Author Topic: SUE SCHEFF and ISABELLE ZENDHER (PURE, CAICA, WWASP lawsuit) (Read 53524 times)

Anonymous · « **Reply #270 on:** October 13, 2006, 12:14:45 AM »

Didn't Sue-Sue blame some 3rd party for writing her erroneous BIO which stated she/Scheff had a college DEGREE, when, of course she had no college degree.
And this same BIO said she had some type of "extensive medical background," when she actually only had some type of clerical job at some medical type place--but then, again, this 3rd party wrote the BIO, not Scheff.
So, IZZY--the press-release-writer will just be blamed for any errors here, too. That's how the Sue-Sue game is played.
But, damn! A game with an $11 million prize is absolutely crazy!

Anonymous · « **Reply #271 on:** October 13, 2006, 06:44:52 PM »

Does Sue Scheff have a GED or high school diploma? What about Izzy?

Anonymous · « **Reply #272 on:** October 13, 2006, 06:56:39 PM »

Someone responded to the lie below promoted by Sue Scheff and Izzy. It is a good response but to be perfectly clear, Sue Scheff and her business partner, Marie Peart (formerly married to the brother of Robert Lichfield's wife) do make money straight from the bank accounts of parents.

The parents pay the money to the school as additional charges and then the money is routed to PURE/Sue Scheff/and or Marie Peart.

Scheff then lies--yes lies--and tells parents she is only a resource and does not get paid from parents.

That is okay Sue. Your day is on the horizon. Lichfield and WWASP let you off easy. Carey could not defend herself because she is poor and helpless but others are on the way.

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

No, it's worse. Sue Scheff gets paid by the schools she refers to. She absolutely does make money off the plight of frightened parents." (someones response to the Izzy/Scheff lie)

Anonymous · « **Reply #273 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:49:47 PM »

"Maybe those TWO like reading all that part of the complaint about RICO and illegal use of mail, telephones, mail etc...and wondering how they might just fit into the equation, huh?"

Hmmm......are you saying some really good law firm or law firms just "may" be suing Sue-Sue? What about all the evidence she illegally destroyed? Maybe that will be coming out?

Sue brags about spending a million against WWASP but that was insurance money wasnt it? She likes to spend her mamas money so she would love being sued.

Anonymous · « **Reply #274 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:52:59 PM »

Okay, are you saying Sue-Sue and Martha could be cell mates?

Quote from: ""Guest""

"Maybe those TWO like reading all that part of the complaint about RICO and illegal use of mail, telephones, mail etc...and wondering how they might just fit into the equation, huh?"

Hmmm......are you saying some really good law firm or law firms just "may" be suing Sue-Sue? What about all the evidence she illegally destroyed? Maybe that will be coming out?

Sue brags about spending a million against WWASP but that was insurance money wasnt it? She likes to spend her mamas money so she would love being sued.

Anonymous · « **Reply #275 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:54:45 PM »

::deal:: A few little papers on Sue.

Anonymous · « **Reply #276 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:59:24 PM »

I would never share a cell with Sue Scheff!

All I did was change a little email and then change it back on my secretary's computer.

I did not destroy certain evidence asked for in a court case. I do not refer kids to the Whitmore academies of the world. I do have morals.

Please!
Martha

Anonymous · « **Reply #277 on:** October 14, 2006, 04:49:18 AM »

What "evidence" do you know that Sue Scheff destroyed? Can you just post that without proof that she did such a thing? Not saying that she didn't, just wondering what she destroyed.

Anonymous · « **Reply #278 on:** October 14, 2006, 05:03:20 AM »

Izzy lloves to post court documents, right?
Think she'd post Sue/Sue's divorce documents? Those would be great reading, don't you think?
And, no blacking out of names, IZZY, OK?

Anonymous · « **Reply #279 on:** October 14, 2006, 05:06:02 AM »

So, Sue/Sue likes to spend Mama's money?
What was Sue/Sue's maiden name? Who is MAMA?

Anonymous · « **Reply #280 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:40:33 AM »

Izzy--can you answer the question below because your an expert in figuring out Sue-Sue puzzles and how the law works. you are a paralegal arent you? you told everyone you are a paralegal didnt you? but then it came out you were a receptionist or secretary who got fired from a lawfirm. you are Sue-Sue press writing bitch arent you? you know it all dont you?
so help us all out here izzy! can someone post this without prood that she did such a thing izzy.. or maybe there is proof that Sue-Sue destroyed evidence?

Quote from: ""Guest""

What "evidence" do you know that Sue Scheff destroyed? Can you just post that without proof that she did such a thing? Not saying that she didn't, just wondering what she destroyed.

Anonymous · « **Reply #281 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:44:13 AM »

Quote from: ""Guest""

::deal:: A few little papers on Sue.

Come on Sue-Sue. Bring on more lawsuits so the truth can really start to come out on you......................

Anonymous · « **Reply #282 on:** October 14, 2006, 08:46:23 AM »

Just curious-----does the name Elberg bug ya? Bring on another lawsute

Anonymous · « **Reply #283 on:** October 14, 2006, 10:12:11 PM »

Do it Sue-Sue!!!!!!!!!!!! Bring on just ONE MORE lawsuite cause yer gonna go down next time in a VERY big way. -M-

? 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.

Anonymous · « **Reply #284 on:** October 15, 2006, 10:26:02 AM »

So sue-sue and her friends can defame?

"http://www.browardpta.com/_disc1/0000001f.htm
Re: Beware of referrals by Sue Scheff
From: A Student
Date: 03 Dec 2004
Time: 11:17:32
Remote Name: 65.103.224.14
Comments
Good afternoon, Ms. Harris. I see you are still having issues with your apparently bi-polar personality(s). I'd like to inform you all that this woman, with all her accusations against Sue Scheff and the academy she sent her daughter to, abuses her daughter. She was one of my good friends and told me about this along with the other kids at the academy. The words she used were, "Mom does the beatings, Dad does the spankings." When she came to pick up her daughter, every word she spoke to her was discouraging, degrating, and overall depressing and completely unfair to the young girl. Harris has been accused of child abuse three times and convicted of one. This was obviously true when we saw her drag her daughter by the hair and then throw her face first down the staircase. The girl ran inside and clung to one of her friends as Harris was stealing her away and begged not to let her be taken. The girl was very afraid and did not at all want to go. So before you listen to this woman's futile babble, listen to the facts first. Thank you"

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry