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

[Guest guest]

> > 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?

Yep - the very same pussy cats that just won the SEC tournament.

I wouldn't mind Duke winning if that happened. UK's gonna have a

harder time of it than they deserve, because their team has been semi-

decimated by unrealistic, overly harsh policies regarding alcohol.

(Topic for a new thread there?<g>) Of course, this is all

hypothetical, because they *are* going to win.

[Guest guest]

> > 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?

Yep - the very same pussy cats that just won the SEC tournament.

I wouldn't mind Duke winning if that happened. UK's gonna have a

harder time of it than they deserve, because their team has been semi-

decimated by unrealistic, overly harsh policies regarding alcohol.

(Topic for a new thread there?<g>) Of course, this is all

hypothetical, because they *are* going to win.

[Guest guest]

> > 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?

Yep - the very same pussy cats that just won the SEC tournament.

I wouldn't mind Duke winning if that happened. UK's gonna have a

harder time of it than they deserve, because their team has been semi-

decimated by unrealistic, overly harsh policies regarding alcohol.

(Topic for a new thread there?<g>) Of course, this is all

hypothetical, because they *are* going to win.

[Guest guest]

>

> 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

Here, again, is the background on that.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-step-free/message/27804

[Guest guest]

But that would be great. I can give you my story, and I did

> work in the field at one point and would love to " share " and tell

what I saw

> (like the treatment center that contacted us looking for a live-in

CADAC

> because the current one had been busted for selling crack out of

the halfway

> house used for " transitional living " by the profitable not-for-

profit

> treatment center. Maybe it was in a " slippery " neighborhood or

something.

> This is making me nauseaus (sp?) so I'll signoff.

Okay, Nick, type out the whole thing and send it to me, please.

Best,

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

But that would be great. I can give you my story, and I did

> work in the field at one point and would love to " share " and tell

what I saw

> (like the treatment center that contacted us looking for a live-in

CADAC

> because the current one had been busted for selling crack out of

the halfway

> house used for " transitional living " by the profitable not-for-

profit

> treatment center. Maybe it was in a " slippery " neighborhood or

something.

> This is making me nauseaus (sp?) so I'll signoff.

Okay, Nick, type out the whole thing and send it to me, please.

Best,

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

There are a couple of you ideas that I personally would like to

pursue. Yes, insurance companies would make excellent allies. Let's

discuss ways they might become involved. Who should we write and

call? Is there an Insurance Association they all belong to?

Could we provide a clearinghouse for people who want to sue

individual centers for breach of " informed consent " laws? Pro

bono attornies might work individually on those cases.

There are plenty of folks who check into treatment centers with no

idea of their options, who are told the 12-step quackery is their only

way out.

Surely some of these centers are liable for that.

> In regards to the funding issue, I didn't mean to be so vague on a

crucial

> subject. By " securing funding " I meant that, if some kind of suit

can be

> organized, I can supply around $50,000, hopefully starting with a

much

> smaller amount and more funds as needed. I started out by

arbitrarily

> estimating the low-end estimation of legal fees on a non-

contingency basis

> (if an attorney would be willing to step up to the plate on

contingency and

> risk not walking away with anything, then that would be great, of

course)

> based upon the same legal advice I mentioned before. I have no

idea as to

> the validity of that figure in relation to hypothetical fees if the

case

> advanced. But I don't think a pro-bono suit is viable, some have

been trying

> to get that moving for a few years without it going anywhere. I

think there

> are way too many individuals who have been subjected to serious

misbehavior

> (to put it lightly) from these profitable not-for-profit " AA

clubhouses "

> (myself included) and we all deserve more than the pious reply they

give. If

> they wanna say it's a disease that they treat, fine, but they can't

claim

> immunity from the ethics and standards set for providers just

because it's a

> " special " kind of disease that noone can understand. I understand

it, it's

> nothing more than BS. <end of rant>

>

> Yea I get really angry on this subject...how unspiritual!

Barleycorn

> must be " calling from the mantelpiece " right now. <G>

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

There are a couple of you ideas that I personally would like to

pursue. Yes, insurance companies would make excellent allies. Let's

discuss ways they might become involved. Who should we write and

call? Is there an Insurance Association they all belong to?

Could we provide a clearinghouse for people who want to sue

individual centers for breach of " informed consent " laws? Pro

bono attornies might work individually on those cases.

There are plenty of folks who check into treatment centers with no

idea of their options, who are told the 12-step quackery is their only

way out.

Surely some of these centers are liable for that.

> In regards to the funding issue, I didn't mean to be so vague on a

crucial

> subject. By " securing funding " I meant that, if some kind of suit

can be

> organized, I can supply around $50,000, hopefully starting with a

much

> smaller amount and more funds as needed. I started out by

arbitrarily

> estimating the low-end estimation of legal fees on a non-

contingency basis

> (if an attorney would be willing to step up to the plate on

contingency and

> risk not walking away with anything, then that would be great, of

course)

> based upon the same legal advice I mentioned before. I have no

idea as to

> the validity of that figure in relation to hypothetical fees if the

case

> advanced. But I don't think a pro-bono suit is viable, some have

been trying

> to get that moving for a few years without it going anywhere. I

think there

> are way too many individuals who have been subjected to serious

misbehavior

> (to put it lightly) from these profitable not-for-profit " AA

clubhouses "

> (myself included) and we all deserve more than the pious reply they

give. If

> they wanna say it's a disease that they treat, fine, but they can't

claim

> immunity from the ethics and standards set for providers just

because it's a

> " special " kind of disease that noone can understand. I understand

it, it's

> nothing more than BS. <end of rant>

>

> Yea I get really angry on this subject...how unspiritual!

Barleycorn

> must be " calling from the mantelpiece " right now. <G>

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

There are a couple of you ideas that I personally would like to

pursue. Yes, insurance companies would make excellent allies. Let's

discuss ways they might become involved. Who should we write and

call? Is there an Insurance Association they all belong to?

Could we provide a clearinghouse for people who want to sue

individual centers for breach of " informed consent " laws? Pro

bono attornies might work individually on those cases.

There are plenty of folks who check into treatment centers with no

idea of their options, who are told the 12-step quackery is their only

way out.

Surely some of these centers are liable for that.

> In regards to the funding issue, I didn't mean to be so vague on a

crucial

> subject. By " securing funding " I meant that, if some kind of suit

can be

> organized, I can supply around $50,000, hopefully starting with a

much

> smaller amount and more funds as needed. I started out by

arbitrarily

> estimating the low-end estimation of legal fees on a non-

contingency basis

> (if an attorney would be willing to step up to the plate on

contingency and

> risk not walking away with anything, then that would be great, of

course)

> based upon the same legal advice I mentioned before. I have no

idea as to

> the validity of that figure in relation to hypothetical fees if the

case

> advanced. But I don't think a pro-bono suit is viable, some have

been trying

> to get that moving for a few years without it going anywhere. I

think there

> are way too many individuals who have been subjected to serious

misbehavior

> (to put it lightly) from these profitable not-for-profit " AA

clubhouses "

> (myself included) and we all deserve more than the pious reply they

give. If

> they wanna say it's a disease that they treat, fine, but they can't

claim

> immunity from the ethics and standards set for providers just

because it's a

> " special " kind of disease that noone can understand. I understand

it, it's

> nothing more than BS. <end of rant>

>

> Yea I get really angry on this subject...how unspiritual!

Barleycorn

> must be " calling from the mantelpiece " right now. <G>

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

And it is interesting that this was cited in the Warner opinion. So

I assume that this means that there IS federal precedence on forced AA

in the military.

" B. Establishment Clause

The County also argues that forcing Warner to attend Alcoholics

Anonymous did not violate the First Amendment's

Establishment Clause. We disagree. The Supreme Court has repeatedly

made clear that " at a minimum, the Constitution

guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or

participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way

which 'establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to

do so.' " Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2655 (1992)

(quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 (1984)); see County of

Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S.

573, 591 (1989); Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947);

see also Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 223, 231-32

(2d Cir. 1985) (observing that army chaplaincy program " meets the

requirement of voluntariness by leaving the practice of

religion solely to the individual soldier, who is free to worship or

not as he chooses without fear of any discipline or stigma " ). "

[Guest guest]

And it is interesting that this was cited in the Warner opinion. So

I assume that this means that there IS federal precedence on forced AA

in the military.

" B. Establishment Clause

The County also argues that forcing Warner to attend Alcoholics

Anonymous did not violate the First Amendment's

Establishment Clause. We disagree. The Supreme Court has repeatedly

made clear that " at a minimum, the Constitution

guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or

participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way

which 'establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to

do so.' " Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2655 (1992)

(quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 678 (1984)); see County of

Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S.

573, 591 (1989); Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947);

see also Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 223, 231-32

(2d Cir. 1985) (observing that army chaplaincy program " meets the

requirement of voluntariness by leaving the practice of

religion solely to the individual soldier, who is free to worship or

not as he chooses without fear of any discipline or stigma " ). "