Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > PURE Bullshit and CAICA
How Free is Free Speech?
Anonymous:
--- 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?
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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.
Rude Intrusion:
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.
nimdA:
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.
Rude Intrusion:
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.
Anonymous:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version