Lee & Spots, How did you have information on my depostion?

[Carey]

Wow, you two had info on my unfiled deposition, the day after I gave it.  How?  Sue?  Sue's attorney?  WWASP's attorney?

Do I really need to ask. No, I don't.  Not only does this latest thread in posts show that you are her voice, along with the evidence in my emails it further substantiates that you are Sue's instrument.  You are helping her to do her dirty work.  You and Sue K. would not have been able to speak about any of that information without it being provided to you via Sue.

I forget though, Sue can do what she accuses others of doing and it is a whole different story.  She sends kids to unregulated programs in which children have been injured just like WWASP has done.  She released information on my deposition and I released info on her deposition.  (The funny part about this second example is that I did not feel a need to sue to shut her up...she however, did feel a need to sue to shut me up and she even stooped to the level of using her own child to do so. A child who has never even been mentioned until this latest suit.   Hmmm...why?)  

Why do you think it is ok for her to do certain things, but not me?  She got you by the nuts or something?  Don't tell me you are not trying to defend her because you know you are. Everyone knows you are.  I know you are tied up in her legal battles. Why else would you be so upset about it and so personally involved?

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 12:56 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 13:04 ]

[Anonymous]

Carey O -
What makes you think anyone has a copy of your deposition?
I don't believe anyone does or has said they did.
Surely that bit posted was just satire. Surely you weren't actually as lame as all that.
I would sure like to see it, every last word of it when you get your copy.
I would think you'd be the first.
Also, if your still in a money crunch, maybe you could sell copies of the vedio.
I'd just love to see that.

[turbinekat]

Carey,

You are heading for the deep end again.  That's why I quit conversing with you earlier!!!

Nuts...NOT!  Fighting her battle...NOT!  She has attorneys for this case, she doesn't need me for anything involving "w vs. p?.  Either that or she hasn?t asked me to do anything.   That is just your assumptions of this whole case.  You have no facts to back up any of your allegations you continue to accuse me of.

YOU know I'm tied up in her legal battle!!!  What a farce, that sure is a new one on me...I couldn't even tell you what her lawsuit is entirely about.  I don't even care what her suit is about.  I'll explain this once again...I have a beef with an organization, not you, not anyone else.  How simple can that be NOT to understand?  However, I have in my quest run across many of the individuals of which some you don?t get along with.  So be it...get over it...

I have an opinion just like you on all of these issues, but I don't force feed them to anyone.  Just like your idol states..."agree to disagree"...move on.

I believe if you'll look back in your archives of emails...remember the ones you sold to wwasp's, I probably informed you of my family's dealings with wwasp & that's about it.    I have a quest of my own to contend with.  When I'm ready for the public to know about it...believe me...you'll be the first to know.  Along with everyone else on this forum.

FYI;   I found your deposition info. via common carrier at my office door one morning.  It appeared to be some form of a mailing list?it may have been wwasp, or Sue, or either of the attorney's, not sure since it has been awhile.

I hope all of this info. Assists you in your quest.  Best regards & kindest wishes,

Lee

[Carey]

Spots and Lee, would you like to tell us, us being all of the readers here, where did you get your information on my deposition from?  It is a very simple question.  Why can't you answer?  

Lee, don't leave us now.  Spots, I know you are out there.  Where did your information come from?  Now Spots, I know you claim to have nothing to do with Sue, looks like that is not quite the truth now doesn't it.  There were only four people in that room, two attorneys and Sue and myself.  Come on, both of you, no BS, just answer the question.  You provided details, how did you come by them?

Anon, you don't have the answers, they do.

[Carey]

FYI; I found your deposition info. via common carrier at my office door one morning. It appeared to be some form of a mailing list?it may have been wwasp, or Sue, or either of the attorney's, not sure since it has been awhile.

No, your information came directly from the mouth of Sue.  You were posting information in regard to it the same night it which I had given it. You continued to post about it the very next day on the thread in question.  Excuse, me, you or Nancy I should have said,  along with Sue K. began to post information on my deposition.  What is really sad is you were posting based on gossip...you had not even seen it.  Gossip straight from the horses mouth.  

And you are not fighting for and defending Sue and PURE?  Then why would you post in regard to my depo, especially given the fact that you had not even seen it.  Is that what you are about.  Saying and repeating things you have heard and accepting them as fact.  Just "trust the program" does that ring a bell.  Must not ring very loudly for you.

[Anonymous]

We must be tawkin about the 12.5 you took in exchange for the Trekker's collective heads on a platter to wwasp.
So it's gossip; or was until you confirmed it and began to try and defend it.
If anything you did or said that has been reported is incorrect, you can prove it when you post your deposition; in it's entirety.
We await your vindication. . .

[Carey]

Anon, you are missing the point, or are you?

The point being, they were sharing what they heard about my deposition.  Where did they hear it from and who were they posting it for...SUE.  That was the point.

[Anonymous]

So what.
Unless your saying it was inaccurate.
We await your proof.

[Carey]

Yeah, you miss the point alright.

I will wait to hear from Sue K. or Lee.  You obviously don't have the answer to my question.

[spots]

On January 1, 2004, at 6:36am, Carey Bock said:

"Where the information came from is not important. What it tells us about Sue is."

This quote was in relation to the postings about why Sue Scheff sent her daughter to CSA.

Uuuhhhmmm...Ms. Bock is currently in a tizzy about where I got my information about her payment from WWASPS, demanding in strident tones that I reveal my connection with PURE, since she is positive that that is my "source". I am under no obligation to say where I got my information [it was not from Sue Scheff, nor PURE, nor from a Trekker group, as Ginger has verified with her greater wisdom of which ISP's send info, etc.].  I feel the most important thing here...the thing which Carey slids right by...is not where I got this truthful information, but that she has verified that IT IS TRUTHFUL INFORMATION.  How can you keep bringing attention to this basically unflattering information by constantly referring to where it came from?  If it is the truth, does anyone really care or remember who "leaked" it?  Serious damage is being done politically every day by folks leaking un-true info, which the public tends to believe, even if eventually proven false. In this case, the INFORMATION IS CORRECT, and frankly I don't think anybody gives a rip about how it got publicized.  Jeez, Carey, drop it, for your own good.

BTW, the reason I posted this information was partly a desire for revenge, due to the fact that Ms. Bock has run roughshod over this entire forum, twisting every possible post down her own crooked road, out-shouting other useful information valuable to parents considering incarcerating their children in WWASPS. With the intelligent, passionate, and "let's go to the root of the problem" that Antigen, Deborah and others have been adding these last weeks, we still have to contend with the prominent "Who Told On Me?" from Carey.  You only have the attention of the curious for a limited amount of time; don't blow it on petty tantrums.

[Carey]

Wrong.  Where you got your information from is very relevent.  You just don't get how relevent.  It shows how the "group" works.  Sue can't speak publically so she uses you guys to do her dirty work.

[Anonymous]

Good God, Lee and Spots.  Take a break.  Read a book (or the volumes of legal documents pertaining to PURE). Have a beer, or any other kind of cold beverage, just as long as you chill out for awhile. You are boring me to tears.

 :cry2:

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-02 14:06:00, turbinekat wrote:

 You have no facts to back up any of your allegations you continue to accuse me of.

Except, of course, that both of you are listes on PURE's website as volunteers, you have acknowledged that you know about it and, by inaction, if not just evasion, you apparently think that that's perfectly approriate.

But I'm still puzzling over this one. Why do you so often refer to people noticing this as an accusation? Is there something bad about being affiliated w/ PURE?

All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William Kingdon Clifford

[Antigen]

Unless you think Carey posesses the mighty awsome power to warp time and cause packages to arrive through couriors in a matter of time that defies the laws of physics, I think the gal has made a pretty good argument to support her conclusion.

Why change the subject now?

Ya' know, we can always go on Ricki Lake.
 :rofl:

On 2004-01-02 15:16:00, Anonymous wrote:

"We must be tawkin about the 12.5 you took in exchange for the Trekker's collective heads on a platter to wwasp.

So it's gossip; or was until you confirmed it and began to try and defend it.

If anything you did or said that has been reported is incorrect, you can prove it when you post your deposition; in it's entirety.

We await your vindication. . ."

I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.

--Clarence Darrow

[Antigen]

On 2004-01-02 17:27:00, spots wrote:

"On January 1, 2004, at 6:36am, Carey Bock said:
 I am under no obligation to say where I got my information [it was not from Sue Scheff, nor PURE, nor from a Trekker group, as Ginger has verified with her greater wisdom of which ISP's send info, etc.].

Spots, believe me when I tell you I like you and respect you. You have touched my heart when you've spoken from yours about your grand-daughter. I don't know what you look like, but I seriously think of you as being very much like my kind, gentle, apparently psychic and, thanfully, benevolent grandmother. She passed on when I was very small, but I remember what it was like to have one.

But you're missing something here. Of course I'm not about to try and coerce you to answer the question. That's not my place. It really isn't! I didn't really think up my terms of use as I have them written. When I decided to open these forums, I refreshed my memory on accepted policy for unmoderated, unedited, interactive discussion. That's about the state of it.

That doesn't mean there are no other rules. There are many, subtle rules of discussion that overlap on eachother. There's just no authority, other than your own sense of reason, to enforce them.

If you are going to post as fact what you've heard about Carey's deposition, why you should not be the least bit put off if she does the same with Sues. It doesn't matter what I think. I don't play that role. But you have to admit, the gal has a point. Why is it OK for someone who has access to information about Carey's deposition that only Sue, PURE lawyers, WWASP lawyers and Carey witnessed, then why is it a different case when Carey does just exactly the same thing.

Wait! Not exactly the same thing. Carey quoted the x-script. What do you have to support your claims? And, since I'm actually mentioned, would you mind sending me a copy?

BTW, based on what I've actually seen and what I have not, I'm not at all sure that this alleged suit has been or will be filed. Not saying it hasn't or won't. Just that I'll believe it when I see it. Just like Huron.

What is this new loyalty? It is, above all, conformity. It is the uncritical and unquestioning acceptance of America as it is. It rejects inquiry into the race question or socialized medicine or public housing, regards as heinous any challenge to what is called the system of private enterprise, identifying that system with Americanism. It abandons evolution, repudiates the once popular concept of progress, and regards America as a finished product, perfect and complete. The concept of loyalty as conformity is a false one. It is narrow and restrictive, denies freedom of thought and conscience... What do men know of loyalty who make a mockery of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights?
Anonymity Anonymous

[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-02 21:21 ]