Author Topic: Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE  (Read 6793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« on: June 12, 2007, 10:13:26 PM »
Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Thank you  ........
 
We thank Lon Woodbury for giving us the opportunity to share the truths about The Whitmore Academy. After numerous interviews with former students, parents, authorities, lawyers and the owners, it is apparent to us that this is nothing short of a vendetta against the Sudweeks.


Isabelle Zehnder and Sue Scheff
http://www.thewhitmoreacademy.blogspot.com
http://www.whitmoreacademy.blogspot.com

--------------------------

What a shame that Lon Woodbury apparently doesn't have the integrity to seek the higher (if not neutral) ground when it comes to the now-defunct Whitmore Academy, Isabelle Zehnder (CAICA) and Sue Scheff (PURE) SAGA.

Surely he is aware of the civil lawsuit filed by parents and children against Whitmore Academy which has yet to be resolved.  None of the parties involved in this lawsuit can speak to the numerous allegations made by Zehnder and Scheff as to the merits of their case.  

What could Zehnder and Scheff possibly know about the merits of this lawsuit that no one else (including you, Mr. Woodbury) could or would know unless they were a party to this lawsuit?

In my opinion, both Zehnder and Scheff appear to have allowed their personal opinion(s) to unduly and unfairly influence their interpretation of the truth.

In example, where are the reports about the Sudweeks running afoul of the law in three countries?  The exact terms of the abeyance agreement entered into by Mrs. Sudweeks?  Why are their no links to affadavits by two families who are critical of the Whitmore which can be found on ISAC not made available to their readers?  

Mr. Woodbury, have you even read these so-called blogs?  

Reviewed the terms of The Abeyance Agreement?

"Share the Truths"?

Since when do references which appear to rely on gossip, hyperbole, hearsay, rumor, innuendo, defamation of character, invasion of privacy, go to the truth of the matter?

Lastly, what is your interest in seemingly helping to further what many might call an obviously self-serving agenda on the part of Zehnder and more specifically, Sue Scheff, who reportedly recruited/referred most if not all the children once enrolled in this program?  Including the children and parents involved in the civil lawsuit?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2007, 10:39:30 PM »
Anybody notice how this word "vendetta" seems to always be used by "troubled programs" to defend against allegations of abuse, fraud, exploitation?

WWASPS certainly has used it on more than one occasion.

Oh the irony of it all.

Bottom line?  

These blogs, try as they might, simply can't obfuscate the TRUTH behind the old adage ....

WHERE THERE IS SMOKE, THERE IS FIRE.






 8-)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2007, 11:17:30 PM »
Something else for Lon to consider is the FACT that PURE continued to refer children to Whitmore while it was under investigation.

Were prospective parents told this?

Given there are NO laws to mandate that educational consultants and referral outfits like PURE  inform parents they be referred to a program that is under investigation by local and state authorities, how can anyone be certain?

Second, Woodbury has spoken out against the practice of programs paying "finders fees" to outfits like PURE.  (See essay on strugglingteens.com)

Has something changed to cause him to override his own principles on this issue which is clearly a "conflict of interest"?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2007, 12:00:37 AM »
What could possibly be Lon Woodbury's reason for allowing Sue Scheff to AGAIN use his website to seemingly push her own AGENDA again?

Shame on you Lon Woodbury.
The Whitmore parents are currently involved in a CIVIL CASE against the Whitmore Academy, and the owners Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks. These parenst  appear to be obeying court rulings to not post on public forums; so they can not defend themselves against the lies published in these BLOGS.

Cheryl Sudweeks chose to accept a "Plea Bargain" in her criminal case; how dare anyone say this was a VENDETTA.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2007, 01:05:31 AM »
One of NATSAP’s key ethical guidelines, shared by the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA)—a nationwide network of professional educational consultants who help parents place their children in teen programs—deals with referral fees or “finder’s fees.” Teen programs in the NATSAP association are forbidden from paying finders fees to educational consultants, and any educational consultant or firm found to have accepted referral fees from programs loses IECA membership.

“That kind of exchanging cash corrupts the whole system,” says Woodbury.

Reputable educational consultants usually require a battery of tests and interviews with prospective clients to determine the nature and extent of the teen’s problems. The consultant will then recommend programs based on the child’s needs and the expertise or specialty of the program.


Spring Creek's Short Leash

http://http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm?oID=333B82E9-DC2F-69B1-92B9C55336008A12&do=article.details&id=C3D32183-2BF4-55D0-F1F03ECE24E119C0
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2007, 01:22:39 AM »
The guidelines of IECA are clear:  So, Sue Scheff being paid referral fees directly by the programs to which she refers is considered to be unethical by the standards of IECA.

This makes it even more concerning that Lon Woodbury would publish these Whitmore Blogs written by Sue Scheff, who referred most, if not all, these children to Whitmore Academy.

It appears obvious that Lon Woodbury did not check any legal documents before agreeing to post these blogs on his website; or he would known lies are written throughout these blogs.  The Plea Abeyance granted to Cheryl Sudweeks states that she is banned from operating a facility in Juab County "for life," not for one year, as stated by Isabelle Zehnder.

Surely Lon Woodbury realizes that the disclaimer at the end of each blog, does not protect the writers, of possibly even himself, from possible defamation lawsuits in connection with these blogs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2007, 04:03:26 AM »
Perhaps when Lon gets his discussion board running again, he can invite Sue Scheff to register with multiple user names, and maybe Scheff can post on his discussion forum and talk, talk, talk to herself; and promote her own agendas.  Didn't she pull a stunt like this once before on Struggling Teens, Lon?

Lon allowing these Whitmore blogs to be posted on St, that support a program THAT HAS BEEN CLOSED DOWN seems a bit lame.
It's not like Cheryl Sudweeks can re-open this facility; since she has been banned from operating a facility for children in Juab County for life, according to the Plea Abeyance.

Makes a person wonder, what's in this for Lon?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2007, 09:12:02 AM »
Two words for Lon Woodbury.

Steve Gage.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2007, 10:32:43 AM »
Gage sentenced to 45 years
By Eric Dolson
February 2, 2001

Steven Gage will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.

Gage, 43, the former proprietor of Royal Haven Equestrian Center for Girls near Sisters, was sentenced to 45 years behind bars on 27 counts of theft, criminal mistreatment and sex abuse of teenage girls under his care.

The sentence was handed down by Judge Stephen Tiktin on January 31, 2001. It followed the guidelines of a plea agreement between Gage and the Deschutes County District Attorney reached January 4.

Prior to sentencing, victim after victim of Gage's abuse, including girls who ranged in age from 14 to 18 at the time the sex abuse occurred, gave tearful testimony that he should received the maximum sentence allowed under the plea agreement.

Failed to execute CGI : Win32 Error Code = 3
"He took the trust we gave him and twisted it for his own sexual desire ... I was just a child, and so was every other girl he molested," said one young woman who accounted for nearly half of the original 146 counts of sex abuse that occurred.

While she spoke, Gage sat at the defense table, shrunken, having lost dozens of pounds while sitting in jail seven months waiting for his trial. His hair was thin and graying, his face hollow and white. His head shook slightly from side, either from a slight tremor or perhaps in denial of the atrocities described.

His head seemed to barely reach above the collar of an oversize denim jacket with the words "Deschutes County Jail" stenciled on the back. It made him seem even smaller.

"Look at him! Do you think that this man would ever be a part of any teenage girl's fantasies? It was disgusting!" said one of the coerced sexual activity with Gage.

"I don't know what shell of a human being does this to 13- or 15- or 17-year-old girls and thinks he can get away with it," said another. "He preyed on the souls of children for his own sense of confidence."

Failed to execute CGI : Win32 Error Code = 3
Parents told the judge of the nearly unbearable guilt they felt when they had discovered what Gage had done to their daughters.

"We were seeking desperately a safe harbor. Imagine the shock and horror and outrage when we learned that we had delivered her into the hands of an uncontrolled, manipulative, evil, sexual predator," said one father.

There was as much outrage over his methods of control, the way he isolated the girls, attempted to turn them against their parents and each other, how he lied and threatened and intimidated them.

The girls testified that their fear extended even to bucolic Sisters High School where, under a previous administration, Gage had conned his way in as a truant officer, offered the services of his supposedly trained drug-sniffing dogs. He had keys to the building, his partner Karen Lee was on the school board.

"We could not go to the school (authorities). We would look out the door of English class, expecting to see his face," cried one girl.

Failed to execute CGI : Win32 Error Code = 3
A Sisters teacher in the courtroom flinched as these words were spoken.

The girls told of how he gave favors of jewelry and privileges to his "special girls," the ones who did not or could not resist his sexual advances.

Only Gage's daughter testified in his defense. She could barely be understood through her tears as she spoke of how she could not stand to hear these accusations against "my dad," how her father had helped many of these girls, how he "did the best he could for everybody."

She felt his guilty plea was the act of a hero, the act of a man who's love of wife and children was proven by a willingness to sacrifice the rest of his life so that they would not have to suffer.

Failed to execute CGI : Win32 Error Code = 3
Another victim.

In determining the sentence, Judge Tiktin first spoke to assuage the guilt of parents and the girls.

As a man who has seen much of the worst, as a man who must be "always suspicious and even cynical," Judge Tiktin told them that "I myself could have been deceived by Mr. Gage ... (until yesterday), I think I failed to grasp the character and scope of his crimes.

" ... what happened is not your fault," the judge told parents and girls. He praised the courage of those girls who came forward.

Failed to execute CGI : Win32 Error Code = 3
Turning to Steven Gage, Judge Tiktin said that he believed Royal Haven "was a scam from day one." He spoke of Gage's "tremendous conceit and contempt of others, to take these precious children as objects for your sexual gratification ... the cruelty, the isolation, the exploitation of their disaffection from their family."

At which time, Tiktin read the sentence, which added up to 45 years behind the walls of prison. the judge established that Gage will always be under supervision as a "sexually dangerous offender."

If he lives that long, Gage could get out after 36 years with time off for good behavior, but even then he will be 79 years-old when he next breathes air as a free man.

http://www.nuggetnews.com/archives/2001 ... ont8.shtml

----------------

LON WOODBURY'S VISIT TO ROYAL HAVEN:

http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... sit02.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2007, 11:29:49 AM »
Steve Gage accepted a PLEA BARGAIN, huh?

Cheryl Sudweeks also accepted a "plea bargain" in her Whitmore Academy criminal case.

Does Lon Woodbury not understand that Steve Gage and Cheryl Sudweeks' attorneys probably advised them to accept "plea bargains" in order to get them better sentences than they could have received from a JURY?

Yet, Lon Woodbury posts these Whitmore blogs, and allows Isabelle Zehnder and Sue Scheff to state that Cherly Sudweeks criminal case, and her "plea bargain" was some type of VENDETTA?

Why does Lon Woodbury seem to be blindly accepting the words of Zehnder and Scheff and post these Whitmore blogs?
Surely Lon won't say out of "fairness to post both sides"
The Whitmore parents can't post "their side,"
And what is the agenda of Zehnder and Scheff to be voicing an opinion about a defunct facility in the first place?

Usually, where there is smoke--there is fire.  And maybe Lon Woodbury needs to be careful, before he gets burned!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2007, 11:44:59 AM »
Lon Woodbury appeared to be supportive of Steve and Karen Gage when they opened Royal Haven in Oregon.

Does anyone know if Lon Woodbury referred any of these girls, who became rape/abuse victims at Royal Haven --which resulted in Steve Gage's 45 year prison sentence?

Lon Woodbury writes a glowing report about Royal Haven after his visit to this facility in October 1998; which Lon published on Struggling Teens.

Lon Woodbury wrote: "The sense of safety at Royal Haven is almost tangible."

Lon Woodbury published an article written by Steve and Karen Gage in his NEWS & VIEWS  August 1995  Issue #35
"Should We Punish The Parents"

In this article, the Gages offer their philosophy on parenting children, saying children need to be held accounable for thier own bad behaviors.
The Gage's go on to say that parents need the right to make their children accountable for their bad behaviors, without being accused of abuse.

Did Lon Woodbury ever withdraw his seemingly blanket support of this self-confessed child-abuser, rapist--Steve Gage?

Lon Woodbury's support of the owners of the defunct Whitmore Academy, Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks seems to be a slap in the face to the Whitmore parents who are involved in an on-going civil case.  
The Sudweeks have broken laws in three countries---Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

At best, it would seem that Lon Woodbury would take a stance of neutrality.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2007, 12:15:00 PM »
Surprise, surprise.  Lon Woodbury is scumbag.  I think we knew that already.

Yes, Lon is responsible, directly or indirectly, for kids being sent to Steve Gage to be raped.

I remember some years ago reading Lon's review about how Gage had the girls in his hot tub and thinking to myself "Does this not raise a red flag to Woodbury?"  If it did, greed overcame it.  If it didn't Woodbury is too dense to be in the business of dealing with children.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2007, 01:29:38 PM »
What's with these program owners and HOT TUBS?

The Sudweeks had a HOT TUB at the defunct Whitmore Academy.
Some of the students reported that Cheryl Sudweeks, the owner who accepted the "plea bargain" in her criminal case at Whitmore, even went into the HOT TUB with students wearing her MORMON SACRED GARMENTS.

Perhaps HOT TUBS should be banned at teen treatment facilities?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2007, 01:46:03 PM »
It couldn't hurt...

When I read Lon's article about Gage and the hot tub it was like a neon sign flashing in my head "CHILD MOLESTER, CHILD MOLESTER, CHILD MOLESTER!"

It just goes to show that ED CONS, like Lon, have NO BUSINESS making referrals to programs they are incapable by education or morality to objectively evaluate.  Lon simply lacks the cognitive tools to put the pieces together or he knowingly refers to abusive facilities/people.  Pick one...

This is why Ed Cons should be strictly avoided in the mental health care decision process:  they have a vested interest in long-term institutionalization of children and their expertise (if they have any) doesn't extend into the arena of psychology/psychiatry.  It's like asking your mechanic how to treat your kid's trichotillomania.  

It doesn't make sense on any level, yet these dupes keep going for Lon's "advice."

Good advice when dealing with Ed Cons and programs:  When the only tool they have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2007, 02:04:54 PM »
Then think about this.  To belong to Lon's group IECA,, a person must have a college education, and agree to operate by some guidelines and standards, right?

People like Sue Scheff, and her new colleague Isabelle Zehnder, seem to lack the required educational requirements to belong to IECA.....and Sue Scheff does accept payment directly from the programs she refers to.

Lon Woodbury posts  these Whitmore Blogs  written by Scheff and Zehnder on his website. Does he support these two women and their business practices, when they obviously don't meet the standards of his own organization?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »