Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => EdCons and referring organizations and agencies => PURE Bullshit and CAICA => Topic started by: Anonymous on April 23, 2007, 11:05:51 AM
-
http://www.webwire.com/viewpressrel.asp ... gQodoGQ3Uw (http://www.webwire.com/viewpressrel.asp?aId=33436&gclid=CK_-zeyP2YsCFQKIgQodoGQ3Uw)
-
How Free is Free Speech?
careybock.com
(WebWire) 4/21/2007 9:55:27 AM
Related Topics
• Class Actions/Lawsuits
• Education
• Electronic/Internet Commerce
• Legal Issues
• Youth/Children
How free is free speech? It is only as free as your ability to defend it.
5 years ago events were set in motion that have caused me ask these questions:
Do we live in a country where free speech is really a constitutional right?
Do we have a right to express our opinions and tell about our experiences as we know them?
Well, yes we do. I truly believe that. However, although we have that right, it is important that we have the resources - the money - it takes to be able to defend that right. I have come to learn this first hand.
• Roughly 5 years ago my twin boys were placed in a “behavior modification” program without my knowledge or my consent. At the time they were sent to this program they were living abroad with their father in Brazil. Their father decided they needed some type of “boot camp” experience. He did some research on the internet and found the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP).
• This whole industry was new to me. I did not have a clue as to what a “specialty program” was. I had never before heard of these types of programs and therefore I needed to know more. I needed to learn all about the “teen help” industry and the program to which my boys had been sent. I starting searching the internet.
• The information I found on the internet was overwhelming. Through this search I found an individual who seemed to know a lot about the “teen help” industry. Her name is Sue Scheff and her company is known as Parents Universal Resource Experts (P.U.R.E.). Scheff’s website displayed a statement claiming PURE’s mission was to “help bring families back together.” I began to believe Sue Scheff could help me. I believed Sue Scheff cared about kids and their families.
• Over the course of time, I discovered Scheff referred families to the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP) before becoming their competitor. I learned Sue Scheff was also responsible for placing kids into unregulated and risky programs. I discovered Sue Scheff does not have the education or professional credentials that qualify her to determine if a program is safe and meets the necessary requirements to treat at-risk teens.
• When I learned of Sue Scheff’s prior affiliation with WWASP and realized Scheff was doing the same things she accused WWASP of doing, I shared that publicly on internet bulletin boards, specifically www.fornits.com (http://www.fornits.com).
• Sue Scheff sued me for defamation of character. She claims that the words I used to describe her business and business associates caused her harm. What she shares with the public is the names and terms I used when describing her and the industry as a whole. I used terms such as “ed con”, “fraud” etc. What she doesn’t share with the public is why I used these terms. And the why is what this case is all about.
• I think Scheff believed that she could bully me into silence. She hoped that I would not be able to defend myself from the very beginning. She had two depositions taken from me during the course of this case. Both depositions centered on my defense and how it was being paid. Then when I lost the financial support she seized the opportunity to strip me of my rights to a fair trial.
• During the course of this law suit I have had many obstacles to overcome. In June of 2004 my twin sons joined the army. In August, between their graduations from basic training, Hurricane Katrina hit our area. My family was forced to stay away from our home for weeks. When we were finally allowed to return to the area we found that we had 3 feet of water and wind damage with fallen trees and debris. We were without utilities for months. We would get in bed at 6:00 in the evening because we had no electricity and it was dark. We would lay and listen to a transistor radio. There were only two radio stations that would come in because most communication towers were down and we would listen to the news which all centered on the terrible things that were going on in our area. You couldn’t use your cell phones so communication outside of this area was very limited. I couldn’t stay here it was depressing and it was wearing on me mentally. The damage to the area was immense.
• Over the last two years my father has been in and out of the hospital. He has had several surgeries because of congestive heart failure. He is very ill and is now on dialysis. In January one of my twins was sent to Iraq. He spent 10 months with a combat unit in Kirkuk. I spent those months praying for his safe return. The other twin was sent to Germany. My oldest son is also in the military he is stationed in Washington.
My right to free speech is being silenced because I do not have the funds necessary to defend the truth. This law suit is an attempt to silence me. Sue Scheff does not want the public to know the “whole” truth.
Related Links
www.careybock.com (http://www.careybock.com)
Contact Information
Carey Bock
Parent & Child Advocate
www.careybock.com (http://www.careybock.com)
985-789-9119
[email protected]
-
When Sue formed PURE, she continued to refer to WWASPS. In fact, if you read what's posted on the Fornits documents thread, it looks like she didn't stop referring to WWASPS for about 7 months after she formed PURE.
So how many kids did Sue Scheff refer to WWASPS from the time she enrolled her own daughter in a WWASPS program to the time she removed her kid, formed PURE and continued to refer to WWASPS?
Anyone know?
-
Would also like to know:
Did Sue Scheff refer any of the children/parents who are currently plaintiffs in the lawsuit against WWASP to the WWASP programs where they were allegedly abused?---this is the current lawsuit which is being handled by the Dallas law firm TURLEY.
IF Sue Scheff did refer any of these parents and their children to the WWASP programs where they were abused, why isn't Scheff named as a defendant in this case?
-
Carey needs to change the back ground color of her web site. It makes the type unreadable.
Guest: That is a very big IF. My guess would be that the law firm has made it a policy not to file against referring parents. It would be a huge and muddled a mess where they to try and go there. Think about it, and I believe you'll agree.
-
I agree but PURE is a business not just an over the top parent, but your point still stands. A judge might look at parents suing PURE but not other referring parents as hypocritical.
-
But PURE is a referral business just like the referral businesses named in the Turley lawsuit, is it not?
She is not a parent referrer but a for-profit business who referred to WWASPS after starting PURE.
That is considerably different than referring to WWASPS for one month's free tuition which is what many WWASPS parents did.
Sue Scheff was referring children to WWASPS programs in exchange for referral fees.
She did this for about 7 months AFTER she removed her own child from a WWASPS program, correct?
So why isn't she a plaintiff is what anon is asking.
To protect other parents who referred?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Maybe the parents should bow out of the lawsuit and let the kids sue?
-
The WWASP vs PURE transcripts discloses that Sue Scheff continued to refer parents and their children to WWASP programs AFTER she opened PURE.
IF SUE SCHEFF referred any of these Turely plaintiffs to their WWASP programs after Scheff started PURE---how could this law firm, in all good faith, refuse to name Sue Scheff /PURE as a defendant in this lawsuit?
-
The WWASP vs PURE transcripts discloses that Sue Scheff continued to refer parents and their children to WWASP programs AFTER she opened PURE.
IF SUE SCHEFF referred any of these Turely plaintiffs to their WWASP programs after Scheff started PURE---how could this law firm, in all good faith, refuse to name Sue Scheff /PURE as a defendant in this lawsuit?
Darn good question, anon.
Maybe it will come out at trial?
-
This sounds a whole lot like many many postings that have been written about Sue Scheff in the past:
Postings to the effect, "We know Sue Scheff lied in the WWASP vs PURE trial, but we didn't say anything about these lies; or the fact that Sue Scheff withheld evidence during that trial....because we were trying to BRING DOWN WWASP."
Something seems a bit "off" here.
If Sue Scheff ?Pure referred any of these Turley plaintiffs to WWASP programs, then she should be named as a defendant in this Turley lawsuit.
"Not telling the entire truth" is what might be mudding up this lawsuit, IMO.
-
Rude Intrustion, there seems to be a big difference between Sue Scheff, who was collecting monetary referral fees, and parents who were simply getting money (some say $1000 per kid referred) knocked off their tuition costs for each child/parent they referred to a WWASP program.
Just because Isabelle Zehnder writes her blogs, bragging that she and Sue Scheff helped put together this Turley lawsuit, should not give Scheff any "special treatment." If Sue Scheff referred any of these Turley plaintiffs to WWASP programs, then she should be named a defendant, right along with the other referring companies.
-
Turley was considering Scheff as a possible defendant because of the number of referrals she did. They are onto Scheff and Zehnder and they are trying to distance themselves from these 2 blowhards and they know all about Richard Hendricksen and his covering for his rich Mz. Scheff.
Right Cruella Scheff? The real Cruella BITCH. ::whip::
Keep it up Sue-Sue cause there's more to come and special made for idiots like you.
-
Well sure, Scheff's PURE is something above and beyond the average program parents referring. Even so, I'm thinking that the basic argument is, during those months when PURE was referring to WWASPS, she was a referring parent; a very driven and successful referring parent. The referral queen, of referring parents. So successful, she made a business out of it. But still, a referring parent. I can see how the argument could be made that if you go after her for those referrals, then you'd have to look at every parent who ever referred. That is where I'm guessing no one wants to go. Besides, the question remains: IF she referred any of the families. That is a big IF. I wonder why you are so concerned with the question? Your not one such plaintiff are you? If so, then shouldn't you be discussing this with the law firm, instead of posting on fornits? And if not, its really none of your concern, is it? If your in that group angry with her about some other program she referred you to, maybe you should sue her?
-
IF Sue Scheff referred any of these Turley plaintiffs to WWASP programs AFTER SCHEFF started PURE.....she most definitely could not be considered a "WWWASP referring parent."
At that point, Sue Scheff was the OWNER OF A REFERRAL COMPANY, PURE....not the parent of a child attending a WWASP program.
Important question. Why would anyone be defending, or covering up such activity by Sue Scheff; if Sue Scheff was referring these Turley plaintiff parents and their children to WWASP programs, after she started her referral company, PURE?
This question has nothing to do with any other abusive programs Sue Scheff may or may not have referred parents to.
-
Well sure, Scheff's PURE is something above and beyond the average program parents referring. Even so, I'm thinking that the basic argument is, during those months when PURE was referring to WWASPS, she was a referring parent; a very driven and successful referring parent. The referral queen, of referring parents. So successful, she made a business out of it. But still, a referring parent. I can see how the argument could be made that if you go after her for those referrals, then you'd have to look at every parent who ever referred. That is where I'm guessing no one wants to go. Besides, the question remains: IF she referred any of the families. That is a big IF. I wonder why you are so concerned with the question? Your not one such plaintiff are you? If so, then shouldn't you be discussing this with the law firm, instead of posting on fornits? And if not, its really none of your concern, is it? If your in that group angry with her about some other program she referred you to, maybe you should sue her?
Your argument makes no sense, Rude. Scheff referred families to WWASPS first as a parent, then as a commercial for-profit business.
It stands to reason if a parent/child was a member of the Turley lawsuit and referred by PURE, they may very well feel the same way toward PURE as the other plaintiffs may feel toward Lifelines or any of the WWASPS referral agencies that are named as plaintiffs.
Is there a difference? Perhaps in your mind there is. Are you a member of the Turley lawsuit? A former WWASPS parent or student?
-
Well sure, Scheff's PURE is something above and beyond the average program parents referring. Even so, I'm thinking that the basic argument is, during those months when PURE was referring to WWASPS, she was a referring parent; a very driven and successful referring parent. The referral queen, of referring parents. So successful, she made a business out of it. But still, a referring parent. I can see how the argument could be made that if you go after her for those referrals, then you'd have to look at every parent who ever referred. That is where I'm guessing no one wants to go. Besides, the question remains: IF she referred any of the families. That is a big IF. I wonder why you are so concerned with the question? Your not one such plaintiff are you? If so, then shouldn't you be discussing this with the law firm, instead of posting on fornits? And if not, its really none of your concern, is it? If your in that group angry with her about some other program she referred you to, maybe you should sue her?
Your argument makes no sense, Rude. Scheff referred families to WWASPS first as a parent, then as a commercial for-profit business.
It stands to reason if a parent/child was a member of the Turley lawsuit and referred by PURE, they may very well feel the same way toward PURE as the other plaintiffs may feel toward Lifelines or any of the WWASPS referral agencies that are named as plaintiffs.
Is there a difference? Perhaps in your mind there is. Are you a member of the Turley lawsuit? A former WWASPS parent or student?
It stands to reason if a parent/child was a member of the Turley lawsuit and referred by PURE, they may very well feel the same way toward PURE as the other plaintiffs may feel toward Lifelines or any of the WWASPS referral agencies that are named as plaintiffs.
I think you meant DEFENDANTS.
You make a good point though. Sounds like someone has some 'splainin' to do.
-
Maybe I should explain that IF the law firm decided to go after Scheff & PURE I wouldn't disagree or argue they shouldn't. I would assume they know what they are doing. Likewise, as they have decided not to, I won't argue with them. I assume they know what they are doing. I feel I understand why they have decided as they have. I have no problem with it. Not that they would care if I did.
-
I think, and I'm no legal expert, the turley bunch is somewhat afraid of some sort of conflict of interest. That or they just don't want to muddy the issue anymore than it already is. Dragging Sue into court no doubt would make alot of us clap with joy, but it has the potential to fuck up a case against wwasp.
-
It occurs to me maybe I should be clear I am just tossing out theories.
TSW might have a point. Guest also may have a point. I do think it is worth noting that this is no fly by night law firm. They do know what they are about. Those of us who are hoping to see this evil empire held accountable for the harm done should be thankful they have taken the case. It seems counter-productive to me to be harping about Scheff and PURE being excluded. I feel confident they will also be held accountable in time. Just a matter of time.
Besides Guest, you are still worrying about a big IF. IF you are such a person (referred to WWASPS by PURE) then maybe you should see if you can find a law firm to help you hold PURE accountable? This one has decided not to go there. IF you were screwed by Scheff, there are those who would like to talk with you about it. I've seen the links up "screwed by scheff? click here. Go do some clicking.
-
The better informed I become the better I am able to now understand why Ed Masry and Bushkin distanced themselves from Scheff after meeting with the WWASP players in Vegas in early 2003.
The tables turned after that meeting in more ways then one could understand. Scheff never took any responsibility for the changes in the attorneys attitude.She claimed they sold us out.
It could be fair to assume they were enlightened to the truth about Scheff and her referring practice both for WWASP and Pure.The truth those of us who supported her were never privy to until the WWASP vs Pure trial.
The woman is an expert at playing the victim.An expert at deceit.
-
Sue Scheff. a victim :roll:
Oh, the poster said, Sue Scheff "playing the victim." :rofl: :rofl: :exclaim:
-
Understand details can not be disclosed regarding the case handled by Bushkin and Masry; such as settlement amounts, etc.
But why the big secrecy regarding the outcome about this particualar case against WWASP?Why isn't the public aware that there were settlement by WWASP with some of these plaintiffs?
Doesn't any "WIN" against WWASP warrant public disclosure, even if the details: the name of the facility, and amounts of settlement can not be revealed?
Most people can read; and after comparing the Bushkin/Masry plaintiff list with the current Turley plaintiff list; come to the conclusion (which could well be totally incorrect) that the plaintiffs who did not join the Turley lawsuit MAY HAVE BEEN those plaintiffs who received a settlement in the Bushkin/Masry case against WWASP?
Then readers may come to the conclusion (again which may be totally incorrect) that only one particular WWASP facility accepted any responsiblity "for any wrong-doing in this case."
That's what seems to happen when "deals are cut," and the public remains un-informed. Conclusions, which may or may not be correct ,are drawn from incomplete information.
Worse yet--it appears that WWASP paid some type of "settlement" but did not publicly admit any wrong-doing; and plaintiffs seemingly found this type of agreement acceptiable.
How does this make the public aware of the dangers of WWASP?
-
The better informed I become the better I am able to now understand why Ed Masry and Bushkin distanced themselves from Scheff after meeting with the WWASP players in Vegas in early 2003.
The tables turned after that meeting in more ways then one could understand. Scheff never took any responsibility for the changes in the attorneys attitude.She claimed they sold us out.
It could be fair to assume they were enlightened to the truth about Scheff and her referring practice both for WWASP and Pure.The truth those of us who supported her were never privy to until the WWASP vs Pure trial.
The woman is an expert at playing the victim.An expert at deceit.
As I read the feelings about Sue Scheff, two things occur to me about this Bottle of Black Poison. One is that Scheff tried to muscle and pretend she was Erin Brokovich with the Masry/Bushkin lawsuit. She even flew herself and her "beautiful daughter Ashlyn" to L.A. and she was "shocked" when she was brushed off like the commoner she is. Bushkin---asshole that he is----did the RIGHT thing and put miles between himself and Sue-Scheff-Black-Poison. Sue-Sue filed a complaint against Bushkin with the CA Bar Assoc. Dismissed ! But---Bushkin threatened to sue Sue-Sue !!
Enter Turley Law Firm. Sue-Sue is back center stage again!
Turley has named Teen Help as a defendant--so it stands to reason Turley would also name Parents Universal Resource "Experts" as a defendant also because there is no doubt there are some unhappy campers from Sue Scheff's referral "expertise."
Both Teen Help and P.U.R.E. were defrauding parents and harming children with their referrals to WWASP.
Like the anon above said--once Sue Scheff's daughter was out of WWASP, Scheff continued to make money referrals from WWASP for at least 7 months. Sue-Sue admitted this in the court testimony.
2+2=Turley mistakenly hired Sue Scheff's old lawyer in Salt Lake to be the Turley local counsel in Utah. I heard Sue's old fart of a lawyer would not release some of Sue-Sue's court information to Turley--claiming there is a court order.
Except there was no order so why not release all court documents to Turley? Maybe there are things Sue-Sue does not want Turley to see--ya think?
Sue-Sue and Fatso were buddy-buddy with Turley. Turley is in a little bit of an uncomfortable situation so they are just ignoring the whole PURE Scheff thing.
:rofl:
-
HMMMMM.....
Seems like a bunch of plaintiffs, who "hired" TURLEY, need to tell this law firm exactly who this law firm is working for: the plaintiffs, and NOT SUE SCHEFF!!!!
THEN, these plaintiffs need to instruct this law firm to do its job, in a correct, moral, and ethical manner.
If the "good, ole, local, Utah lawyer" needs to be replaced, so be it; if that is what is required to get the correct DEFENDANTS charged in this lawsuit.
Otherwise, won't be surprised if this case doesn't go bye-bye just like the Masry case.
-
To the guest who responded to Wendy:
Are you saying, IF a family who was referred to a WWASP program by Sue Scheff, PURE requested to join this lawsuit being handled by the Turley law firm; that this family would be turned down?
