Create a free forum in seconds.
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to REBT CBT Workshop & Discussion Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

Pages: (2) 1 [2]  ( Go to first unread post )

AEI smears Al through Lyle Stuar
Posted: Dec 13 2005, 09:06 PM


Its obvious that this new statement by Lyle Stuart was run through the PR company whitewash and the AEI lawyers, so Lyle could slip in his false information and accusations in a sneakier way. This is an obvious continuation of the smear campaign and propaganda war.

These communications from Lyle Stuart are coming directly from the AEI. They have chosen Lyle as their mouthpiece, so Broder, Rory, McMahon and everyone else can hide behind him. That tactic is not going to work, people see right through it.

The ancient past history is not relevant to the present, what counts is what is going on now.

Its is interesting that you makes the claim that you loaned Al the money to buy the AEI years ago. (no one knows if this is a fabrication or exaggeration). Does this mean you feel you are entitled to OWN the AEI now, and pass it down to your son Rory?
Your statement implies that Rory should have been the Executive Director, and not Mike Broder! Lyle, your son Rory has no qualifications whatsoever. He has no training in psychology, business, or management. He is not qualified to hold any position at the AEI, especially not the office of the President which he stole from Al. Rory is a local jazz musician, and that is what he should be doing. The only reason he has become the AEI President, is as a reward for supporting the coup. He took Al's job from under him.

The smears of Debbie Joffe are something else altogether. Notice how Lyle inserts all of the smear comments being spread by Mike Broder and Lyle Stuart about her for quite some time, but does so in a backhanded type of way? People from the AEI have tried to leak damaging info about her since day one, and they are still doing it. Broder was full of derisions and smear toward Debbie since his first statements.

Also, you now reveal you had a TAPE RECORDER, to tape the "off the record" conversation with Al? Lyle, are you serious? Do you have any idea how ludicrous it is to say that? How can an "off the record" discussion be tape recorded? That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard, I think. Obviously, the AEI Board was trying to entrap and trick Al again, and Al smartly did not get tricked a second time. It was very smart of him to not meet with you.

You then close off with the LIE and SMEAR being promoted by Broder, and your son Rory Stuart, and others, that somehow "Al is not there". This is the EXACT language Broder used to try and smear Al. Al has proven now he is of perfectly sound mind, and Al sees perfectly well when people are robbing him and trying to destroy his legacy for their own benefit. Do you see how Lyle is using the exact same tactic used by Broder and his lawyer and others to try and imply Al is "not there" anymore? This is a pure, bald-faced lie. It cannot get much worse than that. This is the exact same tactic employed by Windy Dryden as well.

You also admitted that you will not leave the AEI unless you are kicked out by the courts, which I suspect you will be very soon. Also, Broder, Rory, McMahon, would also hold the exact same view, that they only way to get them out of there is for the courts to throw them out.
If you guys think the REBT commuity is going to support you, you are in for a rude awakening.

There are others part of this most recent Lyle Stuart statement, that directly conflict with the objective facts, which will be pointed out very soon.

Also, I am sure Al will soon issue a statement about all of this smear propaganda being released by the AEI board, Broder, Rory Stuart, McMahon, and others, and using Lyle Stuart as their mouthpiece.
People see right through these types of tactics.
They cannot hide behind Lyle Stuart, everyone knows that every word being released by you, is part of the strategic smear campaign against Albert Ellis.

Lyle, you also make a real whopper, when you say you did NOT KNOW ABOUT THE COURT CASE, when you were going to have a meeting with Al. So you were elected to the AEI board, by your son Rory, and no one told you that Al was suing the AEI? I cannot believe this is what you are claiming. Do you really think people are so clueless as to believe a whopper like that? You go to have a meeting with Al off the record, which you are going to record, and you did not know that Al was suing the AEI?
Are you sure you don't write comedy material for Don Rickles?
Epictetus II
Posted: Dec 13 2005, 09:17 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 2
Joined: 27-October 05

Hello Lyle,
You are a beauty. What a tale of kindness, laced with venom! Gayle has summarized your presentation very well.

My only addition is to point to the strange, infantile "splitting" process that runs through your post. For you there is "good Al" and "bad Al". "Good Al" lives in the past, in your head, and in your heart. He is a tiny part of the glorious life story of Lyle Sturat. "Bad Al" lives in the real world, with "bad Debbie", and all those bastards who are giving your little boy "a hard time". (Your little boy, by the way, must be pushing fifty!)

If it is in any way valid for you to "split" Al in this way, then I have news for you. For me there are two "Lyle's". "Good Lyle" lives in the past, in which he published some books for Al, and that was probably helpful at that time. He gave Al the only three holidays that this "excess benefit bandit" ever took! Then there is "bad Lyle": the defamer; the smearer; the ugly face of the Rump of the Board. "Good Lyle" is dead and gone. Only "bad Lyle" is still hanging around. "Good Lyle" may have served a useful function in Al's life in an earlier time. But "bad Lyle" is proving a pain in the arse in Al's present life.

If you want to help Rory, then do the sensible thing. Take him and yourself off to some new adventure, and let Albert Ellis sort his Institute out for himself. He needs your "help" like a fish needs a bicycle!


AEI smears Al using Lyle Stuart
Posted: Dec 13 2005, 09:35 PM


Also note, that Lyle also implies that somehow Ellis is paranoid, fearful of enemies trying to destroy him. This one sounds like it was thought up by Broder.
Again, its trying to smear Al by making it sound like something is wrong with his thinking. Broder has been trying this since day one, and now Rory Stuart and Lyle Stuart are getting in on the act.
Think of how diabolical it is, to try and smear one of the greatest psychologists of the 20th Century with this type of nonsense. You can't go any lower or nastier than that. Psychologists like Broder, who are using their professional skills to wreak havoc on others in the public sphere. Notice also, that Broder/Lyle Stuart walk that fine line between innuendo and accusation. Truly despicable.

The facts are that Al is thinking perfectly clearly. There is a small group of people working together to steal the AEI away from Al. That is a fact, its not a paranoia.
Al has written and presented with wonderful clarity recently.

Never in my life have I seen psychologists like Broder, McMahon, Vernon, behave in such a despicable manner. To try and tar someone as "not being there", amounts to using psychology for beyond unethical purposes. To use a psycholigical bully pulpit to try and smear someone, by saying something is wrong with their thinking and mind, is the most profound violation of the ethics of the profession one can think of. Broder, McMahon, Vernon, and any other psychologists doing this have destroyed their own careers by doing this.
Then you have Lyle Stuart and Rory Stuart parroting this nonsense, in direct contradiction to the facts.

All of those psychologist board members who have tried to smear Al like this, have completely destroyed their own professional careers and reputations.
Sadly, we are dealing with some seriously beyond unethical psychologists here, who are not only behaving unethically but illegally, who are more than eager to use their professional skills as a weapon against people.
Albert Ellis Replies to Lyle
Posted: Dec 22 2005, 12:09 AM


December 16, 2005

Dear Lyle—

I am responding to your letter in response to Ed Garcia, Bill Knaus, and Jon Geis, and to clarify some of the misstatements that you made. While I appreciate that you want to try to set some matters straight, I didn’t exactly appreciate your sarcastic tone. I also want you to know that I regard both you and your son, Rory, as people of good will, and that Rory does not merit being placed in the same category as “the Gang of Three”—who act out of a combination of stupidity, greed and avarice. So I don’t put him with them to make the “Gang of Four.” At worst, he (and apparently you) have been taken in by Broder and McMahon ( along with their lawyer Mr Kurtz). I fully believe that your intentions are good and you and Rory are not to be reviled. So it is a great shame that your two are gullible enough to trust highly untrustworthy people like Broder and McMahon. Your gullibility, however, does not approach their perfidy. So while I don’t believe that Rory is as malicious as the rest, he has certainly contributed to letting down the cause of REBT, the Albert Ellis Institute and fundamental justice.

In any event, let me try to clear up some of the misconceptions you expressed in your letter to Garcia, Knaus, and Geis, which are misleading.

