Author Topic: CAICA  (Read 15029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #120 on: October 24, 2006, 07:18:49 PM »
Tampa's Fox 13 story and interview with SueSue

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/page ... geId=3.2.1
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #121 on: October 24, 2006, 07:49:56 PM »
Jealousy is ugly.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue-Sue Scheff the old one and her FAT FRIEND IZZY
« Reply #122 on: October 24, 2006, 08:04:20 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Jealousy is ugly.


Sue and Izzy and your Texan friends--------------

why dont you dumb asses get off of a fornits, stop writing notes to yourselves and disappear.  

cant do it can ya?  cause you both love to read anything you can about your stupid asses dont ya?

so sue us.  come on ya fat f-s.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #123 on: October 24, 2006, 08:28:31 PM »
I think I heard the newscaster say (paraphrasing here) that the defendant, Carey Bock, did not show up for trial making it easier for the plaintiff to win her judgement.

Anybody else hear that?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #124 on: October 24, 2006, 10:44:42 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
I think I heard the newscaster say (paraphrasing here) that the defendant, Carey Bock, did not show up for trial making it easier for the plaintiff to win her judgement.

Anybody else hear that?


more than that.  it made it impossible for scheff NOT to win.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #125 on: October 24, 2006, 11:04:42 PM »
Glad it's getting a lot of press. May be it will catch the attention of a bulldog attorney out there who would represent Bock pro bono. This is not just about Carey. This was not a good precedent to set. The public doesn't have all the facts. Just another fucking sad case of who has the most dollars 'wins' and shall spin the story to their benefit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #126 on: October 24, 2006, 11:14:53 PM »
The jury said you can't just go out there and destroy lives.
The irony.
Happens everyday in teen warehouses.
Vindicated?
No Sue, you bought yourself a verdict.
I hope Karma bites you in the ass, and sooner rather than later.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #127 on: October 25, 2006, 12:47:29 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Glad it's getting a lot of press. May be it will catch the attention of a bulldog attorney out there who would represent Bock pro bono. This is not just about Carey. This was not a good precedent to set. The public doesn't have all the facts. Just another fucking sad case of who has the most dollars 'wins' and shall spin the story to their benefit.


Since Ms. Bock has not issued any further statements, it's hard to know whether anyone is interested in representing her pro-bono on appeal.  Certainly, it would not have hurt for her to contact those who spoke out against the verdict on the chance they might have the resources to at least file an appeal before the time clock runs out.

The good news is I have done some research on the question of this case setting any real legal precedent and it looks to me like most media lawyers believe that is unlikely because Ms. Bock was not represented at trial.  No defense means there was NO argument.  No cross examine of the plaintiff, her witnesses, any experts paid (or not) to testify, etc.  If you think about it, that makes a lot of sense.  The case wasn't put to the test.  The judge heard no opposing argument.  Whatever he based his decision on was only half the story.  The jurors, as I understand it, were charged with determining damages, only, which is a far cry from debating evidence presented by both parties, IMO.

All things considered, the verdict has an unmistakable "hollow" ring to it that no amount of "spin" can really change, IMO, because the defendant was not present at trial.  That is the elephant in the room no one can ignore, try as they might.

 ::bandit::
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #128 on: October 25, 2006, 01:02:26 AM »
Sue Scheff and PURE Win Empty Victory over New Orleans Mom
International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC)

10/9/2006 9:21:45 PM

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA (October 10, 2006) - On September 19, 2006, Parents Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE) and its founder, Sue Scheff of Weston, Florida won an $11.3 million dollar victory of hollow sorts over a single mom from New Orleans by alleging defamation over the Internet. Although it is doubtful the verdict will be collected, it may serve to chill free speech of those attempting to expose child abuse or untoward business practices.

The mom, Carey Bock, had publicly criticized the business practices of Scheff and PURE in referring children to allegedly abusive programs. Scheff met the mother?s complaints with a lawsuit reminiscent of one filed against Scheff in 2001.

The mom lacked the financial resources to defend herself or to attend her own trial in Florida. Before trial, Ms. Bock relocated her small family from the New Orleans area to Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This, however, did not stop Scheff and PURE from coming full-steam after the mom for alleged defamation and other claims. As a result, without the benefit of hearing the mom?s side of the story, a jury had little choice but to award the $11.3 million dollar verdict requested by the lawyer for Scheff and her company.

According to the Daily Business Review, Scheff also named Ginger Warbis as co-defendant. Warbis, who runs a web site critical of Scheff, obtained a well-known lawyer who successfully defeated Scheff?s claims of defamation: ?Warbis? lawyer, Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, New Jersey, sharply criticized Scheff and other people who refer parents to programs for troubled teens. ?People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples,? Elberg said. ?Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents.??

The Daily Business Review, noting that Scheff won effectively only by default, paraphrased Scheff?s attorney, stating, ?Bock was not present for the jury trial, which was held to determine damages only. . . .?

Ironically, a separate lawsuit had been filed in Utah against Scheff and PURE by the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP), containing similar allegations as those raised by Scheff against the New Orleans mom. Scheff lost all counter-claims against WWASP but was not found liable for claims of damage allegedly caused when Scheff posted Internet statements asserting child abuse by WWASP. Scheff admitted she used false names to do so. While her case pended, Scheff removed representations from her web site which falsely stated Scheff holds a college degree.

The recent Florida verdict also ignored abuse allegations at children?s programs to which Scheff refers families because the jury never heard the opposing evidence. The owner of one such program to which Scheff made referrals, Whitmore Academy, was initially charged with multiple counts of child abuse and hazing in connection with four children at the boarding school. The owner recently pled no contest to four counts of hazing, and was ordered to pay fines and complete community service. The prosecuting attorney told the Deseret News, ?I believe it effectively shuts them down in the state of Utah.? According to a September 2006 news article by the Deseret News, ?The former operator of a therapeutic school [Whitmore Academy] for troubled youths, who has been kicked out of Mexico and accused of starving horses in Canada, has agreed not to run another rehabilitation school in Juab County.?

The allegations of child abuse did not deter Scheff from enrolling children for a profitable sum of money. In a separate case, the United States Court of Appeals found that defendants PURE and Sue Scheff, "[C]ompete with the schools associated with World Wide. PURE schools pay Ms. Scheff a substantial sum whenever a child enrolls in its program based on her recommendation."

According to the non-profit International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC), Scheff and her company are on the ISAC ?watch list? for questionable practices that may place children at risk for abuse or neglect. ####

Sources:

http://www.isaccorp.org/

http://www.helpatanycost.com/

http://www.isaccorp.org/referrals.asp

http://michellesuttonmemorial.homestead.com/

http://www.help-for-teen.com/

http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/home.html

http://www.wwaspinfo.com/

http://www.teenhelpindustry.info/

http://www.paulareeves.com/

http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/

http://www.kathymoya.com/index.html

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp ... &aId=19977

http://www.majon.com/advanced/pressrele ... eeves.html

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650192749,00.html

Related Links:
Web Wire Press Release
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #129 on: October 25, 2006, 01:14:12 AM »


YEAH, WHERE'S THE BEEF?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #130 on: October 25, 2006, 01:29:32 AM »
How does one get a copy of the transcripts?  I want to know what the plaintiff presented as evidence and also, who testified and what the nature of their testimony was.  I mean, did the judge cross examine them or what?  Did Scheff take the stand?  Were exhibits offered?  HOW DID THE JUDGE instruct the jurors?  What did he say about the defendant not being present?  These are just a few questions I have.

Are transcripts avaiable for purchase to the public?  I have seen transcripts online before (WWASPS v. PURE) so I am wondering if the transcripts are posted somewhere?

Thanks!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #131 on: October 25, 2006, 09:22:16 AM »
Yes, most likely the judge and jury did not know why Bock called Scheff a ed con, fraud and what ever else she called her.  

Most likely they, the judge and jury, did not see the testimony that Bock posted here on Fornits and the emails exchanged that showed why she believed Scheff was all of those things she called her.

This whole case has become a marketing ploy for Scheff.  Her paying all the money she paid for this case to go to court, knowing she would probably never be able to collect a dime, really has been money well spent.  Look at all the attention she is getting from it.  Good or bad, it is still attention.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #132 on: October 25, 2006, 01:18:30 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
How does one get a copy of the transcripts?  I want to know what the plaintiff presented as evidence and also, who testified and what the nature of their testimony was.  I mean, did the judge cross examine them or what?  Did Scheff take the stand?  Were exhibits offered?  HOW DID THE JUDGE instruct the jurors?  What did he say about the defendant not being present?  These are just a few questions I have.

Are transcripts avaiable for purchase to the public?  I have seen transcripts online before (WWASPS v. PURE) so I am wondering if the transcripts are posted somewhere?

Thanks!


ISAC?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #133 on: October 25, 2006, 01:20:57 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Yes, most likely the judge and jury did not know why Bock called Scheff a ed con, fraud and what ever else she called her.  

Most likely they, the judge and jury, did not see the testimony that Bock posted here on Fornits and the emails exchanged that showed why she believed Scheff was all of those things she called her.

This whole case has become a marketing ploy for Scheff.  Her paying all the money she paid for this case to go to court, knowing she would probably never be able to collect a dime, really has been money well spent.  Look at all the attention she is getting from it.  Good or bad, it is still attention.


Yup, and let's not forget CAICA seemingly riding the wave of attention too.

 :rofl:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
CAICA
« Reply #134 on: October 25, 2006, 02:13:56 PM »
Wonder why IZZY isn't posting these so-called landmark case  transcripts on CA-CA????
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »