Sue Scheff on Me, admits to kickbacks

[Ursus]

First off I think it is good that she is open with it and says she receives money from these schools.

She wasn't open about it out of the innate goodness of her heart. She was forced into acknowledging the payoff because her shenanigans were exposed.

[Anonymous]

Guest wrote:
First off I think it is good that she is open with it and says she receives money from these schools.

She wasn't open about it out of the innate goodness of her heart. She was forced into acknowledging the payoff because her shenanigans were exposed.

That is exactly right.  She use to say she wasn't paid for her services.  She use to claim she did it out of the goodness of her heart so that other kids wouldn't be hurt like her kid was.   :jawdrop:

[Whooter]

She wasn't open about it out of the innate goodness of her heart. She was forced into acknowledging the payoff because her shenanigans were exposed.

Sue said she did not review the press release before it went out.  Was this a one time claim or did she continue to claim this until she was called on it?

Guest wrote:

Kickbacks are a big part of the problem. The incentive to send a kid to the highest bidder is more likely to occur.

 

I don’t think kickbacks are going to increase the number of kids being placed in programs.  But the kickbacks will alter which program the child is placed in.  So the child may not go to the program most suited for him or her.

[Anonymous]

"Fuck you! Fuck you, faggot!"

http://www.benchmarktransitions.com/ass ... n-Decl.pdf

[Anonymous]

Fuck you! Fuck you, faggot!"

http://www.benchmarktransitions.com/ass ... n-Decl.pdf
STALKER
 

Can someone explain to me what that had to do with this thread? :eek:

[Anonymous]

Thanks for not letting TheWho's self-talk derail this thread.

Apparently Sue refers to Aspen now so he really wants to deflect discussion from that.

Who, aren't you ever going to learn? There is no psychological trick you can possibly use that will affect the members of this board. Or the guests. Or whatever program-unaffiliated parents make their way to this place, usually after having already decided to stay far, far away from it. It's just scroll-past, with the option to make fun of as we go.

[psy]

"Fuck you! Fuck you, faggot!"

http://www.benchmarktransitions.com/ass ... n-Decl.pdf

Never said that and never would.  Sheri Martin perjured herself.

[psy]

She wasn't open about it out of the innate goodness of her heart. She was forced into acknowledging the payoff because her shenanigans were exposed.

Sue said she did not review the press release before it went out.  Was this a one time claim or did she continue to claim this until she was called on it?

It was a claim on her blog, not a press release, and yes, she has claimed many times in the past that she does not make a profit.  The WWASP vs. PURE case covered this in detail as parents testified to how they were misled and unaware that Scheff was paid by the programs.

Like Ursus implied. The only reason why she is admitting to it now is because people have exposed her to the point where she simply cannot deny it anymore (another benefit of speaking out on these issues).

[psy]

Get your Aqua Cura here!

Heh.  Fallout 3 reference.  /me likes