause of the United States Constitution.



    VENUE



    5. Venue is proper in the District of Utah, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Complaint occurred in this District and defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

    2


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 3 of 13


    PARTIES



    6. Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. (hereinafter “DRA”), is and at all relevant times was, a Utah corporation, with its principal place of business located in Hurricane, Utah.


    7. Based upon information and belief, Defendant, C------ F---- (hereinafter, “F----”) is a citizen and resident of the State of ----------.



    FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS



    8. F---- has never attended, nor ever been on the premises of DRA.

    9. F---- has never spoken to any employee or owner of DRA in person.   10. Without ever having spoken to DRA’s owners or employees in person, and without ever having attended or been on the premises of DRA, F---- has maliciously and falsely attacked DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, business model, its employees, and its owners, through numerous defamatory statements of fact made to many thousands of people through her website (www.drasurvivors.com), Facebook pages (https://www.facebook.com/groups/314152158598304/?ref=br_tf and others), blogs and other media and social media outlets, both in writing and orally.

    11. The following items are specific examples of the false, unfounded, malicious and defamatory statements originally published and/or re-published by F---- to others (together, hereinafter referred to as “Defamatory Statements”):

    (a) That DRA is not a legitimate treatment facility and that its methods are unethical, illegal, abusive and fatal;

    (b) That DRA physically, emotionally and psychologically abuses its students;

    3


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 4 of 13


    (c) That DRA owners and staff “completely disregard the rights, individual needs and welfare” of its students;

    (d) That DRA unlawfully incarcerates and dehumanizes children;

    (e) That DRA engages in deceptive and dishonest marketing techniques;

    (f) That DRA employs a violent and painful form of torture as punishment;

    (g) That DRA employs an unqualified, improperly trained staff;

    (h) That DRA operates a “private prison, where due process of the law and even the most basic of human rights are violated”;

    (i) That when a parent sends a child to DRA, the child will be abused, and may “never come back at all”;

    (j) That DRA engages in improper strip searches, “cruel and unusual punishment”, dehumanization, humiliation, and the starvation of its students;

    (k) That DRA’s students are denied adequate medical care and food;

    (l) That DRA employs “seclusion, forced labor, physical violence, fear based control and brainwashing methods that violate all basic human rights and could certainly be considered child abuse, if not actual torture”;

    (m) That DRA’s treatment is “at best ineffective and at worst abusive, neglectful, and even fatal”;

    (n) That DRA does not provide “real therapy”, does not follow clinical standards, “physically and psychologically” abuses children, and “scams parents out of millions of dollars”;

    (o) That members of DRA’s medical staff are not licensed medical professionals;

    4


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 5 of 13


    (p) That DRA has a “long history of abuse, dangerous policies and a wrongful death”; and

    (q) That DRA’s therapy techniques are not “clinically approved”, “but quite simply a form of corporal punishment”.

    12. Upon information and belief, F---- has also made other defamatory statements.

    13. Each of the Defamatory Statements identified above in paragraph 11 is false.

    14. Based upon information and belief, F---- delivered the Defamatory Statements to others with intent to harm DRA’s business and community position, as established through the Defamatory Statements and the context in which those statements were made.

    15. Based upon information and belief, F---- has published, and continues to publish the Defamatory Statements to others through Facebook pages, her website, and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites. Upon information and belief, the Defamatory Statements were published by F---- within the past year, and were published with the intent that they be heard by persons in the State of Utah and throughout the country.

    16. Upon information and belief, the Defamatory Statements were published with the intent that persons in the State of Utah would hear such statements, and with the intent that DRA’s business in Utah would be harmed. The damaging results thereof have been felt by DRA in the State of Utah.

    5


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 6 of 13


    FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Libel against all Defendants)



    17. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth herein.

    18. F---- made, and continues to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 11.

    19. F----’s Defamatory Statements are false.

    20. F---- knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.

    21. F---- published the Defamatory Statements through her website, Facebook pages, and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.

    22. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.

    23. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.

    24. The Defamatory Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

    25. As a result of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

    6


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 7 of 13


    26. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Libel Per Se against all Defendants)



    27. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26 as though fully set forth herein.

    28. F---- made, and continues to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 11.

    29. F----’s Defamatory Statements are false.

    30. F---- knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.

    31. F---- published the Defamatory Statements through her website, Facebook pages, and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.

    32. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.

    33. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.

    7


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 8 of 13


    34. F----’s Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.

    35. F----’s Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.

    36. Through the Defamatory Statements, F---- has accused DRA of

    engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure otherpersons for financial profit.

    37. The Defamatory Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

    38. F----’s Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.

    39. As a result of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

    40. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Slander against all Defendants)



    41. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40 as though fully set forth herein.

    8


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 9 of 13


    42. F---- made, and continues to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 11.

    43. F----’s Defamatory Statements are false.

    44. F---- knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.

    45. F---- published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said Defamatory Statements to others through phone calls, and through other oral means and methods.

    46. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.

    47. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.

    48. The Defamatory Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

    49. As a result of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

    50. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

    9


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 10 of 13


    FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

    (Slander Per Se against all Defendants)



    51. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 50 as though fully set forth herein.

    52. F---- made, and continues to make or republish false Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 11.

    53. F----’s Defamatory Statements are false.

    54. F---- knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time she made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of her statements.

    55. F---- published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said defamatory statements through phone calls with others, and through other oral means and methods.

    56. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- are not subject to any privilege.

    57. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against F----.

    58. F----’s Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.

    59. F----’s Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.

    10


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 11 of 13


    60. Through the Defamatory Statements, F---- has accused DRA of

    engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial profit.

    61. The Defamatory Statements made by F---- exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

    62. F----’s Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.

    63. As a result of F----’s Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

    64. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION



    (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against all Defendants)



    65. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 64 as though fully set forth herein.

    66. DRA is in the business of educating and rehabilitating children with challenging circumstances and/or diagnoses.

    67. DRA’s business is greatly affected by “word or mouth” referrals from parents, professionals, alumni, and from internet advertising.

    68. F---- intentionally and willfully published false and misleading information (the Defamatory Statements) about DRA to the internet through her website,

    11


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 12 of 13


    Facebook pages, and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.



    69. Upon information and belief, F---- also published the Defamatory Statements in other ways and through other means and methods.

    70. F---- knew the Defamatory Statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the Defamatory Statements.

    71. F---- published the Defamatory Statements with the intent to damage the reputation and prospective economic advantage of DRA.

    72. The Defamatory Statements published by F---- proximately caused DRA to suffer damage to its name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, as well as economic loss and costs associated with correcting the Defamatory Statements made to others through the internet and by other means and methods.

    73. As a direct and proximate result of F----’s conduct, DRA has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but on information and belief, in an amount not less than $1,000,000. DRA is entitled to general and special damages.

    74. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by F---- were willful and malicious, were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice, and were made with the intent to damage DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.



    12


    Case 2:14-cv-00751-DN Document 2 Filed 10/16/14 Page 13 of 13


    PRAYER FOR RELIEF



    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:



    1. That judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant;

    2. For general and special damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 on its First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Libel, Libel Per Se, Slander, Slander Per Se, and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage in an amount to be proven at trial;

    3. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from making further defamatory statements about Plaintiff;

    4. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit;

    5. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example;

    6. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

    7. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.



    JURY TRIAL DEMANDED



    Plaintiff hereby requests to have a trial by jury in relation to the Counts and the issues that are properly the subject of such a trial.



    DATED: October 15, 2014 Bangerter Sheppard & Frazier, PC



    By /s/ Steven R. Bangerter *

    STEVEN R. BANGERTER

    Attorneys for Plaintiff,

    Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc.



    13







     

    THE VANGUARD SCHOOL -- A TAD MORE FOR ONES' TUITION THAN DISCLOSED?

    $
    0
    0

    The Vanguard School
     Let the reader be the judge...

    Art Levine Headshot

    Posted: Updated:
    Is Florida the most dangerous place in the country for children with disabilities, behavioral disorders or the sheer misfortune to be born into abusive families?

    Continue reading at HUFF POST:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/deaths-abuse-and-alleged_b_6157780.html


    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY SUED: TEEN PLAINTIFFS CLAIM DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY IS "A PRIVATE PRISON"

    $
    0
    0
     
    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY

    UTAH -  Allegations filed in court on December 3, 2014 allege false imprisonment, personal injury, child abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation, actual and constructive fraud. 

    Attorney Thomas Burton, for the plaintiffs, is all too familiar with the multi-billion dollar Therapeutic Teen Industry that is an apparent gold mine, not only for insiders, but outside investors as well, along with towns, counties, and states that house these private facilities. 

    The question remains: Can [he] win 'one?' Can he 'break' the containment and carte blanche aura, even with apparent so-called non-existent oversight?

    One such oversight: COLLAPSIBLE SHOWER RODS - Early Fall of 2013, a young man perished after hanging himself in the shower with a belt.  According to the State of Utah's DHS Licensing Division, upon their recommendation for remedy,  existing shower rods were replaced with collapsible rods and shower heads. Negligence cited? Wishful thinking.

    For advocates, activists, and survivors of this industry, the below court filing is of no surprise. Different venue, but apparently the same inexcusable, egregious allegations that too often repeat themselves.

    LAWSUIT:

    NOTE: This document was modified into MS WORD.Spelling errors left intact.
    Identifiers such as states of residence of the plaintiffs were removed. Plaintiff names were left intact, as plaintiffs were previously identified in media reporting:http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/12/08/teens-call-academy-a-private-prison.htm


    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 20    



                                                                                                                                              Thomas M. Burton

    Thomasburtonlaw@-------------

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT              
    IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

    TYLER WEBER; TRACY SARNO; JANET
    YELDING; and JANAYE KEARNS

    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY a Utah
    Corporation; and DOES I through X,
    inclusive,
    Defendants
    --------------------.1
    ) Case No.

    COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY;
    FALSE IMPRISONMENT; CHILD
    ABUSE; FRAUDULENT
    MISREPRESENTATION; ACTUAL AND
    CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
    JURY DEMANDED
    Case: 2:14cv00884
    Assigned To : Pead, Dustin B.
    Assign. Date : 12/3/2014
    Description: Weber et al v. Diamond Ranch Academy

    Come now the plaintiffs, Tyler Weber, Tracy Sarno, Janet Yelding, and Janaye Kearns, who allege as follows:

    1

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 20

    NATURE OF THE CASE

    1. This case charges Diamond Ranch Academy with fraudulently pretending to be a residential treatment center consonant with its state license, but in reality being a private prison administering harsh and illegal abuse upon Tyler Weber and Janaye Kearns, who were locked up against their will and without their consent due to their naive parents' believing Defendants' lies promising a supportive, safe, healthy, camp-like setting with regular and productive therapy I counseling and an emphasis on education and'getting back on the right track' for a healthy, drug-free, happy, successful future.


    2. Diamond Ranch Academy markets itself as a boarding school, academy, and therapeutic treatment center, and designed to straighten out troubled, truant or failing teenage youth, and through a positive, supportive program, helping them to gain confidence in themselves, and, to want a healthy and happy life forth themselves. Its failure to do so is endemic and epidemic. Instead,it leaves a trail of posttraumatic stress, nightmares, and damaged, destroyed families. Diamond Ranch Academy's extravagant fees fraudulently suggest great expertise and cloak its staffs minimal credentials and multiple mistakes.

    2

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 20



    3. Plaintiffs were sold on Diamond Ranch Academy by its vaunted prospective services that were not provided. The parents of Tyler Weber and Janaye Kearns were not told of the tactics Diamond Ranch Academy uses in its program. Diamond Ranch Academy presented a false facade of a summer camp with the added component of therapy and assistance to help Tyler and Janaye navigate back to a productive life, all in a positive manner, along with gaining school credits so that they would graduate on schedule.

     

    4. Tyler Weber and Janaye Kearns were thrust into Diamond Ranch Academy without the slightest understanding of what they were getting into, and had no choice in the matter. These teen-agers represented part of a string of damaged teenagers that it boasted of helping, accompanied by some unjustified theory that tough love was just the treatment they needed. At Diamond Ranch Academy,there was no forum for complaint, explanation, appeal, or grievance against the placement, before, during, or after it occurred. The only option available to the hapless youth there confined was to "fake it in order to make it", for Diamond Ranch Academy is a lock down, closely guarded private prison, where punishments are harsh for

    3

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 3 of 20



    any rule infraction, real or instigated by the Diamond Ranch Academy staff for their amusement.

    5. Once confined, no contact with the outside world was allowed and Tyler and Janaye knew that any disparaging remark or complaint about Diamond Ranch Academy Academy would be punished by isolation and losing all privileges earned, meaning making them start at the bottom in and rise from level to level by successfully completing mindless tasks of blind obedience enforced by cruel punishment.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    6. This court has jurisdiction of this cause under and by virtue of Title28 of the United States Code, §§ 1331, diversity of citizenship.

    PARTIES
    7. Tyler Weber is a citizen of the State of -------.

    8. Janaye Kearns is a citizen of -------.

    9. Tracy Sarno and Janet Yelding are citizens of the State of -------.
    10. Diamond Ranch Academy Academy is a Utah licensed residential

    4

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 4 of 20

    treatment center and is a citizen of the State of Utah.


    11. Doe defendants I through X are persons presently unknown regarding their activity leading to this lawsuit and responsibility for failing to secure Tyler Weber and Janaye Kearns' health, safety, and welfare against the repeated injury that occurred at Diamond Ranch Academy. They will be added to the complaint when their identity or responsibility is ascertained. In all things herein alleged and at all times material, all defendants were acting as agents of, or joint venturers with, the other defendants.

    FACTS

    12. Tyler and Janaye were separately locked up in an inadequate, unsafe facility, with a number of other young men and women whose truancies, addictions, criminal records, and violence quotients were unknown to this boy and girl or their parents. Diamond Ranch Academy Academy is a locked, secure compound whose conditions are deplorable, unsafe, and unsanitary. Its purpose was to torment Tyler and J anaye into becoming mindless, robotic, and docile subjects for no valued psychological or educational purpose except to profit Diamond Ranch Academy Academy.

    5

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 5 of 20


    13. They were forced to labor in 100-degree weather without protection and insufficient water, and inadequate protective clothing depending on the season.

    14. They were also forced to go without shoes and sufficient clothing in winter.

    15. They were, without justification except the amusement or demonstration of staff power over them, forced not to speak for days on end to anyone else in the compound.

    16. Multiple times they were ordered to dig deep holes, and then ordered, for no apparent reason to refill the hole with the dirt extracted.

    17. They were kept awake until midnight and then required to get up at 4:30 a.m. on a regular basis in order to be deprived of needed sleep.

    18. The were often tackled and "taken down" and sat upon by staff for punishment for some perceived slight.

    19. They were often punished by being forced to sit facing a wall for lengthy period of time for any reason or no reason, during which no communication was allowed.

    20. Staff treated Tyler and Janaye harshly with threats of punishment for doing anything wrong, which was meant not obeying each and every command given them immediately and to the hilt.

    21. When staff determined that a boy needed to be restrained, he was slammed against a wall with great force and threatened with worse.

    6

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 6 of 20

    22. The staff sadistically and verbally beat down everyone, and the bullying was excessive. Groups of captives were pitted against other groups for the amusement of staff. Although some staff members were more kind and helpful and willing to become friendly, they never mustered the courage to correct the sadistic staff members who enjoyed wielding the power over Mark and Devin, along with all of the others.

    23. Evaluations were not fair, but aimed at keeping the students longer in the program so as to keep cash flowing into Diamond Ranch Academy.

    24. Anyone disparaging the program would be severely punished by being demoted to the Blue Group, which prospect was frightening.


    25. The educational curriculum was childish, leaving each youth to fend for himself or herself to get anything out of it. The young plaintiffs learned nothing from their experience except that their parents had been deceived and had wasted their money. Any improvement in the young plaintiffs' behavior they attribute just to having grown up, and that they would have done better without all the negativity, manipulation, sadistic punishment, unjust treatment, surly language and hostile environment they had had to put up with.

    26. Diamond Ranch Academy Academy's rational for its bad behavior was to harden the young men for life, which, after all, is not fair.

    27. All too often the kid Janaye saw at Diamond Ranch Academy who complained of health problems were ignored, refused treatment and even punished for "manipulating". She has seen pathologists

    7

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 7 of 20

    excuse deaths in programs before, and suspects there is more to the death that occurred while she was there.

    28. Survivors of Diamond Ranch Academy will describe punishments
    that include grueling outside work projects in which students are forced to push a cart around a field for hours on end with no breaks, no food and no water. Failure to complete these punishments often resulted in children being tackled and restrained. Treating a child even without any health issues with such force and violence has potential to cause elevated levels of anxiety, injury and even death.

    29. XXXXXX was raped by three men who picked her up as she was
    walking home from school at age 15. The crime was never pursued
    and was basically dropped by the police with no effort really made. There was not really any follow up psychologically for this traumatic event. XXXXXX did not even have a rape kit examination, so there would be no proof even though the perpetrators were in the system as well they might be.

    30. The earlier rape is what caused her much difficulty at DRA, because people sometimes held her down, and they were male, triggering the rape. There were really no competent health people at DRA, and she could not ever really get the help that she needed.

    8

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 8 of 20

    31. This and other stressors at Diamond Ranch Academy finally drove her to attempt suicide but the curtain rod broke. A 911 call brought the police, requiring that she be hospitalized for observation, but staff at Diamond Ranch Academy talked them out of it on the basis that the ambulance would have to be billed to her parents, thus increasing an already expensive investment (and., of course, to keep the attempt a secret)). Diamond Ranch Academy told the police that they would take her privately to a hospital which, of course, they never did; again, there was no follow up, and her being overwrought was treated punitively by checking every half hour on her in bed when she was wearing only a sports bra and panties, and when she acted out, by holding her down and treating her punitively for making the suicide attempt, and of course risking the school's reputation.

    32. No teacher at Diamond Ranch Academy locked up the boy and girl was certified. She failed two home visits and so had to return to DRA where she spent almost a year, again under great stress.

    CLAIM ONE

    (False Imprisonment)

    33. Diamond Ranch Academy, for no legitimate purpose, and solely for

    9

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 9 of 20

    Defendants' profit and benefit, confined the minor plaintiffs at their property. They had not been adjudicated of any crime. They could not leave the facility, but were guarded all the time.

    34. They could not do what they wanted, but only what they were told to do.

    35. In addition, they had to live in unsanitary conditions with dirty bedclothes. Tyler was threatened that he better sleep on his back to prevent sexual assault.

    36. Defendants falsely imprisoned these youths:

    a. By separating them from their parents.

    b. By not permitting them to leave.

    c. By refusing to consider their views in matters affecting their welfare.

    d. By not allowing them freedom of expression and by arbitrarily
    interfering with their privacy.

    e. By subjecting them to forms of physical and mental violence,
    injury and abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, and maltreatment.

    f. By failing to identify, report, investigate, and follow up on

    10

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 10 of 20

    Diamond Ranch Academy's maltreatment.

    g. By failing to provide adequate and special assistance to the boys regarding their emotional disabilities due to Diamond Ranch Academy's perverse treatment that was perpetrated by other and various forms of abusive maltreatment.

    h. By failing to provide the highest attainable standards of health and facilities for their treatment and rehabilitation.

    i. By failing to ensure provisions for their necessary medical
    assistance and health care.

    j. By failing to provide nutritious food.

    k. By failing to assure periodic reviews of what was happening to them.
    I. By failing to recognize their right to an education deprived by Diamond Ranch Academy.

    m. By failing to assure that the education at Diamond Ranch
    Academy conformed to the minimum standards laid down by the State of Utah.

    n. By failing to recognize their right to rest and leisure, to engage in

    11

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 11 of 20

    play and recreational activities appropriate to their age, and to participate freely in cultural life, which, as captives, they could not do.

    o. By requiring them to work at mindless chores that interfered with their education or were harmful to their physical health and mental, spiritual, moral, and social development.

    p. By subjecting them to torture or other cruel, inhumane, or
    degrading treatment or punishment.

    q. By unlawfully and arbitrarily depriving them of their liberty.

    r. By depriving them of the right to maintain honest contact with their family.

    s. By failing to create an environment, which fostered their health, self-respect and dignity.

    t. By failing to take appropriate measures to promote their physical and psychological recovery and social re-integration.

    u. By directly and indirectly compelling them to confess guilt, even to things they had not done, in order to satisfy their captors' demands and escape their taunting.

    v. By failing to respect their privacy at all stages of their

    12

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 12 of 20

    confinement.

    24. Defendants perpetrated a breach of their duty toward Tyler and Janaye intentionally causing them mental and emotional distress.

    25. The Defendants are jointly and individually liable for the neglect described.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment according to proof:

    CLAIM TWO
    (Personal Injury)

    26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous allegations above stated.

    27. In addition to allegations of neglect, as described hereafter, Diamond Ranch Academy Academy's staff, acted in breach of their duty to provide a safe, nurturing, fair, clean, competent, facility and staff to help Tyler and Janaye,whose parents thought that they were choosing a summer camp setting where the youth could relax, play sports with others, and be supported with professional counseling on a regular basis to help them renew and recenter their lives.


    28.Diamond Ranch Academy's tactics and conduct injured these young people emotionally and physically such that the effects thereof continue to plague them

    13

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 13 of 20

    to this day.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

    CLAIM THREE
    (Child Abuse and Neglect)

    29. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior paragraphs and state:

    30.
    "It is the .. the public policy of this state that children have the right to protection from abuse and neglect, and that the state retains a compelling interest in investigating, prosecuting, and punishing abuse and neglect, as defined in this chapter", 62A-4a-201, Utah Human Services Code. Because of its complete control over Tyler and Janaye, Diamond Ranch Academy owed them the highest duty of trust and confidence and was required to act in their best interest. Instead, Diamond Ranch Academy's conduct toward Tyler and Janaye, who were minors, constituted abuse and neglect in violation of the public policy of the State of Utah.

    31. Plaintiffs have the right to force Diamond Ranch Academy Academy to pay them and their parents compensation for the abuse and neglect

    14

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 14 of 20

    Diamond Ranch Academy inflicted upon them as described above.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

    CLAIM FOUR
    (Fraudulent Misrepresentation)
    32. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior paragraphs.

    33. Diamond Ranch Academy Academy held itself out to Tracy Sarno and Janet Yelding as a therapeutic school. The Diamond Ranch Academy contract was one of enrollment in a school, not enrollment in a "Residential Treatment Program" for the purpose of behavior modification or rehabilitation. One of the administration requirements is that information provided to parents shall be accurate and factual, Rule 501-2(3). Tyler and Janaye's parents were never advised that each licensed program must have a licensed physician or consulting licensed physician, licensed psychologist, or social worker, or professional
    counselor, Rule R501-19.

    34. Had they known such, it would have alerted them that the purpose of the program was rehabilitative, not solely rehabilitative.

    35. Parents are not required by either the Diamond Ranch Academy contract or the State Administrative code to be notified that such a licensed program is a health care provider protected by the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act requiring any legal action to be brought within two years

    15

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 15 of 20

    of its occurrence or the minor's majority, and to comply with prelitigation screening, and to have its damages limited by law.

    36. Additionally, the enrollment contract requires the Parent to agree that Diamond Ranch Academy is not liable for any injuries, illness or other damages occurring to the Child during the term of enrollment, including anything resulting from the Child's participating (on or off campus) in programs or activities of the program.

    37. Diamond Ranch Academy intentionally and purposely concealed from Tyler and Janaye's parents that it was a state-licensed residential treatment center aimed at rehabilitation so as to be protected by the Utah Healthcare Malpractice Act, and that their waiving any claim against Diamond Ranch Academy was unenforceable on the one hand, and even if enforceable, was protected by the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act's requirements on the other hand.

    38. These mislead the placement of Tyler and Janaye at Diamond Ranch Academy on the one hand, and its prospectively seeking in turn to limit this action against it on the other hand.

    39. Plaintiffs have sustained financial, mental, and emotional damage by Diamond Ranch Academy's fraudulent concealment and
    misrepresentation.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

    16

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 16 of 20

    CLAIM FIVE
    (Actual and Constructive Fraud)

    40. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above stated allegations and state:

    41. None of the above disclosures was made to Tyler or Janaye's parents, the people/agencies recommending the Diamond Ranch Academy program, or available via research at the time.

    42. Because adverse facts about Diamond Ranch Academy were true, relevant, and concealed, the parents relied on the absence of the adverse facts, which the Defendants had a duty to disclose.

    43. By reason of the failure to make these disclosures to the plaintiffs and their resulting detrimental reliance thereon, Diamond Ranch Academy is guilty of actual and constructive fraud. The misrepresentations, and misrepresentations by silence, and concealment of true adverse facts were made to the parents from the beginning by phone conversations both before and throughout Tyler and Janaye's period of time at Diamond Ranch Academy.

    44. These repeated intentional misrepresentations made by Diamond Ranch to the

    17

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 17 of 20

    parents were done in order to induce them to place and maintain Tyler and Janaye at Diamond Ranch Academy.

    45. Defendants lied to the parents in promotional and marketing materials which represented Diamond Ranch Academy to be a safe and secure environment, where Tyler and Janaye would be well cared for, and provided a good education, summer camp setting, medical care, and positive, professional therapy/counseling. Defendants' representations were knowingly and actually
    false.

    46. Because all Defendants acted in concert, they are all liable for the misrepresentations alleged herein.

    47· Plaintiffs relied on these representations to their detriment; Tyler and Janaye were emotionally and physically harmed at Diamond Ranch Academy and their parents did not receive the quality care, services, and facilities paid for.

    48. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew when they made these representations that they were false or at least misleading, and were made to induce the plaintiffs to place and maintain Tyler and Janaye at Diamond Ranch Academy in order to secure significant monthly fees.

    49. Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that their facilities were not

    18

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 18 of 20

    safe; that Tyler and Janaye and the other youth at Diamond Ranch Academy were harmed emotionally, physically, medically, and educationally, by unqualified, controlling, and masochistic staff.

    50. Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that the harm caused to children at these facilities, including the minor plaintiffs so placed, was so grave that were the truth known, the Utah Department of Human Services should have stepped in and shut down Diamond Ranch Academy, but it did not. In fact, it
    should have and upon information and belief does know that Diamond Ranch Academy is a menace to youth, but it likes the money the behavior modification industry brings into the State of Utah more than the health, welfare, safety, and public policy against child abuse that it is supposed to enforce.

    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:

    1. Special damages according to proof.

    2. General damages according to proof.

    3. Punitive damages according to proof.

    4. Such other and further relief to the Court seems just.

    Dated: December 3, 2014

    19

    Case 2:14-cv-00884-DBP Document 1 Filed 12/03/14 Page 19 of 20

    Thomas M. Burton

    20
     











    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY: GRIEVING PARENTS FILE NEGLIGENCE LAWSUIT

    $
    0
    0
    Editorial:

    Hurricane, Utah--Diamond Ranch Academy (DRA) appears entrenched in yet another horrific lawsuit. Parents, still grieving the loss of their son who perished while under DRA's care, are suing the facility. 

    In September of 2013, a young man took his life by hanging himself (utilizing a 'belt' his parents state was supplied by DRA to a 'suicidal child') over a non-collapsible shower rod (Utah's Department of Human Services cited DRA after the young man's death and DRA installed collapsible shower rods.)
    http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2013/11/diamond-ranch-academy-confirmation.html

    Questions arise: 
    • Why was a previously diagnosed suicidal child even considered as an applicant and admitted? Admission guidelines? Even some of the most notoriously abusive facilities have stated they do not accept children with former or current suicidal ideations. 
    • Qualifications of DRA? A contracted-out, adjunct, forensic psychologist with offices in Utah and Nevada?  FACT: DRA is NOT a mental health facility, nor are they licensed or qualified as such.
    Well-deserved lawsuit? Read DRA's 'amended answer to the complaint,' below and decide for oneself.

    According to the DRA attorney's 'amended answer to the complaint,' [they]blame the death of this suicidal child (citing his age of 16), on the child himself, his mental health issues, and his parents. 
      
    Additionally, DRA attorneys deny in their filing that the child was unsupervised. Who thought this one up? So, logic dictates that if the child was supervised... how in hell did this happen?

    THE COMPLAINT:
         (Note: reformatted for viewing, every effort was made to remove family identifiers)

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 12

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
    UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION----- ------ -------  and------- --------, individually and as the natural parents and heirs of
    M.L., a minor, deceased,
    Plaintiffs,
    vs.
    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, a
    corporation,
    Defendant.


    COMPLAINT AND JURY
    DEMAND
    Civil No. ____________
    Honorable ________________
    Plaintiffs, ---- ------- ------- and ------- -------, individually and as the natural parents and heirs of M.L., a deceased minor, by and through their counsel of record, Dewsnup, King & Olsen, hereby complain of Diamond Ranch Academy and allege the following:


     Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 12

     PARTIES

    1. M.L., a deceased minor child, resided in Hurricane, Utah, at the time of his death but was a citizen of Colorado and was domiciled there. M.L. is the son of ---- ------- ------- and ------- ------- (the “--------”).
    2. Plaintiff ---- ------- ------- is the natural father of M.L., a minor who was sixteen years old at the time of the incident that gives rise to this action. ---- ------- ------- is a citizen of Colorado.
    3. Plaintiff ------ - ------- is the natural mother of M.L. and is a citizen of Colorado.
    4. Diamond Ranch Academy (“DRA”) is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in Hurricane, Utah.


    JURISDICTION


    5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and Defendant and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
    6. Plaintiffs have complied with all requirements of Utah Code Annotated, §§78B-3-401, et seq., in order to bring an action against Diamond Ranch Academy pursuant to the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act.


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 12

     GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

    7. DRA is a residential treatment center and therapeutic boarding school in Hurricane, Utah, for troubled youth between the ages of 12 and 18.
    8. DRA holds itself out as “an industry leader in helping youth realize their potential.” It represents that its students “become their best selves in a structured elite private school environment with a personalized therapeutic approach” and promises that “[t]he challenges you are facing with your child today do not need to limit the possibilities of tomorrow.”
    9. DRA employs, among others, licensed clinical social workers. DRA’s theme is “Healing Families One Youth at a Time.”
    10. M.L. was a sixteen-year-old boy who suffered from severe depression and had a history of suicide attempts.
    11. Before M.L.’s enrollment at DRA, he attempted suicide twice. On one occasion M.L. tried to take his own life by hanging himself by the neck in the shower.
    12. M.L.’s parents, the --------, were very worried about their son’s safety, not knowing what he was capable of doing in the future. They felt helpless not knowing what they could do to help their son.
    13. The -------- sought an intervention treatment provider that could effectively care for their son and keep him safe.
    14. In their search for a provider, the ------- came in contact with DRA.


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 12

    15. DRA assured the -------- that if they enrolled M.L. at DRA, DRA would care for M.L. and keep him safe, and that DRA’s program would help him overcome his hardships.
    16. DRA also assured the -------- that DRA staff were trained to keep and capable of keeping M.L. safe from suicide attempts.
    17. DRA further assured the -------- that the DRA facility was a safe place for their son.
    18. In furtherance of keeping M.L. safe, DRA told the -------- that M.L.’s bedroom would be under constant video surveillance.
    19. DRA also told the -------- that DRA personnel would, at all times, be monitoring the video surveillance images of M.L.’s bedroom.
    20. Video camera surveillance equipment was present in M.L.’s bedroom during M.L.’s residence at DRA, including the day he committed suicide.
    21. The DRA Parent Manual states in part: “Our program is proven effective – and we guarantee it – when the program is followed closely and when the parentssupport it completely.”
    22. The DRA Parent Manual further states: “We recognize how difficult a decision it was to intervene on your child’s behalf. We also recognize how difficult it is toplace the care of you child in the hands of another. Please take comfort in knowing that we take our responsibility very seriously.”


     Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 12

    23. On June 23, 2013, relying on DRA’s assurances that M.L. would be properly supervised and kept safe, the -------- enrolled M.L. at DRA, and M.L. moved into the facility.
    24. On June 23, 2013, the day M.L. was enrolled at DRA, ------- ------- gave DRA a summary of M.L.’s suicide attempts. This summary included an account that M.L. had previously attempted suicide by hanging himself in the shower.
    25. M.L.’s pre-participation physical evaluation also noted his suicide attempt history.
    26. DRA knew of M.L.’s need for supervision and treatment.
    27. On July 18, 2013, DRA took M.L. off of self-harm watch.
    28. On August 7, 2013, M.L. was psychologically evaluated by C.Y. Roby, Ph.D., NCCE (“Dr. Roby”), at DRA’s request.
    29. On August 30, 2013, DRA received Dr. Roby’s report.
    30. Dr. Roby’s report indicated that M.L. was at risk for suicide and/or self-injurious behavior. Dr. Roby strongly recommended that this risk be taken seriously.
    31. In addition to having Dr. Roby’s report, DRA was in possession of and had read M.L.’s journals containing a drawing of a boy hanging from the neck.
    32. On September 6, 2013, M.L. attended a football game pep rally in the DRA gym. While there, he was visibly upset and seen crying by another DRA student. When the pep rally concluded, M.L. left the gym unsupervised and unaccounted for. 


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 12

    33. After the pep rally, at approximately 4:22 p.m., M.L. entered his bedroom unsupervised.
    34. At approximately 4:36 p.m., M.L. reviewed a suicide note he had written.
    35. At approximately 4:38 p.m., M.L. entered his bathroom with his suicide note in hand and closed the door. He was clothed and wearing the belt DRA sold to him.
    36. At approximately 5:01 p.m., while giving prospective clients a tour of the facilities and M.L.’s room, a DRA staff member opened the bathroom door and discovered M.L. hanging by the neck from a non-breakaway shower rod with the belt DRA sold to him.
    37. When the staff member discovered M.L. and saw him hanging from the shower rod, he closed the bathroom door and ushered the prospective clients away.
    38. Moments after the first staff member opened and closed the door on M.L., another staff member opened the bathroom door, looked at M.L., closed the door on him again, and walked away.
    39. M.L. was left hanging from his neck until approximately 5:04 p.m., when DRA staff removed him from the hanging position and then administered CPR.
    40. Approximately 2 ½ minutes passed between the time M.L. was discovered and the time he was removed from the shower rod.
    41. Ultimately, M.L. was left unsupervised for a total of 39 minutes.
    42. Two days later, on September 8, 2013, M.L. died as a result of the injuries he sustained from his September 6, 2013 suicide attempt.


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 7 of 12

    FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

    (Negligence/Knowing and Reckless Indifference)

    43. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
    44. DRA was acting in loco parentis and had a special legal relationship with M.L.
    45. DRA had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the treatment and supervision of M.L.
    46. DRA knew that M.L. had a history of attempted suicide and that M.L.’s suicidal condition should be taken seriously.
    47. DRA knew that leaving M.L. unsupervised involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm that such a lack of supervision presented to M.L.’s life and safety.
    48. Despite DRA’s knowledge of the risks that the lack of supervision of M.L. presented, DRA recklessly allowed M.L. to remain alone and unsupervised for more than thirty minutes, behind a closed door in a bathroom with a non-breakaway shower rod, with a belt to hang himself with.
    49. DRA breached the duty that it owed to M.L. and the --------, thereby creating a substantial risk of, and in fact causing, serious bodily injury and death to M.L.
    50. DRA’s breaches of duty included, among other things:
    a. Failing to provide M.L. with adequate supervision and care;


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 8 of 12

    b. Failing to provide and/or follow policies and procedures related to supervision and care of M.L., its suicidal patient, including but not limited to its line-of-sight policy;
    c. Failing to properly assess, document, and treat M.L.’s suicidal condition;
    d. Failing to appropriately train staff;
    e. Failing to install breakaway shower rods and shower heads in
    M.L.’s bathroom;
    f. Failing to heed Dr. Roby’s report and take M.L.’s risk of suicide seriously;
    g. Providing M.L. with the belt he hanged himself with; and
    h. Not acting immediately when it discovered M.L. but instead putting its public relations ahead of M.L.’s life.
    51. DRA’s acts and omissions manifested a knowing and reckless indifference toward and a disregard of the rights of others, including M.L. and the --------.
    52. As a direct and proximate result of DRA’s acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of the relationship with their son, causing them extreme mental and emotional anguish; loss of the care, comfort,
    companionship, society, guidance, love, affection, association, services and support of their son; and the permanent destruction of their family unit. 


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 9 of 12

    53. As a direct and proximate result of DRA’s acts and omissions, M.L. suffered severe physical pain, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, and death, and the -------- incurred medical expenses prior to M.L.’s untimely death and have incurred funeral and burial expenses as a result of his death.

    SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)


    54. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
    55. DRA owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs and/or their son.
    56. DRA breached the fiduciary duty it owed to Plaintiffs and/or their son.
    57. As a direct and proximate result of DRA’s acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of the relationship with their son, causing them extreme mental and emotional anguish; loss of the care, comfort,
    companionship, society, guidance, love, affection, association, services and support of their son; and the permanent destruction of their family unit.
    58. As a direct and proximate result of DRA’s acts and omissions, M.L. suffered severe physical pain, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, and death, and the -------- incurred medical expenses prior to M.L.’s untimely death and have incurred funeral and burial expenses as a result of his death.


    THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    (Premises Liability)


    59. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 10 of 12

    60. M.L. was DRA’s invitee.
    61. DRA owed M.L. a duty of care to eliminate unreasonably dangerous conditions on its property and to take reasonable measures to ensure a safe physical environment in the DRA facility.
    62. DRA was aware that the shower rods in the DRA facility were non breakaway types and that the presence of such shower rods presented a dangerous
    condition to its invitee, M.L.
    63. Given M.L.’s history of suicide attempts and Dr. Roby’s evaluation, DRA should have expected that M.L. would have encountered and been harmed by, or would fail to protect himself from this dangerous condition of non-breakaway shower rods in the DRA bathrooms.
    64. Three days after M.L.’s death, on September 11, 2013, the Utah Department of Human Services determined that DRA was in violation of Utah Admin. Code R501-19-7.B.2 for failing to provide a safe physical environment for consumers.
    This violation was due in part to the presence of permanently affixed shower rods in the DRA facility bathrooms.
    65. DRA breached its duty to its invitee, M.L., and failed to exercise reasonable care by:
    a. Failing to prevent or rectify the unreasonably dangerous condition of non-breakaway shower rods on the property, which was a proximate cause of M.L.’s injury and death; and 


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 11 of 12

    b. Failing to protect its invitee, M.L., from the unsafe condition and hazard of non-breakaway shower rods and shower heads on the property.
    66. As a direct and proximate result of DRA’s breach of duty, M.L. was subjected to the dangerous conditions on DRA’s property that contributed to M.L.’s
    injury and death.
    67. As a direct and proximate result of DRA’s negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer the loss of the relationship with their son, causing them extreme mental and emotional anguish; loss of the care, comfort, companionship,
    society, guidance, love, affection, association, services and support of their son; and thepermanent destruction of their family unit.
    68. As a direct and proximate result of DRA’s negligence, M.L. suffered severe physical pain, discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, and death, and the -------- incurred medical expenses prior to his untimely death, and have incurred funeral and
    burial expenses as a result of his death.


    PRAYER FOR RELIEF


    WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant, DRA, as follows:


    1. For general damages in an amount to be proved at trial;
    2. For special damages in an amount to be proved at trial;


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 2 Filed 03/29/16 Page 12 of 12

    3. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish DRA and to deter DRA and others in similar situations from engaging in such conduct in the future; and
    4. For such other costs, expenses, attorney’s fees, and other relief the Court finds appropriate under the circumstances.


    JURY DEMAND


    Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
    DATED this 29th day of March, 2016.


    DEWSNUP, KING & OLSEN
    /s/ Charles T. Conrad
    David R. Olsen
    Paul M. Simmons
    Charles T. Conrad


    Attorney for Plaintiffs
    Plaintiffs’ Address:
    c/o DEWSNUP, KING & OLSEN
    36 S. State Street, Suite 2400
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84111



    AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT:

    (Note: reformatted for viewing, every effort was made to remove family identifiers)

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 8

    Gregory J. Sanders, USB No. 2858
    Sarah C. Vaughn, USB No. 14615
    KIPP AND CHRISTIAN, P.C.
    Attorney for Defendants
    10 Exchange Place, 4th Floor
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
    gjsanders@kippandchristian.com
    svaughn@kippandchristian.com
    Telephone: (801) 521-3773


    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION---- ------- ------- and ------- - -------, AND HEIRS OF M.L., a minor, deceased,
    Plaintiff,
    v.
    DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, a corporation
    Defendants.


    Civil No. 2:16-CV-00252-BCW


    AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT


    Discovery Tier 3
    Defendant, by and through counsel, hereby answers the complaint of plaintiff as follows:


    FIRST DEFENSE
    Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.


    SECOND DEFENSE
    The following responses correspond numerically to the allegations of the complaint:
    1.-3. Admitted subject to discovery showing otherwise.
    4. Admitted 

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 8

    5.-6. Admitted.
    7. Admitted with the addition that the school is licensed to treat people older than 18 years of age.
    8. Admitted.
    9. Admitted.
    10. Admitted M.L. was 16 years old and had mental health issues. The allegation is otherwise denied.
    11. Admitted that suicide attempts were reported. Otherwise denied for insufficient information.
    12.-13. Denied for insufficient information.
    14. Admitted.
    15. Admitted.
    16. Denied.
    17. Admitted consistent with published material. Otherwise denied as vague.
    18. Denied.
    19. Denied.
    20. Admitted.
    21. Admitted only that the manual contains that statement. Denied that it is relevant here where M.L. did not complete the programs and the parents were not supportive.
    22 Admitted.
    23. Admitted only that he was enrolled. The allegation is otherwise denied for 

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 8

    insufficient information.
    24. Admitted that ------- ------- gave a summary including mention of M.L.’s suicide attempts. However, the summary downplayed the suicide attempts as not having been done with intent to die but as a cry for help. In fact, ------- stated in the summary that the parents wanted to enroll M.L. not because of suicide attempts but because he ran away from home.
    25. Admitted so far as consistent with the evaluation record.
    26. Admitted.
    27. Admitted.
    28. Admitted.
    29. Admitted.
    30. Denied.
    31. Denied.
    32. Admitted only that M.L. attended a rally. The allegation is otherwise denied.
    33. Admitted that he entered his bedroom. Denied that he was unsupervised.
    34. Denied for insufficient information.
    35. Admitted.
    36.-38. These allegation confuse timing and the identities of the persons involved in the scene described. It is admitted that a staff member looked in the bathroom briefly and then sought assistance. The remainder of the allegations are denied as inaccurate.
    39. Denied as to timing. The allegation is otherwise admitted. 

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 8

    40. Denied.
    41. Denied.
    42. Admitted.
    43. The responses to allegations numbered one through 42 are incorporated herein.
    44. Denied.
    45. Admitted so far as consistent with applicable law.
    46. Admitted.
    47. Denied in that plaintiffs wrongfully assume here that the mental condition of M.L. was static.
    48. Denied.
    49. Denied.
    50. Denied.
    51. Denied.
    52. Denied.
    53. Denied.
    54. The responses to allegations numbered 1 through 53 are incorporated herein.
    55. Denied.
    56. Denied.
    57. Denied.
    58. Denied.
    59. The response to allegations numbered 1 through 58 are incorporated herein. 

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 5 of 8

    60. Admitted so far as consistent with applicable law.
    61. Admitted so far as consistent with applicable law.
    62. Denied.
    63. Denied.
    64. Denied.
    65. Denied.
    66. Denied.
    67. Denied.
    68. Denied.


    THIRD DEFENSE
    The fault of all persons whose acts or failure to act contributed to the alleged injuries of the plaintiff should be compared and allocated including any act or failure to act of the plaintiff.

    FOURTH DEFENSE
    Notice is hereby given pursuant to DUCivR 9-1 that defendant seeks to allocate fault to the person described in the complaint as “M.L”. The factual and legal basis upon which fault can be allocated is that M.L. was of sufficient age and, despite having mental health issues, was able to comprehend the nature of the act of suicide and elected to commit that act as a conscious choice

    FIFTH DEFENSE
    The plaintiff allegations of wrongdoing by the defendant, if assumed to be accurate, only present on opportunity for M.L. to act. They are not actual causes of the suicide. The actual cause of the suicide are the mental health issues of M.L. including the extraordinarily poor

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 6 of 8

    relationship with his parents to whom fault should be allocated.


    SIXTH DEFENSE
    The suicide of M.L. was a deliberate conscious act on the part of M.L. whose mental health issues did not prevent him from appreciating the nature and seriousness of that act. Consequently, any resulting claim has been waived, barred, or estopped by the deliberate decision made by M.L.


    SEVENTH DEFENSE
    From the discovery of M.L. to the time he was taken down made no medical difference. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim.


    EIGHTH DEFENSE
    To the extent M.L. concealed suicidal ideation from therapists and staff of the defendant such concealment is another form of bar, waiver, or estoppel of the claims made.


    NINTH DEFENSE
    M.L. in his suicide note made statements that were consistent with his continuing expression of estrangement with his parents and constitutes a known and conscious waiver of any benefit to his parents from his passing, including the claim now asserted.


    TENTH DEFENSE

    Any allegation not specifically admitted is denied.


    WHEREFORE, defendant asks this court to enter judgment of no cause of action upon the complaint of the plaintiffs and to award the defendant such costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defense of this action as may be appropriate in law and in fact.

    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 7 of 8

    DATED this 26th day of April, 2016,
    KIPP AND CHRISTIAN, P.C.
    /s/ Gergory J. Sanders
    GREGORY J. SANDERS
    SARAH C. VAUGHN
    Attorneys for Defendants


    Case 2:16-cv-00252-RJS-PMW Document 7 Filed 04/26/16 Page 8 of 8

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 26th day of April, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT was e-filed and sent to the following:
    David R. Olsen
    Timothy M. Simmons Charles T. Conrad
    DEWSNUP, KING, & OLSEN
    36 South State Street, Suite 2400
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84111--0024
    /s/ Cheryl Browning



     

    Federal Trade Commission (FTC ) Finally Files Case Against Brookstone Law, Advantis Law, and Affiliate Cast of ‘Characters’

    $
    0
    0

    Last week, at the behest of a client of Brookstone Law, a quest ensued to garnish information regarding Brookstone Law and its’ associates (whom market themselves as experts in mortgage assistance relief and mortgage litigation). 
    Concerns arose regarding one mass joinder lawsuit originally filed by Brookstone Law (Wright et al vs. Bank of America/Countrywide), to which the client was a plaintiff. 


    “Brookstone Law was raided, eh?”


    A troublesome cast of characters, businesses, along with failed, dysfunctional mass joinder lawsuits unraveled. Appearing to outshine,“The Wolf of Wall Street” by far, the FTC alleges Damian Kutzner, Brookstone Law, Advantis Law (is this entity related to Advantis Corp./medical marijuana distribution@same address?) et al committed fraud and did not target just the wealthy.


    The FTC states distressed homeowners at risk of losing their homes were the perfect prey. Large upfront fees paid by homeowners in order to partake in a mass joinder lawsuit, along with monthly stipends charged by these firms directly conflict with the MARS RULE.


    Apparently, there was no incentive for these wolves to win a case as the FTC alleges the defendants took in 15 million by 2014.  Brookstone’s business license in Nevada reads in default, current in California, and the offices in NY and Florida appear not ‘virtual’ afterall! To quote, “They are mail drops.”  


    The last two days have found Brookstone Law /Group and Advantis Law websites removed from the internet.


    • “U.S. District Court in Los Angeles has placed Advantis Law and Brookstone Law under the control of a receiver. The Receiver was appointed in the case Federal Trade Commission v. Kutzner, et al., U.S. District Court (C.D. Cal.) Case No. SACV16-00999-BRO (AFMx).”
    The FTC’s Complaint and the Temporary Restraining Order appointing the Receiver can be accessed here:



    • “The Receiver has suspended the business and has commenced a review of operations. The Court has set June 15, 2016 as the date for the hearing on whether to issue a Preliminary Injunction and make the Receiver’s appointment permanent. The Receiver will post an update after that hearing.”

    Our take:


    “Look, one would need several FBI whiteboards to sort this one out! THIS is above my pay grade!! Please call the California Bar Association, the CA Attorney General’s Office, the FTC, and the FBI."

    "What about Advantis?" you ask.


    “Oh, wait, which one? Perhaps, the defendants can plea they ‘copped’ too much of their own ‘distribution’ as a defense."

    And, a little something to 'stew''er, chew on:



    For victims: 

    Updates on the FTC’s lawsuit will be posted at: 
    http://regulatoryresolutions.com/cases/ 


    *Numerous attempts to reach Brookstone Law/Associates were to no avail.

    Pennsylvania - Prominent Special Needs Educational Consultant Pleads Nolo Contendere to Simple Assault on a Child in Plea Agreement

    $
    0
    0
    Thomas J. Croke

    
    Early Saturday morning, Jilliestakereceived a disturbing email regarding a prominent U.S. Special Needs educational consultant, Thomas J. Croke, owner of Thomas J. Croke Associates, Inc. DBA as Family Light in Greensburg, Pennsylvania; which in turn alerted Jilliestake staff to a comment posted on Jilliestake.
    



    Jilliestake removed the comment post, until further investigation would confirm or disprove the allegations leveled upon Mr.Croke in the comment post. In addition, it was understood and apparent that the post’s author might have had personal motivation for revealing the aspects of a recent criminal case brought by the State of Pennsylvania against Mr. Croke.

    After careful consideration, independent consultation, reading of court documents (charges, plea, and adjudication), including discussions with officials knowledgeable of all information related to the case, confirmation was provided.  

    Due to the nature and ramifications (known and unknown) of this criminal case, Jilliestake, a children’s rights advocacy driven blog, made the decision to publish the following as children’s rights and safety must come first - forever ensuring child advocates give voice to those children who cannot speak.                            


    Posted by Anonymous to Jillie's Take! at June 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM :




    "In June of 2012, the grandson of Thomas Crokes wife, alleged that he had been sexually abused by Mr Croke, the president of Family Light of Greensburg, PA. After subsequent investigation by the Pennsylvannia State Police, Mr Croke was charged. In April of this year Mr Croke plead guilty to assault against a minor with menacing intent. He was formally sentenced this month, June of 2013. He was required to undergo psychiatric evaluation and is on two years of supervised probation. He is not allowed during that time to be alone with a minor.
    You should take these facts into consideration with respect to any endorsements of Mr Croke that appear on your website."


    No one should argue that due diligence and restraint is called for upon receiving this kind of information.  According to officials, this incident took place when the child (complainant) was 8 years old. The complainant is now in his 20’s.

    Court documents attest to the following: 
    Note: [M1] [M2] [M3] refers to the “Grading” of the indecent assault.

    Mr. Croke was originally charged with two counts on April 23, 2013:
    Count 1 - Ind. assault on a person less than 13 years of age - 18 § 3126 §§ A7
    Count 2 - Corruption of Minors - 18 § 6301 §§ A1
     
    On May 10, 2013 – Added by Information Count 3
     
    Count 1 - Ind. assault on a person less than 13 years of age - 18 § 3126 §§ A7 - M1
    Count 2 - Corruption of Minors - 18 § 6301 §§ A1 - M1
    Count 3 - Simple Assault - 18 § 2701 §§ A3 - M2

    On June 17, 2013 – Common Pleas Court of Westmoreland County PA
    Counts 1 and 2 dismissed.

    Mr. Croke plead Nolo Contendere to Count 3 (18 § 2701 §§ A3) which has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea. [Plea agreement to Count 3 “Simple Assault” Grade M2 – “(A3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”]  [1]
    The Court of Common Pleas Westmoreland County PA sentenced Mr. Croke.

    Order - Sentence/Penalty Imposed

    “Ct. 3 Supervision for a period of 2 yrs with County; Mental health eval; Actor to have no direct/indirect contact with victim or unsupervised contact with minors; Pleading Nolo Contrendere; Cts. 1 & 2 Dismissed; Defendant permitted to travel for business with prior permission from PO.” [2] 

    Officials state that since there was no physical evidence, a lengthy time frame had lapsed, no prior offenses documented (the prosecution did not have knowledge of other cases as no other child, parent, or guardian came forward over the years), the plea agreement was accepted by the Court.

    Mr. Croke’s sentence satisfied the victim in this case. In addition, because the case was pleaded out to Count 3 above, Megan’s Lawdoes not apply.[3]  Mr. Croke was able to avoid having to register as a child sex offender.

    Officials appear surprised that Mr. Croke earns his livelihood as an educational consultant predominantly for Special Needs children and their families.  Often situations arise that require travel to various facilities/programs to address the needs and meet with children already attending programs.Unless Mr. Croke advises the various facilities and programs he calls upon of the restrictions the court has imposed on him regarding his probation, the facilities will not be aware of the fact that by order of the court, he cannot be alone with any child under the age of 18. Non-compliance of court-ordered restrictions could endanger children enrolled at the facility/program, and expose said facility to legal damages.One would assume Mr. Croke has restructured his consulting firm, as with Skype, and hired additional educational consultants for travel issues that may arise.

    Many states require a program/facility to check arrest record histories of their staff. However, educational consultant’s arrest records are not a pre-requisite – placement of a child in a residential treatment program/facility and the generation of funds created by that placement is the primary incentive.

    Jilliestake does not offer moral judgment on Mr.Croke, but does takes issue with the transparency obviously lacking on the Family Light website. It is understandable why Mr. Croke is less than forthcoming, but his rhetoric is cagey at best and dishonest at worst. Readers are encouraged to look at the Family Light website, read the reasoning offered by Mr. Croke for staff not wanting to be alone with minors, and reach their own conclusion. There is no reason given for policy changes at Family Light other than “in the current climate we are increasingly uncomfortable…”

    Thomas J. Croke and Associates, Inc. DBA Family Light was a member of IECA (Independent Educational Consultants Association) and utilizes facilities affiliated with trade organization NATSAP (National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs), which self-proclaims no oversight over their members (Miller Bill Congressional Hearings 2007 Director Jan Moss testimony). http://troubledteenindustry.com/video/natsap-jan-moss-2007-congressional-hearing .

    On July 1, 2013, Jilliestake contacted Mr. Croke through a representative. Mr. Croke declined to comment or speak with Jilliestake regarding this expose’.
     
    Please find pertinent information, references, footnotes, and links below.

    Excerpts quoted from the Family Light website indicate policy changes.


    "While we greatly regret this, in the
    current climate we are increasingly uncomfortable with our consultant being an adult alone with a minor child riding in a car and otherwise being where a parent or other adult caregiver cannot observe. The vulnerability to false accusations has become an increasing concern. Therefore we need to modify this procedure when the client is a minor child. We are leaving a grace period for families already in dialog with us to proceed as we have promised, but as of June 1, 2013, we are requiring that at all times that our consultant is with your son or daughter under age 18, parent or other customary caregiver be in a location where interaction can be observed.”


    "Please note: As of February 13, 2013, we are adding flexibility to our home visit procedure. In some cases, we might conduct similar meetings by Skype but not travel to your home. This adjustment is experimental and is subject to change. Not all of the information below reflects that change. What follows describes the in-person home visits accurately. Skypeand phone "home visits" will follow these procedures as closely as the situation permits. We do not believe this will be as effective as actual in-person work but will consider this alternative in selective situations. "
    "Due to our policy change requiring a parent or other customary caregiver to be where their son or daughter is visible at all times, this must be modified for those under 18, but for now we continue this for clients age 18 and up. This provides a relaxed setting to discuss the young person’s basic concerns and to see how the young person views his/her role in the solution.This is a flexible routine that can be adapted as needed."

    "For those under 18, we ask parents to help us come as close to the traditional "lunch out" as we can while staying with the new policy (on and after June 1, 2013). We have several alternative approaches:


    PA –  TITLE 18 - Crimes and Offenses
    COUNT 1 – Ind. Assault of a person under 13 years of age Grade M1 18 § 3126 §§A7
    COUNT 2 – Corruption of Minors Grade M1 18 § 6301 §§A1

    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/2010/0/0069..PDF

    [1] COUNT 3 - Simple Assault with menace Grade M2 18 § 2701 §§A3
        http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.027..HTM

    [2] PA Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court Docket – Criminal - Public Record
        Docket Number: CP-65-CR-0001641-2013
        http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/CP.aspx


    Note: Grammatical errors left intact for authenticity.
    More reading: "Educational Consultants for Dummies"
     
    Copyright © 2013 Jilliestake -  All rights reserved.
     



     
     
    Viewing all 78 articles
    Browse latest View live