Author Topic: Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to  (Read 2746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Joyce Harris

  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« on: April 21, 2005, 10:22:00 PM »
I was a little confused when I received a letter from Sue Scheff's attorney David H. Pollack today.  It seems Ms. Scheff takes the position that I can not criticize what I consider an unwise placement of my daughter at the Whitmore Academy by Ms. Scheff.  Isn't this the similiar situation Ms. Scheff was in when she was criticizing WWASP when WWASP choose to sue Ms. Scheff, and demand that Ms. Scheff STOP speaking negatively about WWASP?  The main difference I see, is that I am not in any business competition with Ms. Scheff--as she was with WWASP.  
I do believe Ms. Scheff won this case, thereby showing that I have the same rights that Ms. Scheff had as a MOTHER-- and that I can speak out in what I believe is a truthful way and say: that my daughter was placed in a school at the recommendation by Ms. Scheff that was misrepresented to me and my husband on several levels. My husband and I have made our formal statement to ISAC explaining why we withdrew our daughter from Whitmore Academy, and why we are displeased with Sue Scheff and P.U.R.E.

Just as Ms. Scheff had the right to speak out on her own daughter's behalf--we have that right to speak out on our daughter's behalf.  We are not interfering with Ms. Sheff's business anymore than she was interfering with WWASP's business before they chose to wrongfully bring a lawsuit against her.

Mr. Pollack's letter mistates information about us.  It states that Ms. Scheff "provided us with information on several schools at your request."  This is untrue.  Ms. Sheff only told us about TWO schools: Whitmore Academy and Sunrise Academy.

The letter also states that "...You not only visited Whitmore and spoke to its owners before placing your daughter there"  This is  also untrue.  We never had a prior visit to Whitmore.  We only came to Whitmore the day we dropped off our daughter.  We did not speak to the OWNERS prior to placing our daughter. We only spoke to Mark Sudweeks.  As a matter of fact--Cherly Sudweeks would not return our MANY phone calls until NOVEMBER, and that was only after we sent an email that we were withdrawing our daughter from the school.

The letter from Sue Scheff's attorney, promising "to take appropriate legal action," appears to be an attempt to say I do not have the same rights that Ms. Scheff won in her case against WWASP.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2005, 10:28:00 PM »
Oh, but you do. And if push comes to shove, you should use the same defense she used when defending herself against Ws attack.
Based on what I've read at the Whitmore forum, you shouldn't want for people to validate the nature of the program and/or PURE!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2005, 10:32:00 PM »
Apparently D.P. is getting wealthy off all of the suits filed by him on her behalf.

Can you blame the guy.

Give him some real facts he may think twice before representing a liar.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2005, 10:59:00 PM »
This is suuuuch a joke on Sues part.

Shes totally representing herself and showing herself to be just like WWASPS is.

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

Thats right, do everyones job for them, bitch! HAHAHAHAHA!  :grin:

The weavers of linen and hempen cloth, ... may exercise their trades without paying any fine.
-- Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (chapter X, part II) notes:

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2005, 12:44:00 AM »
Going after a PARENT?
WOW! Now that is not good business, Sue.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline mom2three

  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2005, 11:19:00 AM »
The difference is you are a parent that she thinks she can bully. I was inclined to give Sue the benifit of the doubt until today, thinking maybe she was as hoodwinked as all of the parents that put their kids in Whitmore however this kind of changes that for me.

Knowing she filed a similar suit to defend the exact same rights is simply intimidation at its best. can you imagine her going to court and trying to defend her reasons as being more "worthy" than those of your family?

Total and complete BS.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline PerfectStraightling

  • Posts: 326
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2005, 06:15:00 PM »
I don't really see what her case is against you...speaking about your personal experiences and your viewpoints. Is she charging you with libel or something? If so, I believe that only applies to saying things that are false. I think it sound like BS too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2005, 07:12:00 PM »
How many lawsuits does Sue Scheff have going right now, anyway?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2005, 09:44:00 AM »
Just like her, go figure
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Joyce Harris

  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2005, 01:14:00 PM »
Deborah: You are right. I read the WWASP Vs Pure transcript. Some of the exact words Sue Scheff said in her testimony are the same WORDS I have said about her--My Educational Consultant--and her placement of my daughter at Whitmore Academy:

"I am only a parent.  I didn't understand all the legalese. I was under stress.  I was upset.  I relied and trusted people and that was a mistake.  I did write a letter letting them know how much we appreciated them.  At that time I wasn't allowed to speak to my daughter, see my daughter....didn't know how she was really being treated.  I was desperate.  I needed help.  Sending your child away has got to be the hardest thing to ever do.  My daughter was a really good child and she was making some really bad choices.  I didn't want to send her away, but I wanted to help her.  All her (daughter's) anger and hatred was directed towards me.  I trusted those people (ed cons). They seemed like they cared.  They told me it was a therapeutic horseback riding boarding school and it had no therapy.  My agreement was fraudulent due to the fact the sales rep sold the program to me in a different manner.
And if you can't trust their sales person----"

WWASP didn't want this MOTHER speaking her truth, and Ms. Scheff does not want me speaking my truth now.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2005, 09:07:00 AM »
sounds the same to me
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2005, 11:24:00 AM »
It is your responsibility Joyce to share what you know.No one has the right to suggest otherwise.

When they hurt are children they hurt us too.

The Juab planning Dept wants people at their May 5th meeting in Napli. If a person cant attent call and fax or write a letter demanding that they not give those Suds a new permit to continue their mistreatment of children.Calling kis names is not OK.Dancing in you undergarments is not ok.

Money is being made from all people concerned in this situation .The Suds and the refering company. Abusing kids because of money is not ok. Its EVIL.  I've read the Suds had been reported before,therefore they have a paper trail. Not OK.

You sound rational and intelligent to me Joyce.I trust what you are stating to be true,It reminds me of my personal experince.Keep on holding them accountable. We are behind you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2005, 09:32:00 PM »
It's all about dollars - they will put almost any child in a program. Those in marketing get free dinner tickets if they sell the most "admits" for the week.  They get $75.00 if they get and admit who has already been approved for a loan.  It's not about helping kids - it's about making money.  

This is an INDUSTRY - a business - a very lucrative business - and the pawns are the children.  The real reason they don't let parents talk to their children for at least three months is because they want to keep them there for at least three months. Once there is communication - the children may tell the parents what's really going on. It also gives WWASPS time to work on the minds of the parents - convincing them to keep their children in the program longer - having them go to seminars.

It's all a way to get money.  They get richer while the families get poorer and their children get fucked up for life.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Joyce Harris

  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2005, 09:44:00 PM »
My daughter was not in a WWASP program, but I do understand that Ms. Scheff got her on-the-job-training through the WWASP programs and began her "referring of students to these abusive schools" right there among the WWASP-ies.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Watchaduen

  • Posts: 128
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BethelAcademyAbuse/
Sue Scheff: Did WWASP v PURE Win Mean "Freedom of Speech" to
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2005, 07:17:00 PM »
I noticed on the P.U.R.E. website that all the WWASP negative stuff is gone.  Did Sue take all that down because of the lawsuit?  I thought she won.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
heryle - My son was TORTURED and ABUSED at Bethel Boys Academy aka Eagle Point Christian Academy, aka Pine View Academy, Lucedale, MS.