Author Topic: How Free is Free Speech?  (Read 5127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2007, 09:26:52 PM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""Rude Intrusion""
Well sure, Scheff's PURE is something above and beyond the average program parents referring. Even so, I'm thinking that the basic argument is, during those months when PURE was referring to WWASPS, she was a referring parent; a very driven and successful referring parent. The referral queen, of referring parents. So successful, she made a business out of it. But still, a referring parent. I can see how the argument could be made that if you go after her for those referrals, then you'd have to look at every parent who ever referred. That is where I'm guessing no one wants to go. Besides, the question remains: IF she referred any of the families. That is a big IF. I wonder why you are so concerned with the question? Your not one such plaintiff are you? If so, then shouldn't you be discussing this with the law firm, instead of posting on fornits? And if not, its really none of your concern, is it?  If your in that group angry with her about some other program she referred you to, maybe you should sue her?

Your argument makes no sense, Rude.  Scheff referred families to WWASPS first as a parent, then as a commercial for-profit business.

It stands to reason if a parent/child was a member of the Turley lawsuit and referred by PURE, they may very well feel the same way toward PURE as the other plaintiffs may feel toward Lifelines or any of the WWASPS referral agencies that are named as plaintiffs.

Is there a difference?  Perhaps in your mind there is.  Are you a member of the Turley lawsuit?  A former WWASPS parent or student?


It stands to reason if a parent/child was a member of the Turley lawsuit and referred by PURE, they may very well feel the same way toward PURE as the other plaintiffs may feel toward Lifelines or any of the WWASPS referral agencies that are named as plaintiffs.

I think you meant DEFENDANTS.
You make a good point though. Sounds like someone has some 'splainin' to do.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Rude Intrusion

  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2007, 10:55:25 AM »
Maybe I should explain that IF the law firm decided to go after Scheff & PURE I wouldn't disagree or argue they shouldn't. I would assume they know what they are doing. Likewise, as they have decided not to, I won't argue with them. I assume they know what they are doing. I feel I understand why they have decided as they have. I have no problem with it. Not that they would care if I did.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ashed Brains Shrink

Offline nimdA

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2007, 10:58:47 AM »
I think, and I'm no legal expert, the turley bunch is somewhat afraid of some sort of conflict of interest. That or they just don't want to muddy the issue anymore than it already is. Dragging Sue into court no doubt would make alot of us clap with joy, but it has the potential to fuck up a case against wwasp.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
am the metal pig.

Offline Rude Intrusion

  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2007, 11:27:04 AM »
It occurs to me maybe I should be clear I am just tossing out theories.
TSW might have a point. Guest also may have a point. I do think it is worth noting that this is no fly by night law firm. They do know what they are about. Those of us who are hoping to see this evil empire held accountable for the harm done should be thankful they have taken the case. It seems counter-productive to me to be harping about Scheff and PURE being excluded. I feel confident they will also be held accountable in time.  Just a matter of time.

Besides Guest, you are still worrying about a big IF. IF you are such a person (referred to WWASPS by PURE) then maybe you should see if you can find a law firm to help you hold PURE accountable?  This one has decided not to go there. IF you were screwed by Scheff, there are those who would like to talk with you about it. I've seen the links up "screwed by scheff? click here. Go do some clicking.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ashed Brains Shrink

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Law firm
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2007, 11:40:35 AM »
The better informed I become  the better I am able to now understand why Ed Masry and Bushkin  distanced themselves from Scheff after meeting with the WWASP players in Vegas in early 2003.  

The tables turned after that meeting in more ways then one could understand.  Scheff never took any responsibility for the changes in the attorneys attitude.She claimed they sold us out.

It could be fair to assume they were enlightened to the truth about Scheff and her referring practice both for WWASP and Pure.The truth those of us who supported her were never privy to until the WWASP vs Pure trial.

The woman is an expert at playing the victim.An expert at deceit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2007, 12:02:29 PM »
Sue Scheff. a victim :roll:

Oh, the poster said, Sue Scheff "playing the victim."  :rofl:  :rofl:  :exclaim:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2007, 12:48:52 PM »
Understand details can not be disclosed regarding the case handled by Bushkin and Masry; such as settlement amounts, etc.

But why the big secrecy regarding the outcome about this particualar case against WWASP?Why isn't the public aware that there were settlement by WWASP with some of these plaintiffs?
Doesn't any "WIN" against WWASP warrant public disclosure, even if the details: the name of the facility, and amounts of settlement can not be revealed?

Most people can read; and after comparing the Bushkin/Masry plaintiff list with the current Turley plaintiff list; come to the conclusion  (which could well be totally incorrect)  that the plaintiffs who did not join the Turley lawsuit MAY HAVE BEEN those plaintiffs who received a settlement in the Bushkin/Masry case against WWASP?
Then readers may come to the conclusion (again which may be totally incorrect) that only one particular WWASP facility accepted any responsiblity "for any wrong-doing in this case."

That's what seems to happen when "deals are cut," and the public remains un-informed.  Conclusions, which may or may not be correct ,are drawn from incomplete information.
 
Worse yet--it appears that WWASP paid some type of "settlement" but did not publicly admit any wrong-doing; and plaintiffs seemingly found this type of agreement acceptiable.

How does this make the public aware of the dangers of WWASP?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Law firm
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2007, 09:29:39 PM »
Quote from: ""Wendy""
The better informed I become  the better I am able to now understand why Ed Masry and Bushkin  distanced themselves from Scheff after meeting with the WWASP players in Vegas in early 2003.  

The tables turned after that meeting in more ways then one could understand.  Scheff never took any responsibility for the changes in the attorneys attitude.She claimed they sold us out.

It could be fair to assume they were enlightened to the truth about Scheff and her referring practice both for WWASP and Pure.The truth those of us who supported her were never privy to until the WWASP vs Pure trial.

The woman is an expert at playing the victim.An expert at deceit.


As I read the feelings about Sue Scheff, two things occur to me about this Bottle of Black Poison.  One is that Scheff tried to muscle and pretend she was Erin Brokovich with the Masry/Bushkin lawsuit.   She even flew herself and her "beautiful daughter Ashlyn" to L.A. and she was "shocked" when she was brushed off like the commoner she is.  Bushkin---asshole that he is----did the RIGHT thing and put miles between himself and Sue-Scheff-Black-Poison.  Sue-Sue filed a complaint against Bushkin with the CA Bar Assoc.  Dismissed !  But---Bushkin threatened to sue Sue-Sue !!

Enter Turley Law Firm.  Sue-Sue is back center stage again!

Turley has named Teen Help as a defendant--so it stands to reason Turley would also name Parents Universal Resource "Experts" as a defendant also because there is no doubt there are some unhappy campers from Sue Scheff's referral "expertise."  

Both Teen Help and P.U.R.E. were defrauding parents and harming children with their referrals to WWASP.

Like the anon above said--once Sue Scheff's daughter was out of WWASP, Scheff continued to make money referrals from WWASP for at least 7 months.  Sue-Sue admitted this in the court testimony.

2+2=Turley mistakenly hired Sue Scheff's old lawyer in Salt Lake to be the Turley local counsel in Utah.  I heard Sue's old fart of a lawyer would not release some of Sue-Sue's court information to Turley--claiming there is a court order.  

Except there was no order so why not release all court documents to Turley?  Maybe  there are things Sue-Sue does not want Turley to see--ya think?  

Sue-Sue and Fatso were buddy-buddy with Turley.  Turley is in a little bit of an uncomfortable situation so they are just ignoring the whole PURE Scheff thing.
 :rofl:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2007, 11:51:41 PM »
HMMMMM.....
Seems like a bunch of plaintiffs, who  "hired" TURLEY, need to tell this law firm exactly who this law firm is working for:  the plaintiffs, and NOT SUE SCHEFF!!!!
THEN, these plaintiffs need to instruct this law firm to do its job, in a correct, moral, and ethical manner.
If the "good, ole, local, Utah lawyer" needs to be replaced, so be it; if that is what is required to get the correct DEFENDANTS charged in this lawsuit.
Otherwise, won't be surprised if this case doesn't go bye-bye just like the Masry case.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2007, 01:02:05 AM »
To the guest who responded to Wendy:

Are you saying, IF a family who was referred to a WWASP program by Sue Scheff, PURE requested to join this lawsuit being handled by the Turley law firm; that this family would be turned down?

Are you saying that TURLEY would not sign up any families in this lawsuit if they were referred to WWASP by Sue Scheff, PURE?

Just trying to understand, here.

Or, did you mean: that some of the plaintiffs currently in the lawsuit were referred by Sue Scheff, PURE; but "they are not happy campers" because Scheff, PURE has not been named as a defendant in this lawsuit?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2007, 11:59:45 AM »
With regard to the case with Bushkin / Masery, and Scheff's complaint, as I recall, the complaint Scheff filed against Bushkin was dismissed because Scheff was not a plaintiff. Her daughter was. Therefore, Scheff had no grounds to file a complaint. This isn't the same as saying there wasn't a legitimate concern.

The fact is, after that meeting in Vegas, Bushkin distanced himself from his entire client base, not just Scheff. He never even sent out notice when he left Huron. Except for those who heard it through the grape vine, the plaintiffs were never even provided his new contact information. As for the cases he recently settled, the offers were made only after word got out that Turley was looking to file. Consequently, it seems to me, Bushkin was trying to help wwasps mop up some of the most egregious cases, cheaply; and quite some of the strongest voices. That's just how it seemed to me. I wonder, as others do, just who it was Bushkin was working for.

As for the involvement of Ed Masery, I can tell you that although Bushkin would cc correspondence to Masery, Masery's office didn't seem to understand he was involved with the case. Calling them would get a lot of confusion. If one persisted, a call would eventually be returned from Bushkin's office, not Masery's. So, it seems to me Masery was always very distant, and I never understood what his involvement actually was, except for Bushkin claiming he had to clear things with Misery.

Guest mentions "Sue's Lawyer" and I assume this means Henrickson. In My Opinion, they are very lucky to have him helping. He is very good at what he dose. I have the greatest respect for his intelligence and ability in a court room; and faith in his ethics. I don't know the details of this thing with the records and the sealing of them that isn't real. Something sort of odd seems to be going on with that. (not unusual where Sue is involved)  Still, I think it is worth remembering, these are not a fly by night outfit. They know what they are doing. If there is a problem, they will take care of it.

As for Sue being in the middle of *this* case - not hardly. This has been absolutely nothing like that CA case, where the only information anyone could get came through Sue, or one or two others. Sue is in no way involved with this one. No one has been told to send information through her for "vetting"; no one has to have anything to do with her at all. The situation couldn't be more different. Thank God.

With regard to anyone who might have been referred to WWASP by PURE; My understanding is that they would be considered just like anyone else, and accepted as a client if they have a case - just like anyone else; but that they would need to be wiling to accept the fact that this law firm is not going to be filing against a parent referrer - and that in this case, this includes Scheff.  Weather or not to accept this, is up to the individual. If they don't like this, then they can seek other counsel - and there are others who might want to talk with them. But as far as I know, such a person is simply a big IF in the minds of those who want something to bitch about.

And it is strange to me, people are harping about this firm going after PURE in this case, when the case against Whitmore dose not even include PURE. Seems to me the hounds are barking up the wrong tree. Furthermore, I find myself feeling a bit put out with people who want to find fault and bitch on Fornits about a case that has nothing to do with them. You have a case of your own, no doubt. Why not put your concern and energy into your own case?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2007, 01:50:11 PM »
According to the WWASP vs PURE transcripts, it appears that Sue Scheff stopped being a "parent referrer" once she opened up her own company PURE.  These transcripts reveal that Sue Scheff continued to refer parents and their children to WWASP programs for several months AFTER she started her referral company, PURE.

Buzzkill, people do not have to be involved in ANY CASE to have an interest in, and an opinion about this issue.
And, whether or not some other facility chose to name, or not name Sue Scheff/Pure in a case has no bearing on this issue being discussed, either, IMO.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2007, 02:23:55 PM »
PURE IS A REFERRAL COMPANY.

Just like Teen Help and Lifelines.

Enough of the PURE is just a "parent referrer".  It's a company.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2007, 04:22:02 PM »
///Buzzkill, people do not have to be involved in ANY CASE to have an interest in, and an opinion about this issue..///

Sure. For example, I am very interested in several cases going on at the moment, that in no way involve me; but you don't see me posting rants on Fornits about how they are being pursued - and it would be a bit ridiculous if I did.

///And, whether or not some other facility chose to name, or not name Sue Scheff/Pure in a case has no bearing on this issue being discussed, either, IMO///

I think it dose. I don't see you (or anyone) over on the Whitmore forum raising Cain that they have not filed against PURE. I don't see you harping on about their attorney's decision. For some reason you only want to pick on this case against wwasp. It seems strange to me and I wonder what your motive could be.

Has it occurred to you (or do you care) that you could be causing anxiety and distress for some of the students who look to this case to provide them some measure of justice, by posting these rants of yours? You seem to be attempting to create a lack of trust between the law firm and their clients. Seems very strange.

And all this over a hypothetical IF. It kind of pisses me off. Especially as you have nothing to do with it yourself.  Luckily for you, I might add, as you are so unhappy with the management of the case and the attorney's working on it.

///PURE IS A REFERRAL COMPANY. Just like Teen Help and Lifelines. ///

Of corse PURE is a referral company. But there are differences. It is not a matter of being "Just Like" Teen Help. What differences there are, have been determined to make a difference, by those who understand these things far better than you or I. Still, as mentioned - there are those who would like to talk to anyone who feels they were screwed by Scheff.  If your in that group, contact them, and quit yer bitchen about a case that doesn't concern you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
How Free is Free Speech?
« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2007, 04:37:46 PM »
There has to be something very odd about a lawfirm taking a case involving children referred by several different entities, one of those being PURE, and yet claiming there is somehow a difference.

IMO, there simply is no difference.  Sue Scheff, provides documentation of her involvement with WWASPS as a referrer company, not a parent with a child in one of their programs (e.g. a "parent referrer).

To pretend otherwise, is foolish, IMO.

So what's the real problem?  Why not cut to the chase?  Surely WWASPS is aware of PURE and the children it referred to their programs.  How could they not be?  

There are documents to this effect posted on this very forum.

Both CAICA and PURE claimed they helped launch this class action by referring the original plaintiff.  

Could that be part of the issue?

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