i think sue scheff is a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

There is no First Amendment right of defamation...

By  Greg Newburn, at Tue Oct 17, 03:21:00 PM  

but there is one of speech, which defamation is a form of. what would our market look like if we were forbidden, by law, from giving other potential customers fair warning that someone's services are bunk? if scheff didn't want her to talk about her services, she should have put that in a contract.

By  ns, at Tue Oct 17, 04:04:00 PM  

If your statement is provably (and purposefully) fallacious, and causes harm, then it isn't protected.

That is why libel and slander laws have been part of the common law since the 13th century. Indeed, the burdon of proof is on the plainiff (the one allegedly defamed), which is codified in deference to the harm more overt restrictions could cause.

Newburn is right. Since the common law on libel and slander was well known to the Convention, they would have expressly provided for a right to defame someone. Truthful (or truthfully intentioned)

Morevoer, imagine a world in which you had no right to clear you name of published untruths.

By  jack vendredi, at Wed Oct 18, 10:42:00 AM  

you're point is well taken. however, "a world in which you had no right to clear you name" would only exist if there was no/little freedom of speech, right? i'm just thinking aloud, but in the realm of public opinion, it seems like it's basically he-said she-said where the one with the best evidence or most funds wins. kind of like in the courts.

perhaps it makes sense to institutionalize this for efficiency's sake but i definitely think that's an open issue with lots of pros and cons. but i'm not so much persuaded by the structural-functionalist type argument that just becuase an institution has existed for a while means it is serving a useful function. or, rather, that it's the best way to handle the situation.

but the issue in this case, from my albeit limited understanding, is that she received an allegedly bad product, told people about it, was sued, and didn't have the funds to defend herself. SO, that means companies that cater to poor people can sue the pants off of anyone who tells other about their bad service, and will always win? hm. sounds bad to me. i guess we could provide welfare for that kind of thing, but it just seems like the lady who swallowed the fly at that point.

By  ns, at Wed Oct 18, 12:17:00 PM  

There's no cause of action if what is spoken is true. In other words, "truth is a defense" to defamation. Now I get it, what about a defendant who can't afford to make the argument, etc., but that's no way to create rules...

I used to argue with my interns about this. For some reason they were almost always stuck in this "freedom is absolute" nonsense we unfortunately see so often in the libertarian crowd. Fortunately for me, I've purged myself of that group nearly completely, and have surrouned myself with ignorant and apolitical high school kids.

It's fantastic.

Anyway, I'm still right.

By  Greg Newburn, at Wed Oct 18, 10:21:00 PM  

Well, I made and do not make a claim of efficiency in an adversarial court system. Indeed, I am not functionalist. I may, though, be a structuralist. The court system as an institution may not change because, given the current state of the world, among those people who could change it, it is not beneficial for them to do so. This is true even if all parties could see a better outcome.

Your suggestion, NS, is that all speech should be unrestricted. I imagine then defamation suits would be disallowed. Then hypothetically, I could accuse someone (how about you) and set of nefarious crimes (rape, murder, pedofelia) in a public setting. If a large enough group of people believe, then your reputation could damaged, perhpas so much so that you would lose your job (espeically if you were a public servent). Maybe you would have to move

What could you do? You could disagree publically. Maybe some people would believe you. The first question, then is how many would believe? Would it be enough to salvage your rep. Of course, I could just say your are wrong. OF course you may have evidence (for exmaple a clean legal record). I can imply that your crime has gone undetected, but is still a true statement. You don't have much recouse.

The argument regarding inquality is a little weak as a well. Inequalities in wealth may actaully exacerbate the use of defamation. In the same scenario above, asume that I, the defamer, are orders of magnitude more wealthy than you. Now you are totally screwed. I will just buy TV time, or gain access to `trusted' public sources to continue by defamation campaign against you. You might call press conferecm, but I will buy off the press.

To be sure, I acutally agree with the sentiment---perhaps those qualified on a means basis should be provided with representation in civil courts as we do with criminal courts---but inequality is a thin reed on which to balance an argument against defamation laws. Inequality is bad in both states of the world when someone's reputation has been impugned.

By  jack vendredi, at Thu Oct 19, 12:28:00 PM  

Jack,

I think what you meant to say was, "Greg was totally right, and he kicks ass."

If THAT'S what you were getting at up there, I agree completely.

By  Greg Newburn, at Thu Oct 19, 08:00:00 PM  

Carey Bock is far from a victim - she is the VP of Marketing for a bank in LA - she attended 2 depositions with her expensive lawyer AFTER Katrina, this lame excuse to catagorize her as a victim is nothing but a smoke screen to the reality that libelous comments were held accountable. She agressively fought this case for over 2 years with a prominent law firm in Ft. Lauderdale. So to say this is some poor low income person, you are being snowed by what seems to be her followers. If you read back about Carey Bock, she states she spent $20,000.00 to get her boys out of Dundee. For some poor person, where would she have come up with that? Even if it was on credit, most legitimate poor person usually doesn't have that kind of credit.

Even if you are poor, you know to put forwarding addresses to the Post Office. She clearly knew there was a trial, she admitted that in her USA Today article, so why didn't she call the courts? It seems she made a conscience decision to ignore it. After 2 years of fighting this case, it just doesn't go away. I bet even a poor person would know that.

Bock maliciously attacked Scheff and had nothing to substantiate it on. The jurors studied extensive evidence prior making this verdict. Defamation and invasion of privacy is not tolerated. The jury sent a strong message.

Just some thoughts for you to ponder on.

By  Anonymous, at Sun Oct 22, 09:40:00 AM  

Anonymous,

I think what you meant to say was, "Greg was totally right, and he kicks ass."

If THAT'S what you were getting at up there, I agree completely.

By  Greg Newburn, at Sun Oct 22, 05:27:00 PM  

anonymous, i completely agree that she probably could have gotten there somehow, even if she just represented herself. she could have hitch-hiked for pete's sakes. yet i don't understand why, if she's so smart, together, rich, etc., she didn't continue with the case. or show up to trial.

but regardless, there are some people - i imagine - who do not have the resources (or health) to go to trial, which is why we have to be so careful about the fairness of our laws. the jury in this case (rather, the legal system) seemed to say that if you can't show up and tell your side, you're guilty. ms. bock wasn't there to show she had reason to believe what she said, or do defend against charges of malice. so regardless of whether or not she should have lost anyway, there's no way that the jury could have gotten the "extensive evidence" they needed to interpret the case. therefore, if you can't show up, you have no speech rights. that just doesn't seem ideal.

you're right, as far as this particular case and current law goes, free speech is not protected - and my point is that that's a shame. i'm not a legal expert by any means, but what i see is this: in 1964 courts decided that false statements are protected by the constitution. they said that since in public debate error is inevitable, and it would be tantamount to self-censorship to restrict on that score. from what i understand the defendant had reasons to believe that what she said was true. since falsehood is not a test of defamation, instead actual malice (which the court made clear in garrison v. louisiana), the only proof that needed be given was that somehow the defendant had reason to think what she said was true. but then the court made a (in my mind) bad decision that for private persons, truth must be proven to some extent. if falsehood but no malice are proven, you can seek damages for provable injuries, but if malice is proven you can seek punitive damages. i guess my point is that malice is ridiculous - if you believe you've gotten a raw deal of course you'll be angry. you'll also want to put them out of business. that's natural and just.

By  ns, at Sun Oct 22, 06:31:00 PM  

and greg, you're a dork.

and i can prove it in court! :P

By  ns, at Sun Oct 22, 06:35:00 PM  

What we're missing in this is the only thing that matters, both in court, and in morality. And that, of course, is the non-aggression axiom. The non-aggression axiom, in a nutshell, says, "No one may initiate aggression."

Isn't that all we need to solve these problems? Just think of the government as a band of thieves, and every relevant question of law and politics falls neatly into place.

What's wrong with you people?

By  Greg Newburn, at Thu Oct 26, 12:04:00 PM  

Sue Scheff is ugly and stupid and lives on her family trust fund. Sue is a crook and a con artist like Carey Bock said. The truth is a defense but Carey did not show up at trial because Sue is rich and Carey was cleaning up the debris of her Katrina-destroyed home in New Orleans.

By  Anonymous, at Mon Oct 30, 07:32:00 PM  

If youre interested in your right to speak, go to www.fornits.com and then go to:

1. forums

2. world wide association of specialty programs

3. sue scheff

By  Anonymous, at Mon Oct 30, 07:42:00 PM  

WHAT SUE SCHEFF DID TO A CHILD
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=19138

Quote:
my name is logan haynsworth and i went to utah to live with mark and cheryl on may 17th 2003 and came home the following may. while there i witnessed more then a handful of kids get humilated abused starved etc. me being one of them....

i was accused of being a lesbian with one of the girls named jenna sager and practically backed into a corner until i "admitted" we had been sexually involved. i thought if i just said that we kissed and what not they would stop and i wouldnt get in trouble but things only got worse. we were forced to move into the basement where i slept in a pantry or storage room with no blankets or pillows. i was denied showers and food unless it was moldy leftovers. i was constantly beat up on and made to all sorts of things including wearing old pink sweatpants no underwear or bra and a tore shirt that said spoiled. i could not wear shoes and not talk to any of the kids. eventually i tried to tell them it wasnt true and i just went along with it so i wouldnt get in trouble. that didnt work out either. things just got worse....

that is just a LITTLE bit of my story...
i could go on and on but the point of all this is that no matter what anybody saids I KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED THERE CAUSE I SAW IT WITH MY 2 FUCKIN EYES

so fuck you if you wanna be a cherylwhipped pussy and act like nothing happened. you have no respect for yourself and still cant admit that what happened was real.

if you have any questions or what not feel free to contact me im not scared to hear what you think whether you wanna send me hatemail for expressing my story or you wanna support me whatever

but know that im not gonna stop pursuing this and i will make sure that justice is served and that reincarnation of satan cheryl sudweeks gets what she fuckin deserves

THANKS! =)

By  Anonymous, at Tue Oct 31, 07:13:00 PM  

SUE SCHEFF REFERS FOR MONEY KIDS AND FAMILIES TO PROGRAMS THAT ABUSE CHILDREN. SUE SCHEFF IS DUMB AND UNEDUCATED BUT SHE IS RICHG. SHE HAS A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SHE IS EVIL

By  Anonymous, at Tue Oct 31, 07:15:00 PM  

The truth of the Sue Scheff case:

Sue Scheff and PURE Win Empty Victory over New Orleans Mom
International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC)

10/9/2006 9:21:45 PM

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA (October 10, 2006) - On September 19, 2006, Parents Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE) and its founder, Sue Scheff of Weston, Florida won an $11.3 million dollar victory of hollow sorts over a single mom from New Orleans by alleging defamation over the Internet. Although it is doubtful the verdict will be collected, it may serve to chill free speech of those attempting to expose child abuse or untoward business practices.

The mom, Carey Bock, had publicly criticized the business practices of Scheff and PURE in referring children to allegedly abusive programs. Scheff met the mother’s complaints with a lawsuit reminiscent of one filed against Scheff in 2001.

The mom lacked the financial resources to defend herself or to attend her own trial in Florida. Before trial, Ms. Bock relocated her small family from the New Orleans area to Texas in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This, however, did not stop Scheff and PURE from coming full-steam after the mom for alleged defamation and other claims. As a result, without the benefit of hearing the mom’s side of the story, a jury had little choice but to award the $11.3 million dollar verdict requested by the lawyer for Scheff and her company.

According to the Daily Business Review, Scheff also named Ginger Warbis as co-defendant. Warbis, who runs a web site critical of Scheff, obtained a well-known lawyer who successfully defeated Scheff’s claims of defamation: “Warbis’ lawyer, Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, New Jersey, sharply criticized Scheff and other people who refer parents to programs for troubled teens. ‘People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples,’ Elberg said. ‘Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents.’”

Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con
Sue Scheff is a con

By  Anonymous, at Wed Nov 01, 06:19:00 PM  

According to the Daily Business Review, Sue Scheff also named Ginger Warbis as co-defendant. Warbis, who runs a web site critical of Sue Scheff, at www.fornits.com, obtained a well-known lawyer who successfully defeated Scheff’s claims of defamation: “Warbis’ lawyer, Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, New Jersey, sharply criticized Scheff and other people who refer parents to programs for troubled teens. ‘People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples,’ Elberg said. ‘Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents.’”

By  Anonymous, at Wed Nov 01, 06:21:00 PM  

Carey Bock is far from a victim - she is the VP of Marketing for a bank in LA - she attended 2 depositions with her expensive lawyer AFTER Katrina, this lame excuse to catagorize her as a victim is nothing but a smoke screen to the reality that libelous comments were held accountable. She agressively fought this case for over 2 years with a prominent law firm in Ft. Lauderdale. So to say this is some poor low income person, you are being snowed by what seems to be her followers. If you read back about Carey Bock, she states she spent $20,000.00 to get her boys out of Dundee. For some poor person, where would she have come up with that? Even if it was on credit, most legitimate poor person usually doesn't have that kind of credit.

Even if you are poor, you know to put forwarding addresses to the Post Office. She clearly knew there was a trial, she admitted that in her USA Today article, so why didn't she call the courts? It seems she made a conscience decision to ignore it. After 2 years of fighting this case, it just doesn't go away. I bet even a poor person would know that.

Bock maliciously attacked Scheff and had nothing to substantiate it on. The jurors studied extensive evidence prior making this verdict. Defamation and invasion of privacy is not tolerated. The jury sent a strong message.

Just some thoughts for you to ponder on.

By  Anonymous, at Tue Nov 07, 02:19:00 AM  

The jury sends a strong message that freedom of speech has limits


Broward County, FL (October 11, 2006) – The Internet can be as destructive as it can be useful. This case will make people think twice before setting out on a campaign to destroy others.


Sue Scheff’s attorney David Pollack stated, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Sue Scheff has been a victim of Internet Defamation. After her daughter was abused and harmed at a teen help program (World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, WWASPS, Carolina Springs Academy), she set out to help others so they would not fall into the same trap.


WWASPS, a corporate giant, filed a lawsuit against Ms. Scheff in 2002 in an attempt to silence her. Ms. Scheff prevailed in a jury trial. WWASPS filed an appeal and again Ms. Scheff prevailed.


It is not often a person is awarded $11.3 million dollars from a jury of their peers. But in the case of Sue Scheff and her organization Parent’s Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE) v. Carey Bock, the jury felt compelled to send a very strong message – which they have. Included in their $11.3 million dollar verdict, they awarded Sue Scheff and PURE $5 million in punitive damages. “The punitive damages speak volumes,” says Scheff, “it was set to punish the defendant for what she did to my children and me. Just because you don’t like someone or what they do, it does not give you carte blanche to post false statements about a person on the Internet.”


Since 2001 PURE and Sue Scheff have helped thousands of families providing various resources for their children as well as works closely with the Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse (CAICA). Isabelle Zehnder of CAICA, said “you just can’t go around destroying people on the internet. The $11.3 million verdict should send a strong message.” She went on to say, “We work closely together, our organizations complement each other. We are both against abuse but not against treatment – there is a big difference.”


In the meantime, Carey Bock maliciously and intentionally started a campaign on an Internet forums against Sue Scheff and her organization, PURE. According to a witness during trial, Ms. Bock’s animosity towards Ms. Scheff had to do with the fact Sue Scheff would not disclose the name of a minor who was raped and Ms. Bock needed this child’s name for a potential documentary she would profit from. Ms. Bock lost that opportunity and went on a campaign to destroy Sue Scheff and PURE. Bock accepted $12,500.00 from WWASPS’ attorney, the very organization she claimed harmed her two boys, and the organization that Sue Scheff successfully defeated in a jury trial in August 2004.


One of the witnesses testified Carey Bock was infuriated that Sue Scheff would not provide her with the information about the child. The jurors saw Ms. Bock’s e-mails and postings, one of which threatened: “Sue, you are going down, I bet you are scared to death!”


With no other way to defend herself and her children, Ms. Scheff filed a lawsuit against Carey Bock and Ginger Warbis/Fornits Website in December 2003.


Ms. Bock was represented by Jan Atlas of Adorno and Yoss until June 2006 when Mr. Atlas withdrew as counsel, shortly after Ms. Bock was deposed and revealed the only reason she defamed and nearly destroyed Sue Scheff and her organization was simply because she didn’t like her. After Jan Atlas withdrew from the case, the Judge postponed the trial to give Ms. Bock ample time to find new counsel or represent herself. Obviously, Ms. Bock chose to ignore these options and did not even attend her own trial.


What is rather shocking is that after Sue Scheff was awarded $11.3 million because she was defamed and harmed on the Internet, and after the Daily Business Review reported this tremendous victory, a press release was submitted filled with false allegations and inaccuracies in an attempt to deflate this victory and to further harm Ms. Scheff. The inaccuracies are as follows:


• They claim Philip Elberg defeated Sue Scheff and PURE on behalf of his client, Ginger Warbis/Fornits.

The case was dismissed without prejudice - meaning it can be brought back to court on the same claim. It was the decision of Sue Scheff and her Attorney, David Pollack, to focus on one defendant. Philip Elberg won nothing from this case.


• They claim Sue Scheff filed a counter-suit against WWASPS that was dismissed.


They fail to say the case was dismissed on a jurisdictional issue, not on the merits of the case.


• They claim Sue Scheff refers children to abusive programs due to her referrals of children to the Whitmore Academy.


For over 30 years The Whitmore had a successful program with no allegations of abuse.


• They claim Cheryl Sudweeks, owner of the Whitmore Academy, pled guilty to specified charges in a Utah criminal court.


Cheryl did not admit any guilt. There was NO substantiated evidence against the Whitmore. The state admittedly had no case and agreed to a plea in abeyance. An article misstated facts and later corrected their mistakes, claiming Cheryl could never run a youth program in the county for the rest of her life. This is not true and they corrected their error.


• They assert Ms. Scheff makes money from the plight of frightened parents.


Ms. Scheff does not charge the parents for her services. To the contrary, Ms. Scheff is a parent and child advocate.


• They claim a Federal Judge told Ms. Scheff to remove misrepresentations from her website showing she had a college degree.


Ms. Scheff’s bio was written by a third-party. Within 24-hours she found the error and had it immediately corrected and removed; the Judge had nothing to do with it.


• They claim Sue Scheff won by default.


A jury of her peers reviewed evidence, deliberated for hours, and concluded her damages equaled $11.3 million dollars, $5 million of which were punitive.

• They claim the case had no merit.


This case had merit - it was defended for over 2 years - the facts spoke for themselves. The trial with a jury verdict of damages over $11.3 million sends a loud message. You can’t post lies and false statements about people simply because you don’t like them or what they do.


• They claim this was an empty and hollow victory.

A verdict of $11.3 million is far from empty or hollow. Whether is it collectible or not, the message is worth $11.3 million. Not all positive gains are weighed financially.


The press release dated October 10, 2006, was filled with inaccuracies and was obviously written to further discredit Sue Scheff and PURE.


After the trial was over, the jurors waited in the hall to meet with Ms. Scheff. They embraced her and told her that they wanted to send a message that people can’t use the Internet to invade a person’s privacy or to destroy lives. They encouraged Sue Scheff to continue her good work with children and families. This is not a default judgment.

By  Anonymous, at Tue Nov 07, 02:22:00 AM  

um, thanks for posting the press release sue's company wrote.

By  ns, at Wed Nov 08, 12:57:00 PM  

The fake press release above was paid for and written by Sue Scheff's friend, fattie Isabelle Zehnder. The "Sue Scheff" posted it above. The real and true press wrote the following about a famous lawyer who beat the hell out of Sue Scheff and the case she filed against his client was DISMISSED:

"Lawyer, Philip Elberg, of Medvin & Elberg of Newark, New Jersey, sharply criticized Scheff and other people who refer parents to programs for troubled teens. ‘People in this industry have consistently used their money and their access to lawyers to silence critics of the industry and this may be one of those examples,’ Elberg said. ‘Sue Scheff is simply another person in the industry of people who make money from the plight of frightened parents.’”

By  Anonymous, at Wed Nov 08, 07:04:00 PM  

Let's get one thing clear: Isabelle Zehnder and Sue Scheff are doing the fake "press" postings. Sue Scheff won only by default, meaning Carey Bock did not show up.

Sue Scheff is like a street prostitute: She's been around the block so many times, nobody wants to hear her sing and dance anymore for fear of catching something. She needs to get a real job.

By  Anonymous, at Thu Nov 09, 07:28:00 PM  

Check out what Sue Scheff just tried to do to Fornits.com

http://sueschefftruth.com/?p=8
http://www.fornits.com/fornitsfightsback.htm

By  psy, at Tue Aug 07, 10:22:00 PM  

and check out the civil complaint filed against Sue Scheff in Green vs. Scheff, et al:

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=671777&mc=3&forum_id=2

By  wathinwheels, at Mon Aug 13, 05:06:00 PM  

lol!

By  Sue Scheff SUED!, at Mon Aug 20, 01:19:00 PM