http://webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SES ... &aId=21910Sue Scheff Wins $11.3 Million in Internet Defamation & Invasion of Privacy Claim in Jury Trial
The jury sends a strong message that freedom of speech has limits
Broward County, FL (October 11, 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 10, 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.
In October 2006, Sue Scheff was honored as "Child Advocate of the Month" by the Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse. Furthermore, on October 9, 2006, the Miami Herald spotlighted Sue Scheff and PURE for their dedication to helping families.
