Scheff and Zender statement / discuss

[BuzzKill]

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:22 am     Post subject:     Reply with quote
Sue Scheff is Awarded $11.3 Million in Internet Defamation & Invasion of Privacy Claim in Jury Trial

Parents Universal Resources Experts, Inc.
10/8/2006 11:41:59 AM


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


Broward County, Florida (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 in 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.




Related Links

CAICA Website
www.caica.org

PURE Website
www.helpyourteens.com

Inaccurate Press Release
www.caica.org


Contact Information
Isabelle Zehnder
President and Founder
Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse (CAICA)
360-903-3951
info@caica.org

[Anonymous]

? 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 in this case.

We're still posting the same things.   Nothing has changed.  We'll continue to post what we have learned about Sue over the years.

? 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.

Then I"m sure she'll be refiling, right?

? 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.

When exactly did she stop?  When they finally shut down due to the case?  She sure was continuing to refer there even after the allegations arose and charges were filed, correct?

? 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 also corrected the error of the charges she pled to.  It wasn't 'attempted hazing' it was 'hazing'.  Much more serious.  She pled no contest.  Technically no, it's no an admission of guilt but even with the admitted problems with the prosecution she still chose not to fight.  Hmmm, wonder why?

? 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.

Maybe we can finally get this question answered then.  Sue gets paid by the 'schools', right?  Well, in the interest of the well being of the kids, what schools does she refer to?

? 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.

:rofl:  :rofl:

? 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.

Was Carey able to be there to defend herself?

? 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.

Sue spoke for herself.  Carey couldn't afford to.

? 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.

What message is that?  That you can Sue the shit out of everyone, claim to be the savior of children, start your own competing referral service, Sue anyone who dares speak the truth about what you're doing and make a fortune??  Yep, that came across loud and clear.

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.

Wait til they start Googling her name and PURE's and find out what scumbag, greedy motherfuckers you are.[/quote]

[Anonymous]

So basically, the jurors saw evidence presented by one side?  I'd like to see the judges instructions to the jurors regarding the scope of their deliberations.  Can anyone help?

[Anonymous]

I'm not an attorney and have no idea whether this rule applies to the defendant in this case but it sounds like something the defendant ought to at least be made aware of so she can discuss it with a qualified legal professional or even the court?

(c) Right to Plead. A party may plead or otherwise defend at any time before default is entered.

http://phonl.com/fl_law/rules/frcp/frcp1500.htm

[BuzzKill]

OK, you've made a public statement. You've posted it on the public forums. You know forums are a place of discussion. So - Lets talk about some of the issues raised here -


///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 ///

Who were the witnesses? Its public record - not a big secrete is it? In the WWASP V PURE trial, the witness were not afraid to be named as such. Why the generic "witness" instead of names? Could there be some well founded sense of shame attached to the testimony given here?

///and Ms. Bock needed this child?s name for a potential documentary she would profit from. ///

I don't recall anything like this At All. I am wondering about the possibility of purgery.  What documentary? How was Cary to Profit?
I know nothing about any documentary that involved Carey; and I know of no one who ever profited from the documentaries done, except of corse the associated  production companies.

///One of the witnesses testified Carey Bock was infuriated that Sue Scheff would not provide her with the information about the child. ///

Well its always true different people will remember different things. But as I recall - Cary's break with the Trekkers and thus her subsequent hate for Sue and all related parties, came from an argument over photographs of the kids in the dog cages at WWASPS' High Impact in MX.  Carey wanted to give them to Lon, and the rest of the group didn't think this was wise. There was argument about the assault and rape at Dundee - but as I recall, it didn't much involve Sue. It was the Dundee persons she was mostly arguing with about that situation.  She felt there had been a cover up and she seemed to feel it was her job to expose it. But the argument that got her booted off the Trekker list, and so furious with Sue, was over the High Impact pictures. But, I suppose that doesn't generate the same emotional response as demanding the name of a rape victim.  I'm not remembering the girl was a minor. As I recall, She was a program grad; JR staff at Dundee, and so was probably a young adult - not that her rape is any less tragic. But again, a child rape generates a good deal more emotional outrage, doesn't it?

///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. ///

Maybe so. I can't say, not having been a party to any of this. But still, I wonder about the truth of this. I had heard the rumor that WWASP quite paying Carey's lawyers and so that's why they dumped her.  

BTW - I'd Love to see a copy of this deposition Sue - if you'd care to send me a copy. It would complement the first one you gave me nicely.  And I would then know if this was truly the only reason Carey gave - or if this was one in a group of statements she gave explaining her actions.

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

Not exactly true now, is it? I am thinking of 30 some odd starved horses, and 7 or so starved dogs a Canadian court found the Sudwicks responsible for. The Canadian court was in fact so outraged by the degree of callous disregard for the welfare of their animals, they were forbidden to ever own an animal in that district again - the first ever to attain such a distinction.  Now, that IS abuse.  

As to the abuse and neglect of children in their care - there were persistent and consistent allegations, which you refused to consider. We had several conversations, as well as email exchanges, on this subject. All your friends wanted you to do was suspend referrals until the charges were settled one way or the other.  This was good advice, with your welfare of concern - as well as the welfare of the children. Your response was to not only ignore this advice but to attack those concerned friends - here on Fornits and otherwise.

Which brings to mind some thoughts on this:  ///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 in this case. ///

I've speculated (and I stress Speculated) that you came to understand if you continued to persecute Ginger,  there would be a discovery phase, which would expose the anon postings done by all - including yours and those of your "friends"  -  which might not put ya'll in to sympathetic a light. Pure speculation.  

'Bout this: ///They fail to say the case was dismissed on a jurisdictional issue, not on the merits of the case. ///

Jurisdiction - always a problem in this kind of thing. I'm wondering, how did David manage to get Florida jurisdiction over a private individual in Louisiana, for slander; when he couldn't get it over a public corporation in Utah, on charges of abuse and gross neglect? I'm am sure there is a fair and just explanation of some kind - but I can't fathom what it could be.  

///Cheryl did not admit any guilt. ///

Sure she did. She pled out and got a mighty sweet deal. But she did plead guilty.

///There was NO substantiated evidence against the Whitmore.///

But there are Persistent and Consistent allegations. Just as in many other such "programs"  - proof is difficult. One has to relie on the consistency of the testimony of the victims. You know all about this Susan.  

///The state admittedly had no case and agreed to a plea in abeyance. ///

The state admitted they felt there might be credibility issue with some witnesses. Guess their all lying manipulators, with an agenda, huh? This isn't saying we have no case. Its just saying we don't want to spend the counties money on a trial, when we can plead it out instead.  I feel its significant that the *victims* are very unhappy with this and wanted the trial.

Anyone who's ever been involved with criminal charges and court knows it has very little to do with truth and justice. It is about money and politics. Local government budgets and concerns over cost of trials. Political power bought ,and influence given as a result. And conversely, when money is lacking, a person can be found guilty of all kinds of things they didn't do, and suffer much injustice as a result.  

I'd argue, When you are talking Child Care - multiple allegations that are consistent, have to be taken seriously, by those concerned for the welfare of the children - no matter what kind of nonsense the courts dish out.

///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. ///

No, it isn't true - but many believe it should be.  

///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. ///

If it wasn't a default judgment, it was a stupid one.

///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. ///

Did none of them understand that any story sounds true, until you hear the other side?

[Anonymous]

Thanks Karen, you asked some very interesting questions.

I am still confused - how can jurors (the triers of fact) make a decision when they only are presented with one side of the story?

If you get a copy of the transcript, can you tell us HOW the judge instructed the jurors in terms of what they were to consider (or not) in their deliberations?  (All jurors are given instructions in accordance to the rules of evidence, law, etc. before being excused by the judge to "deliberate".)

Was their job to simply determine damages as opposed to a finding of guilt or innocence?

Since it appears there are some people who are intimately familiar with the two parties (Scheff and Bock) it stands to reason others may be interested in knowing who testified at the trial.

What isn't so clear is jurors are allowed to consider the credibility of witnesses however in this case, it appears witnesses were not subject to cross exam.  How can jurors properly assess the credibility of a witness if that witness is not cross-examined?  

Thank you.

[Dr Phil]

Program parents.  :roll:

[Dr Phil]

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.

 :rofl:

Here's to it getting overturned, which it most certainly will.  ::cheers::

[Anonymous]

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IS A SATIRICAL DESCRIPTION OF HOW THIS MESS APPEARS TO BE EVOLVING AND NOTHING MORE OR LESS IRREGARDLESS OF THE VALID/INVALID STATEMENTS  OR OTHERWISE NUMEROUS PILES OF BULLSHIT CONTAINED HEREIN:

 :rofl: "Pantiegate"   :rofl:

[Anonymous]

Whitmore has had plenty of allegations.  I have read about that hell hole all over the internet.  Of course Sue continues to refer families there as it is money in her pocket.  After all, isn't that what this business is really all about?
I placed my son at Bethel Boys Academy, Lucedale, MS. owned/operated by the Fountain family.  Three days later rescued him.  Yet, he had been beaten, tortured, starved, forced to urinate on himself, etc.  Since we had shown up unannounced my son was able to smuggle out the names/numbers of three other victims.  We called those parents and they were rescued within days.  Two weeks later, based on those four boys statements, injuries, etc. the State of MS. went in and removed another 13 boys.  Some who needed immed. medical attention.  Two weeks later another 16 boys ran away (8 ended up in State custody).  A week later, another 4 ran.  You do the math.  The State of MS. assured us they were closing the place down, criminal charges filed, etc.  In the end, the Fountain family made a deal.  A decree that they signed even noted that they would no longer use electrical devices (they were electrocuting the boys for torture) would be used when disciplining the kids.  Kids are still being abused and tortured there.  We have proof of massive cover up, state level corruption, etc.
My point?  That Whitmore Academy is abusing kids and just because the owner Cheryl isn't sitting behind bars means NOTHING TO THIS PARENT!!!!!!!!  I should know, I am still living this mightmare and the Fountain family is still running free, abusing kids for profit, and having those victims "referred" to them by wonderful people like Sue  (who is only doing this for the kids and to unite families).

Cheryle "My son was ABUSED & TORTURED at Bethel Boys Academy, Lucedale, MS."
......and no the owners aren't serving prison sentences for this and is still in operation as I type this......

[Anonymous]

Whtimore is closed - Why the hype??? Why not focus on the programs that are open where kids are being abused??? She was found innocent on all counts in the criminal case. Anyone thought maybe she's not guilty?

[Anonymous]

Whtimore is closed - Why the hype??? Why not focus on the programs that are open where kids are being abused??? She was found innocent on all counts in the criminal case. Anyone thought maybe she's not guilty?

What are you smoking and can I have some?

[Anonymous]

Whtimore is closed - Why the hype??? Why not focus on the programs that are open where kids are being abused??? She was found innocent on all counts in the criminal case. Anyone thought maybe she's not guilty?

///Cheryl did not admit any guilt. ///

From Buzzkill's Post:

Sure she did. She pled out and got a mighty sweet deal. But she did plead guilty.

[Anonymous]

Technically she pled no contest.  Same same.

[Anonymous]

Fornits thread on Whitmore:

http://wwf.fornits.com/viewforum.php?f=35