Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on October 16, 2006, 10:06:55 AM
-
Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory
Parent?s Universal Resource Experts, Inc.
10/15/2006 10:21:57 PM
Weston, FL (October 15th, 2006) I understand the hopelessness, helplessness, frustration and desperation felt by parents with troubled teens. I?ve been there.
In 2000 I enrolled my daughter in the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) program, Carolina Springs Academy in South Carolina. Six months after she was enrolled I learned she was hospitalized without my knowledge. With that information compounded by the strange WWASPS seminars I attended, I withdrew her.
I discovered the abuse my daughter endured and learned of other families who had been through similar experiences, I felt compelled to speak out; to turn a negative into a positive. I created my organization, Parents Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE) in January 2001, and launched my website www.helpyourteens.com (http://www.helpyourteens.com). In an effort to help other desperate parents, I shared our experiences with WWASPS on my website.
In January 2002 WWASPS sued me and my organization for defamation in an attempt to silence me. After over two years of litigation, I won in a jury trial in 2004. They appealed and again I won the appeal in 2006 and continue to share my story today.
In September 2002 Carey Bock contacted me asking for help to get her boys out of a WWASPS program. I supplied her with information of other parents and a consultant who had recently visited there.
In October 2002 Carey Bock had her sons removed from the WWASPS program with a bodyguard and camera crews.
In November 2002 Carey asked me for private information about minor children to use in a film. I refused to give her the names, as I felt it was an invasion of the children?s privacy. As a result of this, Bock began an all-out campaign to destroy me over the Internet. She committed Internet Defamation and Invasion of Privacy.
The ironic twist was in 2003 Carey Bock contacted WWASPS? attorneys and negotiated a price for her computer hard drive which contained private information of many families and private e-mails from me that she believed would incriminate me. According to a deposition she gave for the WWASPS v. Sue Scheff, et al. lawsuit in December 2003, Carey Bock asked for $100,000 and settled for $12,500. She accepted money from the same organization she claims harmed her children.
That same year Carey Bock started a hate campaign against me on Internet Forums. She received a copy of my private deposition taken for the case WWASPS had against me. In her deposition she states the transcript just appeared in her mailbox (no return address). This deposition transcript contained highly confidential and private information about my children and me. Carey Bock began posting portions of the deposition transcript on the Internet, threatening to post the entire transcript online.
In December 2003 I hired an attorney, David Pollack, in an attempt to stop this from happening. In February 2003 Carey retained the same law firm that represented WWASPS (again the same organization that she claims abused her sons) to defend her. In her deposition taken in 2005 she claimed she did not know who paid for her legal fees.
During Bock?s campaign to further discredit me, many people begged her to stop. I was fearful to have any contact with her since it was obvious she would stop at nothing. The attempts of others to get her to stop only escalated the vicious attacks.
In June 2006 Carey Bock?s legal counsel withdrew from the Internet Defamation and Invasion of Privacy lawsuit. The Judge postponed the trial to give Ms. Bock ample time to locate new counsel or represent herself. In July 2006 it seems Bock decided to ignore all court requests and my attorney?s telephone calls and mailings.
In September 2006 a Broward County jury spent two days in court listening to extensive evidence (volumious postings and emails). They listened to five witnesses, including a Psychologist. They deliberated for hours and came back with a verdict of $11.3 million, $5 million in punitive damages.
I was as shocked as everyone else with the verdict the jury returned. The jury shared with me their desire to send a strong message that you simply cannot destroy the lives of others over the Internet. This speaks volumes and I feel vindicated.
Media have taken this story and run with it before finding out the facts of this case. Some portray Carey Bock as a Katrina victim. Katrina does not excuse her from her illegal actions.
The misconception that Bock was without representation or could not afford it is simply another smoke screen in an attempt to condone what she did. Carey Bock was represented by a prestigious law firm in Florida for over two years. When they withdrew from her case she had ample time to find new counsel or represent herself.
The Broward County Clerk?s Office, as well as David Pollack, continually sent her notices regarding the case including the trial date ? it seems she made a conscious decision to ignore them. Some were returned. She claims she moved back to Louisiana. We wonder if she intentionally did not submit a forwarding address. The trial was postponed for two months in an attempt to give her adequate notice.
It has been a long five years, however, the victory of both trials have brought me vindication. The fact that I have been on both sides of the fence brings my story full circle.
My book, ?At Wits End?, is a place many parents end up when dealing with a difficult teen, as I did. It is also a place I ended up while defending myself. This book will chronicle both trials as well as much more. Look for it in spring of 2007.
Related Links
Parent?s Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE)
www.helpyourteens.com (http://www.helpyourteens.com)
Coalition Against Institutional Child Abuse
www.caica.org (http://www.caica.org)
Contact Information
Sue Scheff
President
Parent?s Universal Resource Experts, Inc.
954-349-7260
sue.s@helpyourteens.com
Source: Posted on CAICA 10/16/06
----------------------
Question? Who is this consultant that had recently visited "there"? What did he/she do to help Ms. Bock? As for the cameras, maybe the purpose of that was for security? I'd like to hear Ms. Bock's side.
Elsewhere I have read that media lawyers don't view the victory as setting any real legal precedent since the case was not defended. I take that to mean that it's important for the plaintiff's witnesses to be subject to cross-examine by a defense lawyer as well as to put on their own witnesses.
T.I.A.
-
Excuse me, I thought Sue Scheff once referred to WWASPS? Both before and after she created PURE and that this "revelation" is actually contained in her own words in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts?
-
Anybody have a link to the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts or a Fornits thread/postings where this issue of Scheff referring to WWASPS was discussed in more depth?
-
You can get a copy of the WWASP V PURE transcripts from ISAC.
The consultant she speaks of is Steve Bozak.
I never heard anything about Carey working on a film of any kind. I assume Susan has email to prove her allegation; but I would still maintain what pissed Carey off, and began her harping on Fornits, was getting booted off the Trekker list serve, after the argument about the photos of the kids in the High Impact cages.
Its possible Sue and Carey had private email about some kind of film, but I find it hard to believe there would not have been mention of it to the list serve or otherwise.
As I recall, Carey wanted information about the assault and rape at Dundee ranch. As I recall, her beef was largely with Dundee persons. The victim was not a minor. I recall no mention about Carey wanting this information for a film. I think I would, had that been the case. Perhaps someone will want to refresh my memory - but as is, I feel that this is a fabrication.
The only film I recall Carey having any issue with, was the one Ryan F was involved with (and the name escapes me) but she was miffed (big time) that it was a dramatization - and not a documentary. It was suspected at the time, she was really just miffed that she and her sons weren't being featured in it. But she said she was opposing it b/c it wasn't "true".
I'll finish by saying that while I do believe what Carey Bock has done is despicable; what Susan had done and is doing is worse.
Carey betrayed a bunch of adults. Its possibly true (I believe it is) that she greatly damaged the effectiveness of some of these adults in helping relieve other's children from WWASPS' treatment.
But Susan has proven her willingness to over look abusive treatment, if it is putting money in her pocket. Not only over look it - but attack the parents and children trying to tell her about it. And in my POV, that is much worse than what Carey did - as awful as that was.
Personally, I despise them both. Generally, I think they deserve one another. But this judgment is insane. Carey did no damage to anything of Susan's, excepting her bloated ego.
-
Long 5 years?
The WWASPS lawsuit was filed in Nov. 2002 according to what I read on the Interent. (CAICA). If this is not correct, then would someone please post when the lawsuit was filed?
-
You can get a copy of the WWASP V PURE transcripts from ISAC.
The consultant she speaks of is Steve Bozak.
I never heard anything about Carey working on a film of any kind. I assume Susan has email to prove her allegation; but I would still maintain what pissed Carey off, and began her harping on Fornits, was getting booted off the Trekker list serve, after the argument about the photos of the kids in the High Impact cages.
Its possible Sue and Carey had private email about some kind of film, but I find it hard to believe there would not have been mention of it to the list serve or otherwise.
As I recall, Carey wanted information about the assault and rape at Dundee ranch. As I recall, her beef was largely with Dundee persons. The victim was not a minor. I recall no mention about Carey wanting this information for a film. I think I would, had that been the case. Perhaps someone will want to refresh my memory - but as is, I feel that this is a fabrication.
The only film I recall Carey having any issue with, was the one Ryan F was involved with (and the name escapes me) but she was miffed (big time) that it was a dramatization - and not a documentary. It was suspected at the time, she was really just miffed that she and her sons weren't being featured in it. But she said she was opposing it b/c it wasn't "true".
I'll finish by saying that while I do believe what Carey Bock has done is despicable; what Susan had done and is doing is worse.
Carey betrayed a bunch of adults. Its possibly true (I believe it is) that she greatly damaged the effectiveness of some of these adults in helping relieve other's children from WWASPS' treatment.
But Susan has proven her willingness to over look abusive treatment, if it is putting money in her pocket. Not only over look it - but attack the parents and children trying to tell her about it. And in my POV, that is much worse than what Carey did - as awful as that was.
Personally, I despise them both. Generally, I think they deserve one another. But this judgment is insane. Carey did no damage to anything of Susan's, excepting her bloated ego.
Thank you, here's what I found on ISAC relevant to PURE, Whitmore and WWAPS:
1. Cease and Desist Letter from Scheff's attorney to the parent of a child enrolled at Whitmore:
http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/harrisletter.pdf (http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/harrisletter.pdf)
2. Statement from the Parents of a Former Whitmore Student
http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/jharris.pdf (http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/jharris.pdf)
3. WWASPS v. PURE Transcript:
http://www.isaccorp.org/wwasps/wwaspsvpure.pdf (http://www.isaccorp.org/wwasps/wwaspsvpure.pdf)
* Note this document is 700 plus pages long and covers a lot of territory. Perhaps someone can narrow it down to the page(s) where the testimony begins about Scheff's referrals to WWASPS and when they began/ended?
4. Complete File on WHITMORE (a PURE referral program)
http://isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asp#pure (http://isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asp#pure)
-
Carey's own words and this is just one thread.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... sc&start=0 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=2196&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
Looks to me like she ought to at least consider an appeal between her own postings and what was revealed in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts. Anybody else agree? I mean, at one point she was trying to defend herself until she lost her attorney. Did they ever get to the deposition phase? Did her attorney file anything with the court?
-
You can get a copy of the WWASP V PURE transcripts from ISAC.
The consultant she speaks of is Steve Bozak.
I never heard anything about Carey working on a film of any kind. I assume Susan has email to prove her allegation; but I would still maintain what pissed Carey off, and began her harping on Fornits, was getting booted off the Trekker list serve, after the argument about the photos of the kids in the High Impact cages.
Its possible Sue and Carey had private email about some kind of film, but I find it hard to believe there would not have been mention of it to the list serve or otherwise.
As I recall, Carey wanted information about the assault and rape at Dundee ranch. As I recall, her beef was largely with Dundee persons. The victim was not a minor. I recall no mention about Carey wanting this information for a film. I think I would, had that been the case. Perhaps someone will want to refresh my memory - but as is, I feel that this is a fabrication.
The only film I recall Carey having any issue with, was the one Ryan F was involved with (and the name escapes me) but she was miffed (big time) that it was a dramatization - and not a documentary. It was suspected at the time, she was really just miffed that she and her sons weren't being featured in it. But she said she was opposing it b/c it wasn't "true".
I'll finish by saying that while I do believe what Carey Bock has done is despicable; what Susan had done and is doing is worse.
Carey betrayed a bunch of adults. Its possibly true (I believe it is) that she greatly damaged the effectiveness of some of these adults in helping relieve other's children from WWASPS' treatment.
But Susan has proven her willingness to over look abusive treatment, if it is putting money in her pocket. Not only over look it - but attack the parents and children trying to tell her about it. And in my POV, that is much worse than what Carey did - as awful as that was.
Personally, I despise them both. Generally, I think they deserve one another. But this judgment is insane. Carey did no damage to anything of Susan's, excepting her bloated ego.
Thank you, here's what I found on ISAC relevant to PURE, Whitmore and WWAPS:
1. Cease and Desist Letter from Scheff's attorney to the parent of a child enrolled at Whitmore:
http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/harrisletter.pdf (http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/harrisletter.pdf)
2. Statement from the Parents of a Former Whitmore Student
http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/jharris.pdf (http://isaccorp.org/whitmore/jharris.pdf)
3. WWASPS v. PURE Transcript:
http://www.isaccorp.org/wwasps/wwaspsvpure.pdf (http://www.isaccorp.org/wwasps/wwaspsvpure.pdf)
* Note this document is 700 plus pages long and covers a lot of territory. Perhaps someone can narrow it down to the page(s) where the testimony begins about Scheff's referrals to WWASPS and when they began/ended?
4. Complete File on WHITMORE (a PURE referral program)
http://isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asp#pure (http://isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asp#pure)
Buzz,
The WWASP transcript gives a "time-line:"
Sue Scheff enrolled her daughter at Carolina Springs Summer 2000.
She removed her daughter January 2001.
Scheff established Pure February 2001.
Page 165 of the WWASP transcript:
"PURE was established as a 501(c) under the PURE Foundateion, and later changed within a year to a S-Corp." From a non-profit to a profit.(Scheff testimony).
Kevin Richey testimony:
He testified he worked for Teen Help for 7 years.
Page 219
"Sue Scheff had a lot of referring parents that were coming into the program. I was doing my best to help her get paid on the referrals."
Question:
"How long did Scheff continue to send referrals?"
Richey:
"August of the year I left...2001"
Recap:
PURE was established in February 2001.
Scheff continued to send referrals to WWASP until August 2001.
Add it up Ladies and Gentlemen:
Ms. Scheff was sending children to WWASP programs for MONTHS; and at the same time referring children to other "not so UN-ABUSIVE programs" through PURE.
Now, how does a MOM criticize/accuse WWASP for abusing her OWN DAUGHTER, and continue to send other parents and their children to these "abusive WWASP PROGRAMS?"
HOW does anyone do THAT?
------------
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... c&start=75 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=2196&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75)
-
Long 5 years?
The WWASPS lawsuit was filed in Nov. 2002 according to what I read on the Interent. (CAICA). If this is not correct, then would someone please post when the lawsuit was filed?
Think she means since she put her kid in a WWASPS program which was around 5 years ago.
-
If you feel like digging through archives - check an see when it was she and Richey had their disagreement on how much to pay her (its in his testimony) and the date she began he activities on Struggling Teens? How close do they co-inside?
I now believe her posting about WWASP on ST had nothing to do with her concern over the abuse in the programs; but was motivated by her disagreements with them over money.
When the information about her WASP referrals came out, there was a lot of talk among the some Trekkers as to How that could be. It was also a bit shocking to read how much PURE was making. Most of us had been lead to believe what the programs paid her was just very minor amounts - no more than it took to keep the web site up and pay bills. Sue always said she was independently wealthy; a trust fund baby; and that PURE was just her selfless effort to help educate parents.
Not quite the case, as it turns out.
As to time lines - it might be worth noting that these transcripts got into peoples hands about the same time Whitmore was becoming a hot potatoe issue. It was all a real rude awakening. At least for those who woke up.
-
Speaking of Whitmore, there was a civil lawsuit filed against this program by a group of parents. Don't know if it's been settled yet but it was definitly filed from what I can tell on the Whitmore thread.
I wonder if among this group of parents are any that were referred by Ms. Scheff and if so, how they might feel about this defamation lawsuit and the amount of the verdict?
-
The Whitmore Civil Case is in the deposition phase now.
It is still active.
Almost all the parents and their children were referred to Whitmore Academy by Sue Scheff/Pure. A couple of them go back to the Canada days before Whitmore was established, but the MAJORITY were referred by Scheff/Pure.
-
If you feel like digging through archives - check an see when it was she and Richey had their disagreement on how much to pay her (its in his testimony) and the date she began he activities on Struggling Teens? How close do they co-inside?
I now believe her posting about WWASP on ST had nothing to do with her concern over the abuse in the programs; but was motivated by her disagreements with them over money.
When the information about her WASP referrals came out, there was a lot of talk among the some Trekkers as to How that could be. It was also a bit shocking to read how much PURE was making. Most of us had been lead to believe what the programs paid her was just very minor amounts - no more than it took to keep the web site up and pay bills. Sue always said she was independently wealthy; a trust fund baby; and that PURE was just her selfless effort to help educate parents.
Not quite the case, as it turns out.
As to time lines - it might be worth noting that these transcripts got into peoples hands about the same time Whitmore was becoming a hot potatoe issue. It was all a real rude awakening. At least for those who woke up.
Wish somebody would explain who or what the Trekkers are since this name has come up more than once on Fornits.
Also, what is CAICA's connection with PURE and is she a Trekker, too?
-
Long 5 years?
The WWASPS lawsuit was filed in Nov. 2002 according to what I read on the Interent. (CAICA). If this is not correct, then would someone please post when the lawsuit was filed?
2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006
Looks like 5 years
-
Long 5 years?
The WWASPS lawsuit was filed in Nov. 2002 according to what I read on the Interent. (CAICA). If this is not correct, then would someone please post when the lawsuit was filed?
2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006
Looks like 5 years
Huh? The lawsuit was filed November 15, 2002
November 15, 2002 to November 15, 2006 equals 4 years
:roll:
-
CAICA supports PURE because they know Sue Scheff and, like most of the people who are posting negative comments here on Fornits, know it (though they won't admit it). Sue has done more to help kids who have been abused in WWASPS programs than anyone else around. There is truly no disputing that issue, people seem to forget it. Her story on her website has saved thousands of kids from going there so if that's not enough, it's too bad. Not to speak of the fact she offers parents alternatives and doesn't always send kids to programs. Her main goal is to keep kids close to home and preferrably at home. Sometimes it's not possible and they need help. She personally, along with her associate, visits small programs that are not abusive and where parents and kids do not lose communication with one another. I have personally called kids in some of these programs to talk to them about their experiences in other programs that were abusive, that she helped them get out of. The directors let me talk to the kids, no problem there. And the call wasn't censored. I could hear kids playing and having fun in the background, a whole other world than the places we are worried about that are abusive. So get the story straight instead of believing a few disgruntled people who have managed to lie, twist the truth, and tell half-truths.
Example - they go over and over that Sue makes all this money from PURE. That it was in her transcript that she made $200,000 a year. But they forget that on page 309 that was corrected and showed PURE only made $11,000. A far cry from $200,000, barely enough to keep an organization up and running. It's not about the money, she doesn't need it. It's about helping families. People just love bashing her and have spent years doing it.
Another example - someone questioning 5 years. Makes you wonder why people aren't working on the bigger picture here. So many people who were truly advocates for this cause have gone away because of this crap and because of it the industry continues to grow and WWASPS has opened tons of new programs. Sad, I have to say. Extremely sad. So, when you want to waste time and energy on questioning a simple thing like "it's been a long five years" then think about the bigger picture. 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - those are some long 5 years.
The dispute about Sue started when she supported the Sudweeks. What people didn't do was their homework - but she did. She went to visit the Whitmore after allegations were brought forward, and she was told by government officials and others that everything was fine. She spoke to many students and parents and learned there is another side to that story as well. There was no reason to believe there was abuse there and every reason to believe it was a vendetta.
It's ironic how here on Fornits one side gets heard and when anyone tries to share the truth they are trompled over. As I will be on this post, but who cares.
-
Anon who writes about CAICA supporting PURE and why, I have a question for you:
What about the testimony from Mr. RIchey (also in the transcript you refer to) that Ms. Scheff continued to refer to WWASPS after she formed PURE and removed her own daughter from a WWASPS program alleging her own child was abused?
Is this true or false?
Thank you.
-
Sue from PURE has shipped off both her kids. She really didn't seem interested in being a parent at all. That isn't someone who should be owning a placement agency (for profit). Back when I had placed my son at Bethel Boys Academy, Lucedale, TX. aka Pine View Academy, I talked to Sue on the phone. She hadn't heard of Bethel before. Once I rescued my son, I called to tell Sue what had happened to my son (i.e. beatings, torture, starvation, excessive exercise, forced to urinate on himself, etc.). She was shocked and couldn't believe it was that bad. Then promptly went onto tell me about some of the schools she would recommend. I wasn't willing to place my son any where ever again. What a HUGE mistake on my part. Since being sucked into this nightmare I trust none of those schools, WWASP or not. If a child really needs help the parents need to find it locally, where they can visit and see their child daily. How else can you help your child? None of those places, with a paid kidnapper involved, can be any good. But there are always going to be greedy grubbers who want to profit off of frantic parents/troubled kids. Placement people such as PURE, the hired kidnappers, and the torture chambers themselves.
Cheryle
"Yes, my son was abused and tortured at Bethel Boys Academy, aka Pine View Academy, Lucedale, MS.
-
Uh...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. She knows the truth and the authorities who investigated dont. Riiiight... :roll: And that abuse in Canada is made up?
I will admit the plea bargain down to "attempted hazing" only helps her case, but the bottom line is its a stupid risk to take for something that has no clear benefit or any proof of one at all... oh and trying to shut up a kids mom for speaking out about it doesnt look help sue either.
This still kind of dodges the whole "sending a kid away to a BM program held incommunicado that dosen't even give therapy and still cant prove it has any positive benefit at all" problem, but its hard to be apologetic for more than one thing at a time, right?
What this kind of boils down to is sues out to make a buck and shut up anyone who tries to speak out against her.
If its about the CHILDREN, then why do you make it about YOU so damn much, Sue? I know you read this forum, why not fucking speak out? Its not like we dont all know you wanna sue lil ole ME for speaking out for that matter... wtf do you have to hide?
-
Niles: it was not "attempted hazing:" Cheryl plead out on 4 counts of hazing.......
-
///The dispute about Sue started when she supported the Sudweeks. What people didn't do was their homework - but she did. ///
Bull shit.
She called and email back and forth with the Suds - If you want to call that homework. I recall her telling me Marie had gone to look things over, an all was well, and that she has known the Suds for ages and they are good Christian people, who would never do harm to a child; and that Mark had told her about Joyce dragging her daughter out by the hair; that she had a copy of the police report that stated this.
Prior to Joyce's statement to ISAC, I had been told it was one "crazy" kid, making absurd allegations. Then after that, it was this kid and this nutty woman - this screaming shrew, who assaulted her daughter in front of everyone.
It was about this time I began reading the Whitmore forum. Thus I learned it was not just one deranged boy; or just one loony woman. There was in fact, a group of people making consistent allegations of abusive treatment at the Whitmore Mansion.
Thus I began trying to talk with Sue about stopping referrals until things could be cleared up. This concern on my part didn't go over to well.
It was during this tense period of days when I learned that Susan did Not have a copy of any police report - as the officer in question had not yet written it! I also was told that this officer was adamant that no child was drug out of the mansion by their hair - and that had such a thing occurred, he would have had to arrest the offending person on the spot. He further had stated that he found Mrs. Harris credible.
So, upon learning of this, I ask Susan to call him - talk to him. I still felt she had been lied to and manipulated by the Sudwicks, and that if she would talk to this officer, she might come to see reason.
What she did instead was say 'thank you' out of one side of her mouth- while cursing me with the other. She started more of her anon posting games, with the intent to do me emotional harm, and worse if possible.
All I had asked her to do was talk to the police officer who was there that night; and to halt referrals until the situation had been settled.
Explain to me, Oh ye of such great faith in Susan, just how this fits with her having done her "homework". I've always thought it seems much more like lying and stonewalling than home work.
I'd suggest, You better do YOUR homework, and quite believing everything she says, just b/c she says it!
As for how much PURE brings in - maybe you can clarify a question in my mind: Is it 10%, per head, per month; or a flat fee at admission; or both; or what? Does it varry from program to program? Is there any such thing as a program PURE refers to, that doesn't pay this "gratuity"? If so, I'd challenge you to Name it.
-
Niles: it was not "attempted hazing:" Cheryl plead out on 4 counts of hazing.......
There's also an ACTIVE civil lawsuit going on filed by a group of parents from Whitmore.
So this issue with Whitmore has yet to be fully resolved even if the program is no longer operating.
-
CAICA's list of abusive programs.
Okay, maybe we couldn't expect Whitmore to be named given that Isabelle has been asked several times and not obliged, but how does she explain this list? There is not a single program listed. :silly:
http://caica.org/ABUSIVE%20PROGRAMS.htm (http://caica.org/ABUSIVE%20PROGRAMS.htm)
-
I've no wish to re-write history. If I'm wrong, I am sure someone will point it out. But, she used to have Whitmore listed, if I recall correctly. She and Susan were not so close in those days. Something has changed. Now they are thick as thieves. I've wondered about this turn of events, and can only suppose Izzy finely figured out a way to make some money "advocating".
-
Niles: it was not "attempted hazing:" Cheryl plead out on 4 counts of hazing.......
Oh, thanks. I'd have sworn it was 'attemtped hazing' not hazing.
I still think its sad they turn child abuse into hasing in Utah though :x
-
///The dispute about Sue started when she supported the Sudweeks. What people didn't do was their homework - but she did. ///
Bull shit.
She called and email back and forth with the Suds - If you want to call that homework. I recall her telling me Marie had gone to look things over, an all was well, and that she has known the Suds for ages and they are good Christian people, who would never do harm to a child; and that Mark had told her about Joyce dragging her daughter out by the hair; that she had a copy of the police report that stated this.
Prior to Joyce's statement to ISAC, I had been told it was one "crazy" kid, making absurd allegations. Then after that, it was this kid and this nutty woman - this screaming shrew, who assaulted her daughter in front of everyone.
It was about this time I began reading the Whitmore forum. Thus I learned it was not just one deranged boy; or just one loony woman. There was in fact, a group of people making consistent allegations of abusive treatment at the Whitmore Mansion.
Thus I began trying to talk with Sue about stopping referrals until things could be cleared up. This concern on my part didn't go over to well.
It was during this tense period of days when I learned that Susan did Not have a copy of any police report - as the officer in question had not yet written it! I also was told that this officer was adamant that no child was drug out of the mansion by their hair - and that had such a thing occurred, he would have had to arrest the offending person on the spot. He further had stated that he found Mrs. Harris credible.
So, upon learning of this, I ask Susan to call him - talk to him. I still felt she had been lied to and manipulated by the Sudwicks, and that if she would talk to this officer, she might come to see reason.
What she did instead was say 'thank you' out of one side of her mouth- while cursing me with the other. She started more of her anon posting games, with the intent to do me emotional harm, and worse if possible.
All I had asked her to do was talk to the police officer who was there that night; and to halt referrals until the situation had been settled.
Explain to me, Oh ye of such great faith in Susan, just how this fits with her having done her "homework". I've always thought it seems much more like lying and stonewalling than home work.
I'd suggest, You better do YOUR homework, and quite believing everything she says, just b/c she says it!
As for how much PURE brings in - maybe you can clarify a question in my mind: Is it 10%, per head, per month; or a flat fee at admission; or both; or what? Does it varry from program to program? Is there any such thing as a program PURE refers to, that doesn't pay this "gratuity"? If so, I'd challenge you to Name it.
Get an account - dont have to post with it tho. PM me please, I need all the facts.
Seeing as I live in florida now and Sue wants to try to 'Sue' me I damn well better be well armed in the legal sense with the facts and some sort of verification.
Its no question shes out to make examples of her detractors and Im one of them... heh. Id rather not fall on my sword becuase I didnt have everything all together before she tries to jump the gun again :wink:
-
///Sue has done more to help kids who have been abused in WWASPS programs than anyone else around. There is truly no disputing that issue, ///
Sure there is. Keeping a kid out of wwasp to toss them into something akin to Whitmore does not an "advocate" make.
-
Apparently, Cathy Sutton felt strongly enough about Whitmore not being listed on CAICA's watchlist (and other issues like Isabelle posting on her CAICA's CORNER webpage an email written by Cathy without her knowledge or consent) that she elected to part ways with Isabelle saying she felt "used" and "duped".
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=15601&highlight= (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=15601&highlight=)
-
Whitmore Academy WAS listed on CAICA at one time...but it was removed by Isabelle.
Izzy lied and said Joyce Harris "requested" that Whitmore be removed from CAICA, but that is not true.
-
Still confused about Scheff "declaring she WON this lawsuit against WWASP."
Wasn't she simply just found NOT GUILTY?
That's not actually winning anything, is it?
-
Anon who writes about CAICA supporting PURE and why, I have a question for you:
What about the testimony from Mr. RIchey (also in the transcript you refer to) that Ms. Scheff continued to refer to WWASPS after she formed PURE and removed her own daughter from a WWASPS program alleging her own child was abused?
Is this true or false?
Thank you.
This is a fair question that IMO deserves an answer Anon. A simple yes (it's true) or no (it's false) will do.
BUMP
-
Portions of Whitmore Enrollment Agreement
http://isaccorp.org/gallery/whitmore/page1.html (http://isaccorp.org/gallery/whitmore/page1.html)
-
The Whitmore Civil Case is in the deposition phase now.
It is still active.
Almost all the parents and their children were referred to Whitmore Academy by Sue Scheff/Pure. A couple of them go back to the Canada days before Whitmore was established, but the MAJORITY were referred by Scheff/Pure.
So this is a civil lawsuit like the one filed against WWASPS by parents and kids? Anybody know when the case is expected to go to trial?
-
It is sounding more and more like this was a business dispute between two women of questionable ethics that degenerated into a public catfight on the internet.
Read the WWASPS vs. PURE transcripts and learn about how Sue collected $1000 per kid for referrals she made to WWASPS after she removed her own child from Carolina Springs. Read about her scam in which she let another parent get credit for referrals so that parent could get a free month's tuition (around $3000 at the time) -- and pay Sue her usual $1000 cut. Read about Carey Bock attending the WWASPS vs. PURE trial and selling her hard drive to WWASPS for $12,500.
The whole thing about Carey wanting to make a movie is starting to make more sense. She supposedly had a camera crew with her in Costa Rica when she freed her sons from Dundee Ranch. She attended at least part of the WWASPS vs. PURE trial and saw the French film crew (the ones that made the TB documentary) interviewing Sue and others outside the courthouse in Salt Lake City. Maybe Carey was thinking that if Sue can use her child's abuse to launch a profitable business venture, maybe she could too. Exactly how and why they had a falling out, who can say? Sue's lack of cooperation in providing names of abuse victims for Carey's movie certainly seems plausible.
This whole thing would make a great soap opera. Too bad it ended up setting a legal precedent that affects every internet user around the world.
-
IT DIDN'T AFFECT ME, MEATBAG.
-
It is sounding more and more like this was a business dispute between two women of questionable ethics that degenerated into a public catfight on the internet.
