Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > PURE Bullshit and CAICA
How Free is Free Speech?
Anonymous:
Sue Scheff. a victim :roll:
Oh, the poster said, Sue Scheff "playing the victim." :rofl: :rofl: :exclaim:
Anonymous:
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?
Anonymous:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
Anonymous:
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.
Anonymous:
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version