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

Questions for Lon Woodbury Re: CAICA/PURE/WHITMORE

(1/7) > >>

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Thank you  ........
We thank Lon Woodbury for giving us the opportunity to share the truths about The Whitmore Academy. After numerous interviews with former students, parents, authorities, lawyers and the owners, it is apparent to us that this is nothing short of a vendetta against the Sudweeks.

Isabelle Zehnder and Sue Scheff


What a shame that Lon Woodbury apparently doesn't have the integrity to seek the higher (if not neutral) ground when it comes to the now-defunct Whitmore Academy, Isabelle Zehnder (CAICA) and Sue Scheff (PURE) SAGA.

Surely he is aware of the civil lawsuit filed by parents and children against Whitmore Academy which has yet to be resolved.  None of the parties involved in this lawsuit can speak to the numerous allegations made by Zehnder and Scheff as to the merits of their case.  

What could Zehnder and Scheff possibly know about the merits of this lawsuit that no one else (including you, Mr. Woodbury) could or would know unless they were a party to this lawsuit?

In my opinion, both Zehnder and Scheff appear to have allowed their personal opinion(s) to unduly and unfairly influence their interpretation of the truth.

In example, where are the reports about the Sudweeks running afoul of the law in three countries?  The exact terms of the abeyance agreement entered into by Mrs. Sudweeks?  Why are their no links to affadavits by two families who are critical of the Whitmore which can be found on ISAC not made available to their readers?  

Mr. Woodbury, have you even read these so-called blogs?  

Reviewed the terms of The Abeyance Agreement?

"Share the Truths"?

Since when do references which appear to rely on gossip, hyperbole, hearsay, rumor, innuendo, defamation of character, invasion of privacy, go to the truth of the matter?

Lastly, what is your interest in seemingly helping to further what many might call an obviously self-serving agenda on the part of Zehnder and more specifically, Sue Scheff, who reportedly recruited/referred most if not all the children once enrolled in this program?  Including the children and parents involved in the civil lawsuit?

Anybody notice how this word "vendetta" seems to always be used by "troubled programs" to defend against allegations of abuse, fraud, exploitation?

WWASPS certainly has used it on more than one occasion.

Oh the irony of it all.

Bottom line?  

These blogs, try as they might, simply can't obfuscate the TRUTH behind the old adage ....



Something else for Lon to consider is the FACT that PURE continued to refer children to Whitmore while it was under investigation.

Were prospective parents told this?

Given there are NO laws to mandate that educational consultants and referral outfits like PURE  inform parents they be referred to a program that is under investigation by local and state authorities, how can anyone be certain?

Second, Woodbury has spoken out against the practice of programs paying "finders fees" to outfits like PURE.  (See essay on

Has something changed to cause him to override his own principles on this issue which is clearly a "conflict of interest"?

What could possibly be Lon Woodbury's reason for allowing Sue Scheff to AGAIN use his website to seemingly push her own AGENDA again?

Shame on you Lon Woodbury.
The Whitmore parents are currently involved in a CIVIL CASE against the Whitmore Academy, and the owners Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks. These parenst  appear to be obeying court rulings to not post on public forums; so they can not defend themselves against the lies published in these BLOGS.

Cheryl Sudweeks chose to accept a "Plea Bargain" in her criminal case; how dare anyone say this was a VENDETTA.

One of NATSAP’s key ethical guidelines, shared by the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA)—a nationwide network of professional educational consultants who help parents place their children in teen programs—deals with referral fees or “finder’s fees.” Teen programs in the NATSAP association are forbidden from paying finders fees to educational consultants, and any educational consultant or firm found to have accepted referral fees from programs loses IECA membership.

“That kind of exchanging cash corrupts the whole system,” says Woodbury.

Reputable educational consultants usually require a battery of tests and interviews with prospective clients to determine the nature and extent of the teen’s problems. The consultant will then recommend programs based on the child’s needs and the expertise or specialty of the program.

Spring Creek's Short Leash



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version