[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: A Scathing Indictment of the Wounded Warrior Project Over on the porch. Well worth the read. I haven’t liked that organization for quite some time, mostly because of the way they portray wounded Veterans as being objects of pity. Salamander puts it better than I have been able to. an organization that uses the same visuals, tone and background music for those who fight our wars, that are are also used for starving African children … and at the same time squash local organizations using a huge legal budget. Touché. Here is some perspective, without minimizing the sacrifice. The total US combat wounded in 13 years in Iraq and Afghanistan numbers around 52,000, with the vast majority being minor wounds with RTD (return to duty), such as mine were. (Of the approximately 1,400 wounded suffered by 1st Marine Division in Anbar from February-September 2004, about 1,200 were RTD. If those percentages hold for the larger number of 52,000, the total number with wounds serious enough to prevent a return to duty numbers around 7,500.) We know that the number of traumatic amputations is fewer than 1,600. This means, with just the last three years of donations, WWP has received enough money for almost $100,000 for each of the 7,500 seriously wounded Vets, or $457,000 for each traumatic amputee. This is on top of the medical care and equipment provided by the VA for these Veterans. With a CEO salary of almost half a million a year, the selling of donor lists, and this sort of reprehensible behavior: According to a number of smaller groups, the Wounded Warrior Project… has been spending a good deal of time and money suing other veteran-serving nonprofits on the basis that their names or logos constitute infringement on their brand. I agree with Salamander, not a dime to WWP from me. I will give to a smaller charity in a heartbeat. One that does not make helping our wounded Veterans a “common business practice”, and one that does not intentionally harm others trying to give back to those who gave so much. UPDATE: XBradTC here. C0ncur all and endorse original message. There are many fine organizations to donate to, and it’s your money. But I would like to mention one that does have a sterling reputation, Fisher House. Poster Comment: I'll post the original article in the first post. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest The linked article on WWP's actual tactics of selling its donor lists to everyone and suing other veteran organizations, apparently the strategy of their very overpaid top staffers and CEO:
#2. To: TooConservative (#0) "Charity" has always been a popular big business. Every religion in the world is based around it,including Islam and Christianity. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) #3. To: TooConservative (#0) Charles Barkley to donate $1 million to Auburn, Wounded Warrior Project, Morehouse College
#4. To: TooConservative (#3) USAA Announced as National Sponsor for Wounded Warrior Project Soldier Ride Program .
#5. To: TooConservative (#4) (Edited) Controversy Surrounds Wounded Warriors, Lavish Salaries, and White House . DEBUNKED: Article Purporting Wounded Warrior Project is a ‘Legal Scam’ is False .
#6. To: Gatlin (#5) DEBUNKED: Article Purporting Wounded Warrior Project is a ‘Legal Scam’ is False . No, it isn't.
#7. To: TooConservative (#0) This is on top of the medical care and equipment provided by the VA for these Veterans. Which is excellent.
#8. To: TooConservative (#6) TC, ignore gatlin, it is not here to add, it is here to detract and cause problems. Just bozo it and then you will only have to contend with it's other name, mr white.
#9. To: TooConservative (#1) “They’re so huge. We don’t have the staying power if they come after us... Don't fight back, instead take the fight to them, start suing them, suing them in small claims court for 500 or under, they have to be represented by council, if they settle, simply sue them again and again and again. Watch as we start a movement to do that against monsanto. Imagine 1000s of 500 suites against monsanto or any other business, not for ten million, but for 500 dollars.
#10. To: BobCeleste (#9) Then Monsanto comes in with a pack of lawyers, beats you, and forces you to pay thousands in their legal fees. Also, that opens you up to discovery process by Monsanto.
#11. To: TooConservative (#10) No, no, no, small claims court. Yes, they have to send a lawyer, but, I represent myself. Also, that opens you up to discovery process by Monsanto. But, that discovery process, paid for by monsanto is a two way street.
#12. To: BobCeleste (#11) But, that discovery process, paid for by monsanto is a two way street. Monsanto has a very expert legal team. I don't think they missed covering such a liability issue.
#13. To: TooConservative (#12) Monsanto has a very expert legal team. I don't think they missed covering such a liability issue. Also very, very expensive to fly them all over the country to fight small calim battles for 500 dollars.
#14. To: BobCeleste (#13) Also very, very expensive to fly them all over the country to fight small calim battles for 500 dollars. Built-in costs. They assume such litigation costs to be constant.
#15. To: TooConservative (#14) Sorry, I will not be discouraged.
#16. To: BobCeleste (#15) Keep in mind, these are very high-dollar corporate lawyers. They might find a way to bootstrap a small-claims case into a SLAPP lawsuit and open the door to discovery and a judgment against in a court without legal liability limits. It isn't a hypothetical. Look at the history of SLAPP lawsuits and how the courts have tolerated being used to harass people into silence because some megacorporation wants to shut them up and make an example of them.
#17. To: TooConservative (#16) Keep in mind, these are very high-dollar corporate lawyers. They might find a way to bootstrap a small-claims case into a SLAPP lawsuit and open the door to discovery and a judgment against in a court without legal liability limits.
I have a well, most have wells in this area, have you seen the new research regarding Round Up and other monsanto stuff leaching into wells? I am not filing a frivolous law suit, I am concerned about my well, the test I need done is several hundred dollars. I would not put the stuff supplied by cities, called water, on my garden, never mind in my body. I want a court ordered order prohibiting the use of any monsanto product within 500 feet of not only my well, but the stream that runs past my well. You may consider that frivolous and maybe to a big city court it might stand a .5% chance of being ruled as such, but not out here in rural Maine. It also opens the door for depositions and subpoena for monsanto executives. In addition, in Maine, in civil court for a fee of $300, you can elect to have a jury. One final thought If I prevail, and I have no doubts that I will, it opens the door for thousands, maybe tens of thousands of others well owners in rural Maine to sue, based upon my win.
#18. To: BobCeleste (#17) I'm all for what you want to do but still urge some caution. Monsanto is insanely litigious. Deliberately. They appear to be the most hated corporation in history, yet their lobbyists still manage to keep the public (Left, Right, moderate) off their necks in Congress and many places overseas. Monsanto is no paper tiger. They have long teeth. They fight very dirty in court and they get away with it.
#19. To: TooConservative (#18) Thank you.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|