I don't know that Paula's feeling about little mz Hawley have been common knowledge - but it is well enough known among the Trekkers.
Also well know in this group, are Paula's feelings about the referral business - and her objections to Susan being in such a business.
Thus the wide spread shock to see her affiliated with PURE so intimately she would have such an email address:
For More Information Contact:
Paula Reeves, Esq.
Paula@helpyourteens.com 954-349-7260
I noticed this has been changed - but it WAS there.
About this Reeves rant on cafty's forum: Re:Paula Reeves :TRANQUILITY BAY STEVEN, LAYNE, DA - 2006/05/15
Quote from Paula:
"No one threatened your friend Karen or anyone else. There were persons who, knowingly or unknowingly, were illegally downloading information and placing victims at risk. I also contacted Isabelle and Kat. Ask them if they were threatened by me. Ridiculous!"
Paula - You have no business bringing me into the frey over on Cafty. I'm not registered over there, I don't post, and I having nothing to do with your problems on that forum. As for the statement you made no threats, You'r a liar Paula. Shall I prove it? I think most anyone would read what you wrote to me as a threat.
And about this, from the same post on Cafty:
"I dont refer children to programs, I do not work for Sue in any capacity, I never have, and I disagree with the unregulated practice of referring children to programs. One of your blogger friends will confirm this. Ask her the one who claims I threatened her. Your blogger friend, however, was 100 percent behind Sue in making referrals until recently. She was at Sues trial in Utah in 2004 to support Sue and watch the trial. I was there too, but it is not I who changed my position on referrals, Dan. Some of your blogger friends, however, changed their positions. Sue and I agree to disagree."
Are you talking about me when you say "Blogger friend"? Do you know what a blog is? I am not a blogger. Posting on forums is Not blogging Paula. Forum posting involves a dialog with others; blogging does not. Furthermore, If your trying to say I was EVER behind Susan making referrals, you are a Damned Liar.
I Never thought what she was doing was ethical; and I Never referred a single family to PURE. I didn't argue with her about it, but I didn't support it - and my lack of support for her constant efforts to meld the interests of the Trekkers & PURE, resulted my leaving the list serve. Do you not recall? Shall I prove That? You might want to confer with Susan before you answer.
I was in Utah for multiple reasons, one of which was to "support my friend Sue". This is not the same as to supporting PURE. This was always a source of friction between she and I. I have not changed my position on the ethics of PURE. I changed my position on Susan's motivation. Being an attorney, I'd think you'd see the difference more clearly.
Susan and I also agreed to disagree - until the Whitmore situation came to light. She would not agree to disagree at that point - and She attacked me. (and ISAC) Up to that point, I had been concerned for her, and hoping she would see reason and act responsibly. Up to then, all my efforts had been out of concern for her integrity and welfare. But after I saw how she was responding, I knew I had been wrong, all along. Her actions proved It was impossible that her motivation was the welfare of the teens. So, I changed my mind about her Motivation, Paula; not PURE's ethics. I always knew PURE was operated in an unethical manner. You and I, and John and Nancy as well as Lee, had all talked about it - privately, off the list - so as not to upset her majesty. Have you forgotten?
That you, and the rest of the Trekkers, still support Sue/PURE (because clearly the two can not be separated) after all that has come to light in that situation, is shocking to me. That Knowing what you know, you would go so far as to associate yourself with PURE, as you have done, is just mind blowing.
And this:
"Your fellow bloggers have late-blooming, sudden insight syndrome (SIS). They have since tried to blog Sue to death. Even though I disagree with the referral business, I do not feel Sue deserves this almost daily ritual of pummeling. It is a fatuous and absurd activity. Frankly, Blogger-Dan, I really dont care if you like the fact that I feel this way, nor do I care what your fellow bloggers feel about how I feel. If I were in a business with Sue, I would ADMIT it. If I agreed with Sue on referrals, I would ADMIT it. I will communicate with whomever I choose and neither you, nor anyone else, will in any manner whatsoever intimidate me from associating with Ms. Scheff, or anyone else, in the manner I so choose."
Yes, it was a sudden insight. At least we didn't then turn blind eyes away. We looked into the glair with open eyes, and with a great sense of sadness and disappointment faced the facts - Susan was not concerned about the welfare of the teens; and would use every tactic learned from Teen Help to discredit her critics and dismiss the very real and legitimate complaints of the families.
Whats absurd about pointing this out? Isn't this what a Child rights & Protection advocate should do?
And if you were not "in business" with PURE, why did you have a help your teen email address? Whats up with that shit Paula?
Of corse you may associate and communicate with anyone you please. No one, that I can tell, would try and suggest otherwise. But its odd, this marriage between a child protection advocate, and a referral agency that has a trac record of callous disregard for the teens it places. People are going to raise eyebrows, and people are going to talk. People are going to wonder why.
CAFTY posters - feel free to copy paste this responce.
