Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 26, 2005, 11:43:00 AM
-
Apparently, the Earnshaws lost their motion to keep the lawsuit against them in Federal Court. Federal Judge leaves Earnshaw and ISAC to the tender mercies of the Washington County Court. What a mess....
Nice job Phil and Mike!
-
Things didn't always go exactly the way you wanted either did they ?
I recall many a moaning and crying jagg about how biased the judge was; and how he was unfairly ruling against you - and this despite your most excellent attorneys.
And I know you yourself might not have posted this - but I also know you had it posted, and are simply wanting to gloat over what you imagine is Shelby's discomfort. (dream on)
You are every bit as awful as that other wwasp whore.
-
I'm laughing so hard it hurts right now! Buzzkill, Is living on FORNITS helping you to keep your own house in order? I think it's time for you to confer with your Bible again. Perhaps you should read Leviticus (the part about drinking). By the way, who are the WWASP ladies you mentioned in your post?
-
a bad ruling is one thing..having your case thrown-out completely is another.
-
Like I said: Dream On.
[meant for the anon one post up.]
*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2005-06-26 09:18 ]
-
I hear that the Heber City Lawyer is filing a motion to withdraw. They're that afraid of Lichfield, that they're running away like lemmings. :???:
-
On 2005-06-26 08:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Apparently, the Earnshaws lost their motion to keep the lawsuit against them in Federal Court. Federal Judge leaves Earnshaw and ISAC to the tender mercies of the Washington County Court. What a mess....
Nice job Phil and Mike! "
And this means what?
-
Phil Elberg is a first class attorney. He very successfully represented Lulu Corter, who was imprisoned in Kids of North Jersey for thirteen years. He successfully got past the statute of limitations in that case, and won Lulu a whole lot of money. I think that case also precipitated the demise of Miller Newton's Kids of North Jersey child-abuse cult. Elberg and his legal team are in my book of heroes, and no cheap slander from a mean person who aids and abets child abuse will change that.
-
On 2005-06-26 11:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Phil Elberg is a first class attorney. He very successfully represented Lulu Corter, who was imprisoned in Kids of North Jersey for thirteen years. He successfully got past the statute of limitations in that case, and won Lulu a whole lot of money. I think that case also precipitated the demise of Miller Newton's Kids of North Jersey child-abuse cult. Elberg and his legal team are in my book of heroes, and no cheap slander from a mean person who aids and abets child abuse will change that."
Your hero, WOW, your standards are minimal. Your hero lost a motion that a 1L in a crappy law school could have won!
As far as his big win, even a bad lawyer wins a case from time to time. Dumb luck, or just math finally working in his favor on that one.
As far as your last statement, there is a big difference between the blather in that statement, and just generally enjoying it when some people get what's coming to them. By the way, did your hero's clients ever take money from anyone of the people you and the Buzzkill nut insulted in this thread. How about that?
-
On 2005-06-26 10:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-26 08:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Apparently, the Earnshaws lost their motion to keep the lawsuit against them in Federal Court. Federal Judge leaves Earnshaw and ISAC to the tender mercies of the Washington County Court. What a mess....
Nice job Phil and Mike! "
And this means what? "
This means that State Court (especially in that County) translates into a possibily uneven playing field for the Earnshaws. Maybe Phil should apply for a Change of Venue, HELLO??! That was for free Phil.
-
On 2005-06-26 11:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Phil Elberg is a first class attorney. He very successfully represented Lulu Corter, who was imprisoned in Kids of North Jersey for thirteen years. He successfully got past the statute of limitations in that case, and won Lulu a whole lot of money. I think that case also precipitated the demise of Miller Newton's Kids of North Jersey child-abuse cult. Elberg and his legal team are in my book of heroes, and no cheap slander from a mean person who aids and abets child abuse will change that."
Phil Elberg is a first class clown!
-
::bwahaha2:: ::crybaby:: ::crybaby:: ::crybaby:: ::crybaby:: ::boohoo:: ::troll:: ::troll:: ::troll::
-
What was the lawsuit and who filed it against them?
