Sunday, May 18, 2008
ban repealed for wrong reasons, but replealed nonetheless
unfortunately, the ban was repealed not because the council realized it has no purview over foods we eat:
Anybody who has traveled anywhere in this country knows that people are just laughing their heads off at us.it was repealed almost unanimously, the same way it was passed. here's a great article on the year-long silly saga.
-Council member on the ban, which he supported
Labels: political
the trackback URL for "ban repealed for wrong reasons, but replealed nonetheless" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/5767859841661942129
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
what jefferson 1 is about.
to me, this is certainly not about the questionable dancing of some participants, or the questionable activities of thomas jefferson. to me this is not about misuse of public property, it is not about race. this is not about the interaction between the jefferson 1 and the officer, the group's motives, or what the law should be.
this is about the transparent enforcement of a clear rule of law, and the need for easy access to laws. officers could not cite any type of rule authorizing the arrest. this strongly suggests they either a) didn't know one or b) didn't think she needed to know. this is about detaining a human being without citing or, as it seems, having, just cause. it's moreover about the real possibility that countless individuals outside the jefferson 1's socioeconomic status are arrested without being shown the law in writing. and they may not have the resources to fight back. they mayn't feel that they even should fight back. that is what this is about.
the albeit flawed founders were generally in favor of a government with clear, set rules not subject to the whim of the ruler like their former king, or his extensions in the form of a state. this is about that perhaps-impossible ideal, as certainly there are unavoidable gray areas in enforcement. but this is about asking the law's representatives to move a little closer towards that ideal.
that's what i think, anyway.
the trackback URL for "what jefferson 1 is about." is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/8204698540268552435
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Monday, April 14, 2008
mill's psychology of subjection
An active and energetic mind, if denied liberty, will seek for power: refused the command of itself, it will assert its personality by attempting to control others.he (and likely, his wife) further argue:
To allow to any human beings no existence of their own but what depends on others, is giving far too high a premium on bending others to their purposes. Where liberty cannot be hoped for, and power can, power becomes the grand object of human desire; those to whom others will not leave the undisturbed management of their own affairs, will compensate themselves, if they can, by meddling for their own purposes with the affairs of others.this puts to mind another theory on power-seeking, a rephrasing of adler's theory in j. burns' leadership:
human beings strive toward power to overcome and compensate for inevitable childhood feelings of inferiority, impotence, and dependence on adultsso, subjection creates the desire for subjecting in its victims. (n.b. the cycle of subjection bastiat attributes to other causes)
of course, mill's essay has many more gems than this. visit the librivox project page to be notified when the audiobook is complete. better yet, volunteer yourself!
Labels: misc. psych, political
the trackback URL for "mill's psychology of subjection" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/2325781616110935144
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Sunday, April 13, 2008
illegal peaceful assembly
find details here from:
the event's co-organizer
the agitator
megan at the atlantic
outside the beltway
below the beltway
julian sanchez
f & s .org
peaceful assembly is, at times, restricted. what about this case? certain elements seem suspicious, including that police refused to give badge numbers or cite cause for arrest. the memorial website states that it is open 24/7, but that "for planned events dependent upon the activity and number of participants a permit may be required." the number and nature criteria are oddly missing. the phone line is closed on weekends so we must wait for monday to find out.
but whatever the case, it reminds me of a certain movie about dancing...
update: eye-witness interview
update 2: great article in the american spectator on the incident. though the eye-witness interview is down, footage of the incident is online now.
the trackback URL for "illegal peaceful assembly" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/8473927311092083274
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Monday, March 31, 2008
a fruit by any other name...
but back to the fruit vs. vegetable issue. as this post notes, in 1893 the US Supreme Court officially put these national fruit/vegetable concerns to rest. in a case on vegetable tariff duties, it declared that the tomato is really a vegetable. however, do not fear: the enthralling tomato wiki site assures us that:
the tomato remains a fruit when not dealing with US tariffsthe tomato is a fruit and legally a vegetable. confused yet? if not, check out what is, and what is not, actually a berry. you will be surprised, and possibly indignant.
Labels: misc. science, political
Fruits are a subset of vegetables. Glad to see your back on the blog trolley.
By 
Tom, at
Wed Apr 02, 01:34:00 AM
the trackback URL for "a fruit by any other name..." is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/4008291966464776840
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
can we bury the past and still think of the future?
apparently, there aren't many anymore. these "corrective labor camps" which murdered over one million for crimes against the soviet state, are now simply things such as "just a village for miners," according to one girl. even those who lived through such horrors don't speak of it.
if freud is to be believed, some "forgetting" is natural and healthy. however, as thoughts of the future are inexorably linked to those of the past, i.e. our memories, in our brains, i wonder how this rewrite of the past is changing survivors' abilities to think about the future.
read more about the gulags here or here and, for the bookish, here.
Labels: misc. psych, neuroscience, political
the trackback URL for "can we bury the past and still think of the future?" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/3324769988394306576
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Sunday, December 31, 2006
trust II, eastern eurpoe
though the data (PDF) isn't in percents, we can still see categorical differences between the US and eastern europe. trust in individuals is high in both the US and eastern eurpoe, but trust in military scores higher than individuals there, interestingly/ disturbingly. trust in the primary leader and the press are high as well. i would love to see an update; so much has changed since 1998. i also wish they had included the baltic tigers.
another interesting item to note from the data: 88% of ukrainians are either agnostic or distrusting of police. that's 81% in russia. of those who do trust the police only 13% and 17% in ukraine and russia respectively expect fair treatment. the other figures are disturbingly revealing about how opaque and corrupt government still is for our post-soviet friends.
the paper itself is very interesting (though a bit long in the tooth):
Real trouble arises when one trusts public officials to behave like friends or kinsmen in making public decisions. Conversely, if trust in friends is generalized so that people assume the good will of strangers, a society can economize on some of the coercive apparatus of the state.
Labels: political
the trackback URL for "trust II, eastern eurpoe" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/5628990954588976480
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
trust in institutions
yet a different study reveals that if anything midwesterners are the more trusting bunch. a survey taken earlier this year by zogby interactive noted that only 30% of americans have complete trust in congress. for comparison, the other trust numbers were:
corporate leaders, 7%how the media beats corporate leaders for trustworthiness confuses me, but perhaps it's still enron/imclone backlash. or, our bias to view those giving us new information as highly knowledgeable.
the media, 11%
the president, 24%
the courts, 29%
friends & co-workers, 75%
so what of the midwesterners' odd trust, if the two US surveys can indeed be linked (which, granted, is a dubious statistical leap because of different samples and different questions)? let's look at a map of economic freedom in the US:
lighter = more free. "midwest" in the survey was MI, OH, MN, WI, IL.
so maybe more unfree=more trusting? if so, which came first? draw your own conclusions, of course. this is only one measure; the midwest probably differs in a countless ways, e.g. friendliness, industries, size/make-up of immigrant populations, culture, caramel apple consumption, etc. and we also don't know what trust levels were in those other dark states.
more on silly map comparisons.
Labels: political
the trackback URL for "trust in institutions" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/4673133364588778523
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Saturday, December 23, 2006
revealed preference: pot beats corn and wheat
some quotes from the ABC article:
"Just because it's a good cash crop doesn't mean you should legalize and tax it." -- DEAperhaps this report will make people wonder: if pot is such a huge industry, and so many people do it, is it really that deleterious?despite massive eradication efforts at the hands of the federal government, "marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of the national economy."
The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).
if the United States legalized marijuana, the country would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and could generated as much as $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.
so why not legalize? here are just a few reasons. we have an entire governmental industry and propaganda machine built to serve the drug war. an entire governmental industry = lots of jobs, and it's hard to muster support for such a huge cut. this propaganda machine funded a lot of scientists and government officials to say lots of crazy things, which brings egos into the equation. and at the risk of sounding like a paranoid nut, many privacy infringements are rationalized by the drug war that would be made less justifiable if it were no more. although, the patriot act may be able to substitute now...
:P
merry Christmas to you down in FL!!
come to chicago. the weather's great.
By ns, at
Tue Dec 26, 01:43:00 AM
the trackback URL for "revealed preference: pot beats corn and wheat" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/116685613412168122
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Thursday, October 12, 2006
i think sue scheff is a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
and unlike the poor woman she just won 11.3 million dollars from, a katrina survivor who couldn't afford to hire a lawyer or show up to trial, i have the resources to defend my first amendment rights in court.
so there.
Labels: political
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, 05:04:00 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 
, at
Wed Oct 18, 11:42:00 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, 01:17:00 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.
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 , at
Thu Oct 19, 01:28:00 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.
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 , at
Sun Oct 22, 10:40:00 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.
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, 07:31:00 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?
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 , at
Mon Oct 30, 08:32:00 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 , at
Mon Oct 30, 08:42:00 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 , at
Tue Oct 31, 08:13:00 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 , at
Tue Oct 31, 08:15:00 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 , at
Wed Nov 01, 07:19:00 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 , at
Wed Nov 01, 07:21:00 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 , at
Tue Nov 07, 03:19:00 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 , at
Tue Nov 07, 03:22:00 AM
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 , at
Wed Nov 08, 08:04:00 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 , at
Thu Nov 09, 08:28:00 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, 11:22:00 PM
the trackback URL for "i think sue scheff is a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/116067661084248234
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Saturday, August 26, 2006
today in the news
"I'm calling on all parents to diligently monitor the video games that their children are allowed to play. If the courts can not protect our children, then we need to do it by rejecting the merchant of violence," the statement said.i'm so glad she's urging folks to fill in the parenting gaps left by the first amendment. a US district judge overturned a louisiana law banning violent video games, writing "depictions of violence are entitled to full constitutional protection."
so what about depictions of nudity?
also...
big pharma + government = medicare. from the AP: medicare ads paid by drug industry, though "the US chamber of commerce claims credit... although a spokesman refused repeatedly to say whether it had received any funds" etc. etc.
Labels: political
the trackback URL for "today in the news" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/115660743002884175
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Monday, August 21, 2006
government = terrorist cell?
the use of force against people or property to create fear and to get publicity for political causes.hm...
Labels: political
the trackback URL for "government = terrorist cell?" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/115619634126316567
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
are we more afraid of terrorism than we were of communism?
So why is the post 9/11 era more frightening than the post 1945 era? After all, the world actually almost ended during the Cuban Missile Crisis. While exploding airplanes and dirty subway bombs are destructive and tragic, they aren't Armageddon. We were closer to the Rapture in 1962 than we are in 2006.the answer proposed? terrorists are more unpredictable, and so activate the amygdala. the soviets were part of an institution engaged in stable relations whose actions, though dangerous, were typically conducted via established memes and diplomatic veins, therefore partially predictable.
interesting theory!
for more on psychology and attitude towards terrorism, see cass sunsein's post on mortality salience and support for the war/bush.
Labels: neuroscience, political
the trackback URL for "are we more afraid of terrorism than we were of communism?" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/115575062605911654
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
from the onion
the trackback URL for "from the onion" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/115513651259672812
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Saturday, August 05, 2006
mexoryl approved!
although it's good news, i'm still glad i stocked up in toronto a couple weeks ago; SPF 15, i'm afraid, just won't do it for my irish self.
the trackback URL for "mexoryl approved!" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/115481131975409319
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Saturday, June 17, 2006
hayek and the pope: the harmony of the spheres
this week some i had the pleasure of attending acton university. i thought i'd share with you (i.e., try not to butcher) an interesting concept i learned from catholic social thought: subsidiarity.as i understand it, this concept contends that a number of spheres surround each individual. the closest sphere consists of your most intimate acquaintances, such as the immediate family. this is followed by spheres with less and less familiarity, from friends and extended family to the spheres of the church, community, and finally government.
subsidiarity suggests that when problems arise, it is best to consult the sphere closest to you and move outward if that sphere is unable or unwilling to help. this continues until you reach the outermost sphere which presumably consists of the highest level of government. in a society that took subsidiarity seriously, i wonder whether we would ever reach those outermost spheres.
pope leo XII, who developed the concept developed in the encyclical rerum novarum of 1891, seems to have beat hayek to the punch with the concept of local knowledge. or, perhaps, hayek received his early understanding of this concept from his catholic upbringing. we'll never know, i suppose!
- - -
we also had the pleasure of hearing the former prime minister of estonia, mart laar. you can listen to it here in MP3.
Brian Doherty brought up subsidiarity in one of my favorite articles at Reason back in the fall of '04.
By , at
Sun Jun 18, 07:31:00 PM
what a great article! that's what i get for not being as loyal a reason reader as i should. a great quote:
"One of government's most pernicious effects is the way it colonizes our consciousness, in a manner deeper and more significant than advertising or markets ever manage. I would call upon my fellow citizens to loosen the mental bondage government has over them, to ignore it rather than engage in pointless and hopeless efforts to change it..."
By ns, at
Sun Jun 18, 08:59:00 PM
the trackback URL for "hayek and the pope: the harmony of the spheres" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/115059724757713709
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Monday, May 29, 2006
casino tricks
it's interesting, then, that more casinos haven't gone smoke-free in their effort to get people to stick around. no-smoke.org lists only a handful of non-smoking casinos and (snicker) bingo parlors (PDF).
i suppose this suggests evidence for the point that smoke doesn't significantly effect consumer decisions, as las vegas has probably invested plenty of research into what does. one must ask: if the public does prefer smokeless casinos , why don't they demand them? i'm sure there are many reasons. my inner statistician (demographer?) suggests (as i'm sure many others have done) that the gambling subpopulation's preferences differ substantially from the aggregate population's. folks bothered by smoke may be the minority in gambling groups but the majority in the general population. this may make sense because of general gambling culture and because gambling folks probably have higher incidence of risk-taking & addictive personalities. yet on top of paternalistic concerns, the aggregate population can probably imagine going to a casino so still have a self-interest in regulating the smoke-free casino game.
update: on a similar note, "brothels ask exemption from smoking ban"
Labels: decision making, political
the trackback URL for "casino tricks" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/114879355781939264
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
political stereotypes and decisions
of course, it is unclear whether such traits and values make one more likely to be a liberal or conservative, or whether "membership" in an ideological community or thinking about the logical consequences of one's ideology bends personality over time (a la cognitive dissonance perhaps?). to answer this question, we'd have to discover which came first, personality or ideology, or if they are reciprocally influential.
the statistical significance* of these results implies that there is such a thing as one true "liberal" and "conservative," casting doubt on the idea of at least one kind of diversity in political parties. in fact, a new study by dan klein (PDF) surveyed a large group of academics on voting behavior and policy issues. results indicate that policy preference among conservatives is rather diverse, with wide-ranging views on tariffs, drug controls, marriage, etc. however, modern liberalism was not such a big tent philosophy. liberal academics, it turns out, give nearly the same response to most policy questions.
so given the results of klein's study in light of this new one, it may be that traits and values commonly held by liberals lend themselves more readily to interpreting policy in one particular way. that is, their personality characteristics are a more useful or universal "lens" through which to interpret societal ideas.
then are conservative decisions based on more rational calculations? conservatives should not toot their horns too soon, as recent evidence suggests that most individuals, regardless of ideology, make their policy decisions based on emotion rather than rational thought. so perhaps conservative values and traits are just less relevant to the political world (which may make sense looking at the traits; i don't think this kind of "energetic" has anything to do with enron).
*interestingly, emotional stability was not strongly correlated with either voting pattern. :)
Labels: decision making, ideology, political
Are you sure the inconsistency of "conservative" positions doesn't simply reflect the fact that libertarian voters are often labeled conservative? I bet if you first bisected the "conservative" group into social conservatives and libertarians, you'd have a lot more consistency in their answers.
By , at
Tue Apr 11, 10:29:00 PM
I would say that a focus on individualism, broadly defined, would lead a group to more heterogenous opinions. It could also be that a personal elevation of some trait, say, equality or security over entrepreneurship and liberty would lead to a more homogenous conclusion -- increased state control (ensures security -- the very idea of a safety net). I am willing to bet, also, Nikki, that your personality traits would have strong gender correlations adn professional correlations. One would expect professors to have homogenous views of security and egalitarianism -- they enter a field in which the sole focus of work is security (tenure)and risk aversion (no one is ever "wrong" as an academic, just uninteresting. I bet more emergency room surgeons, holding healthcare policy positions constant, are conservative. When they are wrong people die).
-JC
By , at
Tue Apr 11, 11:05:00 PM
glad you like the name, lizzie :)
anonymous #1, good point, that may be part of it, although the study did allow respondents to designate themselves as libertarian as well (and 12, or 1.17% of respondents, did so), and also as green. one did designate him/herself as both libertarian and republican. interestingly, seven (.68%) designated as both democrat and republican. anyway, the part of the study i’m talking about only analyzed policy responses in the democrat vs. republican respondents. the beginning of the paper gives many reasons for this, including the one you mention – republicans and libertarians vary on policy decisions so much that it would throw the sample. they note that republicans are closer to democrats on most issues.
By ns, at
Wed Apr 12, 12:14:00 AM
interesting points JC, i'm still digesting them. according to your profession-based values theory, it's interesting that academics, who should value conservative traits like tradition and security, are the most liberal. hm. but again, perhaps those "conservative" values don't correlate to policy decisions whereas other values they hold (like those discussed in this survey, openness, benevolence, etc.) do.
i also wonder about gender correlations, although unfortunately the study isn't broken down that way. :(
By ns, at
Wed Apr 12, 12:24:00 AM
the trackback URL for "political stereotypes and decisions" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/114451339396648865
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Thursday, February 23, 2006
"trustiness" of the historic trust
it's too bad that an organization dedicated to preserving private property tries to restrict private construction. however, they're not completely anti-liberty. although they do have a veritable toolkit for restricting property rights, much of their odd drugstore crusade seems targeted at the corporate level, allowing for consensual, mutually beneficial, preservation. although, for my dime i'd rather cheap medicine and an ugly building to the reverse.
more from FH on private conservation: prairie chickens (no joke), and an archeological site
the trackback URL for ""trustiness" of the historic trust" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/113978127835757820
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
wanting what you can't have: case study
the book sounds fascinating; he even risked caning in singapore to eat illicit crackers under the nose of police officers. in an article about his book, taras writes this interesting (granted, perhaps hackneyed) tidbit of pop psych:
Everywhere I went I saw confirmation of a lesson humanity should have learnt in 17th-century Constantinople (where the sultans tried, and failed, to ban coffee)... ban something, and it only becomes stronger, costlier and more coveted than ever before.
Labels: political
the trackback URL for "wanting what you can't have: case study" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/113980852989496271
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Monday, February 13, 2006
buckshot brouhaha
i'm just not sure the press is justified in freaking out on this one. is there a reason we, the public, needed to be notified immediately of the incident? it's a semi-regular event in hunting, the guy is fine, he wasn't a foreign dignitary. i can't imagine how it could possibly have affected even domestic politics unless it had sparked another heart attack.
not that i'm a fan of hunting, shooting people, or the vice president. but really, let's focus, people! in other news, people being shot every day on cheney and bush's orders received little press today.
update: another, more hilarious, shooting incident - "man's elbow, mistaken for squirrel, shot"
Labels: political
What you and the rest of the mainstream media aren't reporting is that a champion of property rights was shot by a high level government official: http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/02/injured_geezer.php
He was a threat and the powers that be arranged to have him taken out. Sweep it under the rug if you want but the people demand the truth.
My tinfoil hat is itchy.
By JA$ON, at
Mon Feb 13, 06:49:00 PM
ok, my last comment was jokey but I do respectfully disagree with this post. The man suffered from a heart attack today from complications due to the shooting.
The spin is that this "guy is fine" as you wrote but I don't buy it. Stay tuned hedgehogs.
By JA$ON, at
Tue Feb 14, 08:12:00 PM
Post a Comment