Author Topic: Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG  (Read 827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« on: May 29, 2007, 11:45:11 AM »
Sue Scheff has written a BLOG, "The Whitmore Academy -My Experiences" and in this blog she has written several false statements about a parent that she refers to as "a disgruntled mother."

Scheff writes: "She (the mother) dropped her daughter off at the Whitmore while Mark and Cherly were out of town....she was desperate to get rid of her daughter, although the Sudweeks asked if they could wait utnil they were back from a trip.  So the Sudweek had their daughter meet the very young teen at the mansion and bring her to their trip."

FACTS:
The parents were advised that the Sudweeks were conducting a month-long retreat at Lake Powell with the Whitmore students---and that it would be to the great advantage of the daughter if she could be enrolled in time to participate in this retreat. Both the Sudweeks and Sue Scheff encouraged the parents to enroll the daughter in time to participate in this yearly event.  The parents were NOT deperate to get rid of their daughter, and did NOT "have a party to attend," as written by Sue Scheff in this article.
The daughter was  left  with the licensed counselor, Tim Lowe---and the married, grown, daughter and son-in-law of the Sudweeks: Trinity and Jeff Seely---all STAFF MEMBERS of Whitmore Academy---NOT a very young teen as written by Sue Scheff.  This is an out-right LIE.

Scheff writes: All of this led to a civil laswsuit instigated by this mother.

FACT:  The civil lawsuit WAS NOT "instigated" by this mother.  This mother's family was contacted by the parent who initially hired the law firm that is handling the Civil Case that is STILL actively ongoing against Whitmore Academy/Sudweeks. This, too is a LIE.
YES, it definitely is "hearsay" that this mother ever offered anyone money to join this lawuit.

Scheff writes:  But, as soon as she found out she would have to be deposed-and probably EXPOSED - she  withdrew from the lawsuit!
The most beautifu program to help families is closed since it has to handle the legal mess this mother caused.

FACT:  Scheff uses the words "probably" because she has NO FACTS about why this family withdrew from this civil case.
Scheff has no FACTS to justify a statement that this mother "caused the Sudweeks LEGAL MESS."
Cheryl Sudweeks was  charged with criminal abuse and hazing against 4 Whitmore children--and this "disgruntled mother"'s child was not one of the children involved in this criminal case.
This "disgruntled mother" and her family  did not initiate the civil case and are not a plaintifs in the civil case--yet the civil case is ongoing.

Scheff writes:  It is a shame such wonderful people like Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks has to endure the wrath of this vindictive person.

FACT:  Scheff fails to mention that these "wonderful people" the Sudweeks have broken laws in 3 countries-----
Mark Sudweeks was found guilty of FELONY animal abuse in Canada, and he lost his appeal.  He was fined over $100,000 and was banned from owning animals in Canada FOR LIFE.

The Sudweeks were evicted from Mexico, along with minor "students" for operating a school without a license.

Cheryl Sudweeks accepted a Plea Bargain in connection with her criminal case for child abuse/hazing of 4 students at Whitmore Academy, and is banned from operatiing any facility involving children in Juaby County FOR LIFE.

This so-called "vindictive parent" does not appear to be responsible for the Sudweeks on-going legal problems in three different countries.

Sue Scheff screams "foul" about what she calls "mistruths" being written about her on the internet.  Will she withdraw these MISTRUTHS she has written about this parent, and apologize?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2007, 12:38:38 PM »
Sounds to me like a REBUTTAL blog to the Scheff/Zehnder blogs on Whitmore would be a good idea.   :P

In the meantime, ISAC certainly has a lot of information about this program and it's owners.

http://isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asp#whitmore

It's just odd how these two so-called advocates seem so invested in this defunct program and it's owners.

Also, if there is a civil case going on, what happens if the parents and children prevail?  

What will these two so-called parent and child advocates have to say then?

 :question:

 :roll: :
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2007, 12:42:53 PM »
FYI:

Apparently, both CAICA and PURE are listed on ISAC's facility and referrer watchlist.

http://www.isaccorp.org/watchlist.asp
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2007, 01:04:27 PM »
The question was asked: "What will Scheff and Zehnder have to say if the parents and children prevail in the on-going civil case against Whitmore Academy and the Sudweeks?"