-
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8735&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8735&forum=9)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9265&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9265&forum=9)
-
On 2005-06-26 13:57:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8735&forum=9
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9265&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9265&forum=9)
"
Thanks BK. I found this post on the above thread.
Posted: 2005-03-18 11:28:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUE,,,,
Let me suggest that you rejoice here carefully. Remember there are those of us who you have sent many an email to requarding your last case. I am sure you are aware that those emails and statements you made indicated that you were shall we say not completely honest, You also know that P.R could testify to that.
I havent been around for awhile as you already know however, an email indicating that you are rejoicing over this did get my curiosity up.
Sue, think back hard on the on the one who talked to P.R. at length day in and day out over a year and a half ago. Now, wouldnt it be a shame if all those public statements, emails etc where no expectation of privacy was involved suddenly hit the internet. Ummm, that would make that appeal thats going on in your case ,, go VERY quickly now wouldn't it.
Isnt it a crime to lie under oath? I thought so. Not saying you did. But if you did and someone could prove it man that would be a bad day huh...
Survivor
Willing To Prove It
-
On 2005-06-26 11:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-26 10:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-26 08:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Apparently, the Earnshaws lost their motion to keep the lawsuit against them in Federal Court. Federal Judge leaves Earnshaw and ISAC to the tender mercies of the Washington County Court. What a mess....
Nice job Phil and Mike! "
And this means what? "
This means that State Court (especially in that County) translates into a possibily uneven playing field for the Earnshaws. Maybe Phil should apply for a Change of Venue, HELLO??! That was for free Phil.
"
Nah, ISAC has Utah case law to rely on ... as in WWASPS v. PURE?
LOL ... thanks Sue.
:rofl:
-
To the poster citing WWASP v. PURE, that was a Federal Case. The Earnshaws just got booted to State Court. Read the posts RETARD!
On the "Survivor" who'se willing to prove they know how to survive, I don't know about Sue, but I'm pleased to no end. You're threats are laughable! Go sit on that and rotate!
-
I'm laughing so hard it hurts right now! Buzzkill, Is living on FORNITS helping you to keep your own house in order? I think it's time for you to confer with your Bible again. Perhaps you should read Leviticus (the part about drinking). By the way, who are the WWASP ladies you mentioned in your post?
To begin, I would like to say we are no longer bound by the law, but christs death has freed us from the biblical law as he fulfilled it.
I would like to continue with saying it is unfortunate that this has been changed, but its nothing to freak out over and say its a mess, I'm sure the case will go on, now if the Washington judge tossed out the case then I would raise my eye brow.
-
On 2005-06-26 15:18:00, OverLordd wrote:
"I'm laughing so hard it hurts right now! Buzzkill, Is living on FORNITS helping you to keep your own house in order? I think it's time for you to confer with your Bible again. Perhaps you should read Leviticus (the part about drinking). By the way, who are the WWASP ladies you mentioned in your post?
To begin, I would like to say we are no longer bound by the law, but christs death has freed us from the biblical law as he fulfilled it.
I would like to continue with saying it is unfortunate that this has been changed, but its nothing to freak out over and say its a mess, I'm sure the case will go on, now if the Washington judge tossed out the case then I would raise my eye brow."
Unfortunate, well it's a situation because Lichfield is reputed to be involved in a lot of back-door deals with the locals that control that County full of nuts.
Interesting religious reference. Maybe Phil can get Shelby's Bankruptcy Petition ready for filing. Doesn't Lichfield know he's suing an empty bag? He's a retard too! Anyway, that's it for now :smile:
-
On 2005-06-26 15:18:00, Anonymous wrote:
"To the poster citing WWASP v. PURE, that was a Federal Case. The Earnshaws just got booted to State Court. Read the posts RETARD!
On the "Survivor" who'se willing to prove they know how to survive, I don't know about Sue, but I'm pleased to no end. You're threats are laughable! Go sit on that and rotate!"
Who'se (that's who's as in WHO IS) "RETARD"!
Second, WWASPS has a bad reputation even in their own backyard. Who cares if they take ISAC to court in Washington County? ISAC can drag this out for years while they depose anybody and everybody they wnat to ... LOL ... sound familiar?
:wave:
-
Actually Phil, that's sort of ingenious. Let's take that a little further. If you file Bankruptcy for the Earnshaws now, you'll be under the protection of the Temporary Stay. Then, you make sure you file the Bankruptcy in Shelby's Homestate (I know she's in Deliverance Country Somewhere), and then you'll have some leverage. Just a thought?
-
On 2005-06-26 15:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-26 15:18:00, Anonymous wrote:
"To the poster citing WWASP v. PURE, that was a Federal Case. The Earnshaws just got booted to State Court. Read the posts RETARD!
On the "Survivor" who'se willing to prove they know how to survive, I don't know about Sue, but I'm pleased to no end. You're threats are laughable! Go sit on that and rotate!"
Who'se (that's who's as in WHO IS) "RETARD"!
Second, WWASPS has a bad reputation even in their own backyard. Who cares if they take ISAC to court in Washington County? ISAC can drag this out for years while they depose anybody and everybody they wnat to ... LOL ... sound familiar?
:wave:
"
Oh, this is about spelling, typos and grammar now. As I once told Cayo Hosebeast, it's tough schooling you retards. So, every once in a great while there is bound to be a mistake along those lines. I regret this offended you so much Buzzkill. Check out your own spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc. You're still a retard!
-
Wrong again, now that WWASP has the home court advantage, they'll be filing their Motions for Expedited Discovery and an Accelerated Trial. No more dilatory tactics from lightweight lawyers like Elberg ( ha ha ha).
-
MY MY MY is Sue Scheff playing "lawyer" again?
She seems mighty busy handing out "lawyer advice" lately. It's a wonder she can keep up with filling up the beds with heads these days, doesn't it? Phil Elberg must just be shaking in his boots knowing MS. SCHEFF doesn't approve of him.
-
It is great to have the WWASP VS PURE transcript to just throw it all back in her face, isn't it?
Line by line. Lie by lie. It IS great.
-
On 2005-06-26 15:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"It is great to have the WWASP VS PURE transcript to just throw it all back in her face, isn't it?
Line by line. Lie by lie. It IS great."
In the first place, this is not Sue. Second, WWASP v PURE has nothing to do with this thread. Third, it seems that the import of the Federal Order, remanding the ISAC case to State Court, speaks to whether or not Elberg and Hummiston could make their argument regarding the monetary jurisdictional requirement, and they couldn't. Any other retarded comments?
-
I regret this offended you so much Buzzkill. Check out your own spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc. You're still a retard! //
I am not the "offended" one your talking to here, Slee, but I will comment anyway.
You regret nothing - but I expect you will.
Retarded?
As I keep telling you SLee - dream on.
-
On 2005-06-26 15:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Wrong again, now that WWASP has the home court advantage, they'll be filing their Motions for Expedited Discovery and an Accelerated Trial. No more dilatory tactics from lightweight lawyers like Elberg ( ha ha ha)."
Man, you are a real sicko.
WWASPS got their butt kicked by PURE's lawyers. Real smart, eh?
-
On 2005-06-26 16:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-26 15:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Wrong again, now that WWASP has the home court advantage, they'll be filing their Motions for Expedited Discovery and an Accelerated Trial. No more dilatory tactics from lightweight lawyers like Elberg ( ha ha ha)."
Man, you are a real sicko.
WWASPS got their butt kicked by PURE's lawyers. Real smart, eh?
"
Thanks for your input Ginger! Talk about sick?!
-
On 2005-06-26 15:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
"MY MY MY is Sue Scheff playing "lawyer" again?
She seems mighty busy handing out "lawyer advice" lately. It's a wonder she can keep up with filling up the beds with heads these days, doesn't it? Phil Elberg must just be shaking in his boots knowing MS. SCHEFF doesn't approve of him."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Scheff a lawyer?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Anyone want to do the Bump?
-
Is there a point to trying a civil case on a chatboard with people who couldn't find the law with both hands, a compass, and a map?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
WWASPS hasn't figured out yet that they're going to have effective critics no matter what they do. The situation has snowballed to the point that they can't shut the criticism up anymore.
If the criticism has to come from Miller on the floor of Congress and be *quoted* all over the internet (Congress critters who speak on the floor can't be sued for anything they say there), the criticism of them *is* going to continue.
I think the SLAP suit against the Earnshaws is a tragedy, I think they should be in touch with the ACLU to at least get amicus briefs filed in the case if at all possible, and the Earnshaws have my best wishes that they prevail.
Keep in mind that the Earnshaws *can't* defend themselves in the pseudo-trial on Fornits because they cannot comment on pending litigation.
I do not speak for the Earnshaws, I am not affiliated with the Earnshaws, but the fact that people involved in pending litigation really can't (wisely) comment on anything about the case is very well known by anyone who is not a moron.
Those of us who aren't morons will simply have to wait for the case to work its way through before we hear the post-litigation comments of the people involved.
Until then, there's simply no point in discussing it.
Program-pusher idiots *can*, of course, but it's pointless---as is crediting anything they have to say from gloating on up.
-"You can't kill the truth. Well, okay, you can kill the truth, but it'll always come back to haunt you."- -- J. Michael Straczinski
Timoclea
-
Wow! This sure is looking a lot like Lee. Not that I can tell for sure, I can't. Just that it sure seems like Lee's temper and choice of words.
Is anyone really terribly surprised to see this (these?) anon(s) cheering for the WWASPS team?
Thanks for showing your true colors!There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
--Herbert Spencer
-
Antigen why might Lee be happy that ISAC is being clobbered in Federal Court?
-
Excellent question. I can only guess that, at the bottom of it all, PURE and WWASPS are actually on the same side of the issue.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected.
Will Rogers, American humorist, political commentator and cowboy philosopher
-
Seems like PURE has always been on the same side of the issue as WWASP. Only problem between WWWASP and PURE "seemed like" a great big misunderstanding about Sue dogging WWASP while still collecting referral fees from WWWASP, or something along those lines.
-
Is the same Lee who is a Pure Parent Volunteer?
-
There are obvioulsy venue problems here - since ISAC is not located in Utah. It seems like this case should have been in Federal Court - they should use the rules of Civil Procedure to get the case out of state court. WWASP lost once before - they will loose again. They just enjoy using their money to terrorize anyone who exposes what they do. This is totally a freedom of speech issue.
ISAC should counter sue for malicious prosecution in this case.[ This Message was edited by: cherish wisdom on 2005-06-27 15:03 ]
-
judge warbis;
you are way off on this one! i'm sitting here minding my own business?
apparently, someone in "the camp" is leaking information to an outsider? not even my style, either.
please refrain from accusing me of something i know nothing about...maybe you should check the IP address?
you never cease to amaze me; always looking for a "scapegoat"! so sad!!! dream on!!!
"One Child At A Time"
-
Ok, please explain, for good and all, the essential, critical difference between WWASPS and PURE. Put the matter to rest.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
--James Madison
-
Guess I don't get it. Is the slogan "One child at a time" suppose to mean something?
-
On 2005-06-27 18:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Guess I don't get it. Is the slogan "One child at a time" suppose to mean something?"
Beats me ... "troubled programs going belly up down one by one sounds better to me"
:grin:
-
On 2005-06-27 18:58:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-06-27 18:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Guess I don't get it. Is the slogan "One child at a time" suppose to mean something?"
Beats me ... "troubled programs going belly up one by one sounds better to me"
:grin: "
edited for typo
-
The difference between WWASP and PURE? UGGH, let me see.... WWASP won't let Sue Scheff refer kids there anymore? Did I get it right?
-
dollar wise; i'd bet somewhere between 89,991,000 & 90,000,000! i heard someone mention a figure earlier today. wwasps since it's inception has reached the billion-dollar plateau in net income.
biggest difference; wwasp owns referral agencies, escort services, property & programs. pure doesn't own any of the above but is a referral agency!
just my POV! i hope that suits your fancy!
"One Child At A Time"
to the annon trying to figure out the signature...quit worrying your little brain over it, just a mark i so choose.
-
PURE doesn't own any escort service and isn't part owner of any program? Sure about that????
-
Yeah, I wonder about that as well.
I used to make the same argument Lee just made - but I would never say the same now.
Lee - One Child at a Time - What? Saved from abuse and neglect in "programs"? Any program? Or just the ones that don't pay your pal?
Never mind.
You've gone a long way towards answering these questions with your actions.
You need to drop the pretence. All it does is accentuate the sham.
-
All one needs to know about PURE and Sue Scheff is in the WWASPS v. PURE documents.
Let's just hope she's come to her senses and no longer refers to programs that do not pass the giggle test
I mean come on! The lady can afford to take a pass on a program and it's owner awaiting arraignment for abusing kids.
At least .. one would think so, wouldn't they?
:silly:
-
On 2005-06-28 08:48:00, BuzzKill wrote:
"Yeah, I wonder about that as well.
I used to make the same argument Lee just made - but I would never say the same now.
Lee - One Child at a Time - What? Saved from abuse and neglect in "programs"? Any program? Or just the ones that don't pay your pal?
Never mind.
You've gone a long way towards answering these questions with your actions.
You need to drop the pretence. All it does is accentuate the sham."
Lee isn't fooling anybody BK with his save the children crap.
:flame:
-
[QUOTE}dollar wise; i'd bet somewhere between 89,991,000 & 90,000,000! i heard someone mention a figure earlier today. wwasps since it's inception has reached the billion-dollar plateau in net income.
biggest difference; wwasp owns referral agencies, escort services, property & programs. pure doesn't own any of the above but is a referral agency! [/QUOTE}
What difference does that make? They both send kids to unregulated programs. Big guy vs. little guy....so what. It is still the teens that get hurt, not either of them.
-
Think some kid being abused cares if his parents sent him to a WWASPIE program or some "NICER" place picked by Sue Scheff and PURE? It still hurts like hell!!!!!
-
Man, it almost seems like referral agents are referring to programs where there is abuse, just not the kind of abuse they associate with WWASPS, their competition?
That's twisted, isn't it?
Abuse is abuse. Simple as that.
-
What kind of abuse "that is associated with WWASP" is any different than what happened at Whitmore Academy?
Think if I was a kid, I might just as soon have some pepper spray in my face as have MRS. Sudweeks throw me down a steep flight of stairs.
Being age 14, and being tied and gagged so a group of teenage boys can beat the hell out of you at the direction of this same woman, as she and her husband watch---sound any worse than a WWASP deal?
Whitmore has it's SHELF too--being put on the "shelf" for a week or so is no picnic: especially when your food is served topped with students's spit.
Sue Scheff of PURE still defends these owners today...will swear all the above is all lies, because that's probably what the Sudweeks tell HER, and that's what she chooses to believe.
-
On 2005-06-28 20:09:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What kind of abuse "that is associated with WWASP" is any different than what happened at Whitmore Academy?
Think if I was a kid, I might just as soon have some pepper spray in my face as have MRS. Sudweeks throw me down a steep flight of stairs.
Being age 14, and being tied and gagged so a group of teenage boys can beat the hell out of you at the direction of this same woman, as she and her husband watch---sound any worse than a WWASP deal?
Whitmore has it's SHELF too--being put on the "shelf" for a week or so is no picnic: especially when your food is served topped with students's spit.
Sue Scheff of PURE still defends these owners today...will swear all the above is all lies, because that's probably what the Sudweeks tell HER, and that's what she chooses to believe. "
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.
:flame:
-
PURE AFAIK makes 200K a year on referrals, so why the fuck would Sue stop riding her little cash cow?
Moralizing, with the force of law or coercion, is a
far greater crime against the constitutional principles of our nation than unauthorized euphoria, regardless of the substance involved, be it chocolate or heroin.
--James