Let Freedom Ring

[Anonymous]

Let Freedon Ring?  How funny.  Who's free that wasn't already free?  Not any teens, that is for sure.  Parents who want to tell their story, they already were free?  Teens who are no longer in programs, they are free.  All of these people can tell their story.  Why, because they are free. But what about the teens in PURE's programs?  Are they free?  Are their voices being heard?

[Anonymous]

Date: August 7, 2004
Section: Utah
Edition: Final
Page: B3



St. George troubled-teens group loses in court
Verdict: A jury clears a Florida rival of making claims of abuse against kids

Pamela Manson The Salt Lake Tribune
 
A Florida woman accused of pumping up her own credentials and denigrating her Utah business rival through unfounded Internet accusations was cleared Friday of allegations of false advertising.

A 12-member federal jury in Salt Lake City deliberated about 3 1/2 hours before rejecting claims in a lawsuit that Sue Scheff and Parents Universal Resource Experts Foundation (PURE) had conspired to damage the St. George-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP).


"They're not going to silence me anymore," an emotional Scheff said. She insisted the WWASP suit filed against her was an unconstitutional attempt to stop legitimate criticism.

Her attorney, Richard Hendriksen, agreed.

"The jury recognized that a large company has a right to speak, but so do moms and dads," he said.

An attorney for WWASP, Fred Silvester, had no comment about the verdict.

Both WWASP, which provides support and public relations services to six residential treatment programs for troubled teenagers, and PURE make referrals to families and collect payments from schools when students are enrolled based on their recommendations.

WWASP filed suit seeking unspecified damages from Scheff and PURE, which is based in Weston, Fla., shortly after a series of negative comments about the Utah company were posted on an Internet chat room. The remarks, under a half-dozen different names, claimed children were abused at WWASP facilities, among other allegations.

Scheff later acknowledged being the source of all the postings.

She said the comments were based on true events and that she used pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the individuals whose stories she told. She also contended that a false claim on her own company Web site that she has a college degree was an honest error.

The dispute has been acrimonious. U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, who presided over the weeklong trial, ejected one spectator who was accused of making faces during witness testimony.

WWASP also had private security guards in the courtroom.

pmanson@sltrib.com

(c) 2004 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.

**********************************************

The only thing this tells me is that the jury decided it was okay for PURE to repeat heresay as a marketing tool.  

Sue Scheff got on internet sites, posted as several different people saying things that "were based on true events" and also pumped up her website saying she had a college degree saying it was "an honest error"

Yep, this is giving her validation to pump up her marketing efforts as evidenced in her Press Release.  

So, Ginger, watch for many new postings "based on true events" showing up here.

What I don't get is if a kid claiming abuse, or a parent believing their troubled child says this stuff without proof, is that really based on "true" events?

[Anonymous]

Sue Proved her case pal.
What she was saying was not defamatory or slander b/c the things she said were true and happened to real people.
The "pumped up" web site was explained and the explanation was credible b/c it is the truth.
What this decision did, was make it clear people in this country do still have first amendment rights - and if as Fred complained, that's wrapping myself up in the Flag - then so be it. I like the flag.
What this decision did, was make it clear you can't defraud people and abuse people an get away with it forever. You can't intimidate the victims to silence, forever. A long time maybe; but not forever.
What this case did, was get on the record, in Federal court, accounts of gross fraud perpetrated upon the parents; and gross abuse and neglect inflicted upon the kids.
This decision has made WWASP's favorite line of defense collapse. No longer can they say abuse has not been proven in court. I think this is the most important thing this decision has done.
And as for you, you swine, you know damn good and well being out of wwasp doesn't mean the kid is free of wwasp. And you've got some gall talking about the parent's freedom after you tried to help muzzle the parents. Now you'll learn a lesson about the boomerang effect.

[Anonymous]

This decision has made WWASP's favorite line of defense collapse. No longer can they say abuse has not been proven in court. I think this is the most important thing this decision has done.
And as for you, you swine, you know damn good and well being out of wwasp doesn't mean the kid is free of wwasp. And you've got some gall talking about the parent's freedom after you tried to help muzzle the parents

_______________

For someone who thinks they won something, you sure are angry.  But you need a reality check, abuse was not proven.  All that was proven was that PURE was not posting alegations all alone.  All that was proven was that PURE was repeating what others were saying.  That was what the jury was ruling on, and that is all the jury was ruling on.  

"Free of wwasp"?  What about free of PURE?  Whats the difference?  

"Muttle the parents"?  Who tried to muttle parents?  

Wow, if you accomplished your goal, then celebrate.  Don't be angry because others don't see it as a victory.

[Anonymous]

What this case proved is that you can't believe anything you read on the internet unless you choose to.  It didn't prove abuse, it proved freedom of speech.  If there was abuse proven, don't you think the newspaper would have reported that?  That's BIG news.  Have there been ANY newspaper articles anywhere that said abuse was proven.  

What this case proved is that no one has jurisdiction on what is posted on the internet, web sites, etc.  

Was this case about proving abuse?  That's not what I read in the article or the purpose of the court case.

If it had, I'm sure WWASP would have had the courtroom filled with credible witnesses.

[Anonymous]

These were the four rulings:

Did defendant engage in false advertising in violation of the Lanham act?

Did defendant PURE engage in false advertising willfully?

Did defendant defame plantiff with actual malice?


This is what the jury ruled on.  They did not rule on abuse, so to say abuse was proven is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for this.  It's the only thing that makes any sense.  Since PURE is not the only agent making these false allegations "based on whatever troubled kids and parents say" they can't be held accountable.  WWASP would then have to go after everyone, which could prove impossible.  

So, continue to post your allegations of abuse.  No one will believe it...unless they choose to.  

As for the copyright infringement, the Lanham Act, just using the WWASP name in the postings doesn't constitute an infringement.  Is that it?

If PURE hasn't done what they have for "actual malice" what is it?  To save the children? LOL!

[Anonymous]

As I understood the judge when he ruled to let in some of PURE's documentation; the evidence of abuse is what went to disprove malice. She had a right to say what she said, b/c it was true. Thats how I saw it.

As for the News papers, they can't report what they didn't cover. I suspect once the transcripts hit the net, that will change.

[Anonymous]

First you don't want people to believe newspapers or media; Then you say the abuse disclosed is not real unless we see it in the paper!  
So?
Which is it?

[Anonymous]

So, what you're saying is that PURE had documentation of proven abuse?  Or, she had documentation of heresay?  Big difference.

As for newspapers not reporting what they didn't cover...since when?

[Anonymous]

On 2004-08-15 18:58:00, Anonymous wrote:

"So, what you're saying is that PURE had documentation of proven abuse?  Or, she had documentation of heresay?  Big difference.



As for newspapers not reporting what they didn't cover...since when? "

If you really want to be anonymous, weeding out consistent misspellings would be a good start.

It's "hearsay."

Timoclea

[Antigen]

On 2004-08-15 18:58:00, Anonymous wrote:

"So, what you're saying is that PURE had documentation of proven abuse?  Or, she had documentation of heresay?  Big difference.

Do you believe the Nazi holocaust occured? After all, none of us were there to see it. We only have, as evidence, the testimony of the people who were there.

How about Stalinist reeducation camps? Believe they existed? Do you believe anything that doesn't proceed from the mouth of some smug mother fucker who thinks he's a god on Earth?

Doubt it.

An Animated Cartoon Theology:
1. People are animals.
2. The body is mortal and subject to incredible pain.
3. Life is antagonistic to the living.
4. The flesh can be sawed, crushed, frozen, stretched, burned, bombed, and plucked for music.
5. The dumb are abused by the smart and the smart destroyed by their own cunning.
6. The small are tortured by the large and the large destroyed by their own momentum.
7. We are able to walk on air, but only as long as our illusion supports us.
-- E. L. Doctorow "The Book of Daniel"

[Anonymous]

Antigen, Ginger - Amusing comparison.  I have no reason NOT to believe what has been well documented in the History books, etc.  

If I told you that when I was in the 7th grade, I told my mother that a nun had smacked me on the cheek with a ruler because I knew she would transfer me to a public school, would you believe me?  I even made a mark on my cheek and had to keep up the lie for years. I almost believed it myself.  I got what I wanted and ended up only hurting myself. I hurt the nun by telling lies about her but didn't care at the time.  My mother told other mothers and on and on.  It was ugly, but I didn't care because I got away from having to go to church everyday and wearing uniforms, walking in line, not looking out windows during class and raising my hand if I needed to pee only to be told I should have gone before class.

What I said was well documented, but it wasn't true!!  It was true to anyone who believed it.

[Anonymous]

Shoulda gone before class. . .

Was it uncomfortable? Even painful?

Imagine yourself, forced to maintain 'the position'; knowing if you move a mussel you'll suffer the torment of restraint; Needing to go real bad. . .
Asking for permission and being told to maintain silence.
Needing to go REAL bad. . .
Asking again - given a warning.
Asking again and then yanked up and slammed against a wall; or pounced upon by two or more men twice your size. . .
You'll not be able to hold it. No way.
The humiliation is extreme and the torment of having your joints ground into the concrete adding injury to the insult.

This happens in the program on a regular basis. On the boys side anyway. I haven't heard the girls mention this kind of treatment. But the boys uniformly do. My son experienced this and Fathers have given sworn testimony in federal court of sons who've experienced this.

I would call this Abuse of the physical and emotional kind.
I think anybody would - unless they've been well programmed.

But you refuse to believe it; the reality of this is beyond your grasp, it seems.

As was said earlier -
Keep your head in the sand and your ass in the air.  Show them how much you trust them.
But what about your kid???

[Anonymous]

Post URL:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#57731