According to the blogs these two are writing in regards to the defunct Whitmore Academy, and the criminal-type-Sudweeks; Scheff and Zehnder will seemingly have to BLAME someone. Think they will continue blaming this uninvolved "disgruntled" mother, who is not even a plaintiff ,or a witness in this case?  LOL  LOL
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2007, 08:53:25 PM »
Sue Scheff does not seem to understand that her own statements in this Whitmore blog reflect on what could be viewed as her own poor judgment and business sense:
Why would Sue Scheff refer any parents to the Sudweeks and Whitmore Academy IF the Sudweeks would allow a YOUNG TEEN to be in charge of the intake of a teen student? The reader would have to ask other questions:
WHY did the Sudweeks leave this "young teen" unsupervised, and alone at the Whitmore Academy while the Sudweeks were out-of-town?  Why would the Sudweeks assign a "young teen"  the responsibilities of an ADMISSTIONS DIRECTOR for Whitmore Academy?
Was this "young teen" to drive herself and this daughter from Nephi, Utah to meet up with the Sudweeks and the other students at Lake Powell?  What a daunting responsibility for a "young teen."

Questioning the validity of the remainder of this blog becomes easier and easier, in my opinion.

Wouldn't Scheff want to assure all parents that she refers to a facility that competent, responsible adults will be available to receive any child that she refers to a facility?
Wouldn't Scheff be concerned about the safety and welfare of her clients' child?
Scheff's statement makes little sense; and most readers can assume that this is surely not a factual statement:  these parents surely did not come to Utah, and leave their daughter in the care of some young teen as Scheff writes.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2007, 09:20:30 PM »
Someone else decribed these blogs as essentially unprofessional, even childish.  Personally, I would have to agree.

What really amazes me is that apparently neither of these two bloggers seem to have any hesitation in making statements that are either factually incorrect or perhaps blatantly false.

Particularly offensive to me is the use of children seemingly as a weapon against the parent-critic.  How ironic that "these" children are judged to be telling the truth but the others, who allege they are the victims of abuse/hazing are lying.

Unprofessional, juvenile and grossly disingenuous, is how I would describe these two bloggers.

 :(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2007, 12:31:31 AM »
Quote from: ""Guest""
Someone else decribed these blogs as essentially unprofessional, even childish.  Personally, I would have to agree.

What really amazes me is that apparently neither of these two bloggers seem to have any hesitation in making statements that are either factually incorrect or perhaps blatantly false.

Particularly offensive to me is the use of children seemingly as a weapon against the parent-critic.  How ironic that "these" children are judged to be telling the truth but the others, who allege they are the victims of abuse/hazing are lying.

Unprofessional, juvenile and grossly disingenuous, is how I would describe these two bloggers.

 :(



That person who said these blogs are unprofessional and childish is Catherine Sutton of the Michelle Sutton Memorial Fund.  She is a TRUE child advocate who does waiver in her convictions about abusive programs.  She has fought for the rights of children and parents who have been lied to about the programs they enter.  Everyone should stand up and listen when she talks.  She has been in this industry fighting for the rights of children for 17 years.  She has helped pass many of the laws they have and I don't believe she will stop until they are fully regulated and or abolished.  Cheers to Catherine for your hard work and for speaking out on behalf of these kids and keeping everyone aware of these programs and referral agencies that pose as advocates.  


My own opinion about Sue/PURE or Isabelle/CAICA's interest in Sudweeks/Whitmore...    lets see

$7,000 per year referral fee
    x 40 kids (+ per year)
$280,000.00     per year

This of course is a minimum figure.  Children come and go thoughout the year.  That is a good chunk of change.  Especially for a referral business that does not have much overhead.

Food for thought..
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2007, 01:47:24 AM »
IMO, it's wrong to use the thoughts and feelings of children in this way. Isabelle Zehnder and Sue Scheff should be ashamed of themselves.

TAKE THESE BLOGS DOWN CAICA and PURE.

"Do it for the kids".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2007, 03:19:32 PM »
Whitmore Academy IS CLOSED and Cheryl Sudweeks accepted a Plea Bargain that forbids her from operating a facility in Juab County FOR LIFE.

So, are the Sudweeks planning to open another facility somewhere else in Utah? Is that what these parent-bashing-blogs might be about?  To perhaps help rehabilitate the reputations of the Sudweeks, and maybe get those "PURE-LY" outrageously grand referral fees flowing again?

Could this be the plan?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff False Statement Whitmore BLOG
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2007, 03:43:42 PM »
When, why and by whom was Whitmore Academy closed down?

There are too many threads in the Whitmore forum to wade through.

If someone could just provide an answer to the questions, that would be very helpful.

Thank you in advance.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »