This is what the WWASP/PURE case was about.

[Anonymous]

Suit claims woman misled clients
Teen programs: The plaintiff says she used false information in her referral program for troubled kids
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune

Salt Lake Tribune


A Florida woman lured clients from a Utah competitor by pumping up her own credentials and posting false accusations about her business rival in an Internet chat room, using fake identities, a federal jury was told Monday.
    Sue Scheff claimed a college degree she never earned and a staff of experts who never existed to persuade parents to come to her for referrals to treatment programs for their troubled teens, attorney Fred Silvester said in opening statements. The trial is over claims in a lawsuit filed by the St. George-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP).
    "We will contend that's false advertising," Silvester told jurors in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City.
    But a defense attorney said Scheff believed her criticisms were accurate, based on news media accounts of problems at WWASP facilities and stories from other parents. Richard Henriksen agreed his client made mistakes in the wording of the web site of her company, Parents Universal Resource Experts Foundation (PURE), but said they were honest errors by a business novice.
    "She is a mother and she cared enough to make a difference," Henriksen said.
    WWASP is seeking unspecified damages from Scheff and PURE under a federal law that requires advertising to accurately reflect services offered by a business and those of competitors.
   Both WWASP, which provides support and public relations services to six residential treatment programs, and PURE make referrals to families and collect payment from schools when students are enrolled based on their recommendations.
    The Utah company filed suit in 2002, shortly after a series of derogatory comments were posted in a chat room about its schools, including an accusation that negligence at one WWASP facility led to the death of a teen. Scheff later acknowledged that she made postings under different names, but said her comments were based on true stories. She also said she used pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the individuals whose stories she told.
    Henriksen told jurors on Monday that Scheff once was a supporter of WWASP but changed her mind after her own daughter's negative experience in 2000 during a stay at one of its schools. After she removed the teen from the treatment facility, Scheff became aware of television news shows and newspaper articles probing allegations of negligence and other problems at WWASP schools, he said.
    The attorney added that Scheff has a First Amendment right to speak up about what she's learned about WWASP.
    The trial, before U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, is expected to last a week.
 

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

The testimony and the evidence have saved PURE from having to pay WWASP for lost business.  I guess PURE gets to keep the money it has made off of the placement of teens in programs. Way to go PURE.  Pat yourself on the back...you deserve it :smile: Better your pockets than theirs :smile:

[Anonymous]

"Scheff later acknowledged that she made postings under different names, but said her comments were based on true stories."

Anyone can make comments based on "true" stories, doesn't mean the comments are also true.

Ever played the game "post office"? The person that tells the story tells it to the next person, then the next, somewhere around the 2nd-3rd person, the story is distorted and by the time it gets back to the person that told it in the first place, it is "based" on what she said, but that's it.  Completely different take on it.

From what I'm reading here, the judge and jury said it was okay to do this?  OMG!

Is there a link to the news article?

[Anonymous]

They may have "just" been "based on" true stories, but if WWASPS had been able to prove that it was 51% likely that they were false and defamatory statements, WWASPS would have won its case.

The statements were defamatory on their face.

WWASPS losing its case makes it pretty obvious that the judge and jury thought it was more likely than not that the things said by PURE about WWASPS were *true*.

No *responsible* parent would send their child to a school in a family of schools that a court of law decided was more likely than not abusive to children.

Nice try trying to make light of the allegations, though.  Didn't work, but nice try.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

The proof of serious abuse and gross neglect was proven beyond ANY doubt.

[Anonymous]

Abuse was not proven.  As a matter of fact, nothing was proven.  

What the jury saw and heard was negative testimony and negative newspaper clippings about WWASP.  What they decided was that PURE was only printing and repeating what they had heard and read.

[Anonymous]

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2386394

[Anonymous]

Actually, no, the jury of 12 people from Utah decided that the witnesses whose own children had been in WWASP and the witnesses (plural!) who were former WWASP employees were telling the truth about abuse there, both to the press and to Sue Scheff.

Sue did herself no favors by posting under fake names and by lying about having a degree.

But the jury decided that those were minor sins compared to putting children in dog cages and telling their parents to expect reports of abuse but not believe them.

I suspect most Americans would feel similarly.

[Anonymous]

The jury had to determine whether or not PURE defamed WWASP or whether or not WWASP had already been defamed by the media.  

The case was about defamation of character.  WWASP was claiming that PURE was responsible for that defamation.  They did not prove their case.  PURE was able to defend themselves using all the negative media and by using personal testimony to support it.  PURE was able to show that all the negative publicity is what defamed WWASP.

WWASP was also not able to show that PURE's lack of professionalism is what hurt them.  

At this point they have not proved abuse, not that they can't, but just that have not.

[Anonymous]

I saw - I know -
They did in Fact prove abuse beyond ANY doubt.

[Antigen]

On 2004-08-08 06:57:00, Anonymous wrote:

The jury had to determine whether or not PURE defamed WWASP or whether or not WWASP had already been defamed by the media.

Or whether or not WWASP had defamed itself by advocating and obfuscating the shameful behavior of it's member schools and programs.

That's really what it comes down to in what is still a tempest in a teapot.

Now that this case is closed, can we get back to the questions we were discussing before? Namely, how does PURE go about determining the safety and efficacy of it's programs? To which programs does PURE refer people? And what is the essential difference between WWASP and pure?

Here's something more specific. Some of the court filings mention Whitmore Academy. If you search it up on Google, you'll come to whoamidiscovery.com. I assume (cause no one who reads and posts here has been willing to either confirm or refute it) that PURE refers families to this organization. Is anyone willing to say one way or the other?

If they do, then I'd refer you to Lee's complaints about WWASP programs located at http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/decem ... etter.html

Here's a quote:

The therapy that is included consists of your dysfunctional child sitting with my problem child and his delusion of earth as it is to him discussing 25 other messed up children's problems in a group.

Ok, here's a thread w/ some discussion of whoamidiscovery.com

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5248&forum=7

I ask again, what's the diff? It's not a rhetorical question! I don't have an answer. I'm asking for an answer. Anybody???

               The body of
        Benjamin Franklin, printer,
      (Like the cover of an old book,
            Its contents worn out,
    And scripts of it's lettering and gilding)
       Lies Here, food for worms!
     Yet the work itself shall not be lost,
For it will, as he believed, appear once more
                 In a new
         And more beautiful edition,
          Corrected and amended
                By it's Author!

Epitaph for himself.

--Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

[Anonymous]

On 2004-08-08 08:03:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I saw - I know -

They did in Fact prove abuse beyond ANY doubt.





"

I thought this case was about Sue Scheff and PURE employees/friends posting things they heard, printing on their site things they were sent and so forth.  I'm reading that the court said that was okay.

Did Sue really say that she took her daughter out because she believed her daughter was being abused? Why did she continue to support them and refer families to them until she started her own referral business and was told she wouldn't get monetary compensation?  Did that come out in court?  

Does this mean that this PURE organization can again post heresay for their own gain?

Ginger, you can see links on the PURE site that may or may not be some of the schools they refer to.  If anyone wants to find families whose kids say they were abused at these schools so their parents would bring them home, I'm sure you can find them.  :wink:

[Anonymous]

Other ED Cons and referral sources aren't so blatant about WWASPS.  However, if you call one and say you have been considering one of their schools, they'll tell you all the heresay, and even send you links to scare you into trusting them and the programs that give them monetary compensation.  There are multiple sites out there that all point to the same place.  It's called Teen Success or other names, and didn't the person(s) that started this spamdexing used to be an employee of WWASPS and was fired?

This court ruling will no doubt allow all these people to continue saying they are better.

[Anonymous]

I tell you something that came out in trial:
I herd Ken Kay (president of WWASP) explain while on the stand that in his opinion to strike a student with your open hand or fist is not always abuse. It depended on the situation.
Also, explained that it may not be abuse if a staff member has sex with a student. Explained the kind of students they have in WWASP programs are troubled and disturbed and consensual sex possible. Apparently the fact that the consentient is coming from a troubled STUDENT who is under the authority of the STAFF does not effect his thinking on the matter.
Explained that one the occasion of a 16 and one half year old girl having sex with staff at TB; he received a complaint from the father; talked with the girl; but NOT the staff member and felt it was consensual. The girl said it was consensual. He explained he had done NO further investigation. The were NO incident reports or complaints filed - NO documentation that this ever took place.

If you are so drunk on Kool-aid that you can't see the implications of this, then you are truly unfitt to parent.

[Anonymous]

" I herd Ken Kay (president of WWASP) explain while on the stand that in his opinion to strike a student with your open hand or fist is not always abuse. It depended on the situation. "

That could be a true statement.  Say take the case of the couselor who was recently killed by the two boys with the baseball bat.  If the story is true, which I don't have all of the details so I am going out on a limb here, then I think the couselor would be justified in using his hands or fists or whatever else he may have needed in order to defend himself, protect himself, or save himself from death.  If he had done this, used his fists, or if he had been successful using his fists, the boys would not be standing trial for murder.  So, in my opinion, in some cases it just may depend on the situation.

Now as far as the sex with the student thing, I don't understand clearly what you are saying happened.  It sounds more like you are saying that there was a case of statutory rape that occured at TB.  The student said it was consentual and did not claim she was raped. Then are you saying the parent chose not to press charges against the staff member for statutory rape?  If so, sounds to me like the parent is messed up.  

Is there an attorney out there that can explain consentual sex with a minor vs. statuatory rape?  
And, who is responsible for taking legal action if this occurred?

[Anonymous]

On 2004-08-08 06:57:00, Anonymous wrote:

The jury had to determine whether or not PURE defamed WWASP or whether or not WWASP had already been defamed by the media.  



Or whether or not WWASP had defamed itself by advocating and obfuscating the shameful behavior of it's member schools and programs.

That's really what it comes down to in what is still a tempest in a teapot.

Now that this case is closed, can we get back to the questions we were discussing before? Namely, how does PURE go about determining the safety and efficacy of it's programs? To which programs does PURE refer people? And what is the essential difference between WWASP and pure?

Here's something more specific. Some of the court filings mention Whitmore Academy. If you search it up on Google, you'll come to whoamidiscovery.com. I assume (cause no one who reads and posts here has been willing to either confirm or refute it) that PURE refers families to this organization. Is anyone willing to say one way or the other?

If they do, then I'd refer you to Lee's complaints about WWASP programs located at http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/decem ... etter.html

Here's a quote:


The therapy that is included consists of your dysfunctional child sitting with my problem child and his delusion of earth as it is to him discussing 25 other messed up children's problems in a group.



Ok, here's a thread w/ some discussion of whoamidiscovery.com

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5248&forum=7

I ask again, what's the diff? It's not a rhetorical question! I don't have an answer. I'm asking for an answer. Anybody???