Truth versus Sue Scheff

[Anonymous]

thse guys might air the truth about SS and rep def, too

http://consumerist.com/consumer/reputat ... 268604.php

tips@consumerist.com

[Joyce Harris]

Sue Scheff gave  testimony in the WWASP vs PURE trial.
On page 98 of the transcript, reference was made to  paragraph three of an Affidavit that was signed by Sue Scheff, and filed on February 16, 2002.

Question:
"You never resided in the State of Utah and you had only made one visit to Utah as a tourist ten year previously.  
Was that a true statement when you made it?"

Answer by Sue Scheff:
"Yes it was when I made it."

After reading this testimony by Sue Scheff; which I assume it TRUE;
I begin to wonder, and ask:.
.
 If Sue Scheff had not even been in the State of Utah since "ten year previously to the year 2002,:"  this would mean that Scheff had not been to Utah since 1992.

We were referred to Whitmore Academy by Sue Scheff  in October 2004.
Why did Sue Scheff lie to me when she said she had personally visited Whitmore Academy?  Whitmore Academy was not in existence in 1992.
Sue Scheff said to me:  "when she walked through the doors of Whitmore Academy, she could feel the love."
Scheff also wrote that "Cherly Sudweeks's smile could light up a room."

Why would Sue Scheff say these things about a personal visit to Whitmore Academy, if she had not actually visited the facility?

I assume her testimony in the WWASP vs PURE trial was true.

[Anonymous]

Lie, after lie, after lie....that is all Sue Scheff knows how to do.  How sad.  NO.  How pathetic.  How can she look at herself in the mirror, I will never understand.

[Anonymous]

Has Sue Scheff ever met Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks in person?
The Sudweeks that Sue Scheff so strongly defends in her Whitmore Blogs?
Or, does Scheff simply defend people that she only knows over the telephone and internet?

[Anonymous]

Has Sue Scheff ever met Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks in person?
The Sudweeks that Sue Scheff so strongly defends in her Whitmore Blogs?
Or, does Scheff simply defend people that she only knows over the telephone and internet?

Good question.

What about Izzy?  She defends them too, has she ever met these people?

Correction.  Izzy removed her Whitmore blog.

Perhaps a better question would be:  Are these people, all the children their parents, officals, lawyers she reportedly interviewed or heard from in some way who praised the Sudweeks no longer credible?

Hard to tell, since Izzy has not (that I have seen) issued a PUBLIC statement relevant to her purpose in removing the blog.  It just went poof.

[Anonymous]

Isabelle Zehnder's advertised and upcoming Whitmore blogs are shown on Sue Scheff's Whitmore Academy-my experiences" blog.
So Zehnder removing this on blog is really meaningless.

Zehnder's upcoming Whitmore blogis advertised with the word:
"Stay tuned....."

Isabelle owes the Whitmore parents, their  children and Joyce Harris a public apology.

[Anonymous]

Ms. Harris,

I noticed Whitmore Academy is NOT listed on Caica's facility watchlist.

http://caica.org/newsinfo.htm

Personally, I find that very strange - if not downright disingenuous.

[Joyce Harris]

Isabaelle Zehnder had Whitmore Academy on the CAICA Watchlist at one time.

In April 2006 I sent Zehnder an email asking her to attach a newspaper article regarding Whitmore Academy on this Watchlist page.
At this time Zehnder requested a copy of the Whitmore Academy Civil Case documents from me to post on CAICA.  I explained that my family were not plaintiffs in the case; and then I added:
  "Even if we were plaintiffs--I would not provide such documents; because I did not approve of Zehnder's policy of posting the names of minor children's names when she posted court documents on CAICA."
Zehnder then said that all advocacy websites followed her procedure of posting the names of minor children--and she provided a list of advocate sites.  
I contacted each of the advocate site owners--and I emailed Zehnder back: and I informed her that she was mistaken: that the other advocate owners DID NOT post the names of minor children when they posted court documents---
One exception was a family who specifically requested that Shelby Earnshaw at ISAC leave the child's name public.

