Sue Scheff Spin on Whitmore Academy Settlement

[Anonymous]

Sunday, January 4, 2009
The Whitmore Academy Settles - but Doesn't Lose
 
Our legal system is set up in a way that most cases settle rather than going through trial. Insurance companies are notorious for wanting to settle to avoid going through a costly and often lengthy trial. Most clients are left with no choice but to settle their case, even when they know they are innocent.

And that's exactly what has happened with the Whitmore Academy case.

Many people who have followed this case, read most of the depositions (on both sides), hearings, etc. believe the plaintiffs would have lost their case if it had gone to trial.

The plaintiffs believed they had a multi-million dollar case when in reality the case settled for $450K – only a fraction of what they had expected. The question is why?

After reading the many facts of this case, it was clear to those who have been closely following the case that the plaintiffs never had a winning case. In fact, the initiator of this vindictive lawsuit withdrew. It has been said she did not want "blood money" when in reality it became obvious she simply did not want to be deposed.

The Deseret News wrote a very partisan article shortly after the settlement. They made no attempt to contact the defendants' lawyers or the defendants themselves.

Immediately after the article was released Phil Ferguson, the Suweeks' lawyer, contacted the Deseret News and wrote a letter to the reporter.
Below is a copy of the original e-mail that was sent to the Deseret News:


From: Phil Ferguson <[email protected]>
Date: November 26, 2008 1:26:26 PM MST
To: [email protected]
Website: http://www.chrisjen.com/

My support of the Sudweeks and their program prompted a group of radicals to target me on the Internet. They posted twisted truths and outright lies about me, my family and even some of my friends. They even accused me of supporting child abuse. As a parent whose daughter was abused at a teen help program, I would never support child abuse of any kind, including in any program. When their threats turned to my children I had no choice but to defend myself.

I endured a long and stressful court case and was as shocked as anyone else when the jury verdict was returned: $11.3 Million dollars in my favor. The jurors wanted to send a message to my abuser that you can't defame a person on the Internet simply because you don't like them.

It is clear to anyone who knows me and the work I have done that after a decade of helping thousands of families my motivation clearly is to help educate parents - not place their children in harmful situations.

If you would like to know more about me and my story you can read my first book, "Wit's End! Advice and Resources for Saving Your Out of Control Teen - A Mother and Daughter's True Story" published by Health Communications, Inc. (HCI). HCI is the publisher that brought you the Chicken Soup for the Soul Book Series.

In my opinion, many people in today's society sue others simply because they can. I was recently told by an attorney that his practice is booming as the economy declines. People are suing each other hoping for collections, often not understanding the scope of what it truly means to be involved in a lawsuit.

Mark and Cheryl will sustain this - with constant flow of encouraging letters from former students and parents, they know they helped literally hundreds of families. They made a positive difference. They will not allow a few money grubbers (my opinion) destroy their life's work. And the best news is a major Hollywood Producer is interested in bringing this story to the big screen, as well as a book that will be released by a major publisher. It is nice to know when bad things happen to good people, there are those that will use their ability to bring the real story to the surface.




As a footnote: There was also a criminal lawsuit that was filed against the Whitmore. The state indicated they did not have the evidence needed to prove abuse or to prosecute the Sudweeks. They entered into a plea agreement with the Sudweeks in an effort to resolve the case.
The information above (excluding the attorney letter) is the opinion of the author.
Posted by Sue Scheff at 6:54 AM  
Labels: Cheryl Sudweeks, Mark Sudweeks, The Whitmore Academy, Whitmore Academy, Whitmore Mansion
Older Post Home

[Anonymous]

Scheff can't stop updating that Whitmore blog, can she?

http://suescheffwhitmoreacademy.blogspo ... oesnt.html

[psy]

Scheff can't stop updating that Whitmore blog, can she?

http://suescheffwhitmoreacademy.blogspo ... oesnt.html

Makes ya wonder what she's up to with the Sudweeks now.  High likelyhood in my mind that they're running another shitpit and Sue Sue is their best referrer.

[Che Gookin]

Already Confirmed mate.

Mulege Mexico.

[psy]

Already Confirmed mate.

Mulege Mexico.

Wonderful...  I assume you have a reliable source on this.  Got a name on the shitpit in question?

[Che Gookin]

Details aren't exactly forthcoming, and from what I understand Cheryl and Mark are, or were running their duckfarm out of their house they have down in Mulege. Let me see if I can get an update on the situation.

[Anonymous]

As a plaintiff in the case against Whitmore Academy I would like to "set the record" straight.
 
First: The plaintiffs did not sue for multi-millions of dollars.
 
Second:  The depositions were only available to the parties to the lawsuit.  So, that being said, who are all these people who have read the depositions "on both sides" and how does Ms. Scheff know what is contained in them?
 
Third:  Who, aside from the parties to the lawsuit attended any "hearings"?  And exactly which ones, and what was actually the subject of those hearings?  Are there really a lot of people who were aware of when any hearings might be held in court in the town of Nephi?  
Where would they -- if "they" exist -- have gotten this information?  Did hordes of people actually fly into Salt Lake, then drive two hours to Nephi to attend a 10-minute court hearing on a point of law??  Ms. Scheff, shame on you, you insult the intelligence of your readers.
 
 FYI - most hearings are concerning legal matters, not TESTIMONY.
 
Fourth:  The allegations against the Whitmore were and are true.  There are documents and witnesses and testimony that back this up. Contrary to what you state in your blog, there is PROOF.
 
FIFTH:  MS. SCHEFF, WHAT FACTS ARE YOU BASING YOUR "OPINIONS" ON?  IT IS VERY OBVIOUS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE FABRICATED MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE STATED.   YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPLY THAT YOU AND OTHERS NOT INVOLVED IN THE LAWSUIT HAVE INFORMATION THAT THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE OBTAINED.  CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVEY, THE LEGAL SYSTEM ALSO SETS UP RULES TO PRESERVE THE PRIVACY OF ALL THOSE INVOLVED.
 
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ASIDE FROM YOUR INSISTANCE THAT THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WHITMORE WAS INITIATED BY JOYCE HARRIS, THAT IS VERY SIMPLY "A LIE," A LIE THAT YOU SEEM TO WANT TO PERPETUATE.  WHY??
 
I FIND YOUR BLOG AND YOUR OPINIONS TO BE VINDICTIVE, ADOLESCENT AND VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.  YOUR SELF-IMPORTANCE IS PATHETIC -- IN MY OPINION.  
 
SUSAN SCHACHERER

[psy]

Second:  The depositions were only available to the parties to the lawsuit.  So, that being said, who are all these people who have read the depositions "on both sides" and how does Ms. Scheff know what is contained in them?

That's a real mystery there.  I cannot fathom how such a thing could happen.  :roflmao:

CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVEY, THE LEGAL SYSTEM ALSO SETS UP RULES TO PRESERVE THE PRIVACY OF ALL THOSE INVOLVED.

That maybe true, but just some forewarning: I highly doubt Sue will respect such privacy.  If she does have access to court documents including private information, I wouldn't put it past her to post them in full and without redaction.  Make sure she knows your lawyers will cut her head clean off if she does.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, ASIDE FROM YOUR INSISTANCE THAT THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WHITMORE WAS INITIATED BY JOYCE HARRIS, THAT IS VERY SIMPLY "A LIE," A LIE THAT YOU SEEM TO WANT TO PERPETUATE.  WHY??

Well that's simple.  So she can blame it on one "disgruntled" and "crazy" person.  Sue is not the first to use this tactic nor will she be the last.  For sue, the scapegoat varies from day to day.  Sometimes it's Joyce, sometimes it's Carey Bock, and sometimes it's me.
 

I FIND YOUR BLOG AND YOUR OPINIONS TO BE VINDICTIVE, ADOLESCENT AND VERY UNPROFESSIONAL.  YOUR SELF-IMPORTANCE IS PATHETIC -- IN MY OPINION.  
 
SUSAN SCHACHERER

Just a question: do you have any confirmed info on the current whereabouts of the Sudweeks or their new facility.  If so, could you send me a tip to my email at [email protected].  I'm anxious to shoot up a warning to parents (a-la Sue Scheff Truth) about them including current and up-to-date information.  I've heard rumors about Mexico, but I don't have a name of a facility, or anything much else of use.

[Anonymous]

To add to my previous post, I would like to correct Ms. Scheff's implication that the insurance company just wanted to settle and actually paid the full $450,000 to the plaintiffs.  This also is not true.  The plaintiffs were willing to settle a year before the actual settlement was reached.  There were also only a COUPLE of plaintiffs who were covered by the insurance company.  Therefore, the insurance company did not pay the full $450,000 to the plaintiffs.  The defendants, Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks, were responsible for paying what the insurance company did not pay.  
 
As far as the criminal case is concerned, Jared Eldridge PERSONALLY told me he did not take the case to trial because, if Cheryl were to be found "guilty," the punishment would have been the same as what was reached in the plea.  He stated to me that he "believed" the kids and he did not want to "put them through" any more than they had already been through.  If he had not thought that he had a case, the charges would not have been brought.  Surely, you give a little more credit to the County Attorney's Office.  I think their responsibilities entail a little more sophistication than a little game of high school "gossip."   Again, Ms. Scheff, you insult your readers.
 
Just where are you getting your information?  I can document mine, can you document yours??  If so, let's see it.  If not, SHUT UP.
 
Susan Schacherer

[FemanonFatal2.0]

noooice.

Thank you to Susan.

