Author Topic: Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory  (Read 7442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2006, 04:21:52 PM »
CAICA supports PURE because they know Sue Scheff and, like most of the people who are posting negative comments here on Fornits, know it (though they won't admit it). Sue has done more to help kids who have been abused in WWASPS programs than anyone else around. There is truly no disputing that issue, people seem to forget it. Her story on her website has saved thousands of kids from going there so if that's not enough, it's too bad. Not to speak of the fact she offers parents alternatives and doesn't always send kids to programs. Her main goal is to keep kids close to home and preferrably at home. Sometimes it's not possible and they need help. She personally, along with her associate, visits small programs that are not abusive and where parents and kids do not lose communication with one another. I have personally called kids in some of these programs to talk to them about their experiences in other programs that were abusive, that she helped them get out of. The directors let me talk to the kids, no problem there. And the call wasn't censored. I could hear kids playing and having fun in the background, a whole other world than the places we are worried about that are abusive. So get the story straight instead of believing a few disgruntled people who have managed to lie, twist the truth, and tell half-truths.

Example - they go over and over that Sue makes all this money from PURE. That it was in her transcript that she made $200,000 a year. But they forget that on page 309 that was corrected and showed PURE only made $11,000. A far cry from $200,000, barely enough to keep an organization up and running. It's not about the money, she doesn't need it. It's about helping families. People just love bashing her and have spent years doing it.

Another example - someone questioning 5 years. Makes you wonder why people aren't working on the bigger picture here. So many people who were truly advocates for this cause have gone away because of this crap and because of it the industry continues to grow and WWASPS has opened tons of new programs. Sad, I have to say. Extremely sad. So, when you want to waste time and energy on questioning a simple thing like "it's been a long five years" then think about the bigger picture. 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - those are some long 5 years.

The dispute about Sue started when she supported the Sudweeks. What people didn't do was their homework - but she did. She went to visit the Whitmore after allegations were brought forward, and she was told by government officials and others that everything was fine. She spoke to many students and parents and learned there is another side to that story as well. There was no reason to believe there was abuse there and every reason to believe it was a vendetta.

It's ironic how here on Fornits one side gets heard and when anyone tries to share the truth they are trompled over. As I will be on this post, but who cares.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2006, 04:32:45 PM »
Anon who writes about CAICA supporting PURE and why, I have a question for you:

What about the testimony from Mr. RIchey (also in the transcript you refer to)  that Ms. Scheff continued to refer to WWASPS after she formed PURE and removed her own daughter from a WWASPS program alleging her own child was abused?

Is this true or false?

Thank you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2006, 06:46:56 PM »
Sue from PURE has shipped off both her kids.  She really didn't seem interested in being a parent at all.  That isn't someone who should be owning a placement agency (for profit).  Back when I had placed my son at Bethel Boys Academy, Lucedale, TX. aka Pine View Academy, I talked to Sue on the phone.  She hadn't heard of Bethel before.  Once I rescued my son, I called to tell Sue what had happened to my son (i.e. beatings, torture, starvation, excessive exercise, forced to urinate on himself, etc.).  She was shocked and couldn't believe it was that bad.  Then promptly went onto tell me about some of the schools she would recommend.  I wasn't willing to place my son any where ever again.  What a HUGE mistake on my part.  Since being sucked into this nightmare I trust none of those schools, WWASP or not.  If a child really needs help the parents need to find it locally, where they can visit and see their child daily.  How else can you help your child?  None of those places, with a paid kidnapper involved, can be any good.  But there are always going to be greedy grubbers who want to profit off of frantic parents/troubled kids.  Placement people such as PURE, the hired kidnappers, and the torture chambers themselves.

Cheryle
"Yes, my son was abused and tortured at Bethel Boys Academy, aka Pine View Academy, Lucedale, MS.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2006, 08:14:25 PM »
Uh...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. She knows the truth and the authorities who investigated dont. Riiiight...  :roll: And that abuse in Canada is made up?

