Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Carey on December 31, 2003, 06:04:00 PM
-
Could somebody please tell me where on this site I ever published any information on Sue's disabled child. According to this law suit this is what I am being accused of:
"the sole purpose in doing so was to cause Scheff and her disabled minor child to suffer severe emotional distress and destroy Pure and interfere with its ability to conduct business and advocate on behalf of children."
Hell, I did not even know she had a disabled child. How is it I am hurting him, I can't help it that she is his mother. I am just telling what has and is happening.
It also says: "They also sought to publically humiliate Schef and her family by publishing highly personal and private information about Scheff and her disabled child on interactive bulletin boards read by members of the public and persons who work with at risk teens, and threatened to destroy her financially and "take down" her business."
Somebody please show me where any of this occured. Is this a joke.
Also, did she throw in the part about "her disabled child" for sypathy. God does she use children, for her own personal gain, or what!
Let me add this:
"As a direct and proximate result of Forbis and Bock's intentional and unjustified interference with PURE's actual and business relationships with third parties, PURE has suffered damage in excess of $15,000.00"
Hmm...does that mean that 5 to 10 parents have changed their minds about sending their kid to one of PURE's programs?
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-31 15:04 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-31 15:14 ]
-
"They also sought to publically humiliate Schef and her family by publishing highly personal and private information about Scheff and her disabled child on interactive bulletin boards read by members of the public and persons who work with at risk teens, and threatened to destroy her financially and "take down" her business."
They? Who would "they" be?
Wasn't it posted here, many months ago, that Sue was not in the referal business for the $$$$; that she was not dependent on the income she received for referals?
Re: her disabled child- could it be that someone may have been refering to her child who was in a WWASP facility; not knowing that she indeed had another, disabled child? They, "struggling teens" are frequently refered to as "disabled", particularly when a parent is attempting to scam an insurance company or school district.
And: "the sole purpose in doing so was to cause Scheff and her disabled minor child to suffer severe emotional distress and destroy Pure and interfere with its ability to conduct business and advocate on behalf of children."
Granted, Sue probably suffered extreme emotional distress- embarrassment- but how exactly has her disabled minor child suffered severe emotional distress? Does she allow her child to read the forum? If so, the distress to her child was of her own making.
-
The way I look at it all: If Sue and those that work with her, either paid or volunteer, hadn't started defaming wwasp in 2002 would any of this even be an issue?
She/They are now experiencing what they intended. Irony :rofl:
-
They? Who would "they" be?
Wasn't it posted here, many months ago, that Sue was not in the referal business for the $$$$; that she was not dependent on the income she received for referals?
They being, Ginger and myself.
Re: her disabled child- could it be that someone may have been refering to her child who was in a WWASP facility; not knowing that she indeed had another, disabled child?
It specifically refers to her son stating that "infact Scheff's son is not even a party to the Utah suit."
Granted, Sue probably suffered extreme emotional distress- embarrassment- but how exactly has her disabled minor child suffered severe emotional distress? Does she allow her child to read the forum? If so, the distress to her child was of her own making.
She's crazy. She is now using as her defense her son, who I have never said anything about, never even knew he was disabled. She is using children, innocent children, her own son included, to fight her battles.
I am sure I have embarrased her. I don't agree with what she is doing. I would never do anything to hurt her child or anyone elses. She on the other hand, will use hers and everyone else for her own personal gain and to fight her own personal battles.
-
On 2003-12-31 15:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The way I look at it all: If Sue and those that work with her, either paid or volunteer, hadn't started defaming wwasp in 2002 would any of this even be an issue?
She/They are now experiencing what they intended. Irony :rofl: "
You're in the wrong thread, buddy. This one is about Sue suing me and Carey. There's another thread about WWASPies sending threatening letters to my service provider.
Pay Attention!
I generally have a very high threshhold for bullshit, but I think I've reached my limit. These forums could suddenly go private, with reading and posting allowed only to people I like. Just for shits and giggles, I might even let Nazi back in, just to piss you all off.
:rofl: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson, 1791, in a letter to Archibald Stuart
-
On 2003-12-31 15:48:00, Carey wrote:
She's crazy. She is now using as her defense her son, who I have never said anything about, never even knew he was disabled. She is using children, innocent children, her own son included, to fight her battles.
Crazy like a fox! I had no idea till now that Sue even had a son, however able or not. Did someone post anon about that, we all missed it, and now they're guessing at who the author might be?
Here's how I see it. The first lawyer I'll probably talk to in a couple of days gets $500/hr (and he's worth every penny!) How much is it going to cost a potential benefactor just to get the guy to look over a 30 page complaint?
As Bellis is fond of saying, if you can't dazzle `em w/ brilliance, baffle `em w/ bullshit."Replace end user" (The Top Support Call Closer 10 Years Running)
--Bastard Administrator
-
I don't remember any postings about her son, anywhere. Also, I read her deposition, I don't remember even reading anything about her son in it. That is what is really baffeling to me. Does her attorney even know what is in her deposition? Afterall, it is not the same attorney representing her in her WWASP case.
-
So, Sue can act on her complaints and possibly jeopardize an entire forum of information unrelated to her specifically, without proving first that her allegations have any merit? She didn't have to show the posts she refers to as causing extreme emotional distress? Guilty until proven innocent? Seems that if she's asking for an emergency injunction she'd have to fork over some evidence to support her claims. Shucks, and before Carey's depo was posted.
Ginger, couldn't you request that this issue be handled through mediation, since she has not requested that the distressing material be removed prior to filing a suit? Seems excessive and unnecessary, as you've already shown a willingness to edit private or personal information when requested.
And Carey, in that vein, can you counter sue her for posting your SS#? Shouldn't have to prove that it was indeed her.
Business must be good judging from the dollars she's spending on legal fees.
-
Deb, I don't know. I'll have to take a look at the complaint and get some legal advice.
Take a look at this
http://thestraights.com/articles/logans ... -encl4.htm (http://thestraights.com/articles/logansinjunction-encl4.htm)
Even this strategy may have been lifted right out of Straight, Inc.'s or $cientology's playbook.
Hey Carey, now we truely are in bed together. Isn't this fun! But where are the guys? I miss them. :sad:
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status
--Laurence J. Peter
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous
[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2003-12-31 16:42 ]
-
Hey Carey, now we truely are in bed together. Isn't this fun! But where are the guys? I miss them.
Yeah, that Sue, seems she has put us there...maybe she is not only crazy...but kinky too. :rofl:
-
How can she bring one suit against two seperate individuals? Doesn't make sense- how do you sue to unrelated people? Or is it two suits, full of "they" verbage?
-
It is one suit.
SUSAN SCHEFF, individually and as parent , guardian, and next friend of S.S., a minor child, and PARENTS UNIVERSAL RESOURCE EXPERTS, IINC., aka PURE, a Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs
v.
GINGER WARBIS d/b/a FRONITS.com, and
CAREY BOCK
Defendants
-
FYI Ginger had been asked through phone conversations multiple times to stop posting personal maligning posts about Sue Scheff and Pure.
The deposition Carey posted provided by wwasp attorney has not yet been filed therefore not available for public availability.
Carey with the help of WWASP is continuing to slander Sue and Pure. Ginger has allowed it.
Its not that difficult to understand. Too many months of this personal vendetta, slandering has been going on.
Stop and think : What would you do if a person you never ever met was taking such vicious action against you and your business. Now the kid is involved .
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Obviously the attorney must have felt this has gone over the top too.
Its not necessary to like someone to respect their personal privacy.
If some folks on this forum really care about protecting kids and dealing appropriately with boarding schools etc. how about working toward reform through proper channels.
This has been malicious slander.
It is not acceptable. Never has been.
-
She brought her child into this. We didn't.
Obviously the attorney must have felt this has gone over the top too.
Obviously, you don't know how attorneys work...it is called for money. Now, if he is working on a contingensy basis, meaning he will only be paid if he wins, then maybe you would have an argument. Somehow, I doubt that to be the case.
-
On 2004-01-01 09:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
Ginger has allowed it.
You're missing a very important point here. I'm not Carey's mother. Even if I were, she's an adult. I also don't recall any slanderous, private information about Sue. Lots of public information. Many unanswered questions. But nothing really private or slanderous.
Now, are you guys really sure that you want everyon who has ever posted to these fora to be held to this same level of accountability?
You might want to look at this first.
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-01 10:34 ]
-
Now Carey you would know more about that than I. Wasnt it YOU who sold Trekkers private ,personal,confidential emails to wwasp attorney for MONEY.
The deposition you were prepared to post on this Fornits forum has information about Sue's child. YOU brought the child into to this not SUE.
You continue to mislead these people. To lie.
The sexual harrassment suit was taken out of content too.You neglected to mention there were other woman involved in that situaion. You make it appear Sue Scheff was the only person involved.
You have tampered with legal documents.Thats a no no I believe.
This is NOT about providing truth ,information to people as a public service.This is about your hate of an individual.
-
Ginger,
I do not think the judge will consider this is about you being Carey's mother either.
The facts are in the posts. There is a stack a mile high of this on going malicious slandering of Sue Scheff and her Business.
You have allowed it. Mother or not it has been brought to your attention you were putting yourself in jepordy. You made a choice to ignore the facts.
-
Who's hiding what?
Posted: 2003-11-16 16:38:00
I don't think calling names amounts to the same thing as defamation.
And Carey old girl, you are what you are - simple as that. You are wwasps' whore. You made yourself so.
Nothing wrong with what you did? You, even you, can not really believe that.
If it wasn't wrong, why weren't you bosting about it? Instead, you had to be screwed to the wall to get the least bit of admission from you.
If you yourself don't know dam good and well what you've done is dispicable, then why weren't you shouting it out and telling everyone to join you in your openess and honesty?
You are one very sick and very selfish soul; and your very narrow view is going to get you blindsided.
I wonder just how low you'll have to be brought before you'll realize how sick you are and get help.
I've told you before. You don't have to be so angry and hateful and misserable if you don't want to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
***The deposition you were prepared to post on this Fornits forum has information about Sue's child. YOU brought the child into to this not SUE. ***
"were prepared to post". It has not been posted yet. If and when it's posted, it's still public record and Sue would still be the one bringing her child into it by mentioning him(?) in a public document. How can one sue another for posting a public document that anyone can access?
The question remains: How has her child endured severe emotional distress?
-
On 2004-01-01 10:34:00, Antigen wrote:
"
On 2004-01-01 09:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
Ginger has allowed it.
You're missing a very important point here. I'm not Carey's mother. Even if I were, she's an adult. I also don't recall any slanderous, private information about Sue. Lots of public information. Many unanswered questions. But nothing really private or slanderous.
Now, are you guys really sure that you want everyon who has ever posted to these fora to be held to this same level of accountability?
You might want to look at this first.
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-01 10:34 ]"
I'm no lawyer but it seems to me Carey should consult one about filing a counter suit. What was the purpose of all those vicious, vile statements made against her (as shown in the above referenced archives)? Honestly, what makes these people (some anonymous, some not) think they did not cross the line in a way that could be considered malicious slander? Also, what about the posting of the social security number and call to her employer? Who in the world would do such a thing and why? It's all very confusing.
:???:
-
Honestly, what makes these people (some anonymous, some not) think they did not cross the line in a way that could be considered malicious slander? Also, what about the posting of the social security number and call to her employer? Who in the world would do such a thing and why? It's all very confusing.
My best guess, and I am obviously only guessing, as I don't know what goes on inside anyone's mind but my own, is that these folks are suffering from an accute case of higher purpose. This behavior exactly mirrors what I saw happening in group each and every day.
I also think that a lot of the people who joined in on the attack on Carey have since come around to the understanding that she's just not the monster that they had been led to believe and that the people who made these statements about her might not be as pure as the driven snow themselves.
Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake when you make it again.
-- F. P. Jones
-
On 2004-01-01 11:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger,
I do not think the judge will consider this is about you being Carey's mother either.
The facts are in the posts. There is a stack a mile high of this on going malicious slandering of Sue Scheff and her Business.
You have allowed it. Mother or not it has been brought to your attention you were putting yourself in jepordy. You made a choice to ignore the facts.
"
I am no more responsible for what anyone else posts to these fora than Comcast is responsible for what goes on in any Usenet newsgroup. Simple as that. This forum is moderated by Nobody. Litterally, there is no moderator. You are responsible for what you say. I am responsible for keeping the software working so long as I choose to do so. Your use of these fora, either by posting or just by reading, implies your acceptance of these terms.
I keep asking questions about what Sue does for a living. And I have written about my opinions and speculation about what's going on. But I haven't even GOT any private information about Sue Scheff, even if I were the type to hit below the belt like that.
Hear me people: We now have to deal with another race - small and feeble when our fathers first met them, but now great and overbearing. Strangely enough they have a mind to till the soil and the love of possessions is a disease with them. These people have made many rules which the rich may break but the poor may not. They take their tithes from the poor and weak to support the rich and those who rule.
Chief Sitting Bull, speaking at the Powder River Conference, 1877
-
The deposition you were prepared to post on this Fornits forum has information about Sue's child. YOU brought the child into to this not SUE.
I did not bring the child into anything. I have not posted or said anything about either one of Sue's children. However, she did when she filed this claim. Her bringing her child into this though is not at all surprising, afterall she uses children, even her own as it is very obvious, once again, here.
I feel sorry for the child, his/her mother will stoop to the lowest of levels just to try, and I say try, to save face. What a pitty!
-
As to whether Ginger is responsible for anyone else?s posts, apparently not.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi#QID315 (http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi#QID315)
Question: Can my ISP or the host of a message board be held liable for defamatory statements I make on the grounds that they are a "publisher" or "republisher" of the information?
Answer: No. Federal law provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This has been interpreted to protect hosts of discussions between other people against defamation and libel claims as a "republisher" of the information. Note that this protection does not extend to claims under intellectual property laws.
Question: Must an ISP or message board host delete postings that someone tells him/her are defamatory? Can the ISP or message board delete postings in response to a request from a third party?
Answer: 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law
-
Deborha
That is the point. To stop this on slaught of posting ones personal information. It is not your business. Its not.
WWASP provided the documentation to Carey. It is not public info. It has not even been filed with th ecourt. Helloooooooo
This Sue Scheff slander has been going on for months.
There are hundreds of ed con in this industry .The only ones mentioned,slandered is Sue and Steve, Biased? I think so.
-
It would be safe to say we agree to disagree.
We obviously dont see things the same.
You have your opinions of people you have never met. People who you have no idea what there exoperiences were.You chose to not hear when it has been explained.
Our experiences of Carey differ from yours.We experienced the traitorous behavior.It is unforgiveable.
-
WWASP provided the documentation to Carey. It is not public info. It has not even been filed with th ecourt. Helloooooooo
I would not be so sure about that if I were you. Yes, some of the documents were provided to me via someone who has had dealings with Sue in the past and who wishes to remain anonymous...just like you. They were mailed to me. By who? Will the real source of that mail package please stand up? Obviously, they won't. Why, I don't know. I guess they have their reasons. Are they authentic, since they came to me in that manner, I think so, even more so now that I can see what a ruckus they seem to have caused. Others, documents, which I already had are very easily accessed via PACER.
By the way, Sue have you talked to Randall lately? Just wondering.
-
Sweetie,
This is a public forum. Given that you are not Sue, I have as much right as you to comment on this issue. It is my business. I support free speech. I would like to see, at a minumum, all the other information here, not pertaining to Sue/PURE be preserved. Sue's action has apparently put the entire site in jeopardy. That is extremely selfish, imho. She might have requested the "personal" and "severely emotionally distressing" information be deleted. Ginger has shown a willingness to do this in the past. Given that, the lawsuit seems reactionary and extreme to me.
Can you provide links where Sue's "personal information" was posted?
WWASP provided the documentation to Carey.
- Which information are you refering to? Information already posted or Sue's depo?
It is not public info. It has not even been filed with th ecourt.
- What is "it"? Are you refering to something other than the threat to post Sue's depo, which by the way has not happened, yet.
There are hundreds of ed con in this industry .The only ones mentioned,slandered is Sue and Steve, Biased? I think so.
- Wrong. Are you new? Many other Ed Cons have been discussed. Some have posted here and answered questions posed to them. Has Sue?
-
On 2003-12-31 16:47:00, Carey wrote:
"Hey Carey, now we truely are in bed together. Isn't this fun! But where are the guys? I miss them.
Yeah, that Sue, seems she has put us there...maybe she is not only crazy...but kinky too. :rofl: "
*Fluffs up you two's pillows*
hehehe...
I don't think the men could handle it. :wink: Speculations on the Origin of Human Intelligence: "In defense of the Pygmies, perhaps I should note that a friend of mine who has spent time with them says that for such activities as the patient stalking and hunting of mammals and fish they prepare themselves through marijuana intoxication, which helps to make the long waits, boring to anyone further evolved than a Komodo dragon, at least moderately tolerable. Ganja is, he says, their only cultivated crop. It would be wryly interesting if in human history the cultivation of marijuana led generally to the invention of agriculture, and thereby to civilization.
Carl Sagan - The Dragons of Eden - 1977
-
It's safe to say that I could at least 'hold my own' in a situation like that...D'oh! :roll: :lol:
-
So is what PURE does to WWASPS consider slander, or under the same cataegory of slander that you are claiming Carey does to PURE? :question:
-
On 2003-12-31 16:32:00, Deborah wrote:
"
So, Sue can act on her complaints and possibly jeopardize an entire forum of information unrelated to her specifically, without proving first that her allegations have any merit? She didn't have to show the posts she refers to as causing extreme emotional distress? Guilty until proven innocent? Seems that if she's asking for an emergency injunction she'd have to fork over some evidence to support her claims. Shucks, and before Carey's depo was posted.
Ginger, couldn't you request that this issue be handled through mediation, since she has not requested that the distressing material be removed prior to filing a suit? Seems excessive and unnecessary, as you've already shown a willingness to edit private or personal information when requested.
And Carey, in that vein, can you counter sue her for posting your SS#? Shouldn't have to prove that it was indeed her.
Business must be good judging from the dollars she's spending on legal fees."
Emegency Injunction? What's that all about?