Are you saying that TURLEY would not sign up any families in this lawsuit if they were referred to WWASP by Sue Scheff, PURE?
Just trying to understand, here.
Or, did you mean: that some of the plaintiffs currently in the lawsuit were referred by Sue Scheff, PURE; but "they are not happy campers" because Scheff, PURE has not been named as a defendant in this lawsuit?
-
With regard to the case with Bushkin / Masery, and Scheff's complaint, as I recall, the complaint Scheff filed against Bushkin was dismissed because Scheff was not a plaintiff. Her daughter was. Therefore, Scheff had no grounds to file a complaint. This isn't the same as saying there wasn't a legitimate concern.
The fact is, after that meeting in Vegas, Bushkin distanced himself from his entire client base, not just Scheff. He never even sent out notice when he left Huron. Except for those who heard it through the grape vine, the plaintiffs were never even provided his new contact information. As for the cases he recently settled, the offers were made only after word got out that Turley was looking to file. Consequently, it seems to me, Bushkin was trying to help wwasps mop up some of the most egregious cases, cheaply; and quite some of the strongest voices. That's just how it seemed to me. I wonder, as others do, just who it was Bushkin was working for.
As for the involvement of Ed Masery, I can tell you that although Bushkin would cc correspondence to Masery, Masery's office didn't seem to understand he was involved with the case. Calling them would get a lot of confusion. If one persisted, a call would eventually be returned from Bushkin's office, not Masery's. So, it seems to me Masery was always very distant, and I never understood what his involvement actually was, except for Bushkin claiming he had to clear things with Misery.
Guest mentions "Sue's Lawyer" and I assume this means Henrickson. In My Opinion, they are very lucky to have him helping. He is very good at what he dose. I have the greatest respect for his intelligence and ability in a court room; and faith in his ethics. I don't know the details of this thing with the records and the sealing of them that isn't real. Something sort of odd seems to be going on with that. (not unusual where Sue is involved) Still, I think it is worth remembering, these are not a fly by night outfit. They know what they are doing. If there is a problem, they will take care of it.
As for Sue being in the middle of *this* case - not hardly. This has been absolutely nothing like that CA case, where the only information anyone could get came through Sue, or one or two others. Sue is in no way involved with this one. No one has been told to send information through her for "vetting"; no one has to have anything to do with her at all. The situation couldn't be more different. Thank God.
With regard to anyone who might have been referred to WWASP by PURE; My understanding is that they would be considered just like anyone else, and accepted as a client if they have a case - just like anyone else; but that they would need to be wiling to accept the fact that this law firm is not going to be filing against a parent referrer - and that in this case, this includes Scheff. Weather or not to accept this, is up to the individual. If they don't like this, then they can seek other counsel - and there are others who might want to talk with them. But as far as I know, such a person is simply a big IF in the minds of those who want something to bitch about.
And it is strange to me, people are harping about this firm going after PURE in this case, when the case against Whitmore dose not even include PURE. Seems to me the hounds are barking up the wrong tree. Furthermore, I find myself feeling a bit put out with people who want to find fault and bitch on Fornits about a case that has nothing to do with them. You have a case of your own, no doubt. Why not put your concern and energy into your own case?
-
According to the WWASP vs PURE transcripts, it appears that Sue Scheff stopped being a "parent referrer" once she opened up her own company PURE. These transcripts reveal that Sue Scheff continued to refer parents and their children to WWASP programs for several months AFTER she started her referral company, PURE.
Buzzkill, people do not have to be involved in ANY CASE to have an interest in, and an opinion about this issue.
And, whether or not some other facility chose to name, or not name Sue Scheff/Pure in a case has no bearing on this issue being discussed, either, IMO.
-
PURE IS A REFERRAL COMPANY.
Just like Teen Help and Lifelines.
Enough of the PURE is just a "parent referrer". It's a company.
-
///Buzzkill, people do not have to be involved in ANY CASE to have an interest in, and an opinion about this issue..///
Sure. For example, I am very interested in several cases going on at the moment, that in no way involve me; but you don't see me posting rants on Fornits about how they are being pursued - and it would be a bit ridiculous if I did.
///And, whether or not some other facility chose to name, or not name Sue Scheff/Pure in a case has no bearing on this issue being discussed, either, IMO///
I think it dose. I don't see you (or anyone) over on the Whitmore forum raising Cain that they have not filed against PURE. I don't see you harping on about their attorney's decision. For some reason you only want to pick on this case against wwasp. It seems strange to me and I wonder what your motive could be.
Has it occurred to you (or do you care) that you could be causing anxiety and distress for some of the students who look to this case to provide them some measure of justice, by posting these rants of yours? You seem to be attempting to create a lack of trust between the law firm and their clients. Seems very strange.
And all this over a hypothetical IF. It kind of pisses me off. Especially as you have nothing to do with it yourself. Luckily for you, I might add, as you are so unhappy with the management of the case and the attorney's working on it.
///PURE IS A REFERRAL COMPANY. Just like Teen Help and Lifelines. ///
Of corse PURE is a referral company. But there are differences. It is not a matter of being "Just Like" Teen Help. What differences there are, have been determined to make a difference, by those who understand these things far better than you or I. Still, as mentioned - there are those who would like to talk to anyone who feels they were screwed by Scheff. If your in that group, contact them, and quit yer bitchen about a case that doesn't concern you.
-
There has to be something very odd about a lawfirm taking a case involving children referred by several different entities, one of those being PURE, and yet claiming there is somehow a difference.
IMO, there simply is no difference. Sue Scheff, provides documentation of her involvement with WWASPS as a referrer company, not a parent with a child in one of their programs (e.g. a "parent referrer).
To pretend otherwise, is foolish, IMO.
So what's the real problem? Why not cut to the chase? Surely WWASPS is aware of PURE and the children it referred to their programs. How could they not be?
There are documents to this effect posted on this very forum.
Both CAICA and PURE claimed they helped launch this class action by referring the original plaintiff.
Could that be part of the issue?
:roll:
-
What are the differences Buzz?
-
Personally,I don't recall ever seeing documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.
Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?
Just curious what others might think about this question given the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts.
Anyone?
-
Buzz below is a quote from you on another thread.
"BuzzKill
Mid Life Crisis Poster
Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 1071
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:50 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think Izzy or Susan have much to do with the case. I think maybe they helped gather the information to present to this law group . I base this guess on how the CA "firm" was found. This doesn't mean they have anything else to say on the matter, and people should not get to hung up on the two of them and their "involvement".
I am curious, is that the "difference" you speak of. Is it that they won't consider Sue/PURE as a defandant because Sue has helped with obtaining cousel....or.....is it that they won't file against Sue because some of the plaintifs, at one time, were part of her "parents helping parents"?
-
Now there's an interesting questions. Are any of these Turley plaintiffs former PURE parent volunteers?
-
Posted by Constent Gardener
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=19872 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=19872)
"Teen Help is a marketing group that has provided many Specialty Schools with thousands of students who are in need of help. We are a service that educates and helps parents with their students transition from home to the facility. Our doors have been open for eleven years to assist any parent in need of our help.
P.U.R.E. has been and is a valuable asset to Teen Help. Its experts are very successful with the Parent Referral Program, and have educated many parents in the referral process. P.U.R.E. has presented our Specialty Schools as an alternative for many parents, Therapists, Doctors, Guidance Counselors, District Attorneys, School Districts, and Probation Officers.
Parents Universal Referral Experts have had first hand experience with Carolina Springs Academy. They has toured the facility, met the staff, and know the ins and outs of the program. Their first hand experience has eased the minds of many parents in the admissions process."
Sincerely,
Randall Hinton
Teen Help Admissions
http://web.archive.org/web/200103120118 ... ences.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20010312011808/helpyourteens.com/references.html)
_________________
Bear with me that I may speak, and after I have spoken, mock on.
Job 21;3
-
///I am curious, is that the "difference" you speak of. Is it that they won't consider Sue/PURE as a defandant because Sue has helped with obtaining cousel....or.....is it that they won't file against Sue because some of the plaintifs, at one time, were part of her "parents helping parents"?///
None of the above - IMO.
I would say the differences that matter are probably (I am guessing) matters of owner ship and history with those who make up what WWASP is.
Teen Help, and what ever else they call themselves now, was set up by Litchfield and friends to market WWASP programs. They are, and have always been, a strand in the WWASP web.
PURE was invented by a program parent; not a program owner; or a program owner's son, or brother, or cousin or in-law or good pal.
Its genesis is in parental referring. What you might not understand is how strongly the parents were encouraged to sell the program. They very much encouraged a small business type venture as a way to pay for the program and even make a few bucks on the side. Scheff took it farther than others, but still she was a parent doing referrals, like so many others.
You may not think this matters, but apparently those who make the decisions think it does. Being as they are the ones with the law degrees, and the court room experience and the case wins under their belt - I am satisfied they know what they are doing.
Do you really think you know more than they do about how best to prosecute this case - or any case?
Do you think maybe your letting your spite for Scheff cloud your judgment a little here? Why do you feel so strongly about this? Whats it to you? Why aren't you gripping at the Whitmore plaintiffs that they should file against PURE?
-
Yes, some of the Turley plaintiffs were at one time PURE parent volunteers.
-
Seems to me the "excuse" given by ex-WWASPs parents who supported Scheff and PURE for so long (and may still do in the case of some) was their judgment was "clouded" because of their spite for WWASPS.
It was Whitmore, you said, that finally turned on the light, along with the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts. A trial, which it appears several PURE supporters attended.
The "cloudy" excuse reminds me of the twinkie defense.
Not real solid.
If there are plaintiffs who were referred to WWASPS by PURE, it would be nice to know when this occurred, and what programs?
Tranquility Bay? Carolina Springs? Casa by the Sea? Majestic Ranch?
:question: :question: :question:
-
Yes, some of the Turley plaintiffs were at one time PURE parent volunteers.
:oops:
-
///If there are plaintiffs who were referred to WWASPS by PURE, it would be nice to know when this occurred, and what programs?///
Well theres that IF again. I don't know of any. Do you?
Speaking in general - people who PURE sold WWASPS to - I am sure they are out there - lots of them I would guess - but I have never "met" one.
///Seems to me the "excuse" given by ex-WWASPs parents who supported Scheff and PURE for so long (and may still do in the case of some) was their judgment was "clouded" because of their spite for WWASPS. It was Whitmore, you said, that finally turned on the light, along with the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts. A trial, which it appears several PURE supporters attended.///
There are those who considered Sue a friend, but who never supported PURE.
Whitmore was important, b/c it was the proof that the critics of PURE, and Sue, were correct. Until that situation came to light, people (myself among them) truly felt such a situation would have been handled with concern and integrity, even if we disapproved with how PURE operated in general. We believed in our friend's concern for the welfare of the kids. The Whitmore situation proved us wrong.
Also, it was during the same time that Whitmore was becoming a notable issue, that we got our hands on the transcripts - which also provided a few surprises.
Some will say their judgment was clouded by hate of WWASP. I don't say that. I say I trusted until there was proof I shouldn't.
-
Personally,I don't recall ever seeing documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.
Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?
Just curious what others might think about this question given the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts.
Anyone?
Umm...you're joking-right? Teen Help is the "marketing arm" for WWASP according to the court transcripts. Jane Hawley was the top sales person for Teen Help--like Sue Scheff was before Jane came onto the scene. Jane got concerned about liability and she formed the company Lifelines that refers to WWASP.
Both Sue Scheff and Jane Hawley referred to the abusive WWASP programs. Just tell us your kidding about, "no documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child. Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?"
You are joking -- right? Cause if you're not -- wow!
-
Both Sue Scheff and Jane Hawley should have their panties sue off them. They are both scammers.
I do agree with Buzz in that Sue Scheff would be a better defendant in the civil case involving Whitmore. One day Sue-Sue will be brought to her knees -good and hard and right on her honker.
-
Why does Buzzkill post as-if she is speaking to one individual poster? It is obvious that several posters are reponding as GUEST.
-
Personally,I don't recall ever seeing documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child.
Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?
Just curious what others might think about this question given the revelations contained in the WWASPS v. PURE transcripts.
Anyone?
Umm...you're joking-right? Teen Help is the "marketing arm" for WWASP according to the court transcripts. Jane Hawley was the top sales person for Teen Help--like Sue Scheff was before Jane came onto the scene. Jane got concerned about liability and she formed the company Lifelines that refers to WWASP.
Both Sue Scheff and Jane Hawley referred to the abusive WWASP programs. Just tell us your kidding about, "no documentation that suggests Teen Help or Lifelines referred children to programs associated with an organization (WWASPS) they claimed abused their own child. Realistically, can we say the same about PURE?"
You are joking -- right? Cause if you're not -- wow!
Think you misunderstood the point:
Did Jane Hawley once have a kid in a Wwasps program, pull this kid out claiming he/she was abused and then refer OTHER kids to WWASPS anyway?
If so, please provide documentation. So far all I have found is someone named Sue Scheff who according to the WWASPs v. PURE transcripts, appears to fit that description.
Are you saying this isnt true?
If so, WOW!
-
SLAPP Happy: Corporations That Sue to Shut You Up
Topics: activism | public relations
The corporate technique of suing people into silence and submission has become so popular that it even carries its own cute nickname in legal circles. Such lawsuits are known in lawyer lingo as "SLAPP suits," an acronym for "strategic lawsuits against public participation."
"Thousands of SLAPPs have been filed in the last two decades, tens of thousands of Americans have been SLAPPed, and still more have been muted or silenced by the threat," write law professors George Pring and Penelope Canan in their 1996 book, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out.
In their investigation of the trend, Pring and Canan found that "filers of SLAPPs rarely win in court yet often 'win' in the real world, achieving their political agendas. We found that SLAPP targets who fight back seldom lose in court yet are frequently devastated and depoliticized and discourage others from speaking out--'chilled' in the parlance of First Amendment commentary."
