You didn't feel it had anything to do with the claims?
INFORMED Posted Jan 8, 2006 2:37 AM
Justine, you said:
I don't know about all the history leading up to my tenure at MPBA, or yours. Like the stuff about other girls' homes they had, or properties they own/owned, etc. I did not feel those issues had anything to do with the claims being brought to court by the girls.
Don't you think the parents had a right to know about ALL the HISTORY prior to enrolling their children? Do you think any parent in their right mind would leave a child they truly cared about with people with such a history as Bob & Betty Wills?
Here is just one piece of that HISTORY - from a FEDERAL COURT in 1983:
Before this Court we have an Order by the Forrest County Youth Court adjudicating Rev. Wills to be in contempt of court, as well as an expanded order of permanent injunctive relief executed against the appealing party.
...on the motion for contempt, the court found that one hundred thirty-seven (137) minors had been removed from the state in violation of its order. Additionally, the court determined that there had been total non-compliance with its orders of documentation of the girls' names, ages, parents' addresses and phone numbers....As a part of the expedited discovery, this court enjoined the defendants from removing any girls from the school for the purpose of impeding discovery. It appeared from affidavits filed with the court that in another case when court proceedings were initiated concerning another girl at the school, the girl unexplainedly disappeared....
TOTAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS; KIDS REMOVED FROM THE STATE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF A COURT'S ORDER; A GIRL WHO UNEXPLAINEDLY DISAPPEARED AFTER COURT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED!!!!
What DECENT parent upon learning of these things would enroll their child under the care of "Rev. Wills" ??? As part of enrollment, the parents were required to initial and sign a document that said, "We encourage parents to take advantage of the depth of experience that over twenty-five years has given."
The parents and girls had claims of FRAUD that were 'conveniently' dismissed prior to trial - even though the parents were not informed as to what that 25 years of 'experience' included - such as the findings by the FEDERAL COURT in 1983!!!!!!
Yet, you say, "Like the stuff about other girls' homes they had...I did not feel those issues had anything to do with the claims being brought to court by the girls."
Maybe you don't want to believe it had anything to do with the claims, but it had EVERYTHING to do with the FRAUD claims since they made the parents sign enrollment documents encouraging them to rely on their 25+ years "depth of experience" without disclosing what that REALLY entailed!!!
It's O.K., cause it is not over 'til the fat lady sings, and this fat lady can't sing a note - if that gives any indication as to when it 'might' 'be over' from the fat lady's vantage point.