Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => EdCons and referring organizations and agencies => PURE Bullshit and CAICA => Topic started by: Anonymous on July 25, 2007, 01:51:24 PM
-
Seems CAICA has changed it's front page.
No more disclaimer about referrals to programs?
Why? Is this some sort of "unofficial" statement that CAICA has in the past and will continue to do so in the future assisted in the referral of children into unregulated programs?
:o
-
Seems CAICA has changed it's front page.
No more disclaimer about referrals to programs?
Why? Is this some sort of "unofficial" statement that CAICA has in the past and will continue to do so in the future assisted in the referral of children into unregulated programs?
:o
No. It's because her old disclaimer was outed publicly as bullshit:
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=273178#273178 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=273178#273178)
She might as well go public as an ed-con.
-
Can't say I'm suprised given the revelations of the past few days.
Oh well - with the GAO investigation going full speed ahead I expect the for-profit child referral business will soon be exposed in all it's shame and subsequently, abolished once and for all.
-
She might as well go public as an ed-con.
Yup, the fat cat is out of the bag. What else can she do. I wonder if she will be having anything to do with the Sudweeks new school? No doubt so. Referring the program, offering her therapy sessions, and makin' bank.
-
She might as well go public as an ed-con.
Yup, the fat cat is out of the bag. What else can she do. I wonder if she will be having anything to do with the Sudweeks new school? No doubt so. Referring the program, offering her therapy sessions, and makin' bank.
Good lord, the Sudweeks going back into business?
Izzy removed her Whitmore blog and now, I wonder, was that a calculated move to deflect attention away from the Sudweeks, rather than the parents and children victimized by her attacks against them?
Hmmm.
Hope someone is watching the Sudweeks, CAICA and PURE to see what, if anything, may be going on behind the scenes concerning this issue.
-
Rumor has it that the Sudweeks were recently down in Mulege, Mexico trying to reclaim their property that was reportedly confiscated from them when they erected a concrete wall around the property.
Wonder who may have confiscated this property for such a violation; the Mexican government; or the city officials of Mulege?
-
As long as Sue Scheff's Whitmore blog is still up; what's the big deal about Izzy taking her's down?
And Sheff's Whitmore blog advertises that 2 more are coming out:
one by Izzy and one more by Scheff.
Maybe Izzy taking down that Whitmore blog was just a ploy,, while she was yakking with Psy; her way of "drawing him into her web?"
-
If you have the address, and know a realtor in Mexico, or can call the city, you can probably ask just exactly what is going on with that property. Hint, hint. :lol:
-
When you think about it, it's kinda funny how much control we seem to have over Izzy and her website.
::bwahaha::
-
Yes, IMO, it does seems Izzy has achieved a level of importance that I don't think she ever dreamed imaginable ... and to think ... she did it all be her little (okay, big) self. Way to go there Izzy. Please, keep up the good work exposing your true self and agenda. It appears to be helping more than you know or give yourself credit for.
:rofl:
-
As long as Sue Scheff's Whitmore blog is still up; what's the big deal about Izzy taking her's down?
And Sheff's Whitmore blog advertises that 2 more are coming out:
one by Izzy and one more by Scheff.
Maybe Izzy taking down that Whitmore blog was just a ploy,, while she was yakking with Psy; her way of "drawing him into her web?"
Hello? In her own words in one of those emails to another parent, she raved about the Sudweeks and what good people they are.
Leopards don't change their spots.
If you think logically, it seems most likely she got in contact with Psy for one reason and one reason only - DAMAGE CONTROL.
IMO, Zehnder fools no one but herself - a common dilemma with persons who see only what they choose to see. I feel rather sorry for her but not enough to overlook what has been revealed on this forum and others about her integrity, or lack thereof, as the case may be.
-
Think Izzy is simply using her vast legal experience to re-write that disclaimer to cover herself better? Could it possible get L O N G E R ? :-?
-
Frankly, I see this all going away, if she removes the statement that she is a referral zone free, or at least that takes care of one of the problems.
Now that just leaves her boastings about being an adovate, while placing children in kinder, jentler programs, other than WWASP, or indirectly placing them through Sue Scheff, then I could see this all going away, at least until she's caught doing something else.
She needs to discontinue that aliance, and her aliance with the Sud's family, or this is not going away any time soon.
-
No offense guest, but I think it is highly naive to think that if Izzy does X,Y and,Z she is off to the races.
You are failing to take into account the fact that a leopard does not change it's spots.
Izzy showed a fundamental "disconnect" in intregrity by virtue of ignoring the facts about PURE and the SUDS.
She can not claim ignorance because she was NOT ignornant of the facts.
She simply chose to ignore and or "spin them". Hell, she even went so far as to blame other parents and children. Accuse someone of having a "vendetta", etc. etc. etc. She withheld important details from the public regarding the SUDS background. She violated confidentiality. The list goes on.
That's extremely obvious, IMO.
-
No offense taken. Those are all part of her problem too, agreed. However, my take was about the same that a, and b, are both lacking in integrity. Goes without saying don't cha' think?
-
Seems CAICA has changed it's front page.
No more disclaimer about referrals to programs?
Why? Is this some sort of "unofficial" statement that CAICA has in the past and will continue to do so in the future assisted in the referral of children into unregulated programs?
:o
Ummm....I think I heard what happened yesterday. I "heard" Paula Reeves threatened FAT-SO with a copyright infringement lawsuit 'cause if you notice the words FAT-SO removed are the ones Paula Reeves has on the first page of her web site at www.paulareeves.com (http://www.paulareeves.com) and some other stuff was taken down by FAT-SO but haven't figured out what yet. :D :rofl:
What I wonder is why did it take her this long to make her take it down? Care to respond Ms. Reeves? If it's true it's really pretty funny! :lol:
-
There it is at the bottom. Paula Reeves please get that FAT FUCK.
TO THE READERS:
Although the author's personal experiences have been with the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP), its affiliates, and another "resource" business, the concerns expressed in this web site are by no means limited to WWASP. Such businesses call themselves "resource" or "referral" agents, "educational consultants," and "transports" of children to programs. No such private entity or person is subject to appropriate federal regulations.
The author WARNS against privately operated children’s programs. Keeping your child in your home or close to home, in the least restrictive setting, and hiring qualified, licensed treatment professionals, is the best way to ensure your child’s safety. Any program that cuts off visits or phone communication with your child, or other family members, without a court order, should raise serious concerns about the quality and safety of such a program.
Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this web site represents the opinions of the author and is based on court documents, interviews with victims and parents, information from government officials, court documents, over 250 news media reports, television and radio interviews, personal observations, and personal experiences. If any statement is believed to be factually incorrect, or if you desire to make a fair comment in response to any information in this web site, please contact Paula Reeves, in writing, at paulareeves@paulareeves.com with your concerns or comments so corrections or additions may be considered.
This site is for information purposes only; it is not for referral to programs.
-
Wonder if Izzy might have given Paula Reeves Esq. a piece of her "Izzy legal-eagle mind" since Izzy says she knows so much about the legal field from being a paralegal for so many years? - that is, if Ms. Reeves was in contact with Zehnder.
-
Izzy's disclaimer now reads:
"All information provided using this website is only intended to be general summary informaton to the public."
NOTHING ABOUT NOT REFERRING KIDDOS !!!!
-
Wonder if Izzy might have given Paula Reeves Esq. a piece of her "Izzy legal-eagle mind" since Izzy says she knows so much about the legal field from being a paralegal for so many years? - that is, if Ms. Reeves was in contact with Zehnder.
Not likely - given that Paula Reeves is herself, a lawyer.
If anything, it'd be the other way around but it appears to me that Reeves wants nothing to do with anyone who is the child referral business. I doubt she'd even give Izzy the time of day especially since she has to be aware of her professional relationship with Scheff (PURE).
-
Jezzzz couldn't Izzy even get the type-set to match on the corrections on her disclaimer? Guess that happens when someone cuts and pastes when she "borrows" stuff from other people's websites, huh?
Sort of difficult to make corrections on BORROWED MATERIALS, huh Izzy?
-
I think it's hilarious how much control we seem to have over Izzy's board. Post it here and it shows up there.
:rofl:
-
Now, if Izzy could only get the message: DON'T SEND KIDS TO PROGRAMS. DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH REFFERAL COMPANIES. DON'T USE TEEN TRANSPORT COMPANIES. And get Izzy to post that on CA-CA; then fornits would have succeeded in getting Izzzy to start acting somewhat like a little the ole advocate-wanna-be she claims she is.
-
Now, if Izzy could only get the message: DON'T SEND KIDS TO PROGRAMS. DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH REFFERAL COMPANIES. DON'T USE TEEN TRANSPORT COMPANIES. And get Izzy to post that on CA-CA; then fornits would have succeeded in getting Izzzy to start acting somewhat like a little the ole advocate-wanna-be she claims she is.
Now, HOW on earth could Isabelle post that???? There's already too much history proving otherwise and if she decided not to do it in the future, WHO would believe her? IMO..... ::huh::