« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Sue Scheff  (Read 10498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #45 on: June 25, 2005, 11:36:00 PM »
WHY UPSET ABOUT THE MONEY ISSUE AND SUE SCHEFF?
Someone else posted here that Sue Scheff doesn't get PAID!!!
Just pointing our from THE LADY'S own sworn testimony that SHE GETS PAID GRANDLY!
So, why try turning the tables and accuse the posters here of being all about money?
Why all the negative and misinformation about lawsuits?

AND who ever said that the owner of this forum asked for or received DONATIONS?
Just where do YOU get your information?

IT can not be posted that SUE SCHEFF refers kids to these programs OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF HER HEART, when SHE HERSELF testifies about her enormous fees that she charges and receives.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2005, 03:01:00 AM »
Wanna know what I think about programs who pay finder's fees to outfits like PURE?

::puke::
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #47 on: June 26, 2005, 12:45:00 PM »
Might could handle the programs paying Scheff and PURE to fill the beds with heads--but when the owners are being investigated for allegations of abuse---Scheff should have the good sense to not send any more kids to Whitmore until the issue is settled ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

And every parent that was referred there by PURE should get a PERSONAL disclosure from PURE about these allegations of abuse and the investigation in my opinion.

And once the owner is CHARGED with child abuse it is the opinion, FOR SURE Sue Scheff and Pure should back away from Whitmore.  Should Scheff  be helping the owners of Whitmore with their legal defense in any manner, if this is what is going on? Should Scheff and PURE continue to refer to Whitmore knowing the owner has been CHARGED with criminal child abuse?
What are the rules here?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #48 on: June 26, 2005, 11:45:00 PM »
ISAC watchlist:

Referral Agencies:

P.U.R.E. Inc.

http://isaccorp.org/watchlist.html

 :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:  :eek:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2005, 11:21:00 AM »
I know ISAC has been trying to be patient - wanting to give PURE every opportunity to issue a warning, that the situation at the Whitmore *might* not be as idyllic as they had before thought. No such sentiment has been expressed, despite the mounting evidence that they been mistaken in their judgment.
I personally feel ISAC waited longer than they should have - but I also understand the hope behind holding back.
Its been difficult for me to understand why Susan is so sure she knows the situation at Whitmore. Its not as if she can't be fooled. It's not as if she isn't well aware she is all to easily fooled. How is it that she can be so sure in this case? So sure that she feels safe in ignoring the persistent and consistent allegations coming from Whitmore alumni?
I can only think of one reason. And for that reason, I do think PURE bares watching.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2005, 12:20:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-06-27 08:21:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"I know ISAC has been trying to be patient - wanting to give PURE every opportunity to issue a warning, that the situation at the Whitmore *might* not be as idyllic as they had before thought. No such sentiment has been expressed, despite the mounting evidence that they been mistaken in their judgment.

I personally feel ISAC waited longer than they should have - but I also understand the hope behind holding back.

Its been difficult for me to understand why Susan is so sure she knows the situation at Whitmore. Its not as if she can't be fooled. It's not as if she isn't well aware she is all to easily fooled. How is it that she can be so sure in this case? So sure that she feels safe in ignoring the persistent and consistent allegations coming from Whitmore alumni?

I can only think of one reason. And for that reason, I do think PURE bares watching.

"


Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 :nworthy:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #51 on: June 27, 2005, 02:49:00 PM »
Buzzkill. It is beyond allegations.
Cheryl Sudweeks has been formally charged with 7 counts of child abuse against 4 children! The days of Scheff whining it's only allegations are far past.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #52 on: June 27, 2005, 02:53:00 PM »
I would argue it remains an alligation until conviction.
But I do get your point.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2005, 11:17:00 AM »
Take responsibility for your own decisisions no one can make a decision for my child but me sue and others can inform but the buck stops with me. Its the parents responsibility to decide for their child enough sue bashing how about personal accountability.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #54 on: June 28, 2005, 11:52:00 AM »
Personal accountablity: Sure. How about Cheryl Sudweeks taking personal accountablity for child abuse and save Juab County a bunch of money by pleading guilty for abusing those kids? That would be nice for her to take personal accountability.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #55 on: June 28, 2005, 11:59:00 AM »
Quote
On 2005-06-28 08:52:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Personal accountablity: Sure. How about Cheryl Sudweeks taking personal accountablity for child abuse and save Juab County a bunch of money by pleading guilty for abusing those kids? That would be nice for her to take personal accountability."


Yes, that would be an excellent example of being accountable.

Good point, Anon!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #56 on: June 28, 2005, 11:14:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-06-28 08:17:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Take responsibility for your own decisisions no one can make a decision for my child but me sue and others can inform but the buck stops with me. Its the parents responsibility to decide for their child enough sue bashing how about personal accountability."


BINGO!!!  

Well said!!!  There for a while I thought I was the only one who understood that point.  Now, I know there is at least one other "responsible" person speaking on this topic.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #57 on: June 28, 2005, 11:21:00 PM »
Would like to see Ms. Scheff show some accountability and disclose to all her REFERRED clients that the owner of Whitmore has been charged with child abuse. Who all received such a disclosure? ANYONE?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #58 on: June 28, 2005, 11:55:00 PM »
These Ed Consultants and Referral Agencies (like PURE) should err on the side of caution and SUSPEND all referrals to programs under investigation, particularly when charges have been filed and a trial is pending.

Those ed cons and referral agencies that do not suspend referrals should ask themselves what is the harm in erring on the side of caution?

After all, we aren't talking about toasters ... we are talking about children.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff
« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2005, 11:58:00 PM »
It harms her check book..that's what it harms.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
« previous next »