At this point in our communications:
Zehnder accused me of harrassing her; bluntly told me she had discussed my communications with her lawyer; and she told me she "was removing Whitmore Academy from her website."

Then, Mrs. Zehnder posted lies and stated that: "Joyce Harris requested that Whitmore Academy be removed from the CAICA website."
I never made such a request.  I never asked Zehnder to remove Whitmore Academy from the CAICA website or Watchlist.   I have the series of emails between Zehnder and myself to verify what I have stated above is true.

It is my understanding that Zehnder and Sue Scheff began their "business association" around this time; and this may have had some influence on Isabelle Zehnder removing Whitmore Academy from the CAICA Watchlist.

.

[psy]

Isabaelle Zehnder had Whitmore Academy on the CAICA Watchlist at one time.

In April 2006 I sent Zehnder an email asking her to attach a newspaper article regarding Whitmore Academy on this Watchlist page.
At this time Zehnder requested a copy of the Whitmore Academy Civil Case documents from me to post on CAICA.  I explained that my family were not plaintiffs in the case; and then I added:
  "Even if we were plaintiffs--I would not provide such documents; because I did not approve of Zehnder's policy of posting the names of minor children's names when she posted court documents on CAICA."
Zehnder then said that all advocacy websites followed her procedure of posting the names of minor children--and she provided a list of advocate sites.  
I contacted each of the advocate site owners--and I emailed Zehnder back: and I informed her that she was mistaken: that the other advocate owners DID NOT post the names of minor children when they posted court documents---
One exception was a family who specifically requested that Shelby Earnshaw at ISAC leave the child's name public.

At this point in our communications:
Zehnder accused me of harrassing her; bluntly told me she had discussed my communications with her lawyer; and she told me she "was removing Whitmore Academy from her website."

Then, Mrs. Zehnder posted lies and stated that: "Joyce Harris requested that Whitmore Academy be removed from the CAICA website."
I never made such a request.  I never asked Zehnder to remove Whitmore Academy from the CAICA website or Watchlist.   I have the series of emails between Zehnder and myself to verify what I have stated above is true.

It is my understanding that Zehnder and Sue Scheff began their "business association" around this time; and this may have had some influence on Isabelle Zehnder removing Whitmore Academy from the CAICA Watchlist.

.

That is accurate.  I've seen the emails of the correspondence she refers to myself.

[Anonymous]

Sue Scheff gave  testimony in the WWASP vs PURE trial.
On page 98 of the transcript, reference was made to  paragraph three of an Affidavit that was signed by Sue Scheff, and filed on February 16, 2002.

Question:
"You never resided in the State of Utah and you had only made one visit to Utah as a tourist ten year previously.  
Was that a true statement when you made it?"

Answer by Sue Scheff:
"Yes it was when I made it."

After reading this testimony by Sue Scheff; which I assume it TRUE;
I begin to wonder, and ask:.
.
 If Sue Scheff had not even been in the State of Utah since "ten year previously to the year 2002,:"  this would mean that Scheff had not been to Utah since 1992.

We were referred to Whitmore Academy by Sue Scheff  in October 2004.
Why did Sue Scheff lie to me when she said she had personally visited Whitmore Academy?  Whitmore Academy was not in existence in 1992.
Sue Scheff said to me:  "when she walked through the doors of Whitmore Academy, she could feel the love."
Scheff also wrote that "Cherly Sudweeks's smile could light up a room."

Why would Sue Scheff say these things about a personal visit to Whitmore Academy, if she had not actually visited the facility?

I assume her testimony in the WWASP vs PURE trial was true.

In the blog "Whitmore Academy- My Experiences" Sue Scheff writes,
"As the owner and founder of Parents Universal Resource Experts (PURE), I have visted the Whitmore on several occasions."

According to this article in the Nephi newpapers, the Sudweeks did not apply for a permit for Whitmore Academy until April 18, 2001.

PUBLIC HEARING The Juab County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday April 19 2001 at 8:00 in the County Commission Chambers located at 160 North Main Nephi. The purpose for the hearing is to receive public comment on a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Mark & Cheryl Sudweeks to establish and operate an Equine-assisted school for non adjudicated teens. The proposed school would be located in Section 1 T14S R1W on parcel XD -3630-1-2.

Published in The Times-News, Nephi, Utah on 4/4/2001, 4/11/2001, and 4/18/2001.

How could Scheff has visited Whitmore Academy "on several occasions" based on her testimony and the information from this article? This permit was issue for the Sudweeks to establish Whitmore Academy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Joyce Harris]

Sue Scheff wrote in her Whitmore Blog:
"No matter what it is/was;, all of this led to a civil case instigated by this mother."

Scheff is incorrect:  The lawfirm representing the Whitmore parents in the civil case against the Sudweeks/Whitmore--HOWARD, LEWIS, & PETERSON -- was initially hired by the parents of the student who first alleged he was abused by the Sudweeks in November 2004 as reported by KLS TV in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Samanatha Hayes Reported on November 30, 2004
"A Troubled Teen Home Investigated for Abuse"
"A facility for troubled teens is under investigation tonight after strong allegations from one boy.
Carol Sisco, Child & Family Services:  Our licensing office notified them we intend to revoke their license."
http://tv.ksl.com?index.php?sid=136013&nid=5

Scheff blog continues:
"What a mess - in the end - the most beautiful program to help families is closed, since it has to handle the legal mess this mother caused, in my opinion."

The Sudweeks did continue to have "legal problems" but I did not cause them.

Kristen Stewart's report in the Salt Lake City Tribune, "Boarding School: she stands accused of child abuse and hazing at now defunct treatment center."  on June 11, 2005.
   Cheryl Sudweeks was charged with 5 counts of child abuse and 2 counts of hazing against 4 Whitmore students.

   Jared Eldridge, the County Attorney did not bring any charges on behalf of my daughter.
    I am not privy to why the State of Utah removed the Sudweeks's license to operate Whitmore Academy.  Ask them!
http://www.isaccorp.org/whitmore/whitmo ... 11.05.html

On September 22, 2006 Linda Thomson's report in the Deseret Morning News, "Plea deal for ex-school operator" reports Cheryl Sudweeks's plea bargain, in which she agreed to not operate a facility in Juab County "for the rest of her life."
In explaining this plea bargain, County Attorney, Jared Eldridge says: "These kids made some allegations of abuse, and I completely believed them.  That's why I filed the case."

Again:  I had nothing to do with this plea agreement.  Why did Cheryl Sudweeks accept a plea bargain, instead of going to trial to prove the innocence she seems/wants to claim?  I don't know. ASK HER!

I have no idea WHY or WHEN the Sudweeks decided to close the Whitmore Academy.  Again---ASK THEM!!!

Summary:   I did not initiate the civil case against the Sudweeks.
ANYONE who says I paid any parents to join this civil case is a LIAR.  Anyone who says I paid any parent, or any child/student to lie about the Sudweeks is a LIAR.
My family was not a part of the criminal case against the Sudweeks.  My family is not a part of the civil case against the Sudweeks/Whitmore Academy.

NOTE:  I had never heard of the Sudweeks in 2001 when Mark Sudweeks was involved in his FELONY Animal Abuse case in Canada: Regina VS Sudweeks; and when the Sudweeks were evicted from Mexico for operating a school without a license.

So: hopefully Sue Scheff will not try to blame these legal problems of the Sudweeks had in these 2 countries on me, too "in her opinion.".

