Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Who Am I Discovery/Whitmore
Sue Scheff
Anonymous:
WHY UPSET ABOUT THE MONEY ISSUE AND SUE SCHEFF?
Someone else posted here that Sue Scheff doesn't get PAID!!!
Just pointing our from THE LADY'S own sworn testimony that SHE GETS PAID GRANDLY!
So, why try turning the tables and accuse the posters here of being all about money?
Why all the negative and misinformation about lawsuits?
AND who ever said that the owner of this forum asked for or received DONATIONS?
Just where do YOU get your information?
IT can not be posted that SUE SCHEFF refers kids to these programs OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF HER HEART, when SHE HERSELF testifies about her enormous fees that she charges and receives.
Anonymous:
Wanna know what I think about programs who pay finder's fees to outfits like PURE?
::puke::
Anonymous:
Might could handle the programs paying Scheff and PURE to fill the beds with heads--but when the owners are being investigated for allegations of abuse---Scheff should have the good sense to not send any more kids to Whitmore until the issue is settled ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
And every parent that was referred there by PURE should get a PERSONAL disclosure from PURE about these allegations of abuse and the investigation in my opinion.
And once the owner is CHARGED with child abuse it is the opinion, FOR SURE Sue Scheff and Pure should back away from Whitmore. Should Scheff be helping the owners of Whitmore with their legal defense in any manner, if this is what is going on? Should Scheff and PURE continue to refer to Whitmore knowing the owner has been CHARGED with criminal child abuse?
What are the rules here?
Anonymous:
ISAC watchlist:
Referral Agencies:
P.U.R.E. Inc.
http://isaccorp.org/watchlist.html
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
BuzzKill:
I know ISAC has been trying to be patient - wanting to give PURE every opportunity to issue a warning, that the situation at the Whitmore *might* not be as idyllic as they had before thought. No such sentiment has been expressed, despite the mounting evidence that they been mistaken in their judgment.
I personally feel ISAC waited longer than they should have - but I also understand the hope behind holding back.
Its been difficult for me to understand why Susan is so sure she knows the situation at Whitmore. Its not as if she can't be fooled. It's not as if she isn't well aware she is all to easily fooled. How is it that she can be so sure in this case? So sure that she feels safe in ignoring the persistent and consistent allegations coming from Whitmore alumni?
I can only think of one reason. And for that reason, I do think PURE bares watching.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version