How Free is Free Speech?

[hanzomon4]

What are the differences Buzz?

[Anonymous]

Personally,I don't recall ever seeing documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.

Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?

Just curious what others might think about this question given the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts.

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Buzz below is a quote from you on another thread.  


"BuzzKill
Mid Life Crisis Poster


Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 1071

 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:50 am     Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I don't think Izzy or Susan have much to do with the case. I think maybe they helped gather the information to present to this law group . I base this guess on how the CA "firm" was found. This doesn't mean they have anything else to say on the matter, and people should not get to hung up on the two of them and their "involvement".

 
   
I am curious, is that the "difference" you speak of.  Is it that they won't consider Sue/PURE as a defandant because Sue has helped with obtaining cousel....or.....is it that they won't file against Sue because some of the plaintifs, at one time, were part of her "parents helping parents"?

[Anonymous]

Now there's an interesting questions.  Are any of these Turley plaintiffs former PURE parent volunteers?

[Anonymous]

Posted by Constent Gardener
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=19872


"Teen Help is a marketing group that has provided many Specialty Schools with thousands of students who are in need of help. We are a service that educates and helps parents with their students transition from home to the facility. Our doors have been open for eleven years to assist any parent in need of our help.

P.U.R.E. has been and is a valuable asset to Teen Help. Its experts are very successful with the Parent Referral Program, and have educated many parents in the referral process. P.U.R.E. has presented our Specialty Schools as an alternative for many parents, Therapists, Doctors, Guidance Counselors, District Attorneys, School Districts, and Probation Officers.

Parents Universal Referral Experts have had first hand experience with Carolina Springs Academy. They has toured the facility, met the staff, and know the ins and outs of the program. Their first hand experience has eased the minds of many parents in the admissions process."

Sincerely,


Randall Hinton
Teen Help Admissions

http://web.archive.org/web/200103120118 ... ences.html
_________________
Bear with me that I may speak, and after I have spoken, mock on.
Job 21;3

[BuzzKill]

///I am curious, is that the "difference" you speak of. Is it that they won't consider Sue/PURE as a defandant because Sue has helped with obtaining cousel....or.....is it that they won't file against Sue because some of the plaintifs, at one time, were part of her "parents helping parents"?///

None of the above - IMO.

I would say the differences that matter are probably (I am guessing) matters of owner ship and history with those who make up what WWASP is.  

Teen Help, and what ever else they call themselves now, was set up by Litchfield and friends to market WWASP programs.  They are, and have always been, a strand in the WWASP web.

PURE was invented by a program parent; not a program owner; or a program owner's son, or brother, or cousin or in-law or good pal.

Its genesis is in parental referring.  What you might not understand is how strongly the parents were encouraged to sell the program. They very much encouraged a small business type venture as a way to pay for the program and even make a few bucks on the side. Scheff took it farther than others, but still she was a parent doing referrals, like so many others.

 You may not think this matters, but apparently those who make the decisions think it does.  Being as they are the ones with the law degrees, and the court room experience and the case wins under their belt - I am satisfied they know what they are doing.

Do you really think you know more than they do about how best to prosecute this case - or any case?

Do you think maybe your letting your spite for Scheff cloud your judgment a little here?  Why do you feel so strongly about this? Whats it to you?  Why aren't you gripping at the Whitmore plaintiffs that they should file against PURE?

[Anonymous]

Yes, some of the Turley plaintiffs were at one time PURE parent volunteers.

[Anonymous]

Seems to me the "excuse" given by ex-WWASPs parents who supported Scheff and PURE for so long (and may still do in the case of some) was their judgment was "clouded" because of their spite for WWASPS.

It was Whitmore, you said, that finally turned on the light, along with the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts.  A trial, which it appears several PURE supporters attended.

The "cloudy" excuse reminds me of the twinkie defense.  

Not real solid.

If there are plaintiffs who were referred to WWASPS by PURE, it would be nice to know when this occurred, and what programs?

Tranquility Bay?  Carolina Springs?  Casa by the Sea?  Majestic Ranch?

 :question:  :question:  :question:

[Anonymous]

Yes, some of the Turley plaintiffs were at one time PURE parent volunteers.

 ops:

[BuzzKill]

///If there are plaintiffs who were referred to WWASPS by PURE, it would be nice to know when this occurred, and what programs?///

Well theres that IF again. I don't know of any. Do you?

Speaking in general - people who PURE sold WWASPS to -  I am sure they are out there - lots of them I would guess - but I have never "met" one.

///Seems to me the "excuse" given by ex-WWASPs parents who supported Scheff and PURE for so long (and may still do in the case of some) was their judgment was "clouded" because of their spite for WWASPS. It was Whitmore, you said, that finally turned on the light, along with the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts. A trial, which it appears several PURE supporters attended.///


There are those who considered Sue a friend, but who never supported PURE.

Whitmore was important, b/c it was the proof that the critics of PURE, and Sue, were correct. Until that situation came to light, people (myself among them) truly felt such a situation would have been handled with concern and integrity, even if we disapproved with how PURE operated in general. We believed in our friend's concern for the welfare of the kids. The Whitmore situation proved us wrong.

Also, it was during the same time that Whitmore was becoming a notable issue, that we got our hands on the transcripts - which also provided a few surprises.

Some will say their judgment was clouded by hate of WWASP. I don't say that. I say I trusted until there was proof I shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Personally,I don't recall ever seeing documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.

Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?

Just curious what others might think about this question given the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts.

Anyone?

Umm...you're joking-right?  Teen Help is the "marketing arm" for WWASP according to the court transcripts.  Jane Hawley was the top sales person for Teen Help--like Sue Scheff was before Jane came onto the scene.  Jane got concerned about liability and she formed the company Lifelines that refers to WWASP.

Both Sue Scheff and Jane Hawley referred to the abusive WWASP programs.  Just tell us your kidding about, "no documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.  Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?"

You are joking -- right?  Cause if you're not -- wow!

[Anonymous]

Both Sue Scheff and Jane Hawley should have their panties sue off them.  They are both scammers.  

I do agree with Buzz in that Sue Scheff would be a better defendant in the civil case involving Whitmore.  One day Sue-Sue will be brought to her knees -good and hard and right on her honker.

[Anonymous]

Why does Buzzkill post as-if she is speaking to one individual poster?  It is obvious that several posters are reponding as GUEST.

[Anonymous]

Personally,I don't recall ever seeing documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.

Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?

Just curious what others might think about this question given the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts.

Anyone?

Umm...you're joking-right?  Teen Help is the "marketing arm" for WWASP according to the court transcripts.  Jane Hawley was the top sales person for Teen Help--like Sue Scheff was before Jane came onto the scene.  Jane got concerned about liability and she formed the company Lifelines that refers to WWASP.

Both Sue Scheff and Jane Hawley referred to the abusive WWASP programs.  Just tell us your kidding about, "no documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.  Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?"

You are joking -- right?  Cause if you're not -- wow!

Think you misunderstood the point:

Did Jane Hawley once have a kid in a Wwasps program, pull this kid out claiming he/she was abused and then refer OTHER kids to WWASPS anyway?

If so, please provide documentation.  So far all I have found is someone named Sue Scheff who according to the WWASPs v. PURE transcripts, appears to fit that description.

Are you saying this isnt true?

If so, WOW!

[Anonymous]

SLAPP Happy: Corporations That Sue to Shut You Up
Topics: activism | public relations
The corporate technique of suing people into silence and submission has become so popular that it even carries its own cute nickname in legal circles. Such lawsuits are known in lawyer lingo as "SLAPP suits," an acronym for "strategic lawsuits against public participation."

"Thousands of SLAPPs have been filed in the last two decades, tens of thousands of Americans have been SLAPPed, and still more have been muted or silenced by the threat," write law professors George Pring and Penelope Canan in their 1996 book, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out.

In their investigation of the trend, Pring and Canan found that "filers of SLAPPs rarely win in court yet often 'win' in the real world, achieving their political agendas. We found that SLAPP targets who fight back seldom lose in court yet are frequently devastated and depoliticized and discourage others from speaking out--'chilled' in the parlance of First Amendment commentary."

SLAPP suits achieve their objectives by forcing defendants to spend huge amounts of time and money defending themselves in court.

"The longer the litigation can be stretched out . . . the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success," observes New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella. "Those who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the 'game' face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being brought to their knees to settle. . . . Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."