« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits  (Read 3893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2007, 02:34:41 PM »
Well, the Chieftain moderator didn't ban any posters, too bad for Lexi, just locked the threads.  People can still FIND and READ the truth.

Sudweeks:  

Have run afoul of the law in Canada, Mexico and Utah and yet, CAICA doesn't see fit to warn parents about the history of these folks.  Whitmore is NOT listed on the CAICA facility watchlist but all the closed WWASPS programs are?  Nice work Isabelle Zehnder.  You have given new meaning to the title "child advocate" and that is unforgivable, IMO.

PURE:  

No comment.  

The WWASPS v. PURE transcripts speak for themselves.  Sue Scheff confirmed in her own words to have continued to refer to WWASP after she started PURE and after she removed her own daughter from one of their programs, claiming it was abusive.

Also confirmed she did not have a college degree.

Just read the transcripts.  Lexi claims to have done so, but apparently has a problem with comprehension because her response to questions posed to her about the transcripts were not consistent with what was actually in the transcripts, IMO.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2007, 02:47:42 PM »
Quote from: ""BuzzKill""
That lexi is the most arrogant, ignorant, hateful person, I have come across on a forum, in a long long time.

Sure am glad she aint my neighbor or work college. Or ever worse - family  :o

Poor, poor people who have to deal with her in "real" life!


Agreed!

The mods of that forum (Chieftain) ought to give her a major "time out" or ban her permanently.  She used the term "we" when speaking to one of the posters.  Said "We" don't need .... like she is the spokesperson for all the members of that forum.  For that reason alone, the mods SHOULD BAN HER until she proves she is in with compliance  basic posting etiquette rules and not using that forum as her PERSONAL soap box and means for controlling information and most important, the opinion of others.

This is my opinion.  Understand? (To borrow a lexi-ism)   :rofl:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2007, 11:49:57 AM »
Are you serious TSW?  I think it's great Lexi picked up her marbles and went home.  Shows what an intolerant you-know-what she is. Doesn't get her way (Kaila's post was deleted b/c it was inappropriate for her to post it and the PURE/CAICA links in the Webmaster's thread) so what does Lexi do?  Throw a little hissy fit.

Childish IMO.  Shows intolerance for other people's opinion.  I'm glad she's gone.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2007, 11:59:13 AM »
Webmaster, then I want you to get after the people who started it. It wasn't fair to delete Kaila's posts.

THIS is why I won't be returning to this forum. If you want to house trash, then you'll have to do it without me.

Please delete my account.

House trash?  Bet the moderator got a laugh out of that stupid parting shot.

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

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2007, 12:27:32 PM »
Quote from: ""TS Waygookin""
Hmm I was positive my last post on that thread was just oozing sarcasm. Maybe I should have added in something along the lines of drowning a puppy in Lexi's name to pray over its cold body in worship of the horned one.


COME On.. apply the definintion of Sarcasm and think about the likely response of Lexi.


Well, I didn't miss the sarcasm - but I have zero confidence in Lexi's critical thinking skills.  I mean, this is the chick who thinks big candy bars are better than little candy bars when everyone knows, it ain't the size, it's the quality.  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2007, 12:33:45 PM »
Oh no, I saw that post to Kaila and you know what?  I had the best laugh I've had in a long time.   Not just funnier than hell, but perfectly applied.  Poetry in motion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff's "million dollar default"
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2007, 10:23:47 AM »
Umm....word is that Sue Scheff's hearing didn't go so hot for her and she was look'en a little like she's seen a ghost.  I wonder who she is working hard to manipulate to testify for her at the next ongoing hearing in April?

Sue-Sue is no doubt praying to her gods that she doesn't have to face a real trial where Carey Bock's side of the story is heard.  

  ::blushing::  A jury hearing Carey's side of the story could prove a little embarrassing for old mid-40s Sue Sue.  Ya know all those "papers" comen out in court and all that.  ::deal::  

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

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff threatens to Sue-Sue fornits
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2007, 12:18:41 PM »
Wouldn't you think the same people who testified for SUE SUE at the so-called trial where SUE SUE "won" her $11.3 judgment would just show up again and offer their same truthful testimony on behalf of  Ms. Sheff?  The "truth" doesn't change from hearing/trial to trial, right?

This should be the chance for SUE SUE's loyal witnesses to offer testimony, and to be cross-examined by an attorney. in  a REAL TRIAL.
What's the problem?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »