Author Topic: ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG  (Read 4599 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2007, 12:36:08 PM »
Isabelle Zehnder also alleges the State of Utah had no case against Cheryl Sudweeks.

Not true.

Cheryl Sudweeks entered a no-contest plea against the allegations brought against her by the county prosecutor.

If there was no case or the charged had been dropped, there would be no need to enter a plea one way or another, correct?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2007, 12:46:06 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
What's with Isabelle Zehder and these Whitmore Blogs, anyway?
She's advertising the "upcoming" blogs as if it's some ongong soap opera, or something!  STAY TUNED!
"Whitmore Academy, THE SECRET Shhhh"
IZZY even includes the question, "What secret is this mother hiding?"
Please --- readers aren't going to be bored to death with the " Valentine photos" or the "swinger" bit again are they?
IZZY, it's not a "SECRET" OK?  There's pages of posts on that nonsense already. Save your blogging time.
Better yet, if this Harris woman can really bring down programs single-handedly, as you seem to believe---why not assign her a "program per month" and let her close down this nasty industry?
Even better: YOU seem to intensely dislike WWASP.  Assign WWASP to Harris, and let her close that organization DOWN for you!


The blog's are very transparent.  They are threating "the parent" so she will stop her appeal and law suit against the sudweeks.  It is a disgusting practice.  Technically, PURE was not just a referral agency but worked as their personal marketeer.  I would not call this a "referral" at this point but worked as a consultant for the company.  It has been reported (allegedly) that PURE, Sue Scheff made up to $7,000.00 per referral.    I wonder if any were shared with Zender or if she helped funnel clients to PURE or Sue Scheff (allegedly).  Zender's "legal background" is non other than being a para legal (allegedly).  A person who gathers documents for the lawyer.  She is not a lawyer and does not have any creditials.  She is one step up from the receptionist and mail room clerk.  Why is she risking her reputation on by supporting the Sudweeks and Sue Scheff of PURE?  Is she defending her own .. will find more out in depositions?  

I hope this lawsuit brings to light more information about referral agents that pose as advocates.  There needs to be a law put in place when it comes to children and services for them.  Otherwise, this industry will continue.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2007, 01:33:23 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""Guest""
What's with Isabelle Zehder and these Whitmore Blogs, anyway?
She's advertising the "upcoming" blogs as if it's some ongong soap opera, or something!  STAY TUNED!
"Whitmore Academy, THE SECRET Shhhh"
IZZY even includes the question, "What secret is this mother hiding?"
Please --- readers aren't going to be bored to death with the " Valentine photos" or the "swinger" bit again are they?
IZZY, it's not a "SECRET" OK?  There's pages of posts on that nonsense already. Save your blogging time.
Better yet, if this Harris woman can really bring down programs single-handedly, as you seem to believe---why not assign her a "program per month" and let her close down this nasty industry?
Even better: YOU seem to intensely dislike WWASP.  Assign WWASP to Harris, and let her close that organization DOWN for you!

The blog's are very transparent.  They are threating "the parent" so she will stop her appeal and law suit against the sudweeks.  It is a disgusting practice.  Technically, PURE was not just a referral agency but worked as their personal marketeer.  I would not call this a "referral" at this point but worked as a consultant for the company.  It has been reported (allegedly) that PURE, Sue Scheff made up to $7,000.00 per referral.    I wonder if any were shared with Zender or if she helped funnel clients to PURE or Sue Scheff (allegedly).  Zender's "legal background" is non other than being a para legal (allegedly).  A person who gathers documents for the lawyer.  She is not a lawyer and does not have any creditials.  She is one step up from the receptionist and mail room clerk.  Why is she risking her reputation on by supporting the Sudweeks and Sue Scheff of PURE?  Is she defending her own .. will find more out in depositions?  

I hope this lawsuit brings to light more information about referral agents that pose as advocates.  There needs to be a law put in place when it comes to children and services for them.  Otherwise, this industry will continue.


All told, how many kids did Scheff refer to Whitmore?  Anybody know?

Just the fact there is a civil lawsuit in progress raises troubling questions about this program - just as the one against WWASPS which Zehnder and Scheff reportedly help launch does. (Wood v. WWASPS)

Something stinks in Denmark, IMO.  

How would these ex-WWASPS parents like it if some so-called advocates created blogs relevant to defending a WWASPS program they allege abused their child and defrauded them?

Is there a double standard at play here?

Sure looks that way to me given the nature of these blogs and the apparent absence of support for this group of Whitmore parents and children who allege they were abused and defrauded by this program.

At the very least, these Whitmore parents and children deserve their day in court, just like the WWASPS parents and kids do who are involved in the Turley lawsuit.

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

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2007, 01:46:55 PM »
All told, how many kids did Scheff refer to Whitmore? Anybody know?

Just the fact there is a civil lawsuit in progress raises troubling questions about this program - just as the one against WWASPS which Zehnder and Scheff reportedly help launch does. (Wood v. WWASPS)

Something stinks in Denmark, IMO.

How would these ex-WWASPS parents like it if some so-called advocates created blogs relevant to defending a WWASPS program they allege abused their child and defrauded them?

Is there a double standard at play here?

Sure looks that way to me given the nature of these blogs and the apparent absence of support for this group of Whitmore parents and children who allege they were abused and defrauded by this program.

At the very least, these Whitmore parents and children deserve their day in court, just like the WWASPS parents and kids do who are involved in the Turley lawsuit.

----------------------

This is an excellent question.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2007, 06:48:29 PM »
Why is Isabelle Zehnder BLOGGING Whitmore Academy so strongly when this program is closed down?  What is her point?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2007, 07:33:24 PM »
When the criminal investigation began against the Sudweeks in November 2004, there were approximately 40 children enrolled at Whitmore Academy; and reportedly all of the kids were referred to Whitmore Academy by Scheff or people who worked/volunteered for PURE.
Two families gave thier statements to ISAC regarding Whitmore Academy; and both statements are critical of PURE; but for some reason these WHITMORE blogs only mention this one parent; as if only one parent was not satisfied with the referral made by PURE.
Wonder what that reason might be?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline ZenAgent

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1720
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.freepowerboards.com/strugglingppl/index.php
ISABELLE ZEHNDER AND HER WHITMORE BLOG
« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2007, 08:42:34 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Isabelle Zehnder also alleges the State of Utah had no case against Cheryl Sudweeks.

Not true.

Cheryl Sudweeks entered a no-contest plea against the allegations brought against her by the county prosecutor.

If there was no case or the charged had been dropped, there would be no need to enter a plea one way or another, correct?

Correct.  From the Deseret Morning News, September 22, 2006:

"Sudweeks, 51, pleaded no contest to four charges of attempted hazing, all class C misdemeanors. She was originally charged with six counts of child abuse, class A misdemeanors, and two counts of hazing, one a class A misdemeanor and the other a class B misdemeanor. A no contest plea is not an admission of guilt but is treated as such for purposes of sentencing".

It was a plea bargain.  Utah avoided a long jury trial, and Cheryl Sudweeks was sent packing, and as Juab County Attorney Eldridge said, "It addresses some of the concerns I have not all of them but it resolves Mrs. Sudweeks to a be a law-abiding citizen for a year. Even if we got a conviction, that's all the probation she would have been given anyway. It requires her to pay a fine and do community service.  And it shuts her down, at least here in Juab County, so they can't do business here. I believe it effectively shuts them down in the state of Utah,"  

Eldridge also said, "These kids made some allegations of abuse and I completely believe them. That's why I filed the case. But the fact that I believe them is one thing, whether a jury is going to believe is a whole different question,"

That puzzled me at first.  Why did Eldridge think a jury would be so difficult to convince?  Then I remembered:  the case is in Utah, the haven of abusive programees.  Why do you think Randall Hinton scampered off there?

Quote from: ""Guest""
When the criminal investigation began against the Sudweeks in November 2004, there were approximately 40 children enrolled at Whitmore Academy; and reportedly all of the kids were referred to Whitmore Academy by Scheff or people who worked/volunteered for PURE.
Two families gave thier statements to ISAC regarding Whitmore Academy; and both statements are critical of PURE; but for some reason these WHITMORE blogs only mention this one parent; as if only one parent was not satisfied with the referral made by PURE.
Wonder what that reason might be?


A vendetta.  Izzy isn't a great legal mind, is she?  It takes more than one mad mom to file a class action lawsuit.  Zehnder's going after someone who was quite vocal against Whitmore, and she's attacking this one parent for lack of any other targets.  As for the rather bizarre story of the Whitmore runaways, I find it hard not to laugh at the extreme measures and expenses a stranger would undertake to enable some unknown kids to make it to Bonnaroo.  The County Attorney didn't take it seriously, nor do I.  By the way, Izzy, Bonnaroo is a "music festival", not a "drug fest".  This is only speculation on my part, but I believe the boys were allowed to go by (fill in the blank) and given this rather implausible cover story to use in an effort to smear a known and very vocal Whitmore detractor.  Makes more sense to me.  

On her Whitmore blog, Izzy wrote:

"She goes on to say CAICA is worried because we referred children there. CAICA is not a referral agency so never referred any child there."

No, but CAICA is aligned with PURE, and who's to say a parent didn't put trust in CAICA and followed CAICA's praise of PURE to Scheff, and from there the road to hell led to the Whitmore...

It's the dreaded "domino effect" Sue and Izzy want to avoid, and they're backpedaling, spinning, lashing out blindly, and trying to scorch the earth five miles in every direction in an attempt to get out of the way of the falling blocks.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
\"Allah does not love the public utterance of hurtful speech, unless it be by one to whom injustice has been done; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing\" - The Qur\'an

_______________________________________________
A PV counselor\'s description of his job:

\"I\'m there to handle kids that are psychotic, suicidal, homicidal, or have commited felonies. Oh yeah, I am also there to take them down when they are rowdy so the nurse can give them the booty juice.\"