Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > PURE Bullshit and CAICA

How Free is Free Speech?

<< < (6/10) > >>

BuzzKill:
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?

Anonymous:
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.

Anonymous:
PURE IS A REFERRAL COMPANY.

Just like Teen Help and Lifelines.

Enough of the PURE is just a "parent referrer".  It's a company.

BuzzKill:
///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.

Anonymous:
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:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page