Read the WWASPS vs. PURE transcripts and learn about how Sue collected $1000 per kid for referrals she made to WWASPS after she removed her own child from Carolina Springs. Read about her scam in which she let another parent get credit for referrals so that parent could get a free month's tuition (around $3000 at the time) -- and pay Sue her usual $1000 cut. Read about Carey Bock attending the WWASPS vs. PURE trial and selling her hard drive to WWASPS for $12,500.
The whole thing about Carey wanting to make a movie is starting to make more sense. She supposedly had a camera crew with her in Costa Rica when she freed her sons from Dundee Ranch. She attended at least part of the WWASPS vs. PURE trial and saw the French film crew (the ones that made the TB documentary) interviewing Sue and others outside the courthouse in Salt Lake City. Maybe Carey was thinking that if Sue can use her child's abuse to launch a profitable business venture, maybe she could too. Exactly how and why they had a falling out, who can say? Sue's lack of cooperation in providing names of abuse victims for Carey's movie certainly seems plausible.
This whole thing would make a great soap opera. Too bad it ended up setting a legal precedent that affects every internet user around the world.
Naw, the Dundee thing happened BEFORE the WWASPS v. PURE trial. The camera crews were probably local media. Somebody may have tipped them off. Don't forget, Scheff referred Bock to an ed consultant who accompanied her to Costa Rica along with some body guards, or some such thing. Carey didn't plan this by herself was my impression from reading the articles. Is that not the case?
-
IT DIDN'T AFFECT ME, MEATBAG.
It must be nice to know you are immune from lawsuits. I'm not sure every other blogger in the world agrees with you.
-
Naw, the Dundee thing happened BEFORE the WWASPS v. PURE trial. The camera crews were probably local media. Somebody may have tipped them off. Don't forget, Scheff referred Bock to an ed consultant who accompanied her to Costa Rica along with some body guards, or some such thing. Carey didn't plan this by herself was my impression from reading the articles. Is that not the case?
Before or after the trial, what difference does it make? Why did Carey sell her hard drive to WWASPS? Why was she so hell bent on getting names of abuse victims from Sue? Pure do-gooder motives to help other kids? Maybe. Make a few bucks while you're at it? Possibly. If so, Sue would've been a good coach on how to make big bucks while "helping" kids.
-
Naw, the Dundee thing happened BEFORE the WWASPS v. PURE trial. The camera crews were probably local media. Somebody may have tipped them off. Don't forget, Scheff referred Bock to an ed consultant who accompanied her to Costa Rica along with some body guards, or some such thing. Carey didn't plan this by herself was my impression from reading the articles. Is that not the case?
Before or after the trial, what difference does it make? Why did Carey sell her hard drive to WWASPS? Why was she so hell bent on getting names of abuse victims from Sue? Pure do-gooder motives to help other kids? Maybe. Make a few bucks while you're at it? Possibly. If so, Sue would've been a good coach on how to make big bucks while "helping" kids.
People who read Fornits know about the hard drive, that's been discussed ad nauseum. The rest of your allegations are pure speculation. Where are you going with this stuff? Who 'effing cares?
-
When I first heard of this $11.3M judgement, it sounded like Carey was the victim. Now I think maybe, maybe not. It sounds more and more like a business dispute between two women who took shots at each other on the internet.
Establishing this precedent in court is much bigger than either of these women or their petty business dealings. The real victim was freedom of expression. That's where I'm going with all of this. And I do think somebody effin' cares...
-
///She supposedly had a camera crew with her in Costa Rica when she freed her sons from Dundee Ranch. ///
A new paper reporter went with her. James Varney, Latin America correspondent for the picayune times. I'll past a copy of his article at the end.
///She attended at least part of the WWASPS vs. PURE trial and saw the French film crew (the ones that made the TB documentary) interviewing Sue and others outside the courthouse in Salt Lake City. ///
Carey was not at the trial.
///Read about Carey Bock attending the WWASPS vs. PURE trial and selling her hard drive to WWASPS for $12,500. ///
This was done long before the trial. Some of the email they got off her hard drive was used in the trial.
///The camera crews were probably local media. Somebody may have tipped them off.///
The camera crew was not local media. It was the French men taping for possible use in their documentary, which had nothing what so ever to do with Carey Bock.
///It is sounding more and more like this was a business dispute between two women of questionable ethics///
There was no business dispute. It was more of an ideological dispute. Not unlike politics or religion.
///Maybe Carey was thinking that if Sue can use her child's abuse to launch a profitable business venture, maybe she could too.///
Maybe so. But that's not what the disagreement was about.
///Exactly how and why they had a falling out, who can say? ///
Anyone who was also on the Trekker list at the time. I suspect one or more of them of purgery in this recent trial. Carey was not working on a documentary, and profit had nothing to do with her argument or motivation. Its possible she and Sue had exchanged email on the subject of a documentary. We were all, always hoping for any kind of media attention to the subject of these abusive programs. But this is not what caused the breach, and not what caused Carey's raging on Fornits.
The following is a copy of the article that resulted from Carey's trip to Costa Rica / Dundee Ranch, to retrieve her sons. This is the very article that caused me to ask my own son "what was all that crap about OP?" which got me a shocking answer, which started me on this long and winding road.
A Mandeville woman, with some strong-arm help, frees her sons from a Costa Rican school. Their father who placed them in the boot-camp-like facility may accuse her of kidnapping.
10/20/02
By James Varney Latin America correspondent
OROTINA, COSTA RICA -- For tourists, this piedmont town near the Pacific is just a gas or soda stopover en route to some glorious tropical beach. But then, the teenagers at the Academy at Dundee Ranch aren't tourists.
Just what they are is subject to interpretation. Some consider them students, albeit of an unruly, sometimes self-destructive sort, sent here by desperate parents to turn their lives around. Others, Carey Bock of Mandeville among them, subscribe to the view that Academy Dundee is more like a prison and that the teens are inmates.
That conviction last week launched Bock, a 45-year-old assistant vice president at Resource Bank in Mandeville, on a three-day, $15,000 odyssey. She flew to Costa Rica, equipped herself with an entourage of burly men and drove out to the academy's remote cluster of buildings on an unpaved road northwest of Orotina. Without prior announcement, she barged onto the campus and left with her 16-year-old twin sons. Hours later, after the U.S. Embassy in San José refused to issue the boys new passports to replace the ones held by the academy, she talked her way onto a flight to Houston and on Wednesday night shepherded the boys back home by way of Louis Armstrong International Airport.
Bock and the twins, Geoffrey and Garred, now face court action threatened by her ex-husband, Mike Bock, the boys' father, who shipped them off to Academy Dundee in March. He remains convinced, they say, that Dundee's tough-as-nails approach is what the boys need.
Carey Bock says she will do whatever it takes to keep them from having to go back.
"I'm not pretending my sons are angels, but I think they're better off in the United States," she said. "It doesn't make any sense to me to put your kids at risk because you think that will save their lives."
Searching for solutions
A year ago, the twins were enrolled at Mandeville High School when their mother, exasperated by their drinking and their cavalier attitude toward curfews and other parental safeguards, sent them to live with their father, stationed in Rio de Janeiro as the country manager for Weatherford Completion Systems, an oil supply company. The couple's joint custody of Geoffrey and Garred remained legally intact.
What transpired in Brazil remains unclear. The twins wouldn't discuss the topic, and Mike Bock did not return phone calls or e-mail messages. But when the twins returned to Mandeville for a visit last Christmas, their mother concluded that the situation had not improved, and, in an attempt to dodge their flight back to Rio, the boys ran away briefly.
Soon thereafter, Bock said, her ex-husband told her he had found a "school in the States" for the twins, but he remained evasive about the institution and it was only through the estranged couple's daughter that Mrs. Bock learned Mike and the boys had flown to Costa Rica.
At the San Jose airport on March 28, according to the twins, their father handed them over to an Academy Dundee representative who drove the youths over the coffee-terraced mountains to the school in the torrid coastal plain.
'Youth specialty schools'
The site outside Orotina is one of three foreign and eight U.S.-based sites that make up the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP), which is headquartered in Utah. Dubbing themselves "the world's largest and finest youth specialty schools," the WWASP academies are part of a so-called boot-camp or tough-love movement, places for the conversion or rehabilitation of teenagers, most of whom are caught in a cycle of drug and alcohol abuse. The teenagers are enrolled there by their parents, not referred by courts.
As the growing number of such institutions attests, most parents are apparently pleased with the results. The U.S. Embassy in Costa Rica said it has been asked only twice to check up on resident students since the school opened a year ago, and one of those requests came from Carey Bock. The parents of another New Orleans-area teenager attending Dundee had nothing negative to say about the school. In total, three students from southeast Louisiana -- two from the New Orleans area and one from Baton Rouge -- remain at Academy Dundee.
But the movement as a whole, and WWASP academies in particular, are not without critics. Last year, a 14-year-old at a tough-love camp near Phoenix died after being forced to eat mud and stand in 116-degree heat, according to authorities who in February charged the camp's director with second-degree murder.
That site was not associated with the WWASP, but a female student at the WWASP's Tranquility Bay site in Jamaica committed suicide last year. In 1998, authorities in the Czech Republic closed Morava Academy, a WWASP school, after allegations of abuse and illegal imprisonment of 57 teenagers. The couple running the Czech school, Glenda and Steven Roach, had moved to Europe after being accused of similar crimes at a school in Mexico. Their whereabouts are unknown, and WWASP president Ken Kay said the Roaches no longer work for the organization.
Physical ordeals
Garred and Geoffrey Bock said they were not subjected to beatings at Academy Dundee, though they claimed other students were. But some of the punishments they described were physical ordeals by any account. For talking when they weren't supposed to, as one example, the twins said they were ordered into an isolated room and forced to kneel silently for 12 hours a day, three days in a row.
WWASP makes no secret of the harshness of its program. While literature provided to parents says the school "is not a treatment facility, counseling-based program, or a correctional institution," it acknowledges that freedoms are sharply curtailed. In Costa Rica, the pamphlets tell parents, "the food isn't as good as the ?home-cooked' meals you have provided them, the accommodations are simple and basic, not nearly as nice as your home."
"In a nutshell, our purpose is creating family unity through growth, and there is a degree of controversy that goes with that," Kay said, without commenting specifically on the Bock boys. WWASP does not own Academy Dundee and is not a hands-on partner in what goes on there, he said. "We don't get involved in the day-to-day decisions or personnel decisions," he said. Academy Dundee's director, Joe Atkin, referred inquiries to Kay's office.
Spartan, but expensive
Upon arrival, newcomers sleep in what is known as "the bat cave " -- in reality a hallway full of cots, unprotected by mosquito netting, the Bock twins said, despite the serious outbreak of dengue fever that has beset Costa Rica's Pacific coast this year.
Dundee students pursue an independent study program in a variety of courses. The school literature notes, however, that, "the teachers/tutors working with the students do not need or may not necessarily have U.S. credentials or equivalent."
Despite the Spartan conditions and the uncertain attainments of the staff, the cost is not cheap. In fact, a year at a WWASP program costs about the same as a year at a private university in the United States. For the twins, that came to roughly $2,000 each per month, and that does not include $95 a month for incidental fees, a $2,000 one-time processing fee, plus $295 for uniform service and other costs.
Teenagers begin at Level 1, and may have no telephone contact with their parents until they reach Level 3, a process that can take anywhere from "60 to 120 days or more," according to Academy Dundee materials provided to parents. After that, telephone calls are permitted once a month, but only "at times prearranged between parents and their family representative at the school," the materials state.
The twins said no music is allowed until a teen reaches Level 4, at which time parental visits also are permitted. But status can be fleeting at Academy Dundee. For example, the twins said that after six months they were on the verge of Level 4 status, but that another student at the facility remained mired at Level 1 after five years in WWASP programs.
Some want out
Not surprisingly, given the bad habits that may have landed them at Dundee and the harsh discipline upon arrival, some students try to bolt. Since March, six have fled Academy Dundee in three separate incidents, according to the Bock boys. The runaways are trying to make it to the U.S. Embassy in San José, a distance of 35 miles as the crow flies, but by foot an arduous trek over steep mountains and through rain forests teeming with snakes, crocodiles and other menaces. The twins said most runaways get lost in the jungle where the mud is so thick it sucks off their shoes. Barefoot, they press on but are usually found within 24 hours and carried back to the school, their feet lacerated and swollen from the ordeal.
Indeed, runaways were the lead topic in the Academy's newsletter, Dundeeism, in September.
"Running away doesn't pay," Atkin wrote. "You all know that great song that says, ?You can sign out any time you want, but you can never leave.' "
In another newsletter item, a woman named Breanne Berrett strikes a more sinister tone. "If you were found, well, have fun at Tranquility Bay or Boot Camp," she warns would-be runaways. "The wonderful facilitators will be waiting there to greet you."
Bodyguards help
No one was waiting for Carey Bock when she drove onto the campus Tuesday. She had set off from San José that morning with Steve Bozak, who described himself as an education consultant, from Albany, N.Y., two hulking men named John and Ty, recruited by Bozak from California, her fiancé, Ken Levine.
In the troubled-teen business, the bodyguards are known as an escort service, and they cut both ways. At times, after parents have signed off on the procedure, they burst into homes in the early morning hours and yank teenagers out of their beds, whisking them off to the boot camps in which their parents have enrolled them. In this case, though, they were on hand to assist Bock in taking her sons away.
The school was ungated, and upon arrival Bock encountered about 40 people milling about a circular driveway. On one side, a handful of boys were washing a car and, in front of the main office, about 10 girls were pushing brooms in the hot sun.
Bock, her voice tremulous with fear and anger, asked to speak with Atkin, who appeared clearly startled by the intruders. When Bock asked to see her boys, Atkin said it was his understanding that a St. Tammany judge had to issue an order allowing her to visit her sons.
"No," Bock said, trembling. "I want to see my boys."
Atkin assured her they would be brought to the office, and the bodyguards tried in vain to calm Bock.
Outside, the girls pushing the brooms asked repeatedly for water. "Si, un poco water," a counselor replied in an odd mix of Spanish and English, but no water was distributed. One of the sweepers crouched with a hacking cough, and another, her face and arms flushed, came unglued. Shaking and sobbing, she moved toward the shade.
"She's from Canada and kind of freaking out because she just got a call that one of her neighbors back home is dying of skin cancer," Atkin explained.
He and another Dundee staffer said they wanted to call the St. Tammany courts, and one of the bodyguards said that was fine.
"You make whatever calls you have to make," he said calmly, "and in the meantime let's just bring the boys out here so she can see them."
'Lucky bastard!'
Perhaps 10 minutes later, the twins -- sporting Marine buzz cuts, khaki pants, long-sleeved white shirts and ties, and flip-flops -- came walking up. Their "family representative," Peter, had an arm around each shoulder. They looked completely mystified until they saw their mother, and then they rushed forward. The trio embraced as the twins started crying.
After the brief reunion, one of the bodyguards urged Bock to walk with the boys toward the car.
As they walked swiftly away, holding hands, one of the boys washing the car on the other side of the driveway yelled out, "We love you, Garred!" adding, as the mother and her sons approached the car, "you lucky bastard!"
Without a word, Bock, Levine and the twins hopped into the car and drove off the campus, the bodyguards following on foot. The twins were scared and mystified.
"Have you got passports? Are you going to get in trouble, Mom? This is weird, this is really weird," they muttered.
On the two-hour drive back to San José, the twins offered a mixed analysis of the program.
"I know people are going to want me to say it's 100 percent evil, but I'm not going to do that," Garred said. "I learned a lot of good things, too."
The twins described an "inside program" and an "outside program." The inside component involves two- to -three-day seminars, which WWASP calls teen discovery, teen focus or teen accountability. They are run every few weeks, and the twins spoke highly of them. In between, however, the twins said the school was more like a boot camp, with merits and demerits handed out willy-nilly by both students and counselors. There are about 150 students, they said, "and only one bathroom works."
Mounting concerns
"This whole thing has just been a blur," Carey Bock said when they arrived back at their hotel.
In truth, Bock's blur was almost seven months old. She said her husband had refused to tell her where he had enrolled the boys, and when she learned the name of the school and the country from their daughter, she still had no idea how to contact her sons.
Bock, increasingly distraught, became positively horrified after watching a Montel Williams show concerning the boy who died at the Arizona boot camp.
She began cruising the Internet and soon found a web of parents who oppose WWASP. She called the academy but was told she could not speak to the twins. Her concern mounting, she sent an e-mail message to Atkin, asking him about his credentials and the credentials of the school and other faculty members.
"I worded it very carefully as a concerned parent and not in some confrontational way, asking the same kind of questions I think any parent would ask about a boarding school where their children were," she said. "But he just e-mailed me back saying he didn't have time to answer those questions."
Telling it to the judge
The Academy at Dundee Ranch Parent Checklist says that, in cases of divorce, custody must be verified prior to arrival. If both biological parents are signing, no custody verification is necessary. Carey Bock never signed, and, given the joint custody status of her divorce agreement with Mike Bock, she instituted a case against him.
In August, Mike Bock flew to Covington and a hearing was held before Judge Peter Garcia. Carey Bock said she was called into a lengthy conference in the judge's chambers, and that Garcia said to her, "I've got your sons on the phone right here. Do you want to talk to them?" It was the first time they'd spoken together since last year.
"I get on the phone and they're crying, saying my letters to them were getting them in trouble and talking about having to stare at the wall for 12 hours, and kneeling for three days in a row because they wore their shoes," she said.
Bock then asked the U.S. Embassy to perform a welfare check. Consular officer James Russo visited the school in August and spoke with the boys, and Bock said he later told her, cryptically, "it's not as bad as some of them."
'We're going to the airport'
The embassy declined to grant The Times-Picayune an interview with Russo, but he saw the twins again Wednesday. That morning, Carey Bock, Levine and the boys went to the embassy to try to obtain new passports for the twins, because their current ones are apparently in the possession of Academy Dundee.
Russo was ready for them, they said. He had been faxed the joint custody papers the day before, either by Mike Bock in Brazil or his attorney in St. Tammany, and said he could not issue new passports without the signature of both parents. According to Carey Bock, the twins and Levine, Russo asked the twins if they had been physically abused, and they said no. He then asked them if they wanted to go home, and they said yes.
Empty-handed, the foursome returned to their hotel. Bock was crying as the family huddled in their room to plot their next step. Bock's return flight reservations were for Thursday. Minutes later, they strode into the lobby with bags packed.
"We're going to the airport," Bock said.
At the airport, Bock, who had the twins' birth certificates, Social Security cards, and a passport one of the twins had lost in Mandeville last year, spoke with the airline, got the boarding passes and left for the United States.
The next phase may unfold in the courts. After arriving home, Bock said her attorney told her Mike Bock may file kidnapping charges against her. But she says she is prepared to fight.
"I have to wonder about the majority of individuals who support WWASP," she said. "I say that only because it is hard for me to imagine a parent would sign over their rights as parents, and basically that is what they have done."
. . . . . . .
James Varney can be reached at jvarney@timespicayune.com or by international call to (506) 282-9246.
-
Buzzkill writes:
///The camera crews were probably local media. Somebody may have tipped them off.///
The camera crew was not local media. It was the French men taping for possible use in their documentary, which had nothing what so ever to do with Carey Bock.
--------------------
Question: Are you referring to the camera crews at the WWASPS v. PURE trial being the French men filming Sue Scheff and the trial happenings OR did the French men go to Costa Rica with Bock?
:question:
-
When I first heard of this $11.3M judgement, it sounded like Carey was the victim. Now I think maybe, maybe not. It sounds more and more like a business dispute between two women who took shots at each other on the internet.
Establishing this precedent in court is much bigger than either of these women or their petty business dealings. The real victim was freedom of expression. That's where I'm going with all of this. And I do think somebody effin' cares...
Okay, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Look, the defendant put on no defense and because of this very significant fact, it is very unlikely this case will set legal precedent of the kind you are worried about.
Case law depends on both sides being argued. That didn't happen in this case. As for the "award", it's clearly out of touch with reality. The defendant is a single working mom. No hope of paying it in her lifetime unless she wins the lottery, IMO.
-
IT DIDN'T AFFECT ME, MEATBAG.
It must be nice to know you are immune from lawsuits. I'm not sure every other blogger in the world agrees with you.
It doesn't set a precedent. it's just a garden variety defamation suit, and I suspect Carey either had a lousy lawyer, or didn't pay for the services she needed from his firm (research, discovery, and such), or didn't provide him with complete information.
It should have been extremely difficult for Sue to prove Carey damaged her, in the face of a strong legal defense by Carey.
Anybody poor is subject to frivolous lawsuits they can't effectively defend themselves against. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
I'm not saying this one was frivolous, I'm just saying that people do lose lawsuits just because they're poor. Just like people go to jail just because they're poor---the public defender system sucks, too.
This isn't a precedent. It's the way defamation law has always been. There have just been some people who wrongly assumed that posting something on the internet instead of in the local newspaper or on the local gossip grapevine made them immune from lawsuits.
If Sue's lawyers called it a precedent, that was just them preening for the cameras.
Julie
-
Buzzkill writes:
///The camera crews were probably local media. Somebody may have tipped them off.///
The camera crew was not local media. It was the French men taping for possible use in their documentary, which had nothing what so ever to do with Carey Bock.
--------------------
Question: Are you referring to the camera crews at the WWASPS v. PURE trial being the French men filming Sue Scheff and the trial happenings OR did the French men go to Costa Rica with Bock?
:question:
the WWASPS v. PURE trial
-
It is a precedent. That's how the law works - lawsuits set precence. Laws are in place but when a suit is won it helps others down the road and that's why they call it "setting precedence." Not that any law has changed.
-
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Still confused about Scheff "declaring she WON this lawsuit against WWASP."
Wasn't she simply just found NOT GUILTY?
That's not actually winning anything, is it?
Of course it's winning when you fight a battle in court with someone - whether you are the plaintiff bringing the suit forward or whether you are the defendant defending yourself, it's a fight and someone wins and someone loses.
-
It is a precedent. That's how the law works - lawsuits set precence. Laws are in place but when a suit is won it helps others down the road and that's why they call it "setting precedence." Not that any law has changed.
Right, except in this particular case, there was no defense. Nothing to challenge the merits of the plaintiff (Scheff's) allegations. No cross examine of the plaintiff or her witnesses, including any "expert" testimony. Jurors are the "triers of fact". What facts did they try? See what I mean ... it was one-sided. The true test will come on appeal, if there is one. That's where the judge's rulings will be examined by a higher court to determine if there were any errors and if so, how egregious were they. Judges have been reversed on appeal ya know. Happens everyday in this country and Ms. Bock certainly is entitled to pursue an appeal if she so chooses.
Who was the judge in this case? Might be interesting to look up his record on appeal?
-
When I first heard of this $11.3M judgement, it sounded like Carey was the victim. Now I think maybe, maybe not. It sounds more and more like a business dispute between two women who took shots at each other on the internet...
What business was Carey in to have had a business dispute with Sue?
-
"Wish somebody would explain who or what the Trekkers are since this name has come up more than once on Fornits.
Also, what is CAICA's connection with PURE and is she a Trekker, too?"
Trekkers is a list serve created by Donna Headrick. she died in the summer of 2002 and Sue Scheff took it upon herself to put people on Trekker or take them off and mostly without the persons knowledge. Donna was convicted of some kind of fraud and she and sue were trying to open programs or refer to programs for money. Marie Peart is now Sues business partner and they split the referral fees they squeeze from parents. I heard but dont know for sure that Marie was convicted of some kind of stealing and she is or was related to Bob Lichfield who runs WWASP.
Does that answer your question? Maybe Sue Scheff can add to this so we knwo the whole story of trekkers. Sue--chime in anytime here. Oh yea Jeff Berryman was a trekker.
-
CACA was not a Trekker I'm told but she would like to be. :)
-
This Trekker list serve still exists?
Who would want to belong to such a thing, with such a seemingly back-stabbing group of people?
Besides Izzy that is.
-
I have been a Trekker. I was invited to join sometime around the first part of 03. I left the list the first time due to concerns over how Susan was trying to hijack the plaintiff list in the CA case, to add people to her witness list with out first consulting them. Then, after Carey sold her hard drive to WWASP ( it took awhile to learn just how much she got for it; and that she had actually sold the Hard Drive. At first ,we thought she had just forwarded her files to wwasp ) I went back on the list. This lasted until March of 05, when the situation with Whitmore got so heated, and Susan got so angry with her friends who were counseling her to halt referrals, until matters were settled. As far as I know the list is still going, but I am not on it. Much like the BBS.
Most of the people on the Trekker list are good people. Well intentioned. Jeff included. Some have begun to see that Carey's suspicions regarding Susan were correct after all. Some say so; other do not. Others are so blinded by her aura they can not see the light. But I'd say they are generally a very good bunch of people.
As the above poster says - Trekkers is just a private email group. It was a list serve; meaning that if a member emailed another member threw the list serve account, every member got a copy.
Most of the back stabbing gossip took place off the list serve in private email. Sue was very prone to pick a member and snipe at them privately.
-
So Scheff wanted something (a list of plaintiffs) from the 1st lawsuit to use for her own defense against WWASPS? Isn't this somewhat akin to what Carey wanted (the name of a staff member who was not a minor) that alleged they were the victim of a sexual assault at Dundee? Or am I reading this wrong? Whatever became of this lawsuit? The one Scheff promoted on her own website? Did some of those plaintiffs from the 1st lawsuit testify at the WWASPS v. PURE trial? And why are Scheff/Zehnder involved in a second lawsuit (Turley)? Why two lawsuits?
-
Is this for real? Is this total and complete fraud-on-the-public actually pretending she can write now? Or maybe her side kick Cackie-Wackie is doing the writing for Sue-Sue? Hey Sue-Sue maybe you could have cackie-wackie write a lulaby about the torments of your life as a rich person. Maybe you could include touched up pictures of yourself so no one can see how ugle you really are even with a nose job.
"My book, ?At Wits End?, is a place many parents end up when dealing with a difficult teen, as I did. It is also a place I ended up while defending myself. This book will chronicle both trials as well as much more. Look for it in spring of 2007."
-
How old is this daughter of Sue-SUE's now?
Gotta wonder if this daughter is tired of being the center of what ever one says is Sue-SUE's little money empire--after all, if this girl was abused after her mother enrolled her in a WWASP program; maybe she doesn't want to be the topic of any book about her mother being at her "wit's end."
Gotta feel sorry for this girl.
This girl being sent to a WWASP program by her mother, being part of lawsuits--if Sue-SUE has in fact brought suit against WWASP for her daughter's supposedly abuse in the WWASP facility--now possibly being discussed again in some book.
What kind of person just seemingly flaunts their kids like this?
-
after all, if this girl was abused after her mother enrolled her in a WWASP program; maybe she doesn't want to be the topic of any book about her mother being at her "wit's end."
Maybe she'll sue her mother for libel. Wouldn't that be a trip?
Now can we please shut up about this mindless crap? Sue's like the world's biggest troll and all of you just keep feeding her.
-
This really is kinda stupid. The blogosphere wasn't represented at trial. What's to discuss? Whether this was a default judgement? What else could it be if neither the defendant nor her attorney was present for trial?
-
Really - this is stupid. :wstupid: All these "trekkers" seem to have one up on each other - a bunch of middle aged people with nothing better to do? What a waste.
Just because "Buzz" says it's so doesn't mean it is - that goes for just about everyone posting here. Remember whatever you hear on this place is one-sided and there are so many people with vendettas against others its impossible to get the truth here. One person's truth is another person's lies here - it's pretty obvious.
Not to speak of the fact it's an open forum that claims has no moderator (not true either) so anyone can say anything they want. WWASPS and others post here, don't kid yourself if you think they don't. :flame:
I think some of these trekkers jumped on the bandwagon with the Turley firm against WWASPS. Really it's more complex and deep than anyone will ever know and the truth just isn't going to be told here. You can't believe a thing anyone says here any more. It's a crying shame. :cry2:
The only thing I think is worth anything on this site is the news and there's so little of that these days it's hardly worth coming here. Just a bunch of angry people click-click-clicking away on their keyboards. :(
-
I think some of these trekkers jumped on the bandwagon with the Turley firm against WWASPS. Really it's more complex and deep than anyone will ever know and the truth just isn't going to be told here. You can't believe a thing anyone says here any more. It's a crying shame
And this is important because ....?
:roll:
-
-------->>> ::troll:: <<<--------
-
Just because "Buzz" says it's so doesn't mean it is - that goes for just about everyone posting here. Remember whatever you hear on this place is one-sided and there are so many people with vendettas against others its impossible to get the truth here. One person's truth is another person's lies here - it's pretty obvious.
Bullshit, the only thing obvious here is your pitiful attempt to SPIN the truth and/or hurt someone's credibility (Buzz).
Loser!
:flame:
-
Naw - thats OK - they're right.
I'm talking about my perceptions and memories. Others will at times disagree. This is normal.
But if the poster has something specific in mind they feel I have gotten wrong - I hope they will say so. Then we can talk about it.
-
Anytime I see a post by some anon claiming Fornits is only good for "news" and even that is hard to find, I have to laugh. So what is it this time ANON? What big, bad truths are you afraid of being posted on Fornits? :rofl:
-
Not a single thing. Just stating my opinion, like everyone else.
-
:wink:
-
You know what I think? I think Drive-by Attacks on the credibility of posters is an old trick around here. Usually instigated by an anon who seemingly HAS to hide their identity because they are afraid of confronting the poster publicly.
Oh well, at least the ANON didn't post a link to that other website. That might have made me ::puke:: instead of :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Anon, it's one thing to have an opinion and another to accuse someone (or a group) of having a vendetta that compromises the validity of their own opinions or truthfullness of their statements.
From your post, I get the feeling that it isn't the truth you seek, but rather, to bury it.
The question is WHY?
Are you afraid of something? If so, what?
Inquiring minds want to know.
:rofl:
-
Just an FYI - the folks over at SLASHDOT.com have posted some very interesting opinions about Scheff v. Bock. Overall, I'd say the majority agree that Bock lost because she didn't show up. Had Bock put up a defense and Scheff prevailed, then one could say the judgement was a landmark victory.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/10/11/1510221.shtml (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/10/11/1510221.shtml)
-
Read what one poster wrote:
by jellomizer (103300) * on Wednesday October 11, @01:17PM (#16395451)
Now both sides have lost. First the defendant who has to go into bankruptcy and the plaintiff who now because of the trial got national attention for being a litigious bastard. Who most people will be afraid to do work with because she will take any negative comments towards her and sue the pant off people. If she just sucked it up, explained her side on the net as well anyone the damage will be limited to a couple of Blogs which no one reads. But new with USA Today coverage now the rest of the US can hear about it. So in the end the only person who won is the lawyer. The Defendant can't afford to pay the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff needs to pay the lawyer.
that may be a significant factor to anyone dealing with this woman. She may have caused herself a great deal of harm and can blame no one but herself for this.