[Anonymous]

Yes Joyce. Next she'll have people belieiving you teach dogs to speak, and pigs to fly, and you hold the moon within the folds of your nightgown.  You are one talented lady. :rofl:

[Joyce Harris]

This will be my final rebuttal post to Sue Scheff's blog:
"Whitmore Academy - My Experiences"

This blog advertises two (2) additional blogs that will be released:
Scheff's "The Whitmore Academy, THE SECRET, Shhhh"
Zehnder's "Whitmore Academy - Up  Close and Personal."

If and when these blogs are posted; I will respoond to them.

In this blog by Sue Scheff, she makes repeated reference to my daughter, who was age 12 when Scheff referred our family to Whitmore Academy; assuring me that she would "place her own daughter at this facility if her daughter required a treatment facility."

Scheff carefully uses words like: "seems"  "I heard"  "I was told"  "may be" "I understand"  "claims"  "felt"  "in my  opinion" and of course she slaps on her legal-sounding DISCLAIMER at the end of the blog.

In this blog, Scheff repeatedly states that my little girl "may have been disclosing too much about her home life" at Whitmore.
That I was afraid my daughter "had stories to tell" that I did not want disclosed.
That this little girl felt so safe at Whitmore that she was "disclosing SECRETS!"
Scheff assures her readers that I, the mother "had something to hide...and wanted to keep my secret from coming out."

Scheff describes me as: "CRUELLA DE VILL; aka San Antonio parent ,who destroyed many lives."  Along with the cartoon picture.

She advises her readership to "STAY TUNED for more details!"
She asks her readers: "What does she have to hide? Maybe her daughter was telling the truth about her?"

Scheff then gives the name of this upcoming blog that will "reveal all:"  THE WHITMORE ACADEMY - THE SECRET, SHHHH

Basically I have this to say:
Sue Scheff claims to be a "child advocate" and she proclaims she "helps to bring families back together" among other things.
Yet: she dares to post such things about a young girl and her mother?  

This nonesense about my so-called "secret life" has already been posted on fornits on a few threads...the "popular" one being---
"Joyce Harris is a Slut Woman."

Scheff also states: "This mother wanted to keep  her private life private."

That may be the most honest statement Scheff made about me in this blog.
I have the "RIGHT" to my privacy--the same as Sue Scheff.

I have not posted blogs or statements about Sue Scheff's children: .
I haven't posted and asked these types of questions about Scheff:
   Why did you place your daughter in Carolina Springs?
   Why did you place your son in a Military School?
   Why don't/didn't you keep your children home and parent them yourself, like most parents do?
    Are the postings on Fornts true---did you abuse your daughter?
    Did you suppress documents that might prove you hit  your  daughter in the face and put your hands around her neck in anger?
    What family SECRETS do your children know about YOU?

NO: I don't do that---because; it is none of my business how Sue Scheff parents her children.  I assume she has probably done the best she could.  I really don't know.  
But it certainly is not my place to BLOG about her children on the internet.

I don't post or blog about Sue Scheff's personal life:
   I don't know or care if this woman is married, or single.
   I have no idea why she got a divorce from her childrens' father.
   I don't post her home city on the internet.
   I don't know who she may or may not have sex with---her sex life is of no interest to me, WHATSOEVER.
   I have no idea why she seems to find mine of such interest:  I don't involve her in my personal life---so what's her compllant?

I, Joyce Harris, do not present myself as a CHILD ADVOCATE, or any type of ADVOCATE.  I am not in the business of making any type of recommendations to parents in regards to the welfare,  or treatment  of their children on any levels.  I do not own, or work in any type facility that cares for; or treats children.

I do not, and have not ever abused any child.

I am a wife and mother; and yes; I do have the "right" to privacy.

Scheff states that "this mother has a grudge against her."
That is her opinion.

My husband and I made our Statement to ISAC about our experience at Whitmore Academy and with Scheff's company, PURE. We have never revised this factual, true statement since we made it.

I believe this Whitmore blog written by Sue Scheff speaks volumes about who may be carrying a vindicative grudge.

[Anonymous]

Sue Scheff starts out this blog with lies that she visited Whitmore? Why bother reading the rest of this bitch's trash?