TEEN ADVOCATES USA / ISAC

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-25 21:58:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-06-25 21:43:00, Anonymous wrote:


"Izzy's statements should be interesting IF or WHEN Sue Scheff is deposed in EITHER the Whitmore criminal or civil case. Sue Scheff's close connection to each of the children in both cases MAY be of interest to all parties, since she is directly responsible for the enrollment of most, if not ALL the children.


Based on Sue Scheff's depositions in the WWASP vs PURE case, things could get interesting, IF she is deposed in EITHER case. Not saying she will be; but she appears to be a major player."

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:


You have clearly never met Izzie, or listened to her odd, rambling diatribes. I wouldn't have her testify for me if she was the only witness alive. The CAICA website closed down for months because everyone who initially signed on discovered she was eccentric, to put it mildly.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-26 08:13:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-06-25 21:58:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

On 2006-06-25 21:43:00, Anonymous wrote:



"Izzy's statements should be interesting IF or WHEN Sue Scheff is deposed in EITHER the Whitmore criminal or civil case. Sue Scheff's close connection to each of the children in both cases MAY be of interest to all parties, since she is directly responsible for the enrollment of most, if not ALL the children.



Based on Sue Scheff's depositions in the WWASP vs PURE case, things could get interesting, IF she is deposed in EITHER case. Not saying she will be; but she appears to be a major player."

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:





You have clearly never met Izzie, or listened to her odd, rambling diatribes. I wouldn't have her testify for me if she was the only witness alive. The CAICA website closed down for months because everyone who initially signed on discovered she was eccentric, to put it mildly."

What do you mean "signed on"?  Does this have something to do with the CAICA Non-Profit Board of Directors that was mentioned in that article about Spring Creek Lodge?

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-26 08:50:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2006-06-26 08:13:00, Anonymous wrote:


"

On 2006-06-25 21:58:00, Anonymous wrote:



"

On 2006-06-25 21:43:00, Anonymous wrote:




"Izzy's statements should be interesting IF or WHEN Sue Scheff is deposed in EITHER the Whitmore criminal or civil case. Sue Scheff's close connection to each of the children in both cases MAY be of interest to all parties, since she is directly responsible for the enrollment of most, if not ALL the children.




Based on Sue Scheff's depositions in the WWASP vs PURE case, things could get interesting, IF she is deposed in EITHER case. Not saying she will be; but she appears to be a major player."

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:








You have clearly never met Izzie, or listened to her odd, rambling diatribes. I wouldn't have her testify for me if she was the only witness alive. The CAICA website closed down for months because everyone who initially signed on discovered she was eccentric, to put it mildly."

What do you mean "signed on"?  Does this have something to do with the CAICA Non-Profit Board of Directors that was mentioned in that article about Spring Creek Lodge?"

Groups like the Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse (CAICA) and the International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC) are working on community awareness and outreach to educate parents, legislators, and legal and health professionals on the tactics used by teen programs.

Sen. Trudi Schmidt now sits on the board of directors for the newly formed CAICA.

http://www.caica.org/NEWS%20SCL%20Short ... -16-05.htm

[Anonymous]

There would be no reason for Izzy to be a witness in any case. But her "statments" about PURE might be interesting IF or WHEN Sue Scheff MIGHT (or MIGHT NOT) be deposed in the Whitmore cases. Could be a way for Izzy to learn a few things about this business, and how things could possibly work when certain people start changing alliances.

[MomCat]

On 2006-06-25 18:17:00, Joyce Harris wrote:

"I don't know anything personally about what ISAC or TAUSA posts on their websites.

But, I would like to know why Isabelle at CAICA lied and said I requested that she remove Whitmore from CAICA.

Isabelle claims to be a child advocate, and I believe any true child advocate would want the public to be aware that the owner of Whitmore Academy has been charged with criminal child abuse and is facing a criminal trial for abusing 4 children in September 2006.

This issue at Whitmore has nothing to do with ISAC or TAUSA.

I would like for Isablelle to answer thses direct question: Why isn't Whitmore Academy on her Watchlist at CAICA? Why doesn't Isabelle do the RIGHT thing and let the public know that Whitmore Academy's owner, Cheryl Sudweeks is facing a criminal trial in September?"

Hi Joyce,

While I'm here tonight I will address you - one time. I have not lied about why I took the Whitmore off my site. It is plain and very simple, and anyone who has bothered to ask has heard the same thing. You wrote me very annoying e-mails and I began to feel that I was being harrassed by you and asked that you stop. You finally did. One thing you said - you insisted I not post anything on my site with your daughter's name on it. I discussed this with several laywers and with board members, and we all agreed it was not worth having anything on the site that had to do with you or the Whitmore.

The Whitmore, as far as I know, is closed and there are no children there. I think that people need to stop obsessing about this - there is a trial coming up and things will get resolved there. There are so many other things everyone should be focused on right now, I just don't see how people have all this time to spend fixated on this one issue.

Anyway, this is it for me. I have things to do and do not want to engage in this madness.

Isabelle

[Anonymous]

Isabelle,

I told you: IF you published ANY COURT RECORDS regarding the Whitmore civil or criminal cases, that I did not want you to publish my minor daughter's name."  That is all I requested from you.
You did state to people that I requested that you remove Whitmore from your website. If you do not remember stating this, I accept that you do not remember.
I DO NOT consider our exchange of emails to be harrassing in any manner. I accept that you may view my "correcting you" as not being pleasant; but "harrassment" is a legal term; and I in no way harrassed you. I merely documented to you that the people who you said "published the names of minor children on court documents; had answered my emails---and had informed me that they DID NOT publish the names of minor children without the parent's permission."

So, again, you have publicly accused me of harrassing you--when I did not such thing. I have stated, and restated what happened in our exchange of emails: It was as simple as I have stated it. You requested court documents from me; and I refused to supply them to you, stating my reason: I disapprove of your policy of posting minor children's names on court documents..  I did not harrass you; and you should not continue to say I did.

You have accused me publicly, and I believe I deserve a public apology. That seems only fair.

I want you to check your facts about "the Whitmore being closed, and there being no children there." Your source does not seem to be reliable.

You are correct: The Whitmore cases--both the criminal and civil cases, will be decided in the court systems. And, the public will continue to be made AWARE, with or without the assistance of CAICA.

You own CAICA, and you have the right to choose to support the Whitmore parents and their abused children, or not. Your decision really has nothing to do with me: my family is not a part of the criminal OR civil cases against the Sudweeks or Whitmore Academy.

You are correct: it is "madness." Child abuse usually is.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-27 22:06:00, MomCat wrote:

"

On 2006-06-25 18:17:00, Joyce Harris wrote:


"I don't know anything personally about what ISAC or TAUSA posts on their websites.


But, I would like to know why Isabelle at CAICA lied and said I requested that she remove Whitmore from CAICA.


Isabelle claims to be a child advocate, and I believe any true child advocate would want the public to be aware that the owner of Whitmore Academy has been charged with criminal child abuse and is facing a criminal trial for abusing 4 children in September 2006.


This issue at Whitmore has nothing to do with ISAC or TAUSA.


I would like for Isablelle to answer thses direct question: Why isn't Whitmore Academy on her Watchlist at CAICA? Why doesn't Isabelle do the RIGHT thing and let the public know that Whitmore Academy's owner, Cheryl Sudweeks is facing a criminal trial in September?"

Hi Joyce,



While I'm here tonight I will address you - one time. I have not lied about why I took the Whitmore off my site. It is plain and very simple, and anyone who has bothered to ask has heard the same thing. You wrote me very annoying e-mails and I began to feel that I was being harrassed by you and asked that you stop. You finally did. One thing you said - you insisted I not post anything on my site with your daughter's name on it. I discussed this with several laywers and with board members, and we all agreed it was not worth having anything on the site that had to do with you or the Whitmore.



The Whitmore, as far as I know, is closed and there are no children there. I think that people need to stop obsessing about this - there is a trial coming up and things will get resolved there. There are so many other things everyone should be focused on right now, I just don't see how people have all this time to spend fixated on this one issue.



Anyway, this is it for me. I have things to do and do not want to engage in this madness.



Isabelle"

Are you a 501 (c) corporation (non-profit)?  If so, who are your board members?  I don't think I have seen this on your website, just you and another lady named Kathy as being CAICA (see your disclaimer).

[Anonymous]

Izzy, why do you call the interest in the Whitmore criminal case an OBSESSION? Can you name ONE OTHER CRIMINAL CASE that is pending against a program owner?
The Whitmore case is critical, important. Surely you know that.

[Anonymous]

Sue and Paula told her those people were obsessing!

[Anonymous]

On 2006-06-27 23:00:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Izzy, why do you call the interest in the Whitmore criminal case an OBSESSION? Can you name ONE OTHER CRIMINAL CASE that is pending against a program owner?

The Whitmore case is critical, important. Surely you know that."

Sure is, but then again, Izzie is obsessing about people obsessing about things that matter not a whit to her.

 :rofl:

[Anonymous]

IZZY: You have all those other CLOSED programs on your watchlist on CAICA.
So, what if you say Whitmore is closed and has no kids there?  Why can't Whitmore be on the watchlist like all the other CLOSED programs you have on CAICA?
What's the difference?  HUH?

[Anonymous]

Thought the OP question was answered:
TAUSA doesn't post articles about WWASP because it is not a watchdog site, and it was verified that ISAC does have articles published about WWASP.
Are you referring to the ridiculous allegation that TAUSA and ISAC have "sold out to WWASP" like Carey Bock? Seems to just be a ridiculous allegation; especially on the part of ISAC, since Robert Litchfield-WWASP is actively suing WWASP.
ODD too, that CAICA has the lawsuit posted, when ISAC didn't choose to post this lawsuit on its own website.
Makes one wonder just who is asking such ridiculous questions, right?

[BuzzKill]

///WHY IS IT TEEN ADVOCATES AND ISAC HAVE NO recent articles, stories, current events, any information on the largest organization of alleged child abuse neglect parent fraud - WWASP and WWASPS?///


Barb does not deal with wwasp at all. She has her reasons. Her focus is different from that of say Fornits or ISAC or many others. Her site is beautifully done and very moving and I often refer others to it.

ISAC was at the Denver conference when all this news broke. Also - folks have lives, that must be lived.

If you have the time and inclination Anon - to be jhonny on the spot with every bit of news that comes out - by all means go for it. As I keep saying - the more the merrier. Or is this you IZZY - self promoting at others expense - again?

Suggesting anyone in either group is turning a blind eye is ridiculas in the extreme. Not worth debating. Anyone who could suggest such a thing is a trolling idiot.

[Dr Fucktard]

Anyone who could suggest such a thing is a trolling idiot.

I concur.

[Anonymous]

Buzz, whoever this was did more than "suggest." This person asked if TAUSA and ISAC had "sold out to WWASP just like Carey Bock?" That is way more than suggesting. That is downright vile, viocious.