Sensitive information about Sue's disabled child?

[Carey]

Could somebody please tell me where on this site I ever published any information on Sue's disabled child. According to this law suit this is what I am being accused of:

"the sole purpose in doing so was to cause Scheff and her disabled minor child to suffer severe emotional distress and destroy Pure and interfere with its ability to conduct business and advocate on behalf of children."

Hell, I did not even know she had a disabled child. How is it I am hurting him, I can't help it that she is his mother. I am just telling what has and is happening.

It also says: "They also sought to publically humiliate Schef and her family by publishing highly personal and private information about Scheff and her disabled child on interactive bulletin boards read by members of the public and persons who work with at risk teens, and threatened to destroy her financially and "take down" her business."    

Somebody please show me where any of this occured. Is this a joke.

Also, did she throw in the part about "her disabled child" for sypathy. God does she use children, for her own personal gain, or what!


Let me add this:

"As a direct and proximate result of Forbis and Bock's intentional and unjustified interference with PURE's actual and business relationships with third parties, PURE has suffered damage in excess of $15,000.00"

Hmm...does that mean that 5 to 10 parents have changed their minds about sending their kid to one of PURE's programs?
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-31 15:04 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-31 15:14 ]

[Deborah]

"They also sought to publically humiliate Schef and her family by publishing highly personal and private information about Scheff and her disabled child on interactive bulletin boards read by members of the public and persons who work with at risk teens, and threatened to destroy her financially and "take down" her business."

They? Who would "they" be?
Wasn't it posted here, many months ago, that Sue was not in the referal business for the $$$$; that she was not dependent on the income she received for referals?

Re: her disabled child- could it be that someone may have been refering to her child who was in a WWASP facility; not knowing that she indeed had another, disabled child?  They, "struggling teens" are frequently refered to as "disabled", particularly when a parent is attempting to scam an insurance company or school district.

And: "the sole purpose in doing so was to cause Scheff and her disabled minor child to suffer severe emotional distress and destroy Pure and interfere with its ability to conduct business and advocate on behalf of children."

Granted, Sue probably suffered extreme emotional distress- embarrassment- but how exactly has her disabled minor child suffered severe emotional distress? Does she allow her child to read the forum? If so, the distress to her child was of her own making.

[Anonymous]

The way I look at it all:  If Sue and those that work with her, either paid or volunteer, hadn't started defaming wwasp in 2002 would any of this even be an issue?

She/They are now experiencing what they intended. Irony :rofl:

[Carey]

They? Who would "they" be?
Wasn't it posted here, many months ago, that Sue was not in the referal business for the $$$$; that she was not dependent on the income she received for referals?

They being, Ginger and myself.

Re: her disabled child- could it be that someone may have been refering to her child who was in a WWASP facility; not knowing that she indeed had another, disabled child?

It specifically refers to her son stating that "infact Scheff's son is not even a party to the Utah suit."

Granted, Sue probably suffered extreme emotional distress- embarrassment- but how exactly has her disabled minor child suffered severe emotional distress? Does she allow her child to read the forum? If so, the distress to her child was of her own making.

She's crazy.  She is now using as her defense her son, who I have never said anything about, never even knew he was disabled.  She is using children, innocent children, her own son included, to fight her battles.

I am sure I have embarrased her.  I don't agree with what she is doing.  I would never do anything to hurt her child or anyone elses.  She on the other hand, will use hers and everyone else for her own personal gain and to fight her own personal battles.

[Antigen]

On 2003-12-31 15:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

"The way I look at it all:  If Sue and those that work with her, either paid or volunteer, hadn't started defaming wwasp in 2002 would any of this even be an issue?



She/They are now experiencing what they intended. Irony :rofl: "

You're in the wrong thread, buddy. This one is about Sue suing me and Carey. There's another thread about WWASPies sending threatening letters to my service provider.

Pay Attention!

I generally have a very high threshhold for bullshit, but I think I've reached my limit. These forums could suddenly go private, with reading and posting allowed only to people I like. Just for shits and giggles, I might even let Nazi back in, just to piss you all off.
 :rofl:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much
liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

--Thomas Jefferson, 1791, in a letter to Archibald Stuart

[Antigen]

On 2003-12-31 15:48:00, Carey wrote:

She's crazy.  She is now using as her defense her son, who I have never said anything about, never even knew he was disabled.  She is using children, innocent children, her own son included, to fight her battles.

Crazy like a fox! I had no idea till now that Sue even had a son, however able or not. Did someone post anon about that, we all missed it, and now they're guessing at who the author might be?

Here's how I see it. The first lawyer I'll probably talk to in a couple of days gets $500/hr (and he's worth every penny!) How much is it going to cost a potential benefactor just to get the guy to look over a 30 page complaint?

As Bellis is fond of saying, if you can't dazzle `em w/ brilliance, baffle `em w/ bullshit.

"Replace end user" (The Top Support Call Closer 10 Years Running)

--Bastard Administrator

[Carey]

I don't remember any postings about her son, anywhere.  Also, I read her deposition, I don't remember even reading anything about her son in it.  That is what is really baffeling to me.  Does her attorney even know what is in her deposition?  Afterall, it is not the same attorney representing her in her WWASP case.

[Deborah]

So, Sue can act on her complaints and possibly jeopardize an entire forum of information unrelated to her specifically, without proving first that her allegations have any merit? She didn't have to show the posts she refers to as causing extreme emotional distress? Guilty until proven innocent?  Seems that if she's asking for an emergency injunction she'd have to fork over some evidence to support her claims. Shucks, and before Carey's depo was posted.
Ginger, couldn't you request that this issue be handled through mediation, since she has not requested that the distressing material be removed prior to filing a suit? Seems excessive and unnecessary, as you've already shown a willingness to edit private or personal information when requested.
And Carey, in that vein, can you counter sue her for posting your SS#? Shouldn't have to prove that it was indeed her.
Business must be good judging from the dollars she's spending on legal fees.

[Antigen]

Deb, I don't know. I'll have to take a look at the complaint and get some legal advice.

Take a look at this
http://thestraights.com/articles/logans ... -encl4.htm

Even this strategy may have been lifted right out of Straight, Inc.'s or $cientology's playbook.

Hey Carey, now we truely are in bed together. Isn't this fun! But where are the guys? I miss them. :sad:

Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status
--Laurence J. Peter

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous

[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2003-12-31 16:42 ]

[Carey]

Hey Carey, now we truely are in bed together. Isn't this fun! But where are the guys? I miss them.

Yeah, that Sue, seems she has put us there...maybe she is not only crazy...but kinky too.   :rofl:

[Deborah]

How can she bring one suit against two seperate individuals? Doesn't make sense- how do you sue to unrelated people? Or is it two suits, full of "they" verbage?

[Carey]

It is one suit.

SUSAN SCHEFF, individually and as parent , guardian, and next friend of S.S., a minor child, and PARENTS UNIVERSAL RESOURCE EXPERTS, IINC., aka PURE, a Florida corporation,
     Plaintiffs

v.

GINGER WARBIS d/b/a FRONITS.com, and
CAREY BOCK
     Defendants

[Anonymous]

FYI  Ginger had been asked through phone conversations multiple times to stop posting personal maligning posts about Sue Scheff and Pure.

The deposition Carey posted provided by wwasp attorney has not yet been filed therefore not available for public availability.

Carey with the help of WWASP is continuing to slander Sue and Pure. Ginger has allowed it.

Its not that difficult to understand. Too many months of this personal vendetta, slandering has been going on.

Stop and think : What would you do if a person you never ever met was taking such vicious action against you and your business. Now the kid is involved .

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Obviously the attorney  must have felt this has gone over the top too.

Its not necessary to like someone to respect their personal privacy.

If some folks on this forum really care about protecting kids and dealing appropriately with boarding schools etc. how about working toward reform through proper channels.

This has been malicious slander.
It is not acceptable. Never has been.

[Carey]

She brought her child into this.  We didn't.

Obviously the attorney must have felt this has gone over the top too.

Obviously, you don't know how attorneys work...it is called for money. Now, if he is working on a contingensy basis, meaning he will only be paid if he wins, then maybe you would have an argument.  Somehow, I doubt that to be the case.

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-01 09:30:00, Anonymous wrote:

Ginger has allowed it.

You're missing a very important point here. I'm not Carey's mother. Even if I were, she's an adult. I also don't recall any slanderous, private information about Sue. Lots of public information. Many unanswered questions. But nothing really private or slanderous.

Now, are you guys really sure that you want everyon who has ever posted to these fora to be held to this same level of accountability?

You might want to look at this first.
Anonymity Anonymous

[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-01 10:34 ]