DEDICATION:

This blog is dedicated to "The Children Left Behind." We will not rest until the safety of our children and those that are entrusted with their mental health care are held accountable for abusing the children's God given rights, those rights upheld by our constitution, and those that have been complicit in obfuscating the truth!

Monday, November 17, 2014

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


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


Saturday, November 1, 2014

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



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