I will admit the plea bargain down to "attempted hazing" only helps her case, but the bottom line is its a stupid risk to take for something that has no clear benefit or any proof of one at all... oh and trying to shut up a kids mom for speaking out about it doesnt look help sue either.

This still kind of dodges the whole "sending a kid away to a BM program held incommunicado that dosen't even give therapy and still cant prove it has any positive benefit at all" problem, but its hard to be apologetic for more than one thing at a time, right?

What this kind of boils down to is sues out to make a buck and shut up anyone who tries to speak out against her.

If its about the CHILDREN, then why do you make it about YOU so damn much, Sue? I know you read this forum, why not fucking speak out? Its not like we dont all know you wanna sue lil ole ME for speaking out for that matter... wtf do you have to hide?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2006, 08:52:51 PM »
Niles: it was not "attempted hazing:" Cheryl plead out on 4 counts of  hazing.......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2006, 08:56:19 PM »
///The dispute about Sue started when she supported the Sudweeks. What people didn't do was their homework - but she did. ///

Bull shit.

She called and email back and forth with the Suds - If you want to call that homework. I recall her telling me Marie had gone to look things over, an all was well, and that she has known the Suds for ages and they are good Christian people, who would never do harm to a child; and that Mark had told her about Joyce dragging her daughter out by the hair; that she had a copy of the police report that stated this.

Prior to Joyce's statement to ISAC, I had been told it was one "crazy" kid, making absurd allegations. Then after that, it was this kid and this nutty woman - this screaming shrew, who assaulted her daughter in front of everyone.

It was about this time I began reading the Whitmore forum. Thus I learned it was not just one deranged boy; or just one loony woman. There was in fact, a group of people making consistent allegations of abusive treatment at the Whitmore Mansion.

Thus I began trying to talk with Sue about stopping referrals until things could be cleared up. This concern on my part didn't go over to well.

It was during this tense period of days when I learned that Susan did Not have a copy of any police report - as the officer in question had not yet written it! I also was told that this officer was adamant that no child was drug out of the mansion by their hair - and that had such a thing occurred, he would have had to arrest the offending person on the spot. He further had stated that he found Mrs. Harris credible.

So, upon learning of this, I ask Susan to call him - talk to him. I still felt she had been lied to and manipulated by the Sudwicks, and that if she would talk to this officer, she might come to see reason.

What she did instead was say 'thank you' out of one side of her mouth- while cursing me with the other. She started more of her anon posting games, with the intent to do me emotional harm, and worse if possible.  

All I had asked her to do was talk to the police officer who was there that night; and to halt referrals until the situation had been settled.  

Explain to me, Oh ye of such great faith in Susan, just how this fits with her having done her "homework". I've always thought it seems much more like lying and stonewalling than home work.

I'd suggest, You better do YOUR homework, and quite believing everything she says, just b/c she says it!

As for how much PURE brings in - maybe you can clarify a question in my mind: Is it 10%, per head, per month; or a flat fee at admission; or both; or what? Does it varry from program to program?  Is there any such thing as a program PURE refers to, that doesn't pay this "gratuity"?  If so, I'd challenge you to Name it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #21 on: October 16, 2006, 09:13:28 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Niles: it was not "attempted hazing:" Cheryl plead out on 4 counts of  hazing.......


There's also an ACTIVE  civil lawsuit going on filed by a group of parents from Whitmore.  

So this issue with Whitmore has yet to be fully resolved even if the program is no longer operating.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #22 on: October 16, 2006, 09:19:08 PM »
CAICA's list of abusive programs.

Okay, maybe we couldn't expect Whitmore to be named given that Isabelle has been asked several times and not obliged, but how does she explain this list?  There is not a single program listed.  :silly:

http://caica.org/ABUSIVE%20PROGRAMS.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #23 on: October 16, 2006, 09:28:52 PM »
I've no wish to re-write history. If I'm wrong, I am sure someone will point it out. But, she used to have Whitmore listed, if I recall correctly. She and Susan were not so close in those days. Something has changed. Now they are thick as thieves.  I've wondered about this turn of events, and can only suppose Izzy finely figured out a way to make some money "advocating".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2006, 09:41:32 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Niles: it was not "attempted hazing:" Cheryl plead out on 4 counts of  hazing.......


Oh, thanks. I'd have sworn it was 'attemtped hazing' not hazing.

I still think its sad they turn child abuse into hasing in Utah though  :x
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2006, 10:00:43 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
///The dispute about Sue started when she supported the Sudweeks. What people didn't do was their homework - but she did. ///

Bull shit.

She called and email back and forth with the Suds - If you want to call that homework. I recall her telling me Marie had gone to look things over, an all was well, and that she has known the Suds for ages and they are good Christian people, who would never do harm to a child; and that Mark had told her about Joyce dragging her daughter out by the hair; that she had a copy of the police report that stated this.

Prior to Joyce's statement to ISAC, I had been told it was one "crazy" kid, making absurd allegations. Then after that, it was this kid and this nutty woman - this screaming shrew, who assaulted her daughter in front of everyone.

It was about this time I began reading the Whitmore forum. Thus I learned it was not just one deranged boy; or just one loony woman. There was in fact, a group of people making consistent allegations of abusive treatment at the Whitmore Mansion.

Thus I began trying to talk with Sue about stopping referrals until things could be cleared up. This concern on my part didn't go over to well.

It was during this tense period of days when I learned that Susan did Not have a copy of any police report - as the officer in question had not yet written it! I also was told that this officer was adamant that no child was drug out of the mansion by their hair - and that had such a thing occurred, he would have had to arrest the offending person on the spot. He further had stated that he found Mrs. Harris credible.

So, upon learning of this, I ask Susan to call him - talk to him. I still felt she had been lied to and manipulated by the Sudwicks, and that if she would talk to this officer, she might come to see reason.

What she did instead was say 'thank you' out of one side of her mouth- while cursing me with the other. She started more of her anon posting games, with the intent to do me emotional harm, and worse if possible.  

All I had asked her to do was talk to the police officer who was there that night; and to halt referrals until the situation had been settled.  

Explain to me, Oh ye of such great faith in Susan, just how this fits with her having done her "homework". I've always thought it seems much more like lying and stonewalling than home work.

I'd suggest, You better do YOUR homework, and quite believing everything she says, just b/c she says it!

As for how much PURE brings in - maybe you can clarify a question in my mind: Is it 10%, per head, per month; or a flat fee at admission; or both; or what? Does it varry from program to program?  Is there any such thing as a program PURE refers to, that doesn't pay this "gratuity"?  If so, I'd challenge you to Name it.


Get an account - dont have to post with it tho. PM me please, I need all the facts.

Seeing as I live in florida now and Sue wants to try to 'Sue' me I damn well better be well armed in the legal sense with the facts and some sort of verification.

Its no question shes out to make examples of her detractors and Im one of them... heh. Id rather not fall on my sword becuase I didnt have everything all together before she tries to jump the gun again  :wink:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2006, 10:05:07 PM »
///Sue has done more to help kids who have been abused in WWASPS programs than anyone else around. There is truly no disputing that issue, ///

Sure there is. Keeping a kid out of wwasp to toss them into something akin to Whitmore does not an "advocate" make.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2006, 10:10:05 PM »
Apparently, Cathy Sutton felt strongly enough about Whitmore not being listed on CAICA's watchlist (and other issues like Isabelle posting on her CAICA's CORNER webpage an email written by Cathy without her knowledge or consent) that she elected to part ways with Isabelle saying she felt "used" and "duped".

http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=15601&highlight=
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2006, 10:25:53 PM »
Whitmore Academy WAS listed on CAICA at one time...but it was removed by Isabelle.
Izzy lied and said Joyce Harris "requested" that Whitmore be removed from CAICA, but that is not true.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
« Reply #29 on: October 17, 2006, 12:10:32 AM »
Still confused about Scheff "declaring she WON this lawsuit against WWASP."

Wasn't she simply just found NOT GUILTY?

That's not actually winning anything, is it?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »