Author Topic: Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.  (Read 2908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« on: December 29, 2006, 12:21:36 PM »
A "guest" wrote:

What was the "heated debate that cast her (Scheff) in a negative light" about that caused the listserve to be closed down?

What were "her majesty's little secrets that were being aired?"

Do you know who THESE OTHERS are that still "continue in their devotion" to Scheff?
Surely, these devotees never had children in any abusive programs. What would make people be devoted to a woman who referred children to WWASP after she started PURE? Or to be devoted to a woman who continued to refer children to Whitmore while the Sudweeks were being investigated for child abuse; and AFTER Cheryl Sudweeks had been CHARGED?

These "devotees" seem to have some common agenda like the "diva" and it smells like $$$$$$$.///


No - I feel sure money has nothing to do with it. (at least as far as the Trekkers I knew go) Consider any cultic group - the cult leader may be making money from the efforts of the cult members - but the members tend to remain or become poorer - not enriched.  The relationship here seems very cult like to me. It is as if some left one cult (WWASP) to join yet another( Sue's version of the Trekkers) and have found it difficult to leave.

Staying despite the growing awareness of falsehood in the cult leader is also common. I often refer to it - and will again - read "Cults in our Midst"  it is an eye-opening volume on the hows and whys of cultic control.

The first debate I referred to had to do with the CA law suit; and the issues surrounding whom we were to refer any possible plaintiffs to.

The second was more complicated, and in my opinion serious. It had to do with the situation at Whitmore; as well as the law suit filed against the Earnshaws; as well as some of the posting taking place on Fornits at the time, by SLee.  Some of the other issues, such as what was to be learned in the WWASP V PURE transcripts (which had just become available) was "talked" about off the list.

I know who some of the "others" were - I don't know if they still Are devotees. Who they are, is well known to those who know them - and if you don't know them, their names wouldn't mean anything to you anyway. Besides, as I say, I have no idea how they feel today.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2006, 01:11:56 PM »
Thanks Buzz, that's a great book!

I guess what confuses me is why exactly PURE was formed?

In reading the various historical documents and postings on other threads, it appears to me Scheff was quite an active participant in the WWASPS parent-referral-plan.  Not just as a referrer herself but possibly recruiting other parents and then assisting them in their WWASPS referral efforts as well?

In the email to Lisa (Teen Help?) she describes a letter she mailed out to many parents announcing the formation of Parents Universal REFERRAL Experts.  At some point, the acronym PURE came to mean something different ... Parents Universal RESOURCE Experts.
Why the name change?

Second, and in my opinion only, the testimonial/reference from Randall Hinton which was published on PURE was an explosive revelation in that it seemingly confirms PURE was involved in referring parents to WWASPS programs at the time it was formed.

When and why did Scheff formally stop referring to WWASPS?  

 :question:  :question:  :question:  :question:  :question:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2006, 02:08:56 PM »
WHY was PURE formed?
In my opinion, so Sue Scheff come compete directely with WWASP in referring children to other programs TO MAKE MONEY.

BUT, Sue Scheff did not seem to be willing to let go of her "cash cow---WWASP" and she continued to refer children to WWASP faciliteis after she created PURE.  Even, though she claims her own daughter was abused in a WWASP facilitie; she continued to refer parents and their children to WWASP facilities for MONEY..
MY OPINION--that is "PURE" greed.

When and Why did Scheff formally stop referring to WWASP?
I have no idea.
A good guess would be:  that WWASP discovered Scheff was bad-mouthing WWASP out-of-one-side-of-her-mouth; and was collecting money from their company at the same time.  But that's just a GUESS.

But: it is becoming obvious how it appears Scheff operates:
She denounces WWASP, and scares the hell out of desperate parents.
Then she "reells these parents in and SELLS THEM A PROGRAM THAT PAYS HER REFERRAL FEES."  And, sadly, many of these PROGRAMS THAT PAY SCHEFF, may be just as bad and abusive as WWASP!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2006, 02:59:02 PM »
What I know about the founding of PURE, is what anyone now knows from reading the trial transcripts, and some of the email exchanges coming to light, as well as some of the archived PURE web pages recently dug up and made more public.

What I now know, differs significantly from what I once thought I knew.

My take on the information so far, would be that Sue was very successful at recruiting for WWASP. Far more so than average. She saw an opportunity to start herself up a lucrative business, and thus founded PURE.  

It appears her original intent was to become a referral source that could pretend to be "free" to parents - giving her a hook that Lon and Bozack and others lacked. But other than this "hook" she was no different. She was perfectly happy to refer to WWASP as long as it paid. This is evident from her sending that letter to the program parents, as well as accepting Kudos from the likes of Randal Hinton. Clearly, at its inception, PURE was Not anti-WWASP.

It looks to me as if this would have continued to be the case, had Keven Richey not pulled the strings on some of her funding. As I take it - She wanted the referral fee from some new enrollments that Keven Richey didn't think she was entitled to. Looks to me like that's when she began speaking out against WWASP.

Now - what I am not clear on, b/c it was well before I came along, is weather or not she was also involved with Donna Hendrick and the Trekkers during all this - or did that happen After she began speaking out against WWASP? When did she become a Trekker? I'd like to know. The original Trekkers would know - or could figure it out by looking through their archived documents - but I myself don't know. It "looks" like she was - but that is so hard to believe! I mean - how did she get that past Donna, and the rest of the group of that time?

Now, If she was paying a gratuity to those who sent her families, to send to programs, I never heard about it. I think to get paid by her for referring, you had to actually be her employee - like Marie Pert. So, as far as I know, the Trekkers who thought PURE was a "safe" parent resource, and so sent people there, were not paid for this. But then again - the truth is - I wouldn't be likely to know, if it was something they wanted kept quite.

Back to why PURE was founded - it now seems clear it was always intended to make lots of money, with little regard for other considerations - such as ethics, or safety, or kindness. It looks to me, like she had developed other sources of income with programs out side WWASPs network - so that when WWASP people pissed her off by pulling some funding she wanted - she felt she could afford to trash them, and that by trashing them, she might actually make more money.  And of corse trashing them is easy enough. Its not like what she said was false - its that she waited so long to say it!

I often argued on these forums that Sue was not concerned about money - her motivation was not money. I now feel embarrassed by those arguments.

In light of her behavior with regard to the Whitmore families; and her subsequent spiteful actions and hated toward many who had been her friends, I can see no other reasonable interpretation of the facts.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2006, 03:51:50 PM »
Good idea Buzz to start a thread to discuss postings of historical documents such as these two:


------Original Message------

From: Kevin Richey
To: Ken Kay
Date: August 17, 2001
Subject: Sue Scheff

The last contact I had with Sue was 8 18 (sic 16) she emailed a lead to me. In our last conversation probably last week July she said she thought our programs were good but that our Seminars were terrible. She said she would continue to send referrals to me for Majestic Ranch as she didn't have any other resources for younger kids 7-12. She said she had placed 8 kids that week in Red Cliff or Red Rock not sure which. She asked me to manipulate the referral system and give 2 referrals to her so she wouldn't have to pay Diane Luchetto for 2 referrals that she somehow received from her. She said she had given Diane about 12 referrals. I told her that I couldn't change that information in our computer system and that I didn't feel right about doing it if I could.

Kevin Richey
Teen Help
Admission's Coordinator

As I understand this document, it would appear Sue Scheff certainly was not opposed to referring kids to Majestic Ranch a WWASPS program for the reasons cited in the email.

This disclosure is interesting for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is how it directly reflects upon the credibility of CAICA and it's president Isabelle Zehnder who considers herself a close friend and "colleague" of Sue Scheff.

Since Isabelle Zehnder has achieved some notoriety of her own for writing and publishing on her website CAICA an investigative report on Majestic Ranch declaring this particular WWASPS facility to be a LIVING NIGHTMARE FOR KIDS, one might wonder if Isabelle Zehnder out of her great concern and compassion for abused children ever asked Ms. Scheff for an explanation or even felt one was in order?  

Either way, in my opinion these two women don't just look alike but also seem to have other traits in common, as well.  I wonder if they have ever met.  Anybody know?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2006, 04:06:30 PM »
Jeez Louise - it's really a shame Carey Bock didn't get a chance to properly defend herself.  I gotta believe some of this information would have at least helped to provide some valuable insight on why she felt as she did about Sue Scheff and PURE.  Who knows how the judge or jury would have ruled had Bock been able to produce documentation to support her claims?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2006, 04:45:57 PM »
It is a shame, but not b/c of anything noted here. Cary didn't have any of this information when she made the comments she was sued over.

I'm not a lawyer, or anything like, but I wouldn't think she could use these documents as evidence what she said was true - if she couldn't prove she knew it when she said it.  Or maybe she could - I really don't know. Still the fact is, she didn't have this information at the time.

What I find most regrettable is her inability to prove what they said about her - in court - under oath - was not true.

*IF* its a fact, that as the press release says, a witness took the stand, and said Carey was angry b/c Sue wouldn't help her make money on a documentary - that was a lie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2006, 05:33:30 PM »
Wouldn't Carey be entitled to a copy of the trial transcripts and judge's rulings since she was the defendant?  I know in most criminal trials (not sure about civil) interested parties can contact the court transcriber (reporter) and make arrangements to purchase the transcript.  Has anyone thought about doing this?  I don't think it's cheap but maybe we could pass around a collection plate and scrape together enough money to buy the transcripts and donate them to an org. like ISAC?

Look how important the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts turned out to be on many levels?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2006, 05:54:05 PM »
I still don't personally think this is any big victory given that the public has no idea what happened except what was reported by the media which wasn't much or Izzy, who I don't consider to be objective given her self-described association with Sue Scheff and PURE.

Any wealthy benefactors out there who want to buy the transcripts and donate them please feel free to raise your hand.  :wink:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2006, 10:13:21 PM »
The transcripts may not cost that much because it was a short hearing due to Carey not being able to attend.  What if someone found out the cost and we all make a contribution toward buying them?

Maybe we could nominate Karen to collect the money and make the purchage.  How about it Buzz?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2006, 12:02:51 AM »
Well, I think it's a good idea.  It's the official court transcript.  Worth taking a look at I would imagine if anyone has any questions about the testimony of witnesses (their identity, what they testified to, etc.)

My guess is the transcripts wouldn't cost that much for the reasons anon suggested.

Shouldn't be too hard to track down the court reporter or call the Broward County Court and find out what steps need to be taken to get in contact with the CR to find out the cost.  Might be able to get the transcript on a CD which is really helpful, IMO.

If Buzz is willing, then interested parties should contact her?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2006, 10:11:58 AM »
I wouldn't be comfortable collecting funds from people myself - and really have no experience in obtaining court records. Also, it might be viewed as almost a hostile act by both the women involved, as I despise them both; and they feel the same about me. Not that I care what they think, really, but this is something a more neutral party can do - so maybe that would be better.  

I too would like to see a transcript of this "trial". But it seems to me getting a copy might be more along the lines of something ISAC would do - if they had the funding. Perhaps I can speak with the folks at ISAC and see what they think. If this seems Feasible to all, then getting the funds to ISAC would be a simple matter of making a donation, and noting it is to purchase the transcripts.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2006, 11:17:01 PM »
Good suggestion BuzzKill.  How about it ISAC?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
also carried over:
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2006, 09:21:00 AM »
Posted: 31 Dec 2006 04:11     Post subject: Donna Headrick     

Donna H. was from Mass. or New Hampshire. Her death and her conviction should be public record in the state where she lived. I heard she was a "paralegal" but I wonder. Donna was quouted in one of Lou Kilzer's articles as being a "social worker." These 3 women (Sue, Donna and now this Izzy person are all accomplished liars IMO).

I too had heard about that Donna H. was in jail for something like what the poster said and that Sue was afraid WWASP would find out about it. Several people from the "trekker" group have talked about this but kept it to themselves.

As to BuzzKill thinking that the trekkers were into a cult and Sue was the head nut-case, I don't this they were a cult. I think these were parents and others like the Jeff guy who had come together against WWASP. It doesn't sound to me like they even knew among themselves which way to turn. Sue Scheff lead? The thought almost makes a person laugh out loud. Okay:
Back to top    
       
Guest


New postPosted: 31 Dec 2006 05:41     Post subject:    

Read a couple of articles by Donna Headrick by google search, and they stated Donna Headrick was from Portland, Maine.

Don't know anything about "cults" but it wouldn't seem like a stretch for anyone to believe that, YES Sue Scheff could be a LEADER among these people who found themselves fighting against WWASP.

Parents who talked with Sue Scheff certainly seemed to believe in her, and easily fell for what many have called her CON; and she's made money off many, many, desperate parents whom she referred to programs that have been proven to be abusive.

Yep, she could easily be called a LEADER.
Maybe not a nice, honest, caring person--but, yes a leader.


Reply:


I am not saying the Trekkers were an actual cult. What I mean is, there is a cult-like atmosphere to this group. It is very much like the cult of Sue. She behaves like a cult leader - banishing and demeaning anyone who doubts her. And the cult members (the Trekkers) behave like cult members anywhere. They seem unable to admit their leader has mis-lead them, despite overwhelming evidence. They become highly emotional and hostile to anyone who questions or disrupts their belief and faith in this leader.

And as for Sue being the leader - sure she is - of that small group of people. She is not openly questioned, and if she is, the offender is expelled. If she tells them to do this or that, they do it - pretty much with out question or debate. She has referred to herself as the Queen ant - and the Trekkers as her little ants - its pitiful, really. I think in some cases, they understand the reality; but choose to ignore it, so as to remain part of that group -  a common practice among disillusioned cult members.

All this being said - the truth is - as a group - the Trekkers have in fact done a lot of good.  Much more so than is publicly acknowledged. They are a good bunch of people. It is a shame they are so tainted by association with PURE.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Carried over for comment from Historical document thread.
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2006, 10:09:28 AM »
I don't know so much is the group the "trekkers" did so much good as did most of the INDIVIDUAL persons who were part of trekkers and PLUS those who wanted nothing to do with trekkers but mostly with the blithering nitwit Sue Scheff and PURE.

IMO.  I know several who were dragged into Sue Scheff's web of deceipt but did so to fight against WWASP and not so much to help Sue and her immature crap she pulled so often.  I think Scheff is a mental case.  She has done more harm than good.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »