Re: Potential class action...anyone have suggestions?

[Guest guest]

> I always thought a class action suit would help to give some

respect that

> many of us who had our own 12-step horror story deserve. But as

Jack Trimpey

> put it, the problem is not with the validity of the complaints,

it's putting

> out the legal fees. It would be nice if the ACLU or a pro bono

attorney

> would take up the cause, but I personally haven't heard of any

advance of

> that sort.

My understanding is that class action suits are usually brought on a

contingency basis.

I think a productive basis to proceed might be to contact lawyers who

specialize in class action suits--some of these lawyers are very well-

to-do. Given the nature of their business, I imagine they have to do

some long-term planning and are willinig to consider some long-shots.

I think that the ACLU, and similar organizations, need to be lobbied

to tackle the issue of forced AA.

[Guest guest]

> I always thought a class action suit would help to give some

respect that

> many of us who had our own 12-step horror story deserve. But as

Jack Trimpey

> put it, the problem is not with the validity of the complaints,

it's putting

> out the legal fees. It would be nice if the ACLU or a pro bono

attorney

> would take up the cause, but I personally haven't heard of any

advance of

> that sort.

My understanding is that class action suits are usually brought on a

contingency basis.

I think a productive basis to proceed might be to contact lawyers who

specialize in class action suits--some of these lawyers are very well-

to-do. Given the nature of their business, I imagine they have to do

some long-term planning and are willinig to consider some long-shots.

I think that the ACLU, and similar organizations, need to be lobbied

to tackle the issue of forced AA.

[Guest guest]

> I know that time and energy-wise, it would be tough for me to do

this alone,

> and I've seen so many people with great insight whose help would be

> wonderful. Despite the instructions given by my last " addiction

counselor "

> to scoop ice cream as an act of humility, I'm back in the business

I owned

> and love. Workaholic, they would say, probably with genetic

causes. Well

> I'm drifting off the topic again, so I hope to hear from others on

this

> issue. Even if it's just a " surgestion " instead of a suggestion = )

>

Hi Nick

I would love to see a class action suit going. So far, Jack Trimpey

is the only one I know who is keeping a record of possible litigants.

I do not have the financial resources or knowledge necessary to help

get such a thing started. I am guessing we would need a lawyer to

work Pro Bono. I suggest some of us form a volunteer committee to

present a package to possible attorneys.

What I would like to do is start naming names. For instance, your

story, Nick, of being told to scoop ice cream for a living to

exersize humility, instead of being the best you can possilby be, is

a good story. I'd love to have an essay on your experiences in which

you name names. Any of you others too.

I will open up a page called something like " Treatment Center

WatchDog Page " and list any treatment center I have recieved bad

reports about. I will even give Treatment Centers a chance to respond

if they wish.

If I get sued, that's one way to possibly get our cause in the news.

Best

[Guest guest]

> I know that time and energy-wise, it would be tough for me to do

this alone,

> and I've seen so many people with great insight whose help would be

> wonderful. Despite the instructions given by my last " addiction

counselor "

> to scoop ice cream as an act of humility, I'm back in the business

I owned

> and love. Workaholic, they would say, probably with genetic

causes. Well

> I'm drifting off the topic again, so I hope to hear from others on

this

> issue. Even if it's just a " surgestion " instead of a suggestion = )

>

Hi Nick

I would love to see a class action suit going. So far, Jack Trimpey

is the only one I know who is keeping a record of possible litigants.

I do not have the financial resources or knowledge necessary to help

get such a thing started. I am guessing we would need a lawyer to

work Pro Bono. I suggest some of us form a volunteer committee to

present a package to possible attorneys.

What I would like to do is start naming names. For instance, your

story, Nick, of being told to scoop ice cream for a living to

exersize humility, instead of being the best you can possilby be, is

a good story. I'd love to have an essay on your experiences in which

you name names. Any of you others too.

I will open up a page called something like " Treatment Center

WatchDog Page " and list any treatment center I have recieved bad

reports about. I will even give Treatment Centers a chance to respond

if they wish.

If I get sued, that's one way to possibly get our cause in the news.

Best

[Guest guest]

> I know that time and energy-wise, it would be tough for me to do

this alone,

> and I've seen so many people with great insight whose help would be

> wonderful. Despite the instructions given by my last " addiction

counselor "

> to scoop ice cream as an act of humility, I'm back in the business

I owned

> and love. Workaholic, they would say, probably with genetic

causes. Well

> I'm drifting off the topic again, so I hope to hear from others on

this

> issue. Even if it's just a " surgestion " instead of a suggestion = )

>

Hi Nick

I would love to see a class action suit going. So far, Jack Trimpey

is the only one I know who is keeping a record of possible litigants.

I do not have the financial resources or knowledge necessary to help

get such a thing started. I am guessing we would need a lawyer to

work Pro Bono. I suggest some of us form a volunteer committee to

present a package to possible attorneys.

What I would like to do is start naming names. For instance, your

story, Nick, of being told to scoop ice cream for a living to

exersize humility, instead of being the best you can possilby be, is

a good story. I'd love to have an essay on your experiences in which

you name names. Any of you others too.

I will open up a page called something like " Treatment Center

WatchDog Page " and list any treatment center I have recieved bad

reports about. I will even give Treatment Centers a chance to respond

if they wish.

If I get sued, that's one way to possibly get our cause in the news.

Best

[Guest guest]

Association of Trial Lawyers of America

http://www.atlanet.org/

has a directory of public members--be sure to read all of the

conditions before using

http://www.atlanet.org/cgi-bin/pubdir.pl

[Guest guest]

Association of Trial Lawyers of America

http://www.atlanet.org/

has a directory of public members--be sure to read all of the

conditions before using

http://www.atlanet.org/cgi-bin/pubdir.pl

[Guest guest]

Association of Trial Lawyers of America

http://www.atlanet.org/

has a directory of public members--be sure to read all of the

conditions before using

http://www.atlanet.org/cgi-bin/pubdir.pl

[Guest guest]

> I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people expperience when

coerced

> into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> [...]

> If you experience serious

> malpractice at a treatment center, they still want your money.

Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again why I don't call

myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on TV, for that

matter...

But, it looks to me like there are a few questions that need to be

answered before anyone starts shelling out the bucks to attorneys.

First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? AA? I suspect

their disclaimers about not being affiliated with any other

organization, and about AA groups being fully autonomous, are there

as much to shield against liability as for any other reason.

Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing the

same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

Suits against the government for coerced AA? That might end up being

50 separate suits against 50 separate states, rather than one big one

against the feds.

Another question - what exactly is the issue which is the reason for

the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment centers? Bad

experiences in the rooms? All of these seem perfectly valid, but

each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and defendants.

Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage you. I hope like

hell that my concerns are groundless - I think it's a wonderful

idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth of legal knowledge

(gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and " Dragnet " <G>), that

there are a few problems here. With all that said, good luck!!

[Guest guest]

> I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people expperience when

coerced

> into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> [...]

> If you experience serious

> malpractice at a treatment center, they still want your money.

Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again why I don't call

myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on TV, for that

matter...

But, it looks to me like there are a few questions that need to be

answered before anyone starts shelling out the bucks to attorneys.

First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? AA? I suspect

their disclaimers about not being affiliated with any other

organization, and about AA groups being fully autonomous, are there

as much to shield against liability as for any other reason.

Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing the

same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

Suits against the government for coerced AA? That might end up being

50 separate suits against 50 separate states, rather than one big one

against the feds.

Another question - what exactly is the issue which is the reason for

the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment centers? Bad

experiences in the rooms? All of these seem perfectly valid, but

each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and defendants.

Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage you. I hope like

hell that my concerns are groundless - I think it's a wonderful

idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth of legal knowledge

(gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and " Dragnet " <G>), that

there are a few problems here. With all that said, good luck!!

[Guest guest]

> I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people expperience when

coerced

> into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> [...]

> If you experience serious

> malpractice at a treatment center, they still want your money.

Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again why I don't call

myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on TV, for that

matter...

But, it looks to me like there are a few questions that need to be

answered before anyone starts shelling out the bucks to attorneys.

First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? AA? I suspect

their disclaimers about not being affiliated with any other

organization, and about AA groups being fully autonomous, are there

as much to shield against liability as for any other reason.

Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing the

same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

Suits against the government for coerced AA? That might end up being

50 separate suits against 50 separate states, rather than one big one

against the feds.

Another question - what exactly is the issue which is the reason for

the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment centers? Bad

experiences in the rooms? All of these seem perfectly valid, but

each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and defendants.

Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage you. I hope like

hell that my concerns are groundless - I think it's a wonderful

idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth of legal knowledge

(gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and " Dragnet " <G>), that

there are a few problems here. With all that said, good luck!!

[Guest guest]

The Baldwin Research Institute is suing (or sued) AA for $20 million,

IIRC, alleging the AA members slandered and libeled their organzation

and denied them clients.

(From what I can gather BRI might be classified as Big Book

fundamentalists.)

I have posted a couple of files relating to their case in the files

section of 12-sf.

[Guest guest]

The Baldwin Research Institute is suing (or sued) AA for $20 million,

IIRC, alleging the AA members slandered and libeled their organzation

and denied them clients.

(From what I can gather BRI might be classified as Big Book

fundamentalists.)

I have posted a couple of files relating to their case in the files

section of 12-sf.

[Guest guest]

Someone who is close to Stanton Peele should contact him and see if he

will field questions from this group. I still plan to create

12-Step-Coercion Watch, but after a few off-list suggestions, I have

not only decided to not rush into it, but I seriously question whether

I am the person to do it. I will need some help, especially if I do a

website in conjunction with it. I had a brief email exchange with

Peele a couple of weeks ago, and I also contacted a high school

classmate who is one of the top lawers in NC and adjunct professor of

law at Wake Forest. I am still waiting to hear from another lawyer he

refered me to.

I will tell you what I know and I will tell you what I don't know, and

the lawyers on the list may comment if they wish.

I know that since 1940 the Free Exercise Clause has been extended to

all states, via the 14th Amentment.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/cant_v_conn.html

I also know that since 1947 the Extablishment Clause has also been so

extended.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/ever_v_boar.html

With this in mind, I do not know why some people file suit in state

courts and some in federal courts. For instance the state of NY

forced Bob Warner into AA yet he filed in federal court. This seems

logical to me, but why did file in state court?

One thing I discussed with Peele was " standing to sue. " I asked him

why he did not file a taxpayers suit and plead for an injunction to

stop not only 12-step coercion, but also 12-step promotion by

government. His response was that he did not have standing to sue. I

was under the impression that any taxpayer had standing to sue if hir

tax money was promoting religion. All taxpayers in this country are

being taxed to promote the 12-steps. I also pointed out to Peele that

eight years ago federal Judge Malcolm J. (EDNC) had ruled such

injunction equitable in responding to my class action complaint. My

class action complaint was dismissed because I was not a lawyer (see

Perkins Complaints (4) in 12sf Bookmarks).

Here is a question for you to ponder. If Bush issued an executive

order establishing Cristianity as the national religion of the U.S.,

who would have standing to sue?

In government coercion the defendent is the government agency that is

coercing. In my case it was the U.S. Department of Transportation,

thus Perkins v. Pena (Secretary of Transportation). In 's case

it would have been the U.S. Department of Defense.

Right now I am a little burned out; it has been almost ten years since

I filed my suit. I am also highly pissed at the ACLU who believes

people have a " right to treatment " but has not done squat for our

anti-coercion cause. I need a break, but I will be back because I

will never rest until 12-step coercion ends.

Be thinking about your suggestions. I will be ready to move full

forward in a few weeks. I can't do any of this alone. I just about

drove myself crazy trying in the early 90's. No lawyer would hardly

even listen to me then. Perhaps things have changed.

Also a web search of Apanovitch shows that he is now with a law firm

in NY, but infospace.com has him listed as living in Durham, NC. It

appears he wrote this while a law student at Duke. Does anyone know

anything else about him. Eventually I will contact him.

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj47p785.htm

Go Duke! #1 seed in the east. Fuck Humphreys and Stanford! #1 seed in

the west.

Tommy

> > I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people expperience when

> coerced

> > into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> > [...]

> > If you experience serious

> > malpractice at a treatment center, they still want your money.

>

> Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again why I don't call

> myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on TV, for that

> matter...

>

> But, it looks to me like there are a few questions that need to be

> answered before anyone starts shelling out the bucks to attorneys.

> First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? AA? I suspect

> their disclaimers about not being affiliated with any other

> organization, and about AA groups being fully autonomous, are there

> as much to shield against liability as for any other reason.

>

> Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

> against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

> they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

> corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

> defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing the

> same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

>

> Suits against the government for coerced AA? That might end up

being

> 50 separate suits against 50 separate states, rather than one big

one

> against the feds.

>

> Another question - what exactly is the issue which is the reason for

> the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment centers? Bad

> experiences in the rooms? All of these seem perfectly valid, but

> each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and defendants.

>

> Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage you. I hope like

> hell that my concerns are groundless - I think it's a wonderful

> idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth of legal knowledge

> (gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and " Dragnet " <G>),

that

> there are a few problems here. With all that said, good luck!!

>

>

[Guest guest]

Someone who is close to Stanton Peele should contact him and see if he

will field questions from this group. I still plan to create

12-Step-Coercion Watch, but after a few off-list suggestions, I have

not only decided to not rush into it, but I seriously question whether

I am the person to do it. I will need some help, especially if I do a

website in conjunction with it. I had a brief email exchange with

Peele a couple of weeks ago, and I also contacted a high school

classmate who is one of the top lawers in NC and adjunct professor of

law at Wake Forest. I am still waiting to hear from another lawyer he

refered me to.

I will tell you what I know and I will tell you what I don't know, and

the lawyers on the list may comment if they wish.

I know that since 1940 the Free Exercise Clause has been extended to

all states, via the 14th Amentment.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/cant_v_conn.html

I also know that since 1947 the Extablishment Clause has also been so

extended.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/ever_v_boar.html

With this in mind, I do not know why some people file suit in state

courts and some in federal courts. For instance the state of NY

forced Bob Warner into AA yet he filed in federal court. This seems

logical to me, but why did file in state court?

One thing I discussed with Peele was " standing to sue. " I asked him

why he did not file a taxpayers suit and plead for an injunction to

stop not only 12-step coercion, but also 12-step promotion by

government. His response was that he did not have standing to sue. I

was under the impression that any taxpayer had standing to sue if hir

tax money was promoting religion. All taxpayers in this country are

being taxed to promote the 12-steps. I also pointed out to Peele that

eight years ago federal Judge Malcolm J. (EDNC) had ruled such

injunction equitable in responding to my class action complaint. My

class action complaint was dismissed because I was not a lawyer (see

Perkins Complaints (4) in 12sf Bookmarks).

Here is a question for you to ponder. If Bush issued an executive

order establishing Cristianity as the national religion of the U.S.,

who would have standing to sue?

In government coercion the defendent is the government agency that is

coercing. In my case it was the U.S. Department of Transportation,

thus Perkins v. Pena (Secretary of Transportation). In 's case

it would have been the U.S. Department of Defense.

Right now I am a little burned out; it has been almost ten years since

I filed my suit. I am also highly pissed at the ACLU who believes

people have a " right to treatment " but has not done squat for our

anti-coercion cause. I need a break, but I will be back because I

will never rest until 12-step coercion ends.

Be thinking about your suggestions. I will be ready to move full

forward in a few weeks. I can't do any of this alone. I just about

drove myself crazy trying in the early 90's. No lawyer would hardly

even listen to me then. Perhaps things have changed.

Also a web search of Apanovitch shows that he is now with a law firm

in NY, but infospace.com has him listed as living in Durham, NC. It

appears he wrote this while a law student at Duke. Does anyone know

anything else about him. Eventually I will contact him.

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj47p785.htm

Go Duke! #1 seed in the east. Fuck Humphreys and Stanford! #1 seed in

the west.

Tommy

> > I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people expperience when

> coerced

> > into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> > [...]

> > If you experience serious

> > malpractice at a treatment center, they still want your money.

>

> Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again why I don't call

> myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on TV, for that

> matter...

>

> But, it looks to me like there are a few questions that need to be

> answered before anyone starts shelling out the bucks to attorneys.

> First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? AA? I suspect

> their disclaimers about not being affiliated with any other

> organization, and about AA groups being fully autonomous, are there

> as much to shield against liability as for any other reason.

>

> Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

> against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

> they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

> corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

> defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing the

> same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

>

> Suits against the government for coerced AA? That might end up

being

> 50 separate suits against 50 separate states, rather than one big

one

> against the feds.

>

> Another question - what exactly is the issue which is the reason for

> the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment centers? Bad

> experiences in the rooms? All of these seem perfectly valid, but

> each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and defendants.

>

> Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage you. I hope like

> hell that my concerns are groundless - I think it's a wonderful

> idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth of legal knowledge

> (gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and " Dragnet " <G>),

that

> there are a few problems here. With all that said, good luck!!

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Go Duke! #1 seed in the east. Fuck Humphreys and Stanford! #1 seed

in

> the west.

Doesn't matter - UK's gonna win the whole thing anyway.

Now, back to the lawsuit...Earlier, I wrote...

> > First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? [...]

> > Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

> > against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

> > they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

> > corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

> > defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing

the

> > same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

It occurred to me afterward that we've seen a couple of different

suits filed in recent years by governments at various levels against

the tobacco and gun industries. Maybe there's something there worth

looking at?

[Guest guest]

> Go Duke! #1 seed in the east. Fuck Humphreys and Stanford! #1 seed

in

> the west.

Doesn't matter - UK's gonna win the whole thing anyway.

Now, back to the lawsuit...Earlier, I wrote...

> > First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? [...]

> > Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

> > against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

> > they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

> > corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

> > defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing

the

> > same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

It occurred to me afterward that we've seen a couple of different

suits filed in recent years by governments at various levels against

the tobacco and gun industries. Maybe there's something there worth

looking at?

[Guest guest]

> Go Duke! #1 seed in the east. Fuck Humphreys and Stanford! #1 seed

in

> the west.

Doesn't matter - UK's gonna win the whole thing anyway.

Now, back to the lawsuit...Earlier, I wrote...

> > First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case? [...]

> > Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a class action suit

> > against a single defendant, or even against several defendants if

> > they're all actively working together (e.g., officers of the same

> > corporation). But can you do a class action suit against several

> > defendants who aren't actually working together, but are doing

the

> > same thing (different treatment centers with similar policies)?

It occurred to me afterward that we've seen a couple of different

suits filed in recent years by governments at various levels against

the tobacco and gun industries. Maybe there's something there worth

looking at?

[Guest guest]

Hi Stanton

Below is a copy from a thread on the 12-step free zone

mailing list. Would you be interested in answering

some of our questions?

You don't need to get all the mail; you can sign up

and read and post from the web. Or if you prefer, we

can send you some of the mail if you are willing to

field our questions.

Best,

> > > I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people

expperience when

> > coerced

> > > into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> > > [...]

> > > If you experience serious

> > > malpractice at a treatment center, they still

want your money.

> >

> > Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again

why I don't call

> > myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on

TV, for that

> > matter...

> >

> > But, it looks to me like there are a few questions

that need to be

> > answered before anyone starts shelling out the

bucks to attorneys.

> > First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case?

AA? I suspect

> > their disclaimers about not being affiliated with

any other

> > organization, and about AA groups being fully

autonomous, are there

> > as much to shield against liability as for any

other reason.

> >

> > Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a

class action suit

> > against a single defendant, or even against

several defendants if

> > they're all actively working together (e.g.,

officers of the same

> > corporation). But can you do a class action suit

against several

> > defendants who aren't actually working together,

but are doing the

> > same thing (different treatment centers with

similar policies)?

> >

> > Suits against the government for coerced AA? That

might end up

> being

> > 50 separate suits against 50 separate states,

rather than one big

> one

> > against the feds.

> >

> > Another question - what exactly is the issue which

is the reason for

> > the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment

centers? Bad

> > experiences in the rooms? All of these seem

perfectly valid, but

> > each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and

defendants.

> >

> > Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage

you. I hope like

> > hell that my concerns are groundless - I think

it's a wonderful

> > idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth

of legal knowledge

> > (gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and

" Dragnet " <G>),

> that

> > there are a few problems here. With all that

said, good luck!!

> >

> >

=====

Best,

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Stanton

Below is a copy from a thread on the 12-step free zone

mailing list. Would you be interested in answering

some of our questions?

You don't need to get all the mail; you can sign up

and read and post from the web. Or if you prefer, we

can send you some of the mail if you are willing to

field our questions.

Best,

> > > I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people

expperience when

> > coerced

> > > into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> > > [...]

> > > If you experience serious

> > > malpractice at a treatment center, they still

want your money.

> >

> > Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again

why I don't call

> > myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on

TV, for that

> > matter...

> >

> > But, it looks to me like there are a few questions

that need to be

> > answered before anyone starts shelling out the

bucks to attorneys.

> > First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case?

AA? I suspect

> > their disclaimers about not being affiliated with

any other

> > organization, and about AA groups being fully

autonomous, are there

> > as much to shield against liability as for any

other reason.

> >

> > Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a

class action suit

> > against a single defendant, or even against

several defendants if

> > they're all actively working together (e.g.,

officers of the same

> > corporation). But can you do a class action suit

against several

> > defendants who aren't actually working together,

but are doing the

> > same thing (different treatment centers with

similar policies)?

> >

> > Suits against the government for coerced AA? That

might end up

> being

> > 50 separate suits against 50 separate states,

rather than one big

> one

> > against the feds.

> >

> > Another question - what exactly is the issue which

is the reason for

> > the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment

centers? Bad

> > experiences in the rooms? All of these seem

perfectly valid, but

> > each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and

defendants.

> >

> > Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage

you. I hope like

> > hell that my concerns are groundless - I think

it's a wonderful

> > idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth

of legal knowledge

> > (gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and

" Dragnet " <G>),

> that

> > there are a few problems here. With all that

said, good luck!!

> >

> >

=====

Best,

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi Stanton

Below is a copy from a thread on the 12-step free zone

mailing list. Would you be interested in answering

some of our questions?

You don't need to get all the mail; you can sign up

and read and post from the web. Or if you prefer, we

can send you some of the mail if you are willing to

field our questions.

Best,

> > > I keep hearing one common phenomenon that people

expperience when

> > coerced

> > > into treatment or have serious problems with AA

> > > [...]

> > > If you experience serious

> > > malpractice at a treatment center, they still

want your money.

> >

> > Hmmm - I think I'm about to demonstrate once again

why I don't call

> > myself an attorney. Nor have I ever played one on

TV, for that

> > matter...

> >

> > But, it looks to me like there are a few questions

that need to be

> > answered before anyone starts shelling out the

bucks to attorneys.

> > First, who would the defendant(s) be in this case?

AA? I suspect

> > their disclaimers about not being affiliated with

any other

> > organization, and about AA groups being fully

autonomous, are there

> > as much to shield against liability as for any

other reason.

> >

> > Treatment centers? Well, I know you can file a

class action suit

> > against a single defendant, or even against

several defendants if

> > they're all actively working together (e.g.,

officers of the same

> > corporation). But can you do a class action suit

against several

> > defendants who aren't actually working together,

but are doing the

> > same thing (different treatment centers with

similar policies)?

> >

> > Suits against the government for coerced AA? That

might end up

> being

> > 50 separate suits against 50 separate states,

rather than one big

> one

> > against the feds.

> >

> > Another question - what exactly is the issue which

is the reason for

> > the suit? Forced AA? Malpractice at treatment

centers? Bad

> > experiences in the rooms? All of these seem

perfectly valid, but

> > each would imply a different set of plaintiffs and

defendants.

> >

> > Don't get me wrong, I'm *not* trying to discourage

you. I hope like

> > hell that my concerns are groundless - I think

it's a wonderful

> > idea. But it looks to me, with my massive wealth

of legal knowledge

> > (gleaned mostly from episodes of " L.A. Law " , and

" Dragnet " <G>),

> that

> > there are a few problems here. With all that

said, good luck!!

> >

> >

=====

Best,

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> > Go Duke! #1 seed in the east. Fuck Humphreys and Stanford! #1 seed

> in

> > the west.

>

> Doesn't matter - UK's gonna win the whole thing anyway.

Are you talking about that daycare center in Lexington, University

Kindergarten? Isn't their nickname the pussy cats? Or are you talking

about that other kindergarten in Lawrence, the one who fell to 9-9 ACC

Wake Forest by 31 points earlier in the season?

[Guest guest]

> --- Stanton Peele <speele@e...> wrote:

> > Taxpayers can be said to have standing on issues

> > involving government

> > spending -- but it seems to me this can be iffy and

> > highly up to the

> > court's discretion.

> >

> > Don't get me wrong -- a taxpayer does have rights

> > and will often be

> > granted standing, but for me it seems often not the

> > best way to go in.

What comes to my mind here is the shocking news from Bob and Rita that

even after both the Second Circuit and the NY state high court ruled

coerced AA is unconstitutional, the state continues to force people

into AA. A taxpayer's suit would specifically plea for an injunction

to stop all state coercion AND state promotion. What would be the

best way to go in?

> > On the other hand, when you sue somebody on behalf

> > of yourself or a

> > client -- like when you are forced into treatment --

> > there is no

> > question of standing -- it's your gripe -- they

> > can't deny you the right

> > to do so.

I wonder if the problems I ran into with statutes of limitation would

even apply in a taxpayer lawsuit. After all I am paying federal taxes

right now. I was coerced, Bob was coerced, Rita was coerced, and many

more. How about Warner, Rita, Perkins et al. vs. Secretary of Health

and Human Servies et al. (every cabinet member) as a taxpayers lawsuit

asking for no money in damages, but only for the injunction. As

taxpayers who were coerced and saw how this violates the rights of

conscience, and now want it to end once and for all, we should most

definitly have standing to sue.

> >

> > One attorney who has played a large role in these

> > cases (representing

> > both Warner and Griffith) has been Bob Isseks, of

> > Middletown, NY.

> > Isseks then brought a case on behalf of the mayor of

> > Middletown in US

> > District (federal) Court, challenging the

> > expenditure of State funds to

> > support the operations of the Middletown Alcohol

> > Crisis Center (12

> > steps, of course) on Federal Constitution 1st

> > amendment grounds

> > (originally state grounds were also cited, but the

> > plaintiffs dropped

> > these). The defendants (state officials and so on)

> > contested the

> > Mayor's standing to challenge the state's

> > contributing to this program.

> > After going back and forth on the issue, the judge

> > decided the mayor had

> > standing (as would any taxpayer) -- but that the

> > program was voluntary,

> > and -- since it was not coercive -- there was no

> > forcing of religious

> > practice by the state. As a result, the court

> > granted the defendants a

> > summary judgment (the case was thrown out). I felt

> > that the judge just

> > didn't get into the whole case. And you do a lot of

> > work, just to be

> > thrown out on a summary motion (you don't get to go

> > to trial).

Sounds to me like you are right. The judge should know that coercion

exists if someone is forced to pay taxes to promote religion. But at

least the judge did decide that the mayor had standing

> >

> > Having said all of this, I am not an expert on

> > taxpayer or class action

> > suits -- I have never done one -- and someone with a

> > good feel for such

> > cases might feel fairly confident of pulling one of

> > them off about

> > 12-step treatment under the right conditions --

> > including that there has

> > to be spending of taxpayer funds wrongly. That

> > certainly would seem to

> > apply in spending in the military.

Yes, and the Secretary of Defense would certainly be one of the

defendents. However, the military through its chaplaincy promotes

religion all the time all over the world. IMO this is

unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court would not think so. But if

they played it straight they would have to rule the coercion to

attend/participate to be unconstitutional.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> --- Stanton Peele <speele@e...> wrote:

> > Taxpayers can be said to have standing on issues

> > involving government

> > spending -- but it seems to me this can be iffy and

> > highly up to the

> > court's discretion.

> >

> > Don't get me wrong -- a taxpayer does have rights

> > and will often be

> > granted standing, but for me it seems often not the

> > best way to go in.

What comes to my mind here is the shocking news from Bob and Rita that

even after both the Second Circuit and the NY state high court ruled

coerced AA is unconstitutional, the state continues to force people

into AA. A taxpayer's suit would specifically plea for an injunction

to stop all state coercion AND state promotion. What would be the

best way to go in?

> > On the other hand, when you sue somebody on behalf

> > of yourself or a

> > client -- like when you are forced into treatment --

> > there is no

> > question of standing -- it's your gripe -- they

> > can't deny you the right

> > to do so.

I wonder if the problems I ran into with statutes of limitation would

even apply in a taxpayer lawsuit. After all I am paying federal taxes

right now. I was coerced, Bob was coerced, Rita was coerced, and many

more. How about Warner, Rita, Perkins et al. vs. Secretary of Health

and Human Servies et al. (every cabinet member) as a taxpayers lawsuit

asking for no money in damages, but only for the injunction. As

taxpayers who were coerced and saw how this violates the rights of

conscience, and now want it to end once and for all, we should most

definitly have standing to sue.

> >

> > One attorney who has played a large role in these

> > cases (representing

> > both Warner and Griffith) has been Bob Isseks, of

> > Middletown, NY.

> > Isseks then brought a case on behalf of the mayor of

> > Middletown in US

> > District (federal) Court, challenging the

> > expenditure of State funds to

> > support the operations of the Middletown Alcohol

> > Crisis Center (12

> > steps, of course) on Federal Constitution 1st

> > amendment grounds

> > (originally state grounds were also cited, but the

> > plaintiffs dropped

> > these). The defendants (state officials and so on)

> > contested the

> > Mayor's standing to challenge the state's

> > contributing to this program.

> > After going back and forth on the issue, the judge

> > decided the mayor had

> > standing (as would any taxpayer) -- but that the

> > program was voluntary,

> > and -- since it was not coercive -- there was no

> > forcing of religious

> > practice by the state. As a result, the court

> > granted the defendants a

> > summary judgment (the case was thrown out). I felt

> > that the judge just

> > didn't get into the whole case. And you do a lot of

> > work, just to be

> > thrown out on a summary motion (you don't get to go

> > to trial).

Sounds to me like you are right. The judge should know that coercion

exists if someone is forced to pay taxes to promote religion. But at

least the judge did decide that the mayor had standing

> >

> > Having said all of this, I am not an expert on

> > taxpayer or class action

> > suits -- I have never done one -- and someone with a

> > good feel for such

> > cases might feel fairly confident of pulling one of

> > them off about

> > 12-step treatment under the right conditions --

> > including that there has

> > to be spending of taxpayer funds wrongly. That

> > certainly would seem to

> > apply in spending in the military.

Yes, and the Secretary of Defense would certainly be one of the

defendents. However, the military through its chaplaincy promotes

religion all the time all over the world. IMO this is

unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court would not think so. But if

they played it straight they would have to rule the coercion to

attend/participate to be unconstitutional.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> --- Stanton Peele <speele@e...> wrote:

> > Taxpayers can be said to have standing on issues

> > involving government

> > spending -- but it seems to me this can be iffy and

> > highly up to the

> > court's discretion.

> >

> > Don't get me wrong -- a taxpayer does have rights

> > and will often be

> > granted standing, but for me it seems often not the

> > best way to go in.

What comes to my mind here is the shocking news from Bob and Rita that

even after both the Second Circuit and the NY state high court ruled

coerced AA is unconstitutional, the state continues to force people

into AA. A taxpayer's suit would specifically plea for an injunction

to stop all state coercion AND state promotion. What would be the

best way to go in?

> > On the other hand, when you sue somebody on behalf

> > of yourself or a

> > client -- like when you are forced into treatment --

> > there is no

> > question of standing -- it's your gripe -- they

> > can't deny you the right

> > to do so.

I wonder if the problems I ran into with statutes of limitation would

even apply in a taxpayer lawsuit. After all I am paying federal taxes

right now. I was coerced, Bob was coerced, Rita was coerced, and many

more. How about Warner, Rita, Perkins et al. vs. Secretary of Health

and Human Servies et al. (every cabinet member) as a taxpayers lawsuit

asking for no money in damages, but only for the injunction. As

taxpayers who were coerced and saw how this violates the rights of

conscience, and now want it to end once and for all, we should most

definitly have standing to sue.

> >

> > One attorney who has played a large role in these

> > cases (representing

> > both Warner and Griffith) has been Bob Isseks, of

> > Middletown, NY.

> > Isseks then brought a case on behalf of the mayor of

> > Middletown in US

> > District (federal) Court, challenging the

> > expenditure of State funds to

> > support the operations of the Middletown Alcohol

> > Crisis Center (12

> > steps, of course) on Federal Constitution 1st

> > amendment grounds

> > (originally state grounds were also cited, but the

> > plaintiffs dropped

> > these). The defendants (state officials and so on)

> > contested the

> > Mayor's standing to challenge the state's

> > contributing to this program.

> > After going back and forth on the issue, the judge

> > decided the mayor had

> > standing (as would any taxpayer) -- but that the

> > program was voluntary,

> > and -- since it was not coercive -- there was no

> > forcing of religious

> > practice by the state. As a result, the court

> > granted the defendants a

> > summary judgment (the case was thrown out). I felt

> > that the judge just

> > didn't get into the whole case. And you do a lot of

> > work, just to be

> > thrown out on a summary motion (you don't get to go

> > to trial).

Sounds to me like you are right. The judge should know that coercion

exists if someone is forced to pay taxes to promote religion. But at

least the judge did decide that the mayor had standing

> >

> > Having said all of this, I am not an expert on

> > taxpayer or class action

> > suits -- I have never done one -- and someone with a

> > good feel for such

> > cases might feel fairly confident of pulling one of

> > them off about

> > 12-step treatment under the right conditions --

> > including that there has

> > to be spending of taxpayer funds wrongly. That

> > certainly would seem to

> > apply in spending in the military.

Yes, and the Secretary of Defense would certainly be one of the

defendents. However, the military through its chaplaincy promotes

religion all the time all over the world. IMO this is

unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court would not think so. But if

they played it straight they would have to rule the coercion to

attend/participate to be unconstitutional.

Tommy