Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Who Am I Discovery/Whitmore => Topic started by: Anonymous on November 07, 2006, 09:13:54 AM
-
If the Suds have moved back to Canada to their Chilanko Lake property as reported, who's watching them?
Will they start up a new program up there? Seems that was where they started up before.
Don't suppose the Suds will be advertising any "Equine Horse Program," since Mark Sudweeks has been banned from owning animals for life---since he has a felony for extreme animal abuse in the REGINA vs SUDWEEKS conviction.
Who goes NORTH in the winter time?
Why not down to Mexico to their little retreat?
Think maybe these folks need a travel agent?
-
You think they need a trevel agent???? Thats fine. I think you need to seek help.
Shane Haley
-
If ever abuse helpless animals or kids, will do just that, Shane.
-
Mark did not abuse the animals. They were regretably left in the care of what was supposedly a more than qualified person who tured out to be a flake. Have you ever made a mistake? Ever trusted someone and later wished you had'nt? Ever been to Canada? Ever been to the lodge? Ever spent over a year with the Sudweeks?
Shane Haley
-
Mark did not abuse the animals. They were regretably left in the care of what was supposedly a more than qualified person who tured out to be a flake. Have you ever made a mistake? Ever trusted someone and later wished you had'nt? Ever been to Canada? Ever been to the lodge? Ever spent over a year with the Sudweeks?
Shane Haley
Have you ever read the actual account of what happened? Those horses starved to death over an extended period of time. They're not ever allowed to own animals in Canada again. It was a little more than "making a mistake". Typical response though. :roll:
-
I don't have to read. I was there. Typical response though huh?
Shane Haley
-
I don't have to read. I was there. Typical response though huh?
Shane Haley
Then why didn't YOU feed them? :o
-
I already told you. They were left in the care of someone else. I saw the devastation to the horses, but I know it was not abuse on the part of Mark Sudweeks. Keep reading A-hole. It seems like thats your only justification.
Shane Haley
-
Really? You were a student there but privvy to their business contracts? Interesting.
-
It does'nt take a genius to realize they left the animals in the care of someone. Besides, Mark and Cheryl and all the kids were very open. Thats how we learned to trust one another. Like I stated before, KNOW YOUR FACTS. Don't guess them.
Shane Haley
-
So why the conviction then? It never ceases to amaze me the power of your denial. The conviction in Canada means nothing. The Canadians are wrong and mean. The convictions in Juab county mean nothing. The police and child services are just out to get the Suds.:roll:
Wake up darlin'. Wake up. ::noway::
-
I like your little funny faces. You must do this a lot.
Shane Haley
-
Answer the question. Why the conviction?
-
Paragraph 27 Regina v Sudweeks
"I found Mr. Sudweeks' testimony to be a litany of excuses. Some were incredible and others merely very unconvincing. He did not raise any reasonable doubt in my mind."
What a nice way to say: This man does not tell the truth.
-
http://www.isaccorp.org/whitmore/reginavsudweeks.pdf (http://www.isaccorp.org/whitmore/reginavsudweeks.pdf)
-
Yep, you do this way too much.
Shane Haley
-
Yep, you avoid the questions when they get too tough.
-
Because sometimes bad things happen to good people. I am done with this. I can't suffer through another one of your egotistical BS replies. Here's my number if you really feel you have something to prove.
Shane Haley
1-406-270-2243
-
I don't have anything to prove. It's already been done in two courts of law in two separate countries. Think the burden of proof has fallen on you my dear.
Again, typical. Facts get in the way of your opinions so you run away. Wouldn't want those pesky little facts creeping into your fantasies now would we? :roll:
-
Because sometimes bad things happen to good people.
Well then the Suds sure do have a run of bad luck. A conviction, dismissal of the appeal and another conviction in Juab county but this time for abusing actual humans. Yep, that's some bad luck there.
I am done with this. I can't suffer through another one of your egotistical BS replies.
Thanks for playing. :wave: Your consolation prize is that someday you might just finally wake up.
