Author Topic: Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?  (Read 13023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2006, 11:46:25 PM »
Understanding the Criminal Process in Utah:

No contest:

A "no contest" plea indicates that, while you are not admitting guilt, you do not dispute the charge. This is preferable to a guilty plea because guilty pleas can be used against you in later civil lawsuits.

http://research.lawyers.com/Utah/Crimin ... -Utah.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2006, 01:12:00 AM »
What is your point?
Jared Eldridge, the prosecutor, got what he wanted:
He got rid of the "bad gal" Cheryl Sudweeks without spending the taxpayer's money for a trial---and this woman is never allowed to run any type of facility in his little county of Juab for the rest of her sorry life. Not bad politics.
Eldridge stated he believed the victims, so this says little about his beliefs in justice for abused children.
Sounds like someone is a bit worried about the Suds recent depositions in the civil case. Might some of the questions come back to haunt them in the civil trial? Shouldn't if they answered all the questions truthfully.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2006, 01:51:14 AM »
I'm still curious how "never run another program in THIS COUNTY ever again!" is supposed to mean anything at all.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2006, 07:02:14 AM »
Rinse Recycle??? Shall we have the former so called "VICTIMS" that were not abused or mis-treated stand up and have a voice? I bet you a million dollars they and there parents totally outnumber the "abused".  I don't believe for one second that nothing but abuse came from the Sudweeks.  I'm sorry to the families that were burdened by a childs hatred toward life. Not to mention being spit on, pushed around, and called names.  I faced much worse than that in public school and faced far worse atrocities in real-life. I did'nt need to be sent away to deal with those real-life situations.  I think the kids were reaching for help. They had nowhere to go. So why not cause a comotion right? Our parents sent us away right? How else can we get them to realize our disdain? And to the ones that testified that had already been in the Sudweeks' care a year or two prior, I have one question. How much did your mother's offer you out of the settlement?  You settle for nothing.  You got nothing. Thats why this forum exists.  Cut the shit and come to grips with reality.  The Sudweeks conviction was minimal because they were accused of minimal actions that were in real-life minimal. Sometimes things happen for a reason. You parents who are ranting and raving because your kid came home or got arrested during the program and still had a problem should most likely look at yourselves and ponder about, "Where did I go wrong?" versus, "Where did they go wrong?"!!!!                        


Oh, I'm sure I'll have a few DANDY responses to this one.  5 bucks says the word DANDY even appears in at least one of them.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2006, 11:48:29 AM »
Who cares if the number of "abused" don't outnumber those who say they weren't abused.
ONE abused child is just ONE TOO MANY.
Child abuse is illigal, and immoral, and just plain wrong.
Cheryl Sudweeks accepted her plea bargain--let her live with it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2006, 12:02:44 PM »
I encourage all the parents poking around this site to read the post just above the previous one. Just read it thoroughly, paying close attention to the subtext and the assumptions.

Yes, that poster wants control of your kid, and is fairly representative of the sort of people you're going to meet in this business.

It doesn't matter what your kid's doing- sending him to people like that is only going to make things worse.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2006, 12:03:35 PM »
Might we call that the "window of abuse", like the "window of loss". A few will die, but soooo many are "helped".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2006, 04:46:00 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
The Sudweeks conviction was minimal because they were accused of minimal actions that were in real-life minimal. Sometimes things happen for a reason.


So how do you feel about the "minimal" conviction of the Sudweeks in Canada for animal abuse? Was that minimal because the accusations were minimal and in real-life were minimal? Those charges were pretty severe, the punishment severe and the real-life suffering to those animals severe. Still think these people are guilty of "minimal" stuff?

And by the way, I know of what I speak of.

Think about it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2006, 04:59:23 PM »
The abuse of the Whitmore "students" was not miminal.
Jared Eldridge knows this, and he stated he "believed" the victims.
You'd have to ask him WHY he gave Cheryl Sudweeks a plea bargain.
He got what he wanted: He got the Sudweeks out of his county FOR LIFE.  He "cleaned up the mess in his county."
Would have to wonder how this man sleeps at night, knowing he did not take this to trial.
IF HE BELIEVED THE VICTIMS--what makes him think 12 other people wouldn't have believed them too? 12 people who would have made up a JURY.

The civil trial is coming up.  The Sudweeks have given their depositions. Let a jury decide this one. Let the Sudweeks face their accusers.

Cheryl Sudweeks had that chance--she could have gone to trial in the criminal case: she choose to cop a plea, and she got off easy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #69 on: November 14, 2006, 05:04:38 PM »
Sounds like the Suds might be getting ready to settle, or something, huh?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2006, 07:25:25 PM »
This forum is strictly unmoderated for content, but repeating the same post with one minor change will just get deleted. You want to make edits, get a fucking account. You want to repeat yourself, do it all in the same post so it's clear how retarded you are.

The idea of shit like the Sudweeks and their shills having control over children personally disgusts me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2006, 08:45:25 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
The Sudweeks have given their depositions. Let a jury decide this one. Let the Sudweeks face their accusers.


Post those depos!! Juicy surprises are usually revealed under oath.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Suds Back in Canada? Who's Watching Them Now?
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2006, 08:56:28 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Rinse Recycle??? Shall we have the former so called "VICTIMS" that were not abused or mis-treated stand up and have a voice? I bet you a million dollars they and there parents totally outnumber the "abused".  I don't believe for one second that nothing but abuse came from the Sudweeks.  I'm sorry to the families that were burdened by a childs hatred toward life. Not to mention being spit on, pushed around, and called names.  I faced much worse than that in public school and faced far worse atrocities in real-life. I did'nt need to be sent away to deal with those real-life situations.  I think the kids were reaching for help. They had nowhere to go. So why not cause a comotion right? Our parents sent us away right? How else can we get them to realize our disdain? And to the ones that testified that had already been in the Sudweeks' care a year or two prior, I have one question. How much did your mother's offer you out of the settlement?  You settle for nothing.  You got nothing. Thats why this forum exists.  Cut the shit and come to grips with reality.  The Sudweeks conviction was minimal because they were accused of minimal actions that were in real-life minimal. Sometimes things happen for a reason. You parents who are ranting and raving because your kid came home or got arrested during the program and still had a problem should most likely look at yourselves and ponder about, "Where did I go wrong?" versus, "Where did they go wrong?"!!!!                        


Oh, I'm sure I'll have a few DANDY responses to this one.  5 bucks says the word DANDY even appears in at least one of them.


Why should anyone believe the kids you want to parade about like they were part of a Whitmore Dog and Pony Show?  Because they are somehow more "credible" than the kids who were abused by Mrs. Suds?  That's ludricrous.  As for the rest of your post, it makes no real sense other than it's obvious you are a card-carrying program apologist with a serious hang-up about children and their right not to be used and abused while in the custody of any residential treatment facility or private program.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »