Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > PURE Bullshit and CAICA
How Free is Free Speech?
hanzomon4:
I agree but PURE is a business not just an over the top parent, but your point still stands. A judge might look at parents suing PURE but not other referring parents as hypocritical.
Anonymous:
But PURE is a referral business just like the referral businesses named in the Turley lawsuit, is it not?
She is not a parent referrer but a for-profit business who referred to WWASPS after starting PURE.
That is considerably different than referring to WWASPS for one month's free tuition which is what many WWASPS parents did.
Sue Scheff was referring children to WWASPS programs in exchange for referral fees.
She did this for about 7 months AFTER she removed her own child from a WWASPS program, correct?
So why isn't she a plaintiff is what anon is asking.
To protect other parents who referred?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Maybe the parents should bow out of the lawsuit and let the kids sue?
Anonymous:
The WWASP vs PURE transcripts discloses that Sue Scheff continued to refer parents and their children to WWASP programs AFTER she opened PURE.
IF SUE SCHEFF referred any of these Turely plaintiffs to their WWASP programs after Scheff started PURE---how could this law firm, in all good faith, refuse to name Sue Scheff /PURE as a defendant in this lawsuit?
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---The WWASP vs PURE transcripts discloses that Sue Scheff continued to refer parents and their children to WWASP programs AFTER she opened PURE.
IF SUE SCHEFF referred any of these Turely plaintiffs to their WWASP programs after Scheff started PURE---how could this law firm, in all good faith, refuse to name Sue Scheff /PURE as a defendant in this lawsuit?
--- End quote ---
Darn good question, anon.
Maybe it will come out at trial?
Anonymous:
This sounds a whole lot like many many postings that have been written about Sue Scheff in the past:
Postings to the effect, "We know Sue Scheff lied in the WWASP vs PURE trial, but we didn't say anything about these lies; or the fact that Sue Scheff withheld evidence during that trial....because we were trying to BRING DOWN WWASP."
Something seems a bit "off" here.
If Sue Scheff ?Pure referred any of these Turley plaintiffs to WWASP programs, then she should be named as a defendant in this Turley lawsuit.
"Not telling the entire truth" is what might be mudding up this lawsuit, IMO.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version