SUE SCHEFF and ISABELLE ZENDHER (PURE, CAICA, WWASP lawsuit)

[Anonymous]

Sure hope they supoena her sorry, lying ass.

[Anonymous]

Joyce--if your out there, do you know whats the deal with the Whitmore criminal case?  Or is Sue Scheff threatening to sue you also if you talk?  She talks about WWASP suing her bu t look at what Mrs. Scheff does to everyone.

This is what the world think of you Mrs. Scheff and your fake-O company       ::fuckoff::

[Anonymous]

California Boy:

Read under the Who Am I Discover thread:

Cheryl Sudweeks was given a "plea deal" and will not be standing trial in the criminal case.

You can also read other threads here on fornits, or go to the ISAC website, and read a letter that I received from Sue Scheff's attorney awhile back. When I received this letter from Scheff's attorney, I posted it on fornits and it was posted on ISAC.

Does Sue Scheff intend to sue me? I can't imagine what she would have to sue me about. You'd have to ask her this question.

Joyce Harris

[Anonymous]

From Nihilanthic:  "Pfft.

It got leaked out sue wanted to sue ME before."

Nihi:  What was Sue Scheff going to sue you for?

[Anonymous]

Man, if Scheff is involved in this many lawsuits, you just gotta wanna be this broad's attorney. Think of the $$$ this guy's gotta be making just keeping up with her. >>>>>

But we all know that Sue Scheff isn't in this for the money right?  She simply gets paid by well known concentration camps for children correct?  
If I remember correctly Carey Brock is a single parent raising twin boys.  Did Sue think Carey was going to whip out her check book and write her a check?  Sounds like Greedy Sue is getting big in this industry to.  I can only hope that all these lawsuits surrounding Sue brings karma into the picture.

[Anonymous]

Cary Brock got what she deserved for selling her hard drive to WWASP. She betrayed the trust from many people on the board. Hell i wanted to sue her too... I have PURE they are no better than WWASP, but PURE was right for suing Cary Brock.

[Anonymous]

More on scheff.   :roll: Hey good luck Mrs. Karma or should we just call ya "Little Mrs. Lichfield".  See how luckie mrs. sheff-lichfield is when a real laywer is on someones side.     :rofl:

QUOTE----
According to the Daily Business Review, Scheff also named Ginger Warbis as co-defendant.  Warbis, who runs a web site critical of Scheff, obtained a well-know lawyer who successfully defeated Scheff?s claims of defamation:  ?Warbis? lawyer, Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, New Jersey, sharply criticized Scheff and other people who refer parents to programs for troubled teens.  ?People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples,? Elberg said. ?Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents.??

The Daily Business Review, noting that Scheff and her business won effectively only by default, paraphrased Scheff?s attorney, stating, ?Bock was not present for the jury trial, which was held to determine damages only. . . .?

[Anonymous]

Sue Scheff and PURE Win Empty Victory over New Orleans Mom

International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC)
10/9/2006

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA (October 10, 2006) - On September 19, 2006, Parents Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE) and its founder, Sue Scheff of Weston, Florida won an $11.3 million dollar victory of hollow sorts over a single mom from New Orleans by alleging defamation over the Internet. Although it is doubtful the verdict will be collected, it may serve to chill free speech of those attempting to expose child abuse or untoward business practices.

The mom, Carey Bock, had publicly criticized the business practices of Scheff and PURE in referring children to allegedly abusive programs. Scheff met the mother?s complaints with a lawsuit reminiscent of one filed against Scheff in 2001.

The mom lacked the financial resources to defend herself or to attend her own trial in Florida. Before trial, Ms. Bock relocated her small family from the New Orleans area to Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This, however, did not stop Scheff and PURE from coming full-steam after the mom for alleged defamation and other claims. As a result, without the benefit of hearing the mom?s side of the story, a jury had little choice but to award the $11.3 million dollar verdict requested by the lawyer for Scheff and her company.

According to the Daily Business Review, Scheff also named Ginger Warbis as co-defendant. Warbis, who runs a web site critical of Scheff, obtained a well-known lawyer who successfully defeated Scheff?s claims of defamation: ?Warbis? lawyer, Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, New Jersey, sharply criticized Scheff and other people who refer parents to programs for troubled teens. ?People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples,? Elberg said. ?Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents.??

The Daily Business Review, noting that Scheff won effectively only by default, paraphrased Scheff?s attorney, stating, ?Bock was not present for the jury trial, which was held to determine damages only. . . .?

Ironically, a separate lawsuit had been filed in Utah against Scheff and PURE by the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP), containing similar allegations as those raised by Scheff against the New Orleans mom. Scheff lost all counter-claims against WWASP but was not found liable for claims of damage allegedly caused when Scheff posted Internet statements asserting child abuse by WWASP. Scheff admitted she used false names to do so. While her case pended, Scheff removed representations from her web site which falsely stated Scheff holds a college degree.

The recent Florida verdict also ignored abuse allegations at children?s programs to which Scheff refers families because the jury never heard the opposing evidence. The owner of one such program to which Scheff made referrals, Whitmore Academy, was initially charged with multiple counts of child abuse and hazing in connection with four children at the boarding school. The owner recently pled no contest to four counts of hazing, and was ordered to pay fines and complete community service. The prosecuting attorney told the Deseret News, ?I believe it effectively shuts them down in the state of Utah.? According to a September 2006 news article by the Deseret News, ?The former operator of a therapeutic school [Whitmore Academy] for troubled youths, who has been kicked out of Mexico and accused of starving horses in Canada, has agreed not to run another rehabilitation school in Juab County.?

The allegations of child abuse did not deter Scheff from referring children for a profitable sum of money. In a separate case, the United States Court of Appeals found that defendants PURE and Sue Scheff, "[C]ompete with the schools associated with World Wide. PURE schools pay Ms. Scheff a substantial sum whenever a child enrolls in its program based on her recommendation."

According to the non-profit International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC), Scheff and her company are on the ISAC ?watch list? for questionable practices that may place children at risk for abuse or neglect. ####

Shelby Earnshaw
Founder
International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC)
(540) 522-6231

www.isaccorp.org
Author of Recent Book

www.helpatanycost.com/
Michelle Sutton Death
michellesuttonmemorial.homestead.com/

Sources:
http://www.isaccorp.org/
http://www.helpatanycost.com/
http://www.isaccorp.org/referrals.asp
http://michellesuttonmemorial.homestead.com/
http://www.help-for-teen.com/
http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/home.html
http://www.wwaspinfo.com/
http://www.teenhelpindustry.info/
http://www.paulareeves.com/
http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/
http://www.kathymoya.com/index.html
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp ... &aId=19977
http://www.majon.com/advanced/pressrele ... eeves.html
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650192749,00.html

[Anonymous]

That "press release" issued by Scheff/Pure/Caica is something else; and just filled with unbelievable stuff.
One being that "the Whitmore has been in business 30 years."

The Sudweeks fled Canada when Mark Sudweeks was found guilty of severe animal abuse, and banned for life from owning animals in Canada, and fined over $100K:  Reginia vs Sudweeks  in 2001.

Then the Sudweeks were evicted from Mexico in Feb 2001 for illegally running a school in Mexico.

The Sudweeks applied for a permit in Nephi, Utah to open a treatment facility in April 2001-Whitmore Academy.

NOW how the heck do they add that to come up with 30 years??

[Anonymous]

Sue Scheff is Awarded $11.3 Million in Internet Defamation & Invasion of Privacy Claim in Jury Trial

October 8, 2006

The jury sends a strong message that freedom of speech has limits

Broward County, FL (October 8, 2006) ? The Internet can be as destructive as it can be useful. This case will make people think twice before setting out on a campaign to destroy others.

Sue Scheff?s attorney David Pollack stated, ?No good deed goes unpunished.? Sue Scheff has been a victim of Internet Defamation. After her daughter was abused and harmed at a teen help program (World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, WWASPS, Carolina Springs Academy), she set out to help others so they would not fall into the same trap.

WWASPS, a corporate giant, filed a lawsuit against Ms. Scheff in 2002 in an attempt to silence her. Ms. Scheff prevailed in a jury trial. WWASPS filed an appeal and again Ms. Scheff prevailed.

It is not often a person is awarded $11.3 million dollars from a jury of their peers. But in the case of Sue Scheff and her organization Parent?s Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE) v. Carey Bock, the jury felt compelled to send a very strong message ? which they have. Included in their $11.3 million dollar verdict, they awarded Sue Scheff and PURE $5 million in punitive damages. ?The punitive damages speak volumes,? says Scheff, ?it was set to punish the defendant for what she did to my children and me. Just because you don?t like someone or what they do, it does not give you carte blanche to post false statements about a person on the Internet.?

Since 2001 PURE and Sue Scheff have helped thousands of families providing various resources for their children as well as works closely with the Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse (CAICA). Isabelle Zehnder of CAICA, said ?you just can?t go around destroying people on the internet. The $11.3 million verdict should send a strong message.? She went on to say, ?We work closely together, our organizations complement each other. We are both against abuse but not against treatment ? there is a big difference.?

In the meantime, Carey Bock maliciously and intentionally started a campaign on an Internet forums against Sue Scheff and her organization, PURE. According to a witness during trial, Ms. Bock?s animosity towards Ms. Scheff had to do with the fact Sue Scheff would not disclose the name of a minor who was raped and Ms. Bock needed this child?s name for a potential documentary she would profit from. Ms. Bock lost that opportunity and went on a campaign to destroy Sue Scheff and PURE. Bock accepted $12,500.00 from WWASPS? attorney, the very organization she claimed harmed her two boys, and the organization that Sue Scheff successfully defeated in a jury trial in August 2004.

One of the witnesses testified Carey Bock was infuriated that Sue Scheff would not provide her with the information about the child. The jurors saw Ms. Bock?s e-mails and postings, one of which threatened: ?Sue, you are going down, I bet you are scared to death!?