1. You claim that I am not interested in settling.

Fact : That is categorically untrue. I have offered mediation repeatedly, and I have negotiated in good faith for the past year. The issues that have always mattered most to me are the lifestyle and civil rights issues. The money can be worked out. It is a bald lie that I ever asked for $4 million. I have never requested anything approaching that amount.

2. You say that I requested your election to the Board of Trustees of the Albert Ellis Institute as long ago as last January

Fact: Yes, I did request it a year ago because at that time I believed in your fairness and support of REBT and civil rights. I did not realize that your decision to protect Rory at all costs included prejudice against my fight for freedom from Institute domination. I now see that you are prejudiced against my cause, just as Rory partly is, and that it is dubious if your presence on the Board will solve anything. If it will, fine! But, like Rory, you still fail to see through the perfidy of Broder-McMahon-Doyle. Please open your eyes!—as hundreds of my supporters have done.

3. You said that “as recently as two weeks ago Debbie Joffe spent time on the phone trying to persuade me to accept” being elected to the Board. This is false. She obviously listened to you telling her that you did so, but for the last few months both she and I believed that your being on the Board could only be inviting conflict of interests because of the strange decisions that Rory has been making. Months ago she said to you that being on the Board in the current situation would be most difficult—being between your own flesh and blood, Rory, and your good friend, me.

4. You say you have never met Kurtz, Broder, McMahon, or Ann Vernon.

Fact: Correct as far as I know. But you know as well as I do that they have spread many lies about me and Debbie Joffe, obviously have not the skepticism to see through them, and are quite prejudiced (like Rory is) in favor of their lies.

5. You think it outrageous that the Institute is paying Kurtz (its lawyer) and Bob Juceam (my lawyer) many thousands of dollars to accomplish nothing visible to you.

Fact: You are partly right because Bob Juceam has pushed ahead for a settlement between me and the Institute for well over a year, but Kurtz (in collaboration with Broder and McMahon) has consistently blocked it and lied outrageously about what my demands are. My main “demand” is not money but freedom from oppression of my and Debbie’s constitutional civic rights and the return of me and REBT to the Institute. Every proposed agreement that Kurtz has offered to bob Juceam has included our continued oppression and very restricted freedom. You, a devotee of freedom of rights over many years, completely neglect this crucial issue and, as a Board member, may continue to do so. Ann Vernon has supported Board members Broder and McMahon in suppressing my and Debbie Joffe’s civil rights, and Rory has passively agreed to this suppression.

6. You say that I put Broder on the Board, made him director, and approved his hourly pay rate.

Fact: No, the Board voted to add him to the Board, made him director, and set his hourly pay rate. I merely went along with it, because Broder had quite a good record as head of the Philadelphia Institute and at that time, I thought, practicing REBT. I only wanted him as temporary Executive Director, until we could find a permanent ED who was not a psychotherapist. He was explicitly hired as a “part time” and “temporary” ED. It is outrageous that he earned nearly $500,000 between 2004 and 2005. If he started working those kinds of hours, he and the Board should have changed how he got paid. And they say I took excess benefits while lying in a hospital bed!

7. You say that I and the Board did nothing about someone’s embezzling half a million dollars to me. What is this embezzlement? Who did it? When? Dan Kurtz has repeatedly told Bob Juceam there is NO – NONE – allegation of theft, embezzlement or looting – words Dan first apparently intimated to the NY Post, and apparently repeated elsewhere, but now has fully retracted. I want to call any embezzler to account. What are the facts? If there were such embezzlement, why have not the police or FBI been called, or people sued to recover from any such embezzlement?

This rallying cry born of false light – you surely understand false light, Lyle – had better end and your and other’s who have intimated I am involved in any way or knowingly benefitted in any way had better show me and Bob Juceam the basis for the characterization. By the way, where was the Treasurer in all of this? Why did the AEI accountants quit in 2004? Why did the AEI accountants not get a letter answering their criticisms of the books and records in 2004? I, for one, in 2004 never wrote checks, never authorized unauthorized disbursements, never supervised or instructed the accountants and book keepers and never – not once, knowingly had done anything to the detriment of AEI’s finances or assets.

I cannot believe in the real world, rather than in the spin, AEI would lose its status if there were embezzlement and AEI took immediate steps to rectify the situation and recover the funds. That scare is blatant nonsense. Even if the threat of loss of status ( only Kurtz makes it) has some virtue, why focus on me and not the whole Board as failing. And , maybe the AEI should lose its status if run by an incompetent Board that cannot deal with a claimed embezzlement.

8. You said that when you questioned me about the lump sum I received in 2004, I said it was due me in 2002.

Fact: I said it was part payment on the money for my nurses that was due me in future years, as partial recompense for my doing many workshops for years in spite of my chronic diarrhea which led to my large intestine’s removal and my having to wear an ostomy bag and have two nurses for the rest of my life.

9. You said that the Board was about to evict me from my 6th floor apartment and had put the building up for sale.

Fact: No! The Board was okay in this respect but Broder and McMahon were trying, behind the Board’s back, to sell the building and perhaps evict me. Rory, I would say, would have been definitely against the sale or mortgage of the building if it ever came to the Board’s voting on this. My lawyers found this out when Kurtz, who is Broder and McMahon’s lawyer, told my lawyers about the plan to sell the building. They had done a full appraisal of the building, and they wanted to buy me out as part of the plan. This is when they offered me $2.8 million to disappear and go start my own Institute ( again) at age 92.

10. You said that I and Debbie Joffe had proof of the proposed sale of the building but wouldn’t discuss it with you. We wouldn’t discuss it because this issue hadn’t even been discussed with the Board at that time.

See above, there was a discussion between my lawyers and Kurtz where he told them about the plan and shared his appraisal for the building with them. If he denies that this was discussed, he is a liar.

11. You said that two psychologists disapproved of my boasting in the New York Magazine article that I slept with former patients.

Fact: I at no time “boasted” to any journalist that I slept with former patients. The journalist chose to put that line in. Any involvement with ex-clients was years after the termination of our therapeutic relationship. The “dead dead dead” comment was quoted out of context, and was spoken by me in my style of humor that you, Lyle, know very well. Regarding the “soap opera” about the medication: For years the receptionist has accepted such deliveries—whether I was there “to sign for it” or not. Who un-authorized this? The manager of the pharmacy confirmed that NO (absolutely no) arrangements were made by the receptionist for redelivery. And finally, Debbie never gave the receptionist a hard time.

12. You say that all Board members, except “Emmett the Slime” should remain because they are conscientious.

Fact: Only Emmett, Debbie Steinberg, and Rory are conscientious. Broder and McMahon continually lie and act viciously. Broder is exceptionally incompetent; and Ann Vernon is weekly taken in by the lies and vilifying of Broder-McMahon-Doyle. Quite a Board!

13. You say that all the Board members “all want to do everything they can for Al.”

Fact: Broder, McMahon, and Ann Vernon have for well over a year done everything possible to get rid of me; and the first two have lied against me and vilified me continually. Rory went along with them. They will do everything they can to fabricate my feebleness in my old age and to intimidate the personnel of the Institute in restricting and being mean to me and my wife, Debbie.

14. You quote several negative things about me by “Emmett the Slime.”

Fact: You forget that Emmett said these things many months ago, when he was still taken in by the lies of Broder-McMahon-Doyle. But in the last half year he has recanted and apologized for his past position on me and Debbie, and now, with Debbie Steinberg, is our and REBT’s staunch supporter.

As you say, I could add another ten pages to this list of distortions about me and my wife, Debbie, but enough already. I still say that you have a fine record as a defender of free speech and human rights. And I still thank you for the great friendship and support you have given me since 1956. A long time and a great friendship! Now, to say the least, somewhat tarnished!

I admire your support for Rory. But he is gullible—and perhaps got some of his gullibility from you! Anyway, he has it; and I hope this letter shows that it often leads both of you astray. I wish you will see your gullibility and change it. But, of course, you don’t have to. To your other fine traits, try to add some realistic skepticism.

Lastly, I propose that you sit down with me and my lawyers and discuss ways to get out of this quagmire. While I can discuss psychology, philosophy, music and art with you until the cows come home, I have no intention of learning a lot about the tax laws – I have better things to do. My lawyers can speak for me on these matters, and I authorize them to do so. But I want you to hear both sides. I don’t want you to be shut off from reason like other members of the Board. I want you to open up your ears and listen to what Bob Juceam has to say about these matters. As I have said from the beginning, I am willing to mediate, and I will not accept a penny that I am not entitled to under the law.
Posted: Dec 22 2005, 07:19 PM


I am struck by the graciousness of Al's response to Lyle Stuart and the kindliness of his attitude toward Rory.

Al's response encompasses total acceptance of his old friend, while letting it be known that he did not like some of Lyle's behaviors. That's REBT in action. Al also understands, accepts and honors the father-son bond between Lyle and Rory.

Al's letter makes it clear that this is not an either/or situation, where Lyle is forced into a position of choosing his son or his old friend. It's a both/and situation, where Lyle can choose to help and support both Rory and Al. Again, that's an excellent example of REBT in action.

We seldom have to cling to the irrational belief that we have only one choice in life. For the last two and a half months, Dr. Broder and the board have been stating and restating that there was only one choice. That's been proven false. Their either/or behavior demonstrates vividly that they are NOT the right people to trust with the future of REBT.

I hope Lyle will accept Al's invitation to sit down with Al's lawyers in order to get the other side of the story -- the story Broder, McMahon, and Kurtz have withheld from him and Rory.


Posted: Jan 18 2006, 12:17 AM


This is utterly ridiculous. There are a lot of people, including me, who have a lot of respect for what Dr. Albert Ellis founded, and will never step foot in the center he founded until this is resolved.

This is so shameful, and possibly illustrates the Board's problems with ageism.

Posted: Jan 18 2006, 12:27 AM


One last thing, it is very ironic that Dr. Ellis talked about crooked thinking, and how you should consider the source before accepting what others say. To think that people who attend the REBT in homage of what Dr. Ellis founded, will have to work with people who helped to create and perpetuate this division, is totally ironic. If you can't get your working family together, what makes you feel you are experts in doling out advice?

Dr. have meant a lot to me over the years, and I am sorry that at this stage you have to go through this. But this is brought by small minded people who will never have your dedication and passion for your craft.

I remember how you told of a renown psychoanalyst who refused his pain medication, in order to complete his last book or study. I hope you can use your REBT to still be the shining light of rational behavior that so many of us gained from you.

Take care in knowing that you reached many people, like me, who are living productive lives and thanking you each day for it.

Posted: Jan 22 2006, 08:31 AM


I have seen this kind of "takeover" (and that's exactly what this is) in the past in other organisations. From reading everything everyone has written on all accounts, it seems obvious to me those that have taken control of the institute are acting in bad faith, although they would say anything to convince us otherwise.

I have seen this kind of behaviour before: the mudslinging, the character attacks, the misinformation, the trumping up of accusations to make unjust actions seem just. It is so obvious to most people who look at the situation that the arguments against Ellis don't add up.

Let us look at one such accusation. Supposedly the institute would lose their tax-exempt status, and therefore Ellis is threatening the institute. What a load of horse****. That's the kind of argument people use when they're trying to manipulate others into accepting drastic, senseless and confusing actions. All they really had was the "possibility" that they "could" lose their status. So, it wasn't a "real" problem (such as a letter from the IRS saying so); it was a potential problem, much like the potential problem that an asteroid might crash into the earth and everyone dies. They exagerrated the consequences and probability of Ellis' "threat" to the institute and try to drum up fear and a sense of desperation in their spin, as if they had "no choice". Sure, they had other choices, but this is the one they wanted, and they want to bend all facts to it - which never really works, because people will always think up logical and reasonable alternatives (which of course, Border & co. don't want). This is the same kind of misinformation that fascists and totalitarian societies spew out to keep their citizens confused and passive. It may work for a time, but not forever.

What a crock. Even if what they (Broder & others) are saying is true, and not some trumped-up baloney, I could see much more reasonable and humane ways of treating Ellis. This is so obviously a way to boot Ellis out, take the institute and try to spin it as if there was no other choice.

It's so obviously a sham. I hope they get what's coming to them.
Posted: Jan 22 2006, 09:43 AM


Hi Nathan,
That was a very good statement overall, and I applaud you for your clear thinking. However, even in your presentation the "dire consequences" are somewhat exaggerated. You said:

"All they really had was the "possibility" that they "could" lose their status. So, it wasn't a "real" problem (such as a letter from the IRS saying so); it was a potential problem, much like the potential problem that an asteroid might crash into the earth and everyone dies. They exagerrated the consequences and probability of Ellis' "threat" to the institute and try to drum up fear and a sense of desperation in their spin, as if they had "no choice". Sure, they had other choices, but this is the one they wanted, and they want to bend all facts to it - which never really works, because people will always think up logical and reasonable alternatives (which of course, Border & co. don't want)."

Even the "possibility that they could lose their (tax exempt) status" is an exaggeration. Actually, in my view, having looked at the IRS rules several time, all that would have happened - at worse - if Broder and McMahon refused to go to the IRS and sort the mess out, which was doable! - would have been that 2004 would have been considered TAXABLE. 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 would have been checked to see if there were any breaches of the "excess benefit" rules, and if there had been, those years could also would have BEEN TAXABLE. This would say nothing about 2005 and beyond. It was never about PERMANENTLY LOSING TAX EXEMPT STATUS!!! And in any event, all that had really happened was that, in 2004, Dr Ellis's nursing costs were covered by the AEI. Instead of attributing this as "remuneration" to Dr Ellis, which attracts tax, by the Institute and by Dr Ellis, it was recorded as "expenses". This is an administrtive srew-up, which can be fixed by going to the IRS, explaining the facts, and resubmitting the From 990 again, correctly!

So thanks Nathan for clarifying this general issue, and providing me with an opportunity to further clarify it to show just how minor was the problem that Broder and McMahon used to "justify" (or "excuse") their illegal and unethical removal of Dr Ellis from the board of his own Institute.

Thanks again, Your logical mind is refreshing!

Posted: Mar 29 2006, 12:06 AM


Daniel Kurtz is a pathetic little man. He makes a living being a pathetic little man at Holland & Knight. This whole ordeal seems to have been orchestrated by a pathetic little man.
Posted: Mar 29 2006, 12:27 AM


QUOTE (Guest @ Mar 29 2006, 12:06 AM)
Daniel Kurtz is a pathetic little man. He makes a living being a pathetic little man at Holland & Knight. This whole ordeal seems to have been orchestrated by a pathetic little man.

We all know who is probably making this post.
Who from the AEI has been trying to pin this on Daniel Kurtz?
Lyle Stuart is the one who has been trying to falsely blame this on Daniel Kurtz.
Daniel Kurtz has nothing to do with it. All he did was try to do what Mike Broder, James McMahon and Rory Stuart told him to do.

Daniel Kurtz even set up the idea of 'Safe Harbor' but Broder and McMahon refused to look at it.
Don't be tricked by guys like Lyle Stuart who try to blame Daniel Kurtz for what happened. Daniel Kurtz is a lawyer, who simply does what his clients instruct him to do. That is what he is bound legally to do.
They are trying to blame Kurtz, as they think then that will take the heat off Broder and McMahon, and now Lyle Stuart.

No one is going to believe that. But I bet Daniel Kurtz might be interested that some insiders from the AEI are trying to smear him, and blame him, and damage his reputation.

Epictetus II
Posted: Mar 29 2006, 09:27 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 109
Member No.: 2
Joined: 27-October 05


I believe you are absolutely right about this. This is Lyle Stuart, trying to blame Daniel Kurtz for a coup that was plotted by Broder, McMahon and Little Rory (Stuart) - Daddy's Boy!

Albert Ellis is suing Rory Stuart for his illegal actions, and Daddy wants to keep the little fella safe. So let's blame Kurtz. After all, that is just one more little lie, and nothing like the serious lies they have told so far. What's a little lie in a battle to have one's own way?

But nobody is ever going to believe that Kurz, a lawyer hired by Broder and McMahon for his expertise in getting rid of organizational founders (!), came into the AEI and told them what to do, and misled them into doing some immoral and illegal things!

Grow up Lyle. You and Rory (and Broder and McMahon) are going to have to stand naked before the law, and account for every immoral, unethical and illegal act against Albert Ellis and his Institute. You will be brought to account!

Roll on the day of judgement!
Best wishes,

Posted: Mar 29 2006, 12:29 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 59
Member No.: 37
Joined: 13-March 06

Where is the AEI in-house Ethics Committee in all of this? I think they've only been mentioned once on this Forum, in one of the Steinberg/Velten Minority Reports (when it was said that Broder bypassed the Ethics Committee to suspend Dr Ellis).

I would like to hear their opinion about the moral leadership of the current President of the Albert Ellis Institute, Mr Lyle Stuart. Is it OK with them if he lies and smears in all directions? Do they have no concerns about his messages to the public ("you are in dire need of therapy or a good blow job" etc), his spreading of disinformation under a variety of aliases, and his direct conflicts-of-interest?

Posted: Mar 29 2006, 11:59 PM


I wonder who is on this alleged AEI Ethics Committee?
See-no-evil, hear-no-evil, and say-nothing-at-all?

Let me guess, are they related to Rory Stuart, or business partners with James McMahon in Romania?

It would be good to know who they are.
Since its a non-profit, they probably have to publicize who they are.
Posted: Apr 25 2006, 06:55 PM


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 47
Joined: 25-April 06

I am a 50 year old woman who, many years ago, benefitted from RET and Dr. Ellis's cognitive behavioral approach to therapy. I am forever grateful for the opportunity. Dr. Ellis is a giant in his field.
I have recently read articles in the national media about the conflict between Dr. Ellis and the board. From everything I have read this is a very sad situation, made even sadder by the indescribable actions of the board.
It is unconscionable that the very people (the board) who profess to believe in what Dr. Ellis has built over a life-time, now appear to be operating under the motives of greed, turf-building and maliciousness.
It is even more tragic that people are calling each other names and acting in very hurtful ways; and this pertains also to those who are posting messages in support of Dr. Ellis.
It seems to me, if you are a professional in the field of psychology and have dedicated your life to it's advancement, you would act in ethical and positive ways. I wish Dr. Ellis all the best and I hope the board members realize that their position is due to a genius in the mental health field. This is his institute, not theirs.
Dr. Albert Ellis--don't give up. Keep fighting.
Posted: Apr 25 2006, 08:28 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 247
Member No.: 17
Joined: 8-December 05

It's wonderful news that you were helped by Dr. Ellis and that you're encouraging folks to keep up the fight.

Just for the record: This is a message board open to the public. It was set up by Dr. Ellis' fans after AEI closed its message board to the public.

It is not run by psychological professionals nor is it meant to be a meeting place for psychological professionals. It is a place for fans of Albert Ellis and REBT to offer their support.

There have been a number of posts recently that mistakenly identified this as a message board for psychological professionals or mistakenly identified fans of REBT and Albert Ellis as psychologists. It's an easy mistake to make if one does not know this board was created by fans.

AEI, however, is a psychotherapy Institute and a meeting place for psychologists.

I do hope you have written the AEI board of trustees, especially Lyle Stuart, and given them your opinion about name-calling and an ethical and more positive approach.

Lyle is not a psychologist, but he is president of AEI. Ann Vernon, Micheal Broder and James McMahon are psychologists. I hope you will send them this message:

It seems to me, if you are a professional in the field of psychology and have dedicated your life to it's advancement, you would act in ethical and positive ways.

Thank you for sharing your story about how Al and RET helped you.
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now

Topic OptionsPages: (2) 1 [2] 

Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1492 seconds · Archive