Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Who Am I Discovery/Whitmore => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 11, 2005, 12:41:00 PM
-
What say you now?? Are you still going to be referring kids to Whitmore now that official charges have been filed? Is this enough for youto at the very least suspend our referrals there until this is sorted out. (although most of us know exactly how this will come out).
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! I would REALLY, REALLY like an answer to this.
-
oops, "our" should have been "your"
-
If a program is under investigation and charges of abuse have been filed against an owner or staff member, why would any ed consultant or private program referral service even consider placing kids in the program until this matter is resolved and the people charged are either exonerated or convicted?
If a car was not running properly, wouldn't you get your car fixed before driving it?
Why is this any different?
-
Any honorable agency or person would not send any kids to any place even under suspicion for child abuse, let alone where one of the owners has been charged with child abuse. But, those dollar signs talk. To some money is more important than human life. That's all they care about. And at the expense of unsuspecting parents and at the rick of helpless kids safety. The worst kind of person, right alone with the abusers themselves.
-
WWASP was under suspicion already when Sue sent her daughter to them and then proceeded to become "the referal diva" by sending so many other kids to them.
I think these people simply refuse to believe what's right in front of them. They're like flat Earthers or anti-evolution ppl. You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.
Peter McWilliams - Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do
-
I recently found out that this lady, Sue Scheff, is from my home town. I had no idea. Small world...
-
That's pretty scary
-
Sue talks with the parent and finds out what they're looking for. If they're looking for something rough, she gives them a list of somethings that are rough, but with warnings if they've been investigated for child abuse or any other form of misconduct.
She gives parents what they're looking for, along with her two cents. She's doing her job.
Give the lady a break.
-
Mouse, You seem to be well informed.
What are some examples of the "ruff" schools she would refer a parent to? How "ruff" is she willing to let a program be, and still refer to, even with her "two cents" throw in?
Is she still referring to Whitmore; and if so, is she telling the parents that the program is under investigation - and now - that indictments have been issued?
Does she still insist this is a wonderful "Christian" program, run by the most loving, caring people you'd ever hope to meet?
Does she still insist the parents and kids who deny this are crazy liars?
I hear she has told people she no longer refers to Whitmore. However - there are indications that this isn't so. . .
So, is she lying to people so they'll get off her back - and dreaming that no one will know?
Time will tell, weather or not you do.
Me, personally, I have lost all faith in her motivations and willingness to be responsible.
I am so very disappointed.
But thats just me.
-
On 2005-06-12 12:52:00, mouse wrote:
"Sue talks with the parent and finds out what they're looking for. If they're looking for something rough, she gives them a list of somethings that are rough, but with warnings if they've been investigated for child abuse or any other form of misconduct.
She gives parents what they're looking for, along with her two cents. She's doing her job.
Give the lady a break."
Some would argue that referring a parent to any program (easy or rough) that has a history of abuse would be a no-no.
Come on ... are schools/programs now being rated in terms of whether the abuse, compared to other certain programs, really isn't that bad?
:silly:
-
On 2005-06-12 15:54:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Mouse, You seem to be well informed.
What are some examples of the "ruff" schools she would refer a parent to? How "ruff" is she willing to let a program be, and still refer to, even with her "two cents" throw in?
Is she still referring to Whitmore; and if so, is she telling the parents that the program is under investigation - and now - that indictments have been issued?
Does she still insist this is a wonderful "Christian" program, run by the most loving, caring people you'd ever hope to meet?
Does she still insist the parents and kids who deny this are crazy liars?
I hear she has told people she no longer refers to Whitmore. However - there are indications that this isn't so. . .
So, is she lying to people so they'll get off her back - and dreaming that no one will know?
Time will tell, weather or not you do.
Me, personally, I have lost all faith in her motivations and willingness to be responsible.
I am so very disappointed.
But thats just me.
"
Excellent post!
:nworthy:
-
BuzzKill, as much as we disagree about religion and faith and so forth, I honestly have grown to respect and admire you beyond measure.
There lives more faith, in honest doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds.--
Alfred Lord Tennyson There go the people. I must follow them for I am their leader.
--Alexandre Ledru-Rollin
-
BuzzKill, I believe all that is Sue's place to answer. So, I'd suggest contacting her, and not me.
-
Mouse, she won't respond. Just like Cheryl, you're either for her or agin' her. There is no middle ground and no dissent is tolerated.
I don't go lookin' for trouble. I just keep a little in a box should someone come by who is.
--Bill Warbis
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
-
On 2005-06-12 18:06:00, Antigen wrote:
"Mouse, she won't respond. Just like Cheryl, you're either for her or agin' her. There is no middle ground and no dissent is tolerated.I don't go lookin' for trouble. I just keep a little in a box should someone come by who is.
--Bill Warbis
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;"
Perhaps there is hope for Mouse if in reading this message board she comes to the realization that her soul is not for sale?
-
//BuzzKill, I believe all that is Sue's place to answer.//
Ahh well then, we'll just have to wait for time to tell.
-
On 2005-06-12 19:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
Perhaps there is hope for Mouse if in reading this message board she comes to the realization that her soul is not for sale?
Perhaps? No, certainly! And everyone else, too. Most people come around after awhile. In Straight there was a special phrase to describe it; "really 7th stepping". Cult experts call it "snapping". It's actually sort of rare for people to stay w/ these groups for more than a few years.
Whoever kindles the flames of intolerance in America is lighting a fire underneath his own home.
--Harold E. Stassen, 1947
-
But is there a "ripple effect?" Like all the people THESE people bring into the cult DURING THESE FEW YEARS? That's a frightening thought.
-
Well yeah, there is. Even more frightening? This has been going on for over 30 years now, at least in the current form of bogus therapy for troubling teens. The Whit is not unique; it seems quite similar to a lot of these little treatment cults.
But, on the flip side, people do generally shake it off after awhile. So that the next generation of parents will likely not be so easily taken in.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
--Philosopher, Blaise Pascal
-
What seems a bit over the top is this student MOUSE speaking for Sue Scheff endlessly. One would think Ms. Scheff, who most people say reads Fornits faithfully, would not want that to be happening: having a student quoting Ms. Scheff, explaining how PURE operates, etc. Who would want a self-proclaimed "troubled teen" speaking for their company, anyway?
Especially when many people have expressed their concerns about Ms. Scheff, PURE continuing to refer children to Whitmore while the Sudweeks were and are being investigated for child abuse. Now that Cheryl Sudweeks has been charged in the case, one would think Ms. Scheff would surely be backing away from Whitmore.
Strange, strange situation.
-
Yeah - I think it strange as well. Very strange in fact. Just dosen't seem to fit. Personally, I don't think miss mousey is a student.
//But, on the flip side, people do generally shake it off after awhile.//
Yeah they do - IF they get away from the group that reinforce it.
-
No one else thinks miss mousey is a student either buzzkill. LOL
-
Isn't Sue Scheff suppose to be sort of independent from all of this---sure seems like she has a close close connection to Whitmore. Sharing the ends and outs of her business to the point Whitmore kids are speaking for her like they do for the Sudweeks. And the kids seem to be defending her even. What is the deal? Sure is a lot of defense strategy going on here. WHY? And when anyone bothers to ask-- hear through the grapevines, oh Sue doesn't refer to the Whitmore. YET these kids all seem to talk to and KNOW HER. Strange strange , HUH? MAYBE they know her because she sent them there?
-
Appears the Whitmore just can't be discussed without the name Sue Scheff popping up.
Anyone wonder why?
-
Doesn't Sue Scheff have some slogan about Parents Helping Parents? Sounds to me like it is more like Ed Con helping Program Owner.
What happened to the best interest of the child, SUE?
-
Sue Scheff is a blood-sucker. I don't believe
anything she does is because she cares about kids. Instead, it appears to me she advertises herself the way she does to lure unsuspecting, desparate parents. What she is not telling, as she reals these parents in, reassuring them, is that she is getting paid by the programs she is referring them to. Think the highest bidder gets the kid in their program??? Is maybe the "processing fee" that is charged by the program when the child is first enrolled?
-
Believe a lot of people are a bit tired of the pious talking about PURE's desire to help children and their parents. It is pretty clear that it is all about making money, big money. Comes a time when just hearing "well this program is not AS BAD as WWASP" just doesn't mean crap. An abused child is AN ABUSED CHILD! And Scheff has referred kid to WWASP programs HERSELF! So, it's gotta be the money!
-
Pure's referal expert MP is an ex Teen help -wwasp
employee. She was trained by the best liars in the industry.
When SS jumped off the wwasp fence apparently MP went with her.
beware beware beware
The money is the motive,not helping children.
Actions speaking louder than words.
-
Why no "parent awareness" articles on PURE website about Whitmore?
Why no link to ISAC on PURE?
:question: :question: :question: :question:
-
Because PURE supports the Sudweeks and Whitmore, that is WHY!
-
What kind of "business" would recommend a place where the owner is accused of abusing kids? It would see that the logical and smart thing to do would be wait and see what is decided in the court.
Is P.U.R.E. just blindly believing the Sudweeks, without even looking at the evidence??? Seems to me, that if Sue is knowingly sending kids to Whitmore and Cheryl is found guilty, she is leaving herself open to all kinds of trouble. The fees she receives must be really high to take that kind of risk.
-
I've always wondered:
When Sue Scheff removed her daughter from the big bad abusive WWASP school---what kinder,gentler, NICER, SAFER, school...the type that "BRINGS FAMILIES BACK TOGETHER" did Sue Scheff REFER HER OWN DAUGHTER TO????????
Because everybody KNOWS Sue Scheff WAS referring kids to these facilities then...WWASP schools included.
-
Does Sue Scheff PURE have any legal/moral obligation to disclose to the parents that she and her organization referred to Whitmore Academy that Cheryl Sudweeks has been charge with 7 counts of child abuse?
Ms. Scheff should at least assume that the Sudweeks have not notified the parents of these criminal charges.
What is the "Educational Consultants" obligations to the parents who have children placed in a school and criminal charges are then brought against the owners?
-
Good question!
Should Sue Scheff have disclosed to the parents of the kids she had referred THERE that the Sudweeks were under investigation for child abuse the moment she became aware?
Did Sue Scheff place herself under some type of liability by continuing to place children at the Whitmore knowing the Sudweeks were being investigated for child abuse, and not disclosing this fact to the parents ?
-
Questions, but no answers....as usual
-
she doesnt get paid so why dont you prove what you are saying!!!
-
The "programs" to which Sue Scheff refers children pay her referral fees.
-
On 2005-06-24 19:06:00, Anonymous wrote:
"she doesnt get paid so why dont you prove what you are saying!!!"
Check out the WWASP v PURE transcript. I'm glad Sue won at the end of the day. None the less, she testifies herself, under oath, about details of the commissions she gets from programs to which she refers.
No, why would you go and accuse Sue Scheff of perjory like that? I thought you were friends???
May 12-13: Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp. August 7: Began to separate the Male from the Female at Do - rather too late.
George Washington (Diary)
-
WWASP v Pure Transcript:
Page 313 PURE Tax Return 2002
Gross Profits $208,281
Page 314 PURE Tax Return 2003
Gross Profits $203,798
YES, Sue Scheff was paid referrals fees from programs and paid a WHOLE LOT!!!!
So much for the song and dance:
we are just "Parents Helping Parents"
....still making money sending kids to these programs---WHITMORE included, knowing Cheryl Sudweeks the owner has been CHARGED with criminal child abuse.
Unprofessional at least.
-
go sue your doctor! Its all about the money isnt it! you people are starting to come in loud and clear! lets destroy someones life. anything for a few bucks. your gonna need the money for rehab.
-
On 2005-06-24 22:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
"WWASP v Pure Transcript:
Page 313 PURE Tax Return 2002
Gross Profits $208,281
Page 314 PURE Tax Return 2003
Gross Profits $203,798
YES, Sue Scheff was paid referrals fees from programs and paid a WHOLE LOT!!!!
So much for the song and dance:
we are just "Parents Helping Parents"
....still making money sending kids to these programs---WHITMORE included, knowing Cheryl Sudweeks the owner has been CHARGED with criminal child abuse.
Unprofessional at least.
"
Holy Angel of Moroni ...
Imagine what these program owners are making a year?
:silly:
-
that sounded like you are jealous or sometin? what are you NOT getting enough donations, for running this site? if you ask me the writing is on the wall all you bitter people are angry about is the money. money money money. It makes the worst come out in people and you people are the worst. get over yourselfs. go get a job. you wouldnt know about sacrifice. or giving more than you take though. to bad they dont take people like you at the whitmore. you need a good dose of seeking to understand. but remember they dont take people like you. NO CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS. you are just a bunch of self gratifying lazy criminals. taking the easy way out. lets go see whos life we can ruin today. just because your miseralble the world has to pay. I really cant stand any of you. But at the same time, Cheryl taught me to love everyone even people as pathetic as you.
-
On 2005-06-25 00:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
"go sue your doctor! Its all about the money isnt it! you people are starting to come in loud and clear! lets destroy someones life. anything for a few bucks. your gonna need the money for rehab. "
It's about truth. It's about being lied to. It's about being scammed. It's about abuse. It's about taking money with the intent to deceive. Take another look. Cheryl and Mark do not practice what, supposedly, they preach. They may talk the talk, but, they don't walk the walk.
-
On 2005-06-25 05:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
"that sounded like you are jealous or sometin? what are you NOT getting enough donations, for running this site? if you ask me the writing is on the wall all you bitter people are angry about is the money. money money money. It makes the worst come out in people and you people are the worst. get over yourselfs. go get a job. you wouldnt know about sacrifice. or giving more than you take though. to bad they dont take people like you at the whitmore. you need a good dose of seeking to understand. but remember they dont take people like you. NO CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS. you are just a bunch of self gratifying lazy criminals. taking the easy way out. lets go see whos life we can ruin today. just because your miseralble the world has to pay. I really cant stand any of you. But at the same time, Cheryl taught me to love everyone even people as pathetic as you. "
Oh get over yourself, will ya? Throw away the koolaid and start dealing with FACTS.
What are you not seeing?
The truth?
-
Too bad WE can't go to Whitmore?????
Bet you WE could stand up to MISS Cheryl's little group sessions. WE aren't a group of kids who could be manipulated by some sleazy high school educated woman who gets out of control screaming a a bunch of KIDS, thinking she's a THERAPIST!
GUARANTEE you, she'd only get to throw one of US down a flight of stairs JUST ONE TIME...then she'd probably get to find herself whirling down a flight herself.
NO...she wouldn't want any of US at her little cult school. NOT FOR A MINUTE.
-
WHY UPSET ABOUT THE MONEY ISSUE AND SUE SCHEFF?
Someone else posted here that Sue Scheff doesn't get PAID!!!
Just pointing our from THE LADY'S own sworn testimony that SHE GETS PAID GRANDLY!
So, why try turning the tables and accuse the posters here of being all about money?
Why all the negative and misinformation about lawsuits?
AND who ever said that the owner of this forum asked for or received DONATIONS?
Just where do YOU get your information?
IT can not be posted that SUE SCHEFF refers kids to these programs OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF HER HEART, when SHE HERSELF testifies about her enormous fees that she charges and receives.
-
Wanna know what I think about programs who pay finder's fees to outfits like PURE?
::puke::
-
Might could handle the programs paying Scheff and PURE to fill the beds with heads--but when the owners are being investigated for allegations of abuse---Scheff should have the good sense to not send any more kids to Whitmore until the issue is settled ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
And every parent that was referred there by PURE should get a PERSONAL disclosure from PURE about these allegations of abuse and the investigation in my opinion.
And once the owner is CHARGED with child abuse it is the opinion, FOR SURE Sue Scheff and Pure should back away from Whitmore. Should Scheff be helping the owners of Whitmore with their legal defense in any manner, if this is what is going on? Should Scheff and PURE continue to refer to Whitmore knowing the owner has been CHARGED with criminal child abuse?
What are the rules here?
-
ISAC watchlist:
Referral Agencies:
P.U.R.E. Inc.
http://isaccorp.org/watchlist.html (http://isaccorp.org/watchlist.html)
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
-
I know ISAC has been trying to be patient - wanting to give PURE every opportunity to issue a warning, that the situation at the Whitmore *might* not be as idyllic as they had before thought. No such sentiment has been expressed, despite the mounting evidence that they been mistaken in their judgment.
I personally feel ISAC waited longer than they should have - but I also understand the hope behind holding back.
Its been difficult for me to understand why Susan is so sure she knows the situation at Whitmore. Its not as if she can't be fooled. It's not as if she isn't well aware she is all to easily fooled. How is it that she can be so sure in this case? So sure that she feels safe in ignoring the persistent and consistent allegations coming from Whitmore alumni?
I can only think of one reason. And for that reason, I do think PURE bares watching.
-
On 2005-06-27 08:21:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"I know ISAC has been trying to be patient - wanting to give PURE every opportunity to issue a warning, that the situation at the Whitmore *might* not be as idyllic as they had before thought. No such sentiment has been expressed, despite the mounting evidence that they been mistaken in their judgment.
I personally feel ISAC waited longer than they should have - but I also understand the hope behind holding back.
Its been difficult for me to understand why Susan is so sure she knows the situation at Whitmore. Its not as if she can't be fooled. It's not as if she isn't well aware she is all to easily fooled. How is it that she can be so sure in this case? So sure that she feels safe in ignoring the persistent and consistent allegations coming from Whitmore alumni?
I can only think of one reason. And for that reason, I do think PURE bares watching.
"
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
:nworthy:
-
Buzzkill. It is beyond allegations.
Cheryl Sudweeks has been formally charged with 7 counts of child abuse against 4 children! The days of Scheff whining it's only allegations are far past.
-
I would argue it remains an alligation until conviction.
But I do get your point.
-
Take responsibility for your own decisisions no one can make a decision for my child but me sue and others can inform but the buck stops with me. Its the parents responsibility to decide for their child enough sue bashing how about personal accountability.
-
Personal accountablity: Sure. How about Cheryl Sudweeks taking personal accountablity for child abuse and save Juab County a bunch of money by pleading guilty for abusing those kids? That would be nice for her to take personal accountability.
-
On 2005-06-28 08:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Personal accountablity: Sure. How about Cheryl Sudweeks taking personal accountablity for child abuse and save Juab County a bunch of money by pleading guilty for abusing those kids? That would be nice for her to take personal accountability."
Yes, that would be an excellent example of being accountable.
Good point, Anon!
-
On 2005-06-28 08:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Take responsibility for your own decisisions no one can make a decision for my child but me sue and others can inform but the buck stops with me. Its the parents responsibility to decide for their child enough sue bashing how about personal accountability."
BINGO!!!
Well said!!! There for a while I thought I was the only one who understood that point. Now, I know there is at least one other "responsible" person speaking on this topic.
-
Would like to see Ms. Scheff show some accountability and disclose to all her REFERRED clients that the owner of Whitmore has been charged with child abuse. Who all received such a disclosure? ANYONE?
-
These Ed Consultants and Referral Agencies (like PURE) should err on the side of caution and SUSPEND all referrals to programs under investigation, particularly when charges have been filed and a trial is pending.
Those ed cons and referral agencies that do not suspend referrals should ask themselves what is the harm in erring on the side of caution?
After all, we aren't talking about toasters ... we are talking about children.
-
It harms her check book..that's what it harms.
-
Excerpt from PURE "Services":
"Researching can be time consuming and tedious, yet very important. How do you know if a program or school is right for your child or if they really are who they claim to be? We speak from our hearts & our experiences to give you a feeling of ease."
Good question PURE!
HOW IS A PARENT TO KNOW IF A PROGRAM IS WHO THEY CLAIM TO BE?
ANSWER:
IT'S SIMPLE. THE REFERRAL AGENCY SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH AND PROVIDE PARENTS WITH FULL DISCLOSURE SO THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE.
http://helpyourteens.com/services.html (http://helpyourteens.com/services.html)
-
Anyone seen anywhere that Sue Scheff, PURE has disclosed that her friend Cheryl Sudweeks, owner of Whitmore Academy has been charged with 7 counts of child abuse against 4 kids?
Seen that anywhere?
-
On 2005-07-01 11:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Excerpt from PURE "Services":
"Researching can be time consuming and tedious, yet very important. How do you know if a program or school is right for your child or if they really are who they claim to be? We speak from our hearts & our experiences to give you a feeling of ease."
Good question PURE!
HOW IS A PARENT TO KNOW IF A PROGRAM IS WHO THEY CLAIM TO BE?
ANSWER:
IT'S SIMPLE. THE REFERRAL AGENCY SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH AND PROVIDE PARENTS WITH FULL DISCLOSURE SO THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE.
http://helpyourteens.com/services.html (http://helpyourteens.com/services.html)"
Get a LIFE! This continual blah-blah-blah, whine-whine-whine, is becoming obnoxious. If you notice, not many people are responding to your continually BORING posts. :wave:
-
On 2005-07-01 11:50:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Anyone seen anywhere that Sue Scheff, PURE has disclosed that her friend Cheryl Sudweeks, owner of Whitmore Academy has been charged with 7 counts of child abuse against 4 kids?
Seen that anywhere?"
So far, I can't say that I have.
Not even a link to ISAC or any other non-profit organization that provides a list of red-flagged programs, news articles and legal-based documents aimed at helping broaden parent awareness about the highly controversial teen help industry.
-
No one seems too bored except YOU!
-
The question is very to the point.
Even if she herself thinks everyone making the allegations are lying manipulators with an agenda - She should still disclose that there are serious allegations and criminal charges pending.
Dose she?
I think that a most interesting question.
-
more still!!!.............heavy civil suit....read more.....post soon...............LOL...........anybody have mama ALANA'S Email address???...like to send her a copy of the civil suit................lol