Heres the problem tho, outsiders who would have read this article wouldn't be thinking critically about this matter, most take a journalist's published work on face value and neglect to do any research.

But What to do about Sue? Wow she seriously doesn't get it does she? Honestly, for the longest time I was a bit in the dark about Sue, because some years ago I talked to her on the phone and she published an article I wrote about my stay in Casa on her site, at the time I just assumed this whole referral thing was just a way to make cash off adds and her only fault was not investigating the schools. Recently however, I revisited that theory and did some digging and it really seems to me that Sue Scheff has become just as bad (if not worse) as a WWASP Edcon. She uses the SAME marketing tactics, has the SAME blind faith in the schools she recommends and makes the SAME excuses for them when evidence arises against them. I would warn her to pull her head out of her ass, but it really seems like shes too far gone. Is there really any wonder why this woman NEEDS to keep a blog?... She does these things to convince herself that what shes doing isn't wrong. I would really like to see her say the things she says to a survivor of one of the shit holes she recommends, see if they don't knock her down a few notches.

Is Sue Sue ever going to wake up and realize how hypocritical and wrong her actions in the last few years have been? Or would such a realization be detrimental to the lifestyle she enjoys all to well? Shame on you Sue, you are full of fail.

[psy]

To add to my previous post, I would like to correct Ms. Scheff's implication that the insurance company just wanted to settle and actually paid the full $450,000 to the plaintiffs.  This also is not true.  The plaintiffs were willing to settle a year before the actual settlement was reached.  There were also only a COUPLE of plaintiffs who were covered by the insurance company.  Therefore, the insurance company did not pay the full $450,000 to the plaintiffs.  The defendants, Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks, were responsible for paying what the insurance company did not pay.  
 
As far as the criminal case is concerned, Jared Eldridge PERSONALLY told me he did not take the case to trial because, if Cheryl were to be found "guilty," the punishment would have been the same as what was reached in the plea.  He stated to me that he "believed" the kids and he did not want to "put them through" any more than they had already been through.  If he had not thought that he had a case, the charges would not have been brought.  Surely, you give a little more credit to the County Attorney's Office.  I think their responsibilities entail a little more sophistication than a little game of high school "gossip."   Again, Ms. Scheff, you insult your readers.
 
Just where are you getting your information?  I can document mine, can you document yours??  If so, let's see it.  If not, SHUT UP.
 
Susan Schacherer

Feel free to comment on the settlement here:
http://www.sueschefftruth.com/?p=32

That way whenever somebody searches for "sue scheff" they'll immediately be able to see what you wrote.

[Antigen]

Well that's simple.  So she can blame it on one "disgruntled" and "crazy" person.  Sue is not the first to use this tactic nor will she be the last.  For sue, the scapegoat varies from day to day.  Sometimes it's Joyce, sometimes it's Carey Bock, and sometimes it's me.
 

Hey, don't forget The Internet Woverine!

[psy]

Well that's simple.  So she can blame it on one "disgruntled" and "crazy" person.  Sue is not the first to use this tactic nor will she be the last.  For sue, the scapegoat varies from day to day.  Sometimes it's Joyce, sometimes it's Carey Bock, and sometimes it's me.
 

Hey, don't forget The Internet Woverine!

This is true.  You are definitely on Sue's shitlist as well.

[Anonymous]

Well that's simple.  So she can blame it on one "disgruntled" and "crazy" person.  Sue is not the first to use this tactic nor will she be the last.  For sue, the scapegoat varies from day to day.  Sometimes it's Joyce, sometimes it's Carey Bock, and sometimes it's me.
 

Hey, don't forget The Internet Woverine!

This is true.  You are definitely on Sue's shitlist as well.

oh my god. that woman is scary. How sad ... She presents herself as a provider of "help" for youth dealing with mental illness...but uses the suposed mental illness of v.a. people as an excuse to taunt and dismiss them. She sells "help" in the form of the very "institutionalization" she uses to stigmitize Shelby. Is there a blog for anyone besides Psy and Shelby, how can I find it?

[psy]

oh my god. that woman is scary. How sad ... She presents herself as a provider of "help" for youth dealing with mental illness...but uses the suposed mental illness of v.a. people as an excuse to taunt and dismiss them. She sells "help" in the form of the very "institutionalization" she uses to stigmitize Shelby. Is there a blog for anyone besides Psy and Shelby, how can I find it?

There is one on Shelby, Me, Ginger, Joyce, Buzzkill, Ginger, Joyce Harris, and Barbe Stamps (TAUSA), among others.  They're all linked from the bottom of this blog posting here:

http://www.sueschefftruth.com/?p=28

I would sue her if she caused damage.  Unfortunately, it's difficult to do that since I share a name with a famous opera singer and none of her blogs would ever show up on a search for my name (no harm, and proving harm is necessary to win a defamation case).