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