-
Sudweeks left the property in the fall with the 40 horses confined in a pasture with very little food and no water. He also left 200 pounds of dog food in a washtub for his seven dogs. He returned
briefly in mid-December, then left the property in the care of Tetz who arrived in early January. Tetz found no dog food on the property, noticed that the horses were not well, and had no way to contact Sudweeks directly. The RCMP received a complaint from a neighbour, and they arranged to meet in Sudweeks' driveway on January 10th. The RCMP officer noticed the condition of the animals, entered the property to check on their condition, and was
unable to locate anyone. The officer applied for and obtained a telewarrant and then returned the next day with two veterinarians and a special constable from the SPCA. The veterinarians determined that the animals had been without adequate food and water for at least two months. The animals were seized. On January 15th, the RCMP returned with a veterinarian and found more horses
and a horse skeleton. All of the animals seized survived and recovered in the SPCA's care. The trial judge rejected Sudweeks' testimony that his daughters were the ones responsible for the animals' care, that he left
Page 2
adequate food, and that Tetz was at fault. The judge accepted Tetz' evidence and concluded that Sudweeks was responsible for the animals, that he left them in a state of present distress in mid-December, and that Tetz undertook to be responsible for the horses and permitted their distress to continue. Sudweeks received a $2,000 fine on each of two counts and a lifetime ban on owning
or having custody of any animal. On appeal, Sudweeks argued that the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias in his interruptions and interference with examination of witnesses, in his obtaining and providing a copy of a newspaper article on the case to Sudweeks during a lunch recess, and in his comments about his own personal experience with the care of horses. Sudweeks also argued that the judge erred in his findings of credibility, in admitting the evidence obtained during the searches, and in passing a sentence that was unduly harsh.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. Fresh evidence by way of affidavits from Sudweeks and his daughter were admitted with respect to Sudweeks' allegations of bias. The trial judge's interruptions did not generally amount to cross-examination of the witnesses, nor did it
demonstrate any opinions about the witnesses' credibility. Any evidence elicited by the judge was more helpful to Sudweeks than to the Crown. Although the newspaper article that the judge gave to Sudweeks had a negative impact on the relationship between Sudweeks and Tetz, the parties would have seen the article a few hours or a day later and it would have had the same effect. At no time did the judge's interference or comments displace the right to silence or the presumption of innocence. The judge was even-handed, and if anything, was more helpful to Sudweeks than to the Crown. The RCMP had authority under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to act as authorized agents for the SPCA in this geographic region. The trial judge was correct in concluding that the telewarrant was invalid because the Act had its own search provisions and it was issued on the basis of unsworn informations, but he was also correct to conclude that the evidence was admissible. The Act authorized the searches because the police had reasonable grounds to believe that the animals were in distress. In the alternative, the warrantless searches were justified because of the exigent circumstances. Even if the searches violated the Charter, the evidence was admissible because of Sudweeks' limited expectation of privacy, the officers' good faith in believing that they
had valid warrants, the fact that the evidence was non-conscriptive, the technical nature of the breach, the lack of other investigative means, the seriousness of the charges and the importance of the evidence to the prosecution. Given the extreme condition of the animals, the police and SPCA had the authority to seize them and
had no obligation to let Tetz attempt to bring them back
Page 3
to health. Although there was evidence that Sudweeks' daughters purchased the animals and made decisions regarding their care, Sudweeks was clearly the one who had custody of the animals during the relevant period and was responsible for their care. The evidence reasonably supported the judge's findings of credibility and conclusions regarding the facts. The sentence was not excessive and the trial judge applied the correct sentencing principles.
-
The appellant testified. With respect to the appellant's evidence, the learned trial judge said ([paragraph] 37 of his Reasons):
I know that Mr. Sudweeks said that he did not own and was not responsible for the horses or dogs, that there was a great deal of feed remaining in the south pasture when he left the horses there on December 10, that there was also some good hay in the barn, that Bryan Tetz was, he believed, capable of caring for the horses and dogs, that he expected Bryan Tetz to arrive at the Chilanko Lodge about December 15, and that while Bryan Tetz may have
been at fault, he was not. To be blunt, I found Mr. Sudweeks' testimony to be a litany of excuses. Some were incredible and others merely very unconvincing. He did not raise any reasonable doubts in my mind.
[para28]
On the other hand, the trial judge stated that the story told by Mr. Tetz generally "rings true", specifying at [paragraph] 38 of his Reasons for Judgment:
I believe that the horses and dogs were in a bad way when he arrived. I believe that he tried to relieve the distress of the dogs: he bought some dog food for them. I do not believe he had any sufficient notion how to care for horses during the winter in Chilcotin country, and the task of caring for the Sudweeks' distressed horses simply overwhelmed and defeated him. The extent of Mr. Tetz' ineptitude is demonstrated by the fact that he apparently never did realize that he had not found and removed all the horses in the south pasture. Mr. Tetz failed when he did not "blow the whistle". He listened to his sister who told him not to do that because it might
cause troubles for the Sudweeks. He should have listened to his friend, Mr. Pimlott. Mr. Tetz assumed responsibilities that were beyond his abilities. When he realized he was "in over his head", he had a legal duty to call for help, to call the SPCA, or to call the RCMP, but he did nothing of the sort.
-
Imagine that: Mark Sudweeks trying to pass the blame onto his young daughters. It seems this man will go to any lengths to deny responsibility. Shameful, isn't it? That's just my opinion.
Can your read, Shane?
-
If you read the entire transcript, this Tetz kid was one of the Sudweeks former "foster kids" or some such relationship. Another kid who thought the Suds "loved and cared about him and his sister, Darlene." This kid just got blamed, and left to defend himself is how it seems.
-
Yep, with the Suds it's always someone else's fault. Never theirs. The Canadian gov't was mean and out to get them. Child protection investigators were mean and out to get them. It's the daughters' fault. It's the former foster kid's fault. Never, EVER theirs.
-
Isn't this the same time frame when the Suds were down in Mexico, getting evicted for "running a school without a license?"
Then they showed up in good ole Nephi, opening up Whitmore?
Gads!
-
Blah blah blah. Keep going, I'm sure this is some kinda self-medication for you. Man, you must be on cloud nine. Keep going, keep on keeping on. Wow, you must be a new person already. Keep on spitting. Keep on talking. Keep on healing your deep little wounds. You're sick in the head I tell you.
Shane Haley
-
Call Me.
-
Shane, were you with the Suds when they got evicted from Mexico? If you were, bet that was a scary deal for a bunch of kids, huh?
Were you up there in Canada when the Suds abandoned and abused all those starving horses?
Or, are you just a Whitmore child? Just the regular, ole, daily stuff?
-
Blah blah blah. Keep going, I'm sure this is some kinda self-medication for you. Man, you must be on cloud nine. Keep going, keep on keeping on. Wow, you must be a new person already. Keep on spitting. Keep on talking. Keep on healing your deep little wounds. You're sick in the head I tell you.
Shane Haley
Doesn't this remind you of a little kid with his hands over his ears saying "lalalalalalalalalalalalala" because he is hearing an answer he doesn't like?
-
Sounds a lot like Cheryl, "Shane if you love me, you'll go on fornits and take up for me, and tell them to shove it up their ass, etc etc...." and this almost grown-up-kid is still being used, IMO.
-
Or, it could be anything.
Shane, why did your parents enroll you with the Sudweeks so you could "experience these wonderful life changing events while under the Suds' luving care" that you seem to remember with such fondness?
What are all these "businesses" that you run now?
-
Somehow I don't think we'll be hearing much from Shane anymore. This is usually how it plays out. One of the 'devoted' comes on here out of some misguided sense of loyalty and tries in vain to slant and skirt (mostly outright ignore) the issues. When they find out they can't, they run.
-
Fuck You. Keep self-medicating you idiot. This forum is not about me. But oh yeah thats right, you came here with an attitude and now your even after one of these former kids that you were so valiantly defending. Go sit on a log you idiot. What good are you?
Shane Haley
-
No good. Anyone that comes on here with the intent to hurt anyone - including kids who were in programs - because they don't agree with them are no good. They have lost sight of what is truly important and they are vendictive, and downright mean.
If Shane said he saw ABC, and heard DEF, then that's what he saw and heard. You here on Fornits, or anyone else, can take that away from him. You can try, and try as you may it's obvious it's not working.
What right do you have to come here and challenge a child who was there? Maybe, just maybe you are wrong. Ever thought about that one, ANON. GUEST. Ever thought that maybe there is another side to this story and that maybe, just maybe, things have gotten twisted and blown out of proportion? Of course not. And of course you know best - so you think. But all of you have destroyed any credibility you might have had by all your rants and raves and all your trashing and bashing of even the very people you claim to care about - former program kids.
Get over yourself, look at the bigger picture, and go help the cause. It is people like the one posting against Shane who appear to be destroying, rather than helping, this cause.
-
Young men like Shane are manipulated while in these programs, and unfortunately some continue to be manipulated after they leave.
Few kids read trial transcripts--like Mark Sudweek's trial transcripts in Canada: and kids like Shane simply believe what they are told by the Sudweeks.
The Sudweeks aren't going to tell Shane that Mark Sudweeks was found guilty, and that he also lost the appeal. Nor, will they admit their gulit and wrong-doings.
The Sudweeks will not accept are admit their wrong-doings at Whitmore Academy to this former student.
Shane is allowed his own beliefs and opinions; and he does have the right to express them.
YET: he is not excused for his vulgarity towards people who have been damanged by the Sudweeks. So, if others attack him, it might be somewhat understandable.
-
Young men like Shane are manipulated while in these programs, and unfortunately some continue to be manipulated after they leave.
Few kids read trial transcripts--like Mark Sudweek's trial transcripts in Canada: and kids like Shane simply believe what they are told by the Sudweeks.
The Sudweeks aren't going to tell Shane that Mark Sudweeks was found guilty, and that he also lost the appeal. Nor, will they admit their gulit and wrong-doings.
I am well aware of trial transcripts finding the Sudweeks' GUILTY. I have maintained my relationships with the Sudweeks now for over six years. You might ask yourself why. Why would this "KID" maintain such a close relationship with these "CRIMINALS"? The answer is simple. They saved my life, plain and simple. Paid or not. Yes I will admit they do have some un-orthodox ways of conducting thier business, but I think that was my saving grace. During my year and a half with the Sudweeks they took on countless kids that came to us with horror stories of other programs and how harsh and abusive these other places were. I firmly believe that with my demeanor at that time, had I been anywhere else I would have morphed into an animal of sorts. I belive that there is good in everyone. I believe that the Sudweeks never intentionally or unintentionally intended on hurting anyone in thier care. I am a little peeved at the use of the term "manipulated". If anything, I feel I "used" them to make my life smoother. But what can they expect when you take on hundreds of unruly teens. It is'nt going to be a smooth ride. All I ask is that for the sake of even just one case like mine, that you folks cut them a little slack.
Thank You
Shane Haley
-
Shane,
Congratulations the fact that YOU have a good life, now.
But asking parents of children who were abused at Whitmore Academy to "cut the Sudweeks some slack" is not going to happen.
Mr. Jared Eldridge has already done the "slack cutting" when he allowed Cheryl Sudweeks to cop-a-plea to "hazing" and to walk away with no jail time.
But, you have done nothing wrong--and, should not be attacked for for has been viewed as your misplaced support of child abusers.
Continued good luck with your life.
-
Assuming you even really exist, you, Shane, are nothing but a miserable half-person now, a cringing lapdog at the feet of the Sudweeks' table. Blinded by your unthinking trust, you fail to recognize the suffering of your fellows, and instead place your trust in the worthless lies of a pair of serious psychopaths.
It would have been better if you had died.
-
Milk,
Shane must think Cheryl could just "unintentionally" spit in a child's face.
Or, "unintentiionally" call a kid a bitch, nigger, or slut.
Or, "unintentionally" throw a little boy down the stairs...or withhold food...or slap a kid across the face....or torment them in what she called "GROUP,..."
It goes on and on what this bitch just "unintentionally" did to abuse kids.
Unintentionally my ass!
-
Thank you folks sooo much for the eye-opener. Especially, the person who said I would be better off dead. Now I know the element I am up against. I will be not returning to this forum and best of luck to all of you in your endeavors.
Shane Haley
-
NEXT!
-
Milk Gargling Death - I think a lot of people are going to see exactly what they are up against - nuts on this board.
Get real - telling a kid he would be better off dead?
You've gone over the line, in my opinion. Way over the line. Any if others here support you then shame on them too.
This has to be the most disgusting forum I have ever run across. THere is an illusion people on here care for kids but if the reader takes time (and most don't because it's so UNbelievable and UNprofessional and UNcredible) they see clearly and quickly that through pages and pages and pages on this forum all you find are:
Hate
Guilt
Jealousy
Vendictiveness
Craziness
Mean-spiritedness
And all I can say is I hope Shane really meant it and that he stays off this mind-fuck of a forum. Because frankly, that is all it is as far as I can tell. Any good is gone and has been replaced with wickedness, bitterness, hatred, and more.
Another piece of sad news is to think that kids coming from programs find this forum - is this what they think adults today are like? I hope they realize just how few people really converse on this site. Notice most of them post as "guest" too afraid of showing their identities. And you get people who given themselves names like:
Milk Gargling Death
Dan the Chainsaw Man
Three Springs Way Gookin'
Dr. Fucktard
Buzzkill
Dysfunction Junction
To name a few. Not too credible if you ask me. Most people get it pretty early on, if they have common sense. Kids, realize this is not "normal".
-
Oh please. Like people are supposed to tolerate programs and people who abuse kids for fun and profit? Fornits is a walk in the park compared to institutionalized child abuse. Go work on your pro-unregulated-programs and child-abduction agencies website and stay away from Fornits which is clearly a thorn in your program-apologist-side. You aren't fooling anybody.
Y.A.W.N.
-
Guest
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:14 am Post subject: For Shane and the other kids who come here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milk Gargling Death - I think a lot of people are going to see exactly what they are up against - nuts on this board.
Get real - telling a kid he would be better off dead?
You've gone over the line, in my opinion. Way over the line. Any if others here support you then shame on them too.
This has to be the most disgusting forum I have ever run across. THere is an illusion people on here care for kids but if the reader takes time (and most don't because it's so UNbelievable and UNprofessional and UNcredible) they see clearly and quickly that through pages and pages and pages on this forum all you find are:
Hate
Guilt
Jealousy
Vendictiveness
Craziness
Mean-spiritedness
And all I can say is I hope Shane really meant it and that he stays off this mind-fuck of a forum. Because frankly, that is all it is as far as I can tell. Any good is gone and has been replaced with wickedness, bitterness, hatred, and more.
Another piece of sad news is to think that kids coming from programs find this forum - is this what they think adults today are like? I hope they realize just how few people really converse on this site. Notice most of them post as "guest" too afraid of showing their identities. And you get people who given themselves names like:
Milk Gargling Death
Dan the Chainsaw Man
Three Springs Way Gookin'
Dr. Fucktard
Buzzkill
Dysfunction Junction
To name a few. Not too credible if you ask me. Most people get it pretty early on, if they have common sense. Kids, realize this is not "normal".
[/quote]
You say most of them post as "guest" too afraid of showing their identities and yet you post as "guest". Isn't that a double standard? Why in your case is ok to do so?
-
And why not? :lol: :P :rofl:
-
Milk - saying a kid would be better off dead is well a really double trible quadruple standard. Aren't you supposed to care about kids and their lives? How could you say such a thing? And you didn't post anon or guest - so this tells your true colors.
-
(The last two posts were made by the same person.)
The line was crossed long before I even got here. It started when twits like you started abusing children for profit.
He abandoned any pretense of being a human being when he decided to support torturers and overlook what they've done.
You, too, are similarly beneath contempt.
-
Who cares? Milk, you don't make sense.
-
GUEST, if you think fornits is so bad, why are you here reading; and posting; and offering advice?
Start your own forum; if you haven't already!
-
Hi GUEST. Why don't you? It's an open forum for anyone to visit and post. There is no moderator, so it's open for all. Right? I don't have to like it to share my views.
-
NEXT!
-
Milk Gargling Death Penal
Immoderator
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 491
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:10 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming you even really exist, you, Shane, are nothing but a miserable half-person now, a cringing lapdog at the feet of the Sudweeks' table. Blinded by your unthinking trust, you fail to recognize the suffering of your fellows, and instead place your trust in the worthless lies of a pair of serious psychopaths.
It would have been better if you had died. \
STILL THINK THIS WAS A HORRIBLE THING TO SAY ABOUT ANY HUMAN BEING, REGARDLESS IF HE'S BEEN IN A PROGRAM OR NOT - DEFIES WHAT EVERYONE HERE CLAIMS TO CARE ABOUT - THE KIDS!
The end. (Won't be back here wasting my time on this nonsense. Hadn't visited here for a few months, came back, and was more disgusted than the time before. YEars ago you could find some good info here, now, it's turned plain weird.)
When people talk about it being best if kids die then you know something is wrong somewhere.
-
(http://http://www.misanthropyonline.com/images/violin.gif)
-
I still think it was wrong for Milk to say a kid (Shane) would be better off dead just because he was in a program (Whitmore).
Shane has a right to his story and his opinion.
-
YOU are misquoting: Milk did not say Shane would be better off "dead" because he was in the Whitmore program.
May not agree with what Milk said--but you misquoted him.
-
Shane posted that the Sudweeks "used unorthodox" methods in their business dealings with children in their program.
He is correct. The Sudweeks lacked sound doctrines and opinions. They went against approved, conventional customary practices in their treatment of children. Their choices of abusive techniques went against the established and customary pratice of behavior, which is set up by laws.
Shane posted that he did not believe the Sudweeks "intentionally" mistreated children under their care: The children who were abused, would disagree and say that the Sudweeks did what they did on purpose.
Shane posted that the Sudweeks "saved his life." Only he knows if he was rescued, and delivered from some danger or harm; and if the Sudweekd preserved him from damnation of some sort.
Perhaps, this young man just grew up, and began to make some positive life choices. Perhaps his own parents had some positive input into his life. Perhaps he is just a good person, and was all along.
Shane posted he doesn't care for the word "manipulation."
Most people don't like to feel they are being managed by other people for those people's own advantage, in an unfair way.
These kids in programs have this word thrown at them all the time:
Who would want to be called "manipulators?"
Shane asks that the Sudweeks "be given a bit of slack."
That is a form of forgiveness. The Sudweeks have not admitted their guilt, offered any apology, nor asked for forgiveness.
The Sudweeks have not helped "countless" children. COUNTLESS is an amount "that can not be counted." The number of the the Sudweeks's victims can be counted.
And yes, the Sudweeks should have been able to deal with "unruly teens" OR, they should have stayed out of the teen-help-business. They advertised they they were equiped, and qualifed and experienced to run an educational facility that offered therapy for the very problems they encountered.
The Sudweeks advertised that PROFESSIONALS were on staff to deal with the educational, theraputic, and social needs of each and every student they enrolled---and accepted money to care for them.
If they could not do the job--they should have QUIT.
Shane's postings point out how far back the fSudweeks's "un-orthodox" business practices seem to go.
-
bend it twist it break it. I think shane is posting what he has expierenced so that is how he feels. it sounds to me that the sudweeks aren't at all as bad as they are portrayed.
-
Cheryl Sudweeks accepted a plea bargain.
That says it all.
-
bend it twist it break it. I think shane is posting what he has expierenced so that is how he feels. it sounds to me that the sudweeks aren't at all as bad as they are portrayed.
Stick a sock in it, ANON. What makes you qualified to know one way or the other? Kids and parents have spoken out about their experience with the Sudweeks and Whitmore. I choose to believe them, not some anonymous poster who can't deal with reality.
RINSE. RECYCLE.
-
Understanding the Criminal Process in Utah:
No contest:
A "no contest" plea indicates that, while you are not admitting guilt, you do not dispute the charge. This is preferable to a guilty plea because guilty pleas can be used against you in later civil lawsuits.
http://research.lawyers.com/Utah/Crimin ... -Utah.html (http://research.lawyers.com/Utah/Criminal-Process-in-Utah.html)
-
What is your point?
Jared Eldridge, the prosecutor, got what he wanted:
He got rid of the "bad gal" Cheryl Sudweeks without spending the taxpayer's money for a trial---and this woman is never allowed to run any type of facility in his little county of Juab for the rest of her sorry life. Not bad politics.
Eldridge stated he believed the victims, so this says little about his beliefs in justice for abused children.
Sounds like someone is a bit worried about the Suds recent depositions in the civil case. Might some of the questions come back to haunt them in the civil trial? Shouldn't if they answered all the questions truthfully.
-
I'm still curious how "never run another program in THIS COUNTY ever again!" is supposed to mean anything at all.
-
Rinse Recycle??? Shall we have the former so called "VICTIMS" that were not abused or mis-treated stand up and have a voice? I bet you a million dollars they and there parents totally outnumber the "abused". I don't believe for one second that nothing but abuse came from the Sudweeks. I'm sorry to the families that were burdened by a childs hatred toward life. Not to mention being spit on, pushed around, and called names. I faced much worse than that in public school and faced far worse atrocities in real-life. I did'nt need to be sent away to deal with those real-life situations. I think the kids were reaching for help. They had nowhere to go. So why not cause a comotion right? Our parents sent us away right? How else can we get them to realize our disdain? And to the ones that testified that had already been in the Sudweeks' care a year or two prior, I have one question. How much did your mother's offer you out of the settlement? You settle for nothing. You got nothing. Thats why this forum exists. Cut the shit and come to grips with reality. The Sudweeks conviction was minimal because they were accused of minimal actions that were in real-life minimal. Sometimes things happen for a reason. You parents who are ranting and raving because your kid came home or got arrested during the program and still had a problem should most likely look at yourselves and ponder about, "Where did I go wrong?" versus, "Where did they go wrong?"!!!!
Oh, I'm sure I'll have a few DANDY responses to this one. 5 bucks says the word DANDY even appears in at least one of them.
-
Who cares if the number of "abused" don't outnumber those who say they weren't abused.
ONE abused child is just ONE TOO MANY.
Child abuse is illigal, and immoral, and just plain wrong.
Cheryl Sudweeks accepted her plea bargain--let her live with it.
-
I encourage all the parents poking around this site to read the post just above the previous one. Just read it thoroughly, paying close attention to the subtext and the assumptions.
Yes, that poster wants control of your kid, and is fairly representative of the sort of people you're going to meet in this business.
It doesn't matter what your kid's doing- sending him to people like that is only going to make things worse.
-
Might we call that the "window of abuse", like the "window of loss". A few will die, but soooo many are "helped".
-
The Sudweeks conviction was minimal because they were accused of minimal actions that were in real-life minimal. Sometimes things happen for a reason.
So how do you feel about the "minimal" conviction of the Sudweeks in Canada for animal abuse? Was that minimal because the accusations were minimal and in real-life were minimal? Those charges were pretty severe, the punishment severe and the real-life suffering to those animals severe. Still think these people are guilty of "minimal" stuff?
And by the way, I know of what I speak of.
Think about it.
-
The abuse of the Whitmore "students" was not miminal.
Jared Eldridge knows this, and he stated he "believed" the victims.
You'd have to ask him WHY he gave Cheryl Sudweeks a plea bargain.
He got what he wanted: He got the Sudweeks out of his county FOR LIFE. He "cleaned up the mess in his county."
Would have to wonder how this man sleeps at night, knowing he did not take this to trial.
IF HE BELIEVED THE VICTIMS--what makes him think 12 other people wouldn't have believed them too? 12 people who would have made up a JURY.
The civil trial is coming up. The Sudweeks have given their depositions. Let a jury decide this one. Let the Sudweeks face their accusers.
Cheryl Sudweeks had that chance--she could have gone to trial in the criminal case: she choose to cop a plea, and she got off easy.
-
Sounds like the Suds might be getting ready to settle, or something, huh?
-
This forum is strictly unmoderated for content, but repeating the same post with one minor change will just get deleted. You want to make edits, get a fucking account. You want to repeat yourself, do it all in the same post so it's clear how retarded you are.
The idea of shit like the Sudweeks and their shills having control over children personally disgusts me.
-
The Sudweeks have given their depositions. Let a jury decide this one. Let the Sudweeks face their accusers.
Post those depos!! Juicy surprises are usually revealed under oath.
-
Rinse Recycle??? Shall we have the former so called "VICTIMS" that were not abused or mis-treated stand up and have a voice? I bet you a million dollars they and there parents totally outnumber the "abused". I don't believe for one second that nothing but abuse came from the Sudweeks. I'm sorry to the families that were burdened by a childs hatred toward life. Not to mention being spit on, pushed around, and called names. I faced much worse than that in public school and faced far worse atrocities in real-life. I did'nt need to be sent away to deal with those real-life situations. I think the kids were reaching for help. They had nowhere to go. So why not cause a comotion right? Our parents sent us away right? How else can we get them to realize our disdain? And to the ones that testified that had already been in the Sudweeks' care a year or two prior, I have one question. How much did your mother's offer you out of the settlement? You settle for nothing. You got nothing. Thats why this forum exists. Cut the shit and come to grips with reality. The Sudweeks conviction was minimal because they were accused of minimal actions that were in real-life minimal. Sometimes things happen for a reason. You parents who are ranting and raving because your kid came home or got arrested during the program and still had a problem should most likely look at yourselves and ponder about, "Where did I go wrong?" versus, "Where did they go wrong?"!!!!
Oh, I'm sure I'll have a few DANDY responses to this one. 5 bucks says the word DANDY even appears in at least one of them.
Why should anyone believe the kids you want to parade about like they were part of a Whitmore Dog and Pony Show? Because they are somehow more "credible" than the kids who were abused by Mrs. Suds? That's ludricrous. As for the rest of your post, it makes no real sense other than it's obvious you are a card-carrying program apologist with a serious hang-up about children and their right not to be used and abused while in the custody of any residential treatment facility or private program.