My Experience of PURE, Inc. and Sue Scheff

[Antigen]

On 2004-03-29 05:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

 I was not asking Frank about Charlie Manson. I was asking him about the documentation on the "teen help" industry.

And I'm asking if you realize you have the question backward. Do you realize that most sane people will not turn their children over to strangers w/o some pretty compelling evidence that the strangers do not have a history of child abuse? And that's under normal school or camp sort of conditions, where the kids are free to communicate w/ whomever they wish should things not go as expected.

But you frame the question as if absence of "proof" is proof of absence. It's not, to begin with. In addition to that, there is ample evidence of many kinds of abuse in the troubled parent industry. There are sworn statements and affidavits, journalistic investigations, all these types of evidence used in criminal and civil prosecutions all the time. But, in your alternate universe, these things don't constitute proof of abuse.

Just for shits and giggles, would you mind telling me exactly what kind of proof would satisfy you?

Since you [US "drug tsar" McCaffrey] control a federal budget that has just been increased from $17.8 billion last year to $19.2 billion this year, is asking people like you if we should continue with our nation's current drug policy like a person asking a barber if one needs a haircut? --
                                                              Orange Country, California
                                                                  Los Angeles Times
                                                                    29 March 2000
--Judge James P. Gray

[Anonymous]

I am not saying that abuse does not or has not happened.  I was asking Frank what kind of documentation he was talking about.  If his documentation is news articles and sworn affidavits, then all he has to say is his documentation is news articles and sworn affidavits.  If he has something more than that, then what is it?

Do you realize that most sane people will not turn their children over to strangers w/o some pretty compelling evidence that the strangers do not have a history of child abuse? And that's under normal school or camp sort of conditions, where the kids are free to communicate w/ whomever they wish should things not go as expected.

Key word here "strangers."  That is pretty compelling.  It is even more compelling given the fact that they do not get to converse with their child.  Who is sane?  The parents that do this?  I don't think so.  

I was taught to never get in a car with a stranger.  I was taught not to talk to strangers.  How stranger can one be then to send their child off with strangers?

Anyway, Frank do you have any documentation other than sworn affidavits and news paper articles?

[Anonymous]

Do sane people turn their kids over to teachers they've never met?  Every single day!  Do parents go to an emergency room and "interview" a surgeon if their child need emergency surgery and their regular doc isn't on call?  Every day.  Where else do sane people turn their own lives or their children's lives over to someone they don't know?

[Anonymous]

Trust is a very good thing, and we should all be fortunate enough to live our lives with lots of it.  However, it does put us at some risk, so we learn to be trusting with caution.  What happens when a parent loses trust for their child?  Regardless of why, it is very destableizing for a parent.   This parent will immediately search for someone to trust - teacher, therapist, educational consultant.  Anyone who taps into them at that time has a good chance of gaining the trust that once belonged to their child.  It's up for grabs, so to speak.  The question becomes, is this stranger or "professional" any more trustworthy than the child?  The parent needs to be very cautious here.  Often, there are many selfish motives involved in their advise.  "Professionals" are subject to all the same mistakes the rest of us are when handing  it out, and some of them are down right lazy.

Your chances of finding a program that will fix your child is zero to none.  Finding a program that will allow your child to grow up at some location other than your own home, without severe emotional damage, is slim.  Finding a program that will forever change your child's ability to trust is a sure thing!

Think before you leap.
JillyB

[Anonymous]

Do sane people turn their kids over to teachers they've never met? Every single day! Do parents go to an emergency room and "interview" a surgeon if their child need emergency surgery and their regular doc isn't on call? Every day. Where else do sane people turn their own lives or their children's lives over to someone they don't know?

Hey dumb dumb, do you equate teachers in public schools and doctors in public hospitals to staff in unregulated lockdown behavior modification programs. Evidently you do.  I don't.  

In schools, real schools, children are not locked up and held captive with no way to report abuse.  If your child needs surgery you don't have to know the doctor personally, you can obtain information on his practice. Not really a chance for a surgeon to abuse your child when he has a medical team and hospital to regulate and assist him with the proceedure.   I don't know though, sounds to me like maybe you would let the surgeon take your child somewhere private and operate on him or her without there being others around if he (the surgeon) told you it were ok.  Sounds like you might just buy into that.  Then I suppose you would be taking a risk equal to that of leaving your child in a behavior modification program with STRANGERS. Dumb dumb.

Don't try and compare apples with oranges, it just does not work.

[Anonymous]

On 2003-05-19 06:11:00, Carey wrote:

"Karen,



Maybe Sue should speak for herself instead of using others. Anyone who associates with her is sticking their neck out and risking being pulled into the mess that she has created.



She is damaging your creditability because of her profession.



People "outside" the "group" would be more willing to listen to what you have to say if you could think and act independent of Sue Scheff and PURE, Inc.  



If everyone wants to know what I was "harping" on, as Karen puts it, it was on pictures that were taken of a facility where children were housed.  I wanted the pictures to be put out there for parents to see, because if parents could see what was happeing in these places then they would have proof of what WWASP is capable of.



Yes, I was removed from the list because the people on the list did not want to hear what I had to say about it, they prefer to keep the pictures to use in a court case that could take up to a year to ever even happen.  A year is a long time for kids to have to wait to be saved, especially knowing there is evidence out there right now that would help parents to see the the truth now, today.  



Most of the people on the list have kids who are already home, they don't see the need to move quickly to save those who are still in these programs.  So the need of urgency is less important to them.  The need for "revenge" for lack of a better word, is on the top of their list.  I want accountabiltiy and I want to prosecute those guilty of child abuse but I want kids out of these programs and safe first.  I want the parents to have all information that is available out there for them to view.  Then we can go after and make accountable those who have profited off of this terrible "child warehousing institution."



I don't care what media they use, it does not have to be on Lon's website.  However, I was asked by the person who owns the pictures to see if Lon was willing to post them.  He said he could not and suggested that they be taken to the media.  



I know if my boys were still in a WWASP program and I found out someone was holding evidence that would show me what can and has happened in one of these schools then I would hold them accountable for letting it continue to happen.  I don't think you should hold on to evidence for a court case when it could help save kids today.



Carey"

Would anyone posessing pictures of Saomoa please e-mail them to me. I'm especially interested in Le Tiara. Thanks  lightlytoastedltd@hotmail.com

[Anonymous]

Reading this about Sue Scheff's self-serving tactics, shows more why she supports the Sudweeks at Whitmore Academy--even tho Cheryl Sudweeks has been charged with 7 counts of abuse aganinst 4 different children, and is awaiting a criminal trial. Sheff's support of these abusive owners serves her own purposes: MONEY!

[Anonymous]

Memories, memories.

It appears in many ways Carey WAS right all along about Sue Scheff and her schools she refers to.

Those pictures showed up in court August 2004.Those pictures did what was needed to be done. They should be shown to the media. They did show what the program is capable of.

What ever happened to the Sue Scheff/Pure vs Carey Bock slander/defamation case? Did she "get your house" like she wanted? (the nasty,mean bitch. Ya you .)

 Did evidence show Carey Bock was correct? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks ahead of time for sharing.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-28 12:16:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

On 2003-05-19 06:11:00, Carey wrote:


"Karen,





Maybe Sue should speak for herself instead of using others. Anyone who associates with her is sticking their neck out and risking being pulled into the mess that she has created.





She is damaging your creditability because of her profession.





People "outside" the "group" would be more willing to listen to what you have to say if you could think and act independent of Sue Scheff and PURE, Inc.  





If everyone wants to know what I was "harping" on, as Karen puts it, it was on pictures that were taken of a facility where children were housed.  I wanted the pictures to be put out there for parents to see, because if parents could see what was happeing in these places then they would have proof of what WWASP is capable of.





Yes, I was removed from the list because the people on the list did not want to hear what I had to say about it, they prefer to keep the pictures to use in a court case that could take up to a year to ever even happen.  A year is a long time for kids to have to wait to be saved, especially knowing there is evidence out there right now that would help parents to see the the truth now, today.  





Most of the people on the list have kids who are already home, they don't see the need to move quickly to save those who are still in these programs.  So the need of urgency is less important to them.  The need for "revenge" for lack of a better word, is on the top of their list.  I want accountabiltiy and I want to prosecute those guilty of child abuse but I want kids out of these programs and safe first.  I want the parents to have all information that is available out there for them to view.  Then we can go after and make accountable those who have profited off of this terrible "child warehousing institution."





I don't care what media they use, it does not have to be on Lon's website.  However, I was asked by the person who owns the pictures to see if Lon was willing to post them.  He said he could not and suggested that they be taken to the media.  





I know if my boys were still in a WWASP program and I found out someone was holding evidence that would show me what can and has happened in one of these schools then I would hold them accountable for letting it continue to happen.  I don't think you should hold on to evidence for a court case when it could help save kids today.





Carey"

Would anyone posessing pictures of Saomoa please e-mail them to me. I'm especially interested in Le Tiara. Thanks  lightlytoastedltd@hotmail.com"

Who are you and why do you ask? Nobody is going to respond if you can't at least make some attempt (anonymously or not) to explain your request.  For all we know, you are a wwaspie.

[Anonymous]

That's funny! Me a wwaspie. Not for four years now.

Ex trekkers maybe. I hope Carey won her case. Thats all........

I have no info on Samoa other than what I have heard from prior enrollees.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-28 18:51:00, Anonymous wrote:

"



That's funny! Me a wwaspie. Not for four years now.



Ex trekkers maybe. I hope Carey won her case. Thats all........



I have no info on Samoa other than what I have heard from prior enrollees."

You are an ex trekker who wants pictures?

Why?  What for?  That's what the question asked of you was.

[Anonymous]

Seems like Sue Scheff is "always gonna sue somebody," but nothing ever come of it. Seems like she just likes to try and scare people. Not many people seem to be SO SCARED, now do they? Better question, what do they have to even be scared of??

[BuzzKill]

I too would like to know how the Carey/Ginger "thing" was resolved - if it was.
I expect they are bound to keep silent as a condition of the settlement - but that is Purely a guess.
I did hear a rumor, awhile back, that wwasp was paying Susan a settlement on Carey's behalf - but I never heard anything definite.
Carey still pops in now and then, so maybe if she is permitted to "talk" she can tell us about it.
Or, maybe Susan will be prompted to brag or deny, as the case may be.
Maybe Ginger knows something and can explain - or maybe not.
It is actually none of our business -
But it is impossible not to wonder about it.

As for weather Carey was "right" - how do you mean?
Correct in her suspicions of Susan's motives (and all it was, at the time, was suspicion) or right in her actions?

This could be debated at great length, and often has been. Enough to let it rest now - surely.

[Anonymous]

Hi Buzz,

Carey was right apparently in that the "school" susan refers to are abusive. She hit it on the nose.It may not have been know 100% at the time ,but she appeared to be more insightful than some others.

I doubt wwasp would pay susan anyhting, ever, for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone name a "school" that Sue Scheff refers to that IS NOT abusive? I sure can't think of even one!