SLAPP suits achieve their objectives by forcing defendants to spend huge amounts of time and money defending themselves in court.
"The longer the litigation can be stretched out . . . the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success," observes New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella. "Those who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the 'game' face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being brought to their knees to settle. . . . Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."
-
Almost gives another meaning to the term "being bitch-slapped" doesn't it?
-
How Free is Free Speech?
careybock.com
(WebWire) 4/21/2007 9:55:27 AM
How free is free speech? It is only as free as your ability to defend it.
5 years ago events were set in motion that have caused me ask these questions:
Do we live in a country where free speech is really a constitutional right?
Do we have a right to express our opinions and tell about our experiences as we know them?
Well, yes we do. I truly believe that. However, although we have that right, it is important that we have the resources - the money - it takes to be able to defend that right. I have come to learn this first hand.
• Roughly 5 years ago my twin boys were placed in a “behavior modification” program without my knowledge or my consent. At the time they were sent to this program they were living abroad with their father in Brazil. Their father decided they needed some type of “boot camp” experience. He did some research on the internet and found the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP).
• This whole industry was new to me. I did not have a clue as to what a “specialty program” was. I had never before heard of these types of programs and therefore I needed to know more. I needed to learn all about the “teen help” industry and the program to which my boys had been sent. I starting searching the internet.
• The information I found on the internet was overwhelming. Through this search I found an individual who seemed to know a lot about the “teen help” industry. Her name is Sue Scheff and her company is known as Parents Universal Resource Experts (P.U.R.E.). Scheff’s website displayed a statement claiming PURE’s mission was to “help bring families back together.” I began to believe Sue Scheff could help me. I believed Sue Scheff cared about kids and their families.
• Over the course of time, I discovered Scheff referred families to the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP) before becoming their competitor. I learned Sue Scheff was also responsible for placing kids into unregulated and risky programs. I discovered Sue Scheff does not have the education or professional credentials that qualify her to determine if a program is safe and meets the necessary requirements to treat at-risk teens.
• When I learned of Sue Scheff’s prior affiliation with WWASP and realized Scheff was doing the same things she accused WWASP of doing, I shared that publicly on internet bulletin boards, specifically www.fornits.com (http://www.fornits.com).
• Sue Scheff sued me for defamation of character. She claims that the words I used to describe her business and business associates caused her harm. What she shares with the public is the names and terms I used when describing her and the industry as a whole. I used terms such as “ed con”, “fraud” etc. What she doesn’t share with the public is why I used these terms. And the why is what this case is all about.
• I think Scheff believed that she could bully me into silence. She hoped that I would not be able to defend myself from the very beginning. She had two depositions taken from me during the course of this case. Both depositions centered on my defense and how it was being paid. Then when I lost the financial support she seized the opportunity to strip me of my rights to a fair trial.
• During the course of this law suit I have had many obstacles to overcome. In June of 2004 my twin sons joined the army. In August, between their graduations from basic training, Hurricane Katrina hit our area. My family was forced to stay away from our home for weeks. When we were finally allowed to return to the area we found that we had 3 feet of water and wind damage with fallen trees and debris. We were without utilities for months. We would get in bed at 6:00 in the evening because we had no electricity and it was dark. We would lay and listen to a transistor radio. There were only two radio stations that would come in because most communication towers were down and we would listen to the news which all centered on the terrible things that were going on in our area. You couldn’t use your cell phones so communication outside of this area was very limited. I couldn’t stay here it was depressing and it was wearing on me mentally. The damage to the area was immense.
• Over the last two years my father has been in and out of the hospital. He has had several surgeries because of congestive heart failure. He is very ill and is now on dialysis. In January one of my twins was sent to Iraq. He spent 10 months with a combat unit in Kirkuk. I spent those months praying for his safe return. The other twin was sent to Germany. My oldest son is also in the military he is stationed in Washington.
My right to free speech is being silenced because I do not have the funds necessary to defend the truth. This law suit is an attempt to silence me. Sue Scheff does not want the public to know the “whole” truth.
Related Links
www.careybock.com (http://www.careybock.com)
Contact Information
Carey Bock
Parent & Child Advocate
www.careybock.com (http://www.careybock.com)
985-789-9119
[email protected]
Are there any updates on this appeal which was filed back in November 2006?
Thanks!
-
Go Team Bock! I can think of a lot of parents who received far, far less for the wrongful DEATH of their child then the money awarded to this plaintiff, Sue Scheff.
What were these "jurors" thinking? $11 million dollars?
Martin Anderson's parents will get about half that amount.
:flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: