With this unprecedented jury verdict (not a default verdict) of $11.3M - comes more slander!
If you are reading ugly and malicious information about me, you can understand why. The defendant - Carey Bock - who attempted to get the judgement set aside - was denied with a strong order set down by the Judge.
She is being held liable for the defamation and invasion of privacy she created to myself and my family.
I have also received a mass amount of media attention from prominent news outlets such as 20/20 ABC News i-Caught, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Forbes and more.
All these reputable journalist did their due diligence on my case.
With this unprecedented jury verdict (not a default verdict) of $11.3M - comes more slander!
If you are reading ugly and malicious information about me, including a lawsuit I haven't received, you can understand why
. The defendant - Carey Bock - who attempted to get the judgement set aside - was denied with a strong order set down by the Judge.She is being held liable for the defamation and invasion of privacy she created to myself and my family.
I have also received a mass amount of media attention from prominent news outlets such as 20/20 ABC News i-Caught, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Forbes and more. All these reputable journalist did their due diligence on my case.
Freedom of speech is here to stay - Defamation is not acceptable.
Interesting that Scheff wrote this BLOG and did not mention the LAWSUIT filed against her, PURE and Focal Point Academy. After posters on Fornits point out the lack of any reference to this lawsuit, Scheff revised the BLOG to include the words "any lawsuit I have received."
This lawsuit against Sue Scheff was filed on July 31, 2007 and it has been posted on several websites - so, again Scheff plays with "words" in her weak, lame denial about a lawsuit being filed against her. It's a reminder of her PURE advertisement to parents, "NO COST TO YOU," when Scheff failed to disclose to parents that Scheff/PURE was being paid directly by the programs she was referring to; either telling the parents point blank; or, giving the parents the impression that Scheff worked on a "volunteer basis."
The WWASP vs PURE transcripts proved that Scheff was indeed being paid for her referrals to programs; and it seems the parents were misled by Scheff's "NO COST TO YOU."
Just as readers of this BLOG may be misled, and may believe that no lawsuit has been filed against Scheff/PURE, when in fact it has!