With no other way to defend herself and her children, Ms. Scheff filed a lawsuit against Carey Bock and Ginger Warbis/Fornits Website in December 2003.

Ms. Bock was represented by Jan Atlas of Adorno and Yoss until June 2006 when Mr. Atlas withdrew as counsel, shortly after Ms. Bock was deposed and revealed the only reason she defamed and nearly destroyed Sue Scheff and her organization was simply because she didn?t like her. After Jan Atlas withdrew from the case, the Judge postponed the trial to give Ms. Bock ample time to find new counsel or represent herself. Obviously, Ms. Bock chose to ignore these options and did not even attend her own trial.

What is rather shocking is that after Sue Scheff was awarded $11.3 million because she was defamed and harmed on the Internet, and after the Daily Business Review reported this tremendous victory, a press release was submitted filled with false allegations and inaccuracies in an attempt to deflate this victory and to further harm Ms. Scheff. The inaccuracies are as follows:

? They claim Philip Elberg defeated Sue Scheff and PURE on behalf of his client, Ginger Warbis/Fornits.

The case was dismissed without prejudice - meaning it can be brought back to court on the same claim. It was the decision of Sue Scheff and her Attorney, David Pollack, to focus on one defendant. Philip Elberg won nothing from this case.

? They claim Sue Scheff filed a counter-suit against WWASPS that was dismissed.

They fail to say the case was dismissed on a jurisdictional issue, not on the merits of the case.

? They claim Sue Scheff refers children to abusive programs due to her referrals of children to the Whitmore Academy.

For over 30 years The Whitmore had a successful program with no allegations of abuse.

? They claim Cheryl Sudweeks, owner of the Whitmore Academy, pled guilty to specified charges in a Utah criminal court.

Cheryl did not admit any guilt. There was NO substantiated evidence against the Whitmore. The state admittedly had no case and agreed to a plea in abeyance. An article misstated facts and later corrected their mistakes, claiming Cheryl could never run a youth program in the county for the rest of her life. This is not true and they corrected their error.

? They assert Ms. Scheff makes money from the plight of frightened parents.

Ms. Scheff does not charge the parents for her services. To the contrary, Ms. Scheff is a parent and child advocate.

? They claim a Federal Judge told Ms. Scheff to remove misrepresentations from her website showing she had a college degree.

Ms. Scheff?s bio was written by a third-party. Within 24-hours she found the error and had it immediately corrected and removed; the Judge had nothing to do with it.

? They claim Sue Scheff won by default.

A jury of her peers reviewed evidence, deliberated for hours, and concluded her damages equaled $11.3 million dollars, $5 million of which were punitive.

? They claim the case had no merit.

This case had merit - it was defended for over 2 years - the facts spoke for themselves. The trial with a jury verdict of damages over $11.3 million sends a loud message. You can?t post lies and false statements about people simply because you don?t like them or what they do.

? They claim this was an empty and hollow victory.

A verdict of $11.3 million is far from empty or hollow. Whether is it collectible or not, the message is worth $11.3 million. Not all positive gains are weighed financially.

The press release dated October 6, 2006, was filled with inaccuracies and was obviously written to further discredit Sue Scheff and PURE.

After the trial was over, the jurors waited in the hall to meet with Ms. Scheff. They embraced her and told her that they wanted to send a message that people can?t use the Internet to invade a person?s privacy or to destroy lives. They encouraged Sue Scheff to continue her good work with children and families.

[Nihilanthic]

30 years? What? Id like to see some proof of that!

I also love the fib at the end with the emotional appeal  :rofl:

Shes really learned well from WWASPS, huh? I wonder when they WWASP-tards will realize theyre doing a great job of training people how to run thier own little programs and edcons!

[Anonymous]

Shelby dude you are powerful---whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Where the hell have you been???

I think our friend and hero, Philip Elberg, attorney at law, sums up SUE SCHEFF when he said "SUE SCHEFF IS SIMPLY ANOTHER PERSON IN THE INDUSTRY OF PEOPLE WHO MAKE MONEY FROM THE PLIGHT OF FRIGHTENED PARENTS."

?Warbis? lawyer, Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, New Jersey, sharply criticized Scheff and other people who refer parents to programs for troubled teens. ?People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples,? Elberg said. ?Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents.??

Nice try with your sorry rambling press release IZZY---but you are pathetic.  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:   ::bwahaha::

[Anonymous]

Hey Izzy--can you spin a yarn or what?  

"The jury sends a strong message that freedom of speech has limits"   Why dont ya sue us ya fat SueFool.   :rofl:  maybe someone will show up at trial and say "boo"

[Anonymous]

im thinking about making a website about PURE that tells the truth. so when parents reserching PURE on the internet will see the truth that they are no better than WWASP.

By the way SUE try to "SUE" me in court you will find i will show up in court with a team of lawyers working pro-bono and we will countersue you for maliciouse prosicution and we use your own money to pay for the cause.  

Not to mention how embarrising the depos will be for you........

[Anonymous]

It is a disgrace that a jury would go for this.  A disgrace.  This is another reminder why we can't let this country can't be ruined by lawyers.