Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

One Response to “$11.3M online defamation award”

1. Reader's Write Says:
   October 11th, 2006 at 9:31 pm

   I thought being a crack-head disqualified a person from jury duty.

2. Reader's Write Says:
   October 11th, 2006 at 10:03 pm

   “Scheff wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet, says the story. “I’m sure (Bock) doesn’t have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear,” it has her saying. “People are using the Internet to destroy people they don’t like, and you can’t do that.”

   But the wealthy can use a flawed legal system to destroy people they don’t like, or express a negative opinion of them. That’s perfectly ok.

3. Reader's Write Says:
   October 11th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

   “Her remark came in reference to a suit lodged against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a “crook,” a “con artist” and a “fraud,”"

   It appears the Louisiana Woman was giving opinions and execizing her free speech right. Why, from the words “crook,” a “con artist” and a “fraud,” she could have been talking of just about any American legislator or even Bush.

   As someone said, free speech is very expensive.

4. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 3:33 am

   I think money should be raised to help Carey Bock, a Hurricane Katrina survivor. appeal this outrageous and ridiculous award to a the greedy capitalist pig in south Florida, Sue Scheff. This isn’t just chilling free speech—it’s a deep freeze on our constitutional rights for God’s sake!!!

5. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 4:48 am

   This is insane. Sue was pissed because Carey was hurting business. In this case the business at hand is referring parents to programs they could ship their kids away to when they’re not behaving, no matter if abuse charges were pending against the facility or not. See Whitmore Academy. http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asp#whitmore Sick. Greedy. Self-righteous jerk.

6. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 5:27 am

   Sue Scheff Wins $11.3 Million in Internet Defamation & Invasion of Privacy Claim in Jury Trial

   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.

   In October 2006, Sue Scheff was honored as “Child Advocate of the Month” by the Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse. Furthermore, on October 9, 2006, the Miami Herald spotlighted Sue Scheff and PURE for their dedication to helping families.

   http://www.helpyourteens.com

   http://www.caica.org

7. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 6:44 am

   The other side of the story:

   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.’”

   The Daily Business Review, noting that Scheff won effectively only by default, paraphrased Scheff’s attorney, stating, “Bock was not present for the jury trial, which was held to determine damages only. . . .”

   Ironically, a separate lawsuit had been filed in Utah against Scheff and PURE by the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP), containing similar allegations as those raised by Scheff against the New Orleans mom. Scheff lost all counter-claims against WWASP but was not found liable for claims of damage allegedly caused when Scheff posted Internet statements asserting child abuse by WWASP. Scheff admitted she used false names to do so. While her case pended, Scheff removed representations from her web site which falsely stated Scheff holds a college degree.

   The recent Florida verdict also ignored abuse allegations at children’s programs to which Scheff refers families because the jury never heard the opposing evidence. The owner of one such program to which Scheff made referrals, Whitmore Academy, was initially charged with multiple counts of child abuse and hazing in connection with four children at the boarding school. The owner recently pled no contest to four counts of hazing, and was ordered to pay fines and complete community service. The prosecuting attorney told the Deseret News, “I believe it effectively shuts them down in the state of Utah.” According to a September 2006 news article by the Deseret News, “The former operator of a therapeutic school [Whitmore Academy] for troubled youths, who has been kicked out of Mexico and accused of starving horses in Canada, has agreed not to run another rehabilitation school in Juab County.”

   The allegations of child abuse did not deter Scheff from enrolling children for a profitable sum of money. In a separate case, the United States Court of Appeals found that defendants PURE and Sue Scheff, “[C]ompete with the schools associated with World Wide. PURE schools pay Ms. Scheff a substantial sum whenever a child enrolls in its program based on her recommendation.”

   According to the non-profit International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC), Scheff and her company are on the ISAC “watch list” for questionable practices that may place children at risk for abuse or neglect. ####

   Sources:

   http://www.isaccorp.org/

   http://www.helpatanycost.com/

   http://www.isaccorp.org/referrals.asp

   http://michellesuttonmemorial.homestead.com/

   http://www.help-for-teen.com/

   http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/home.html

   http://www.wwaspinfo.com/

   http://www.teenhelpindustry.info/

   http://www.paulareeves.com/

   http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/

   http://www.kathymoya.com/index.html

   http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&aId=19977

   http://www.majon.com/advanced/pressreleases/paulareeves.html

   http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650192749,00.html

8. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 12:40 pm

   Any p2pnet is amazed why this is a Story

   Looks like defaming someone can be expensive Mr Newton if you make unsubstantiated claims against someone .

9. Reader's Write Says:
   October 12th, 2006 at 3:31 pm

   • 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.

   Why hasn’t she brought it again then? She’ll sue Carey who has no means of defending herself but when they come up against a real lawyer, the run.

   • 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.

   Then bring the case again. Surely with this win you’re confident you’d prevail here too, right?

   • 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.

   The Whitmore hasn’t even been in business for 30 years and Sue most certainly did refer parents to Whitmore long after the abuse allegations arose and charges had been filed.

   • 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.

   Cheryl pled ‘no contest’ to hazing….not attempted hazing…hazing. The state said they were worried about some credibility issues with witnesses. You’re talking about kids who have already been labeled “troubled”. it’s not so difficult to see why he was reluctant to put them on the stand.

   • 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.

   No, it’s worse. Sue Scheff gets paid by the schools she refers to. She absolutely does make money off the plight of frightened parents.

   • 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.

   Mmm hmmm. And the psychologist and attorney that were supposedly employed by or associated with PURE??? Turns out there was an attorney who WORKED IN THE SAME BUILDING. That’s not exactly part of your staff now, is 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.

   A jury of her peers never laid eyes on Carey or heard anything in her defense. The woman was busy putting her life together after Katrina. She was busy helping her kids cope with life after being subjected to an abusive facility. She had absolutely no money for an attorney or to even travel for the court appearances. How exactly do you surmise that the jury ‘reviewed all the evidence’?

   • 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.

   It was not defended. At all. It’s not a matter of not liking Sue, although I don’t at all, it’s a matter of the truth.

   • 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.

   It is hollow. A sham and a shame. Sue should be ashamed of herself.

10. Reader's Write Says:
    October 12th, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    It’s time that people start to realize - when you say something online; you’re going to have to take measures to protect yourself if what you’re saying is controversial. A nice toy that can be used to completely mask your identity while browsing (and posting to blogs) is called Torpark.

    Sure, Torpark is slow, it hangs now and then and you have to refresh when it hits a slow group that you’re connected to; however, I’d rather my browsing (during posting) be slow and anonymous vs logged and traceable.

    Basically it connects to what’s called ‘The Onion Router’. Through dozens of connections between you and your ultimate site you’re viewing/posting to. Every point from you through to the last hop is encrypted - your isp, the person next to you, nobody knows what you’re viewing and saying with of course exception of the last hop that can only tell what your sending to non https pages but that last hop doesn’t have any idea who you are or how many people are between you and them.

    As it stands, it’s one of the easiest ways to browse the net in a secure form and can be ran from a usb key fob or I’d suggest something even more secure for the truly paranoid - download truecrypt and make a encrypted bubble to store Torpark inside of on your local drive or on the usb key fob and when you want to use the browser you’d have to mount your secure drive and run from there.

    Of course, read the Torpark site before trusting your life to it as if you’re concerned about local tracks there are steps that need taken (cache issues etc) that I’m not going to go into now.

    Anyway, browse/post/download safe ya’ll.

    Related links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpark
    http://www.torrify.com/download.php (Download TorPark here)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truecrypt
    http://www.truecrypt.org/downloads.php (Download Truecrypt here)

    Just my 10 cents,
    _-Jile-_

11. Reader's Write Says:
    October 17th, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    Thats horrible, i for one am i former student of one of the places they refer kids to, from Jamacia, one, the woman from WESTON,Fl to be living in weston isnt in dire need of the money that im sure all comes from the profit of sending kids to these horrible places, but to go full steam at a woman who has lost so much, to have to have relocated, to sue her for speaking what she feels is just down right wrong, TO THE WOMAN IN WESTON, to be in this business you know you will get the FACTS thrown at you some time or another, I hope one day PURE and WWASP will get what they deserve!!!

12. Reader's Write Says:
    October 22nd, 2006 at 2:21 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.

    Just some thoughts for you to ponder on.

13. Reader's Write Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    Unfortunately the person posting above (negative comments) is still harbouring negative feelings and has his/her own agenda. It’s evident when he/she says: “It’s not a matter of not liking Sue, although I don’t at all, it’s a matter of the truth.”

    The case was won on merit and nothing else. A jury deliberated for hours after hearing days of testimony and looking through volumes of documentation.

    About the Whitmore - so far, nothing concrete has come out of this. The state admitted they had no case which is why they did not take it to trial. There is a lot there that people are not aware of but that eventually will be told.

    Sue Scheff has worked for 7 years trying to help families and children. She advocates for parents who have troubled teens, helping them to find safe options and giving them resources. The people posting negative comments used to call her a friend but became disgruntled when she did not do exactly what they wanted her to do. These are radical people who claim all residential programs for kids should be shut down, which is rediculous. They are not all bad, though many are and those need to be addressed. Child abuse, neglect, and deaths do occur and again, that needs attention. Sue will be the first to let people know this.

    So beware of what people say and remember Sue has won twice in jury trials. Once when she was sued by a huge corporation that was trying to silence her from getting the truth out about the abuse her daughter endured in one of their programs (WWASPS). And once when she won $11.3 M for Internet Defamation and Invasion of Privacy. Believe me, juries don’t just give out those types of awards for minor bickering and a few nasty words on the Internet. This was bad, what they did to Sue. It was when they brought her children into it that she decided to file a lawsuit. Her children had been through enough.

14. Reader's Write Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Sue Scheff Reveals What Led to the $11.3 M Victory

    Parent’s Universal Resource Experts, Inc.
    10/15/2006 10:21:57 PM

    WebWire Related Industries
    • Class Actions/Lawsuits
    • Education
    • Government
    • Legal Issues
    • Politics
    Weston, FL (October 15th, 2006) I understand the hopelessness, helplessness, frustration and desperation felt by parents with troubled teens. I’ve been there.

    In 2000 I enrolled my daughter in the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) program, Carolina Springs Academy in South Carolina. Six months after she was enrolled I learned she was hospitalized without my knowledge. With that information compounded by the strange WWASPS seminars I attended, I withdrew her.

    I discovered the abuse my daughter endured and learned of other families who had been through similar experiences, I felt compelled to speak out; to turn a negative into a positive. I created my organization, Parents Universal Resource Experts, Inc. (PURE) in January 2001, and launched my website http://www.helpyourteens.com. In an effort to help other desperate parents, I shared our experiences with WWASPS on my website.

    In January 2002 WWASPS sued me and my organization for defamation in an attempt to silence me. After over two years of litigation, I won in a jury trial in 2004. They appealed and again I won the appeal in 2006 and continue to share my story today.

    In September 2002 Carey Bock contacted me asking for help to get her boys out of a WWASPS program. I supplied her with information of other parents and a consultant who had recently visited there.

    In October 2002 Carey Bock had her sons removed from the WWASPS program with a bodyguard and camera crews.

    In November 2002 Carey asked me for private information about minor children to use in a film. I refused to give her the names, as I felt it was an invasion of the children’s privacy. As a result of this, Bock began an all-out campaign to destroy me over the Internet. She committed Internet Defamation and Invasion of Privacy.

    The ironic twist was in 2003 Carey Bock contacted WWASPS’ attorneys and negotiated a price for her computer hard drive which contained private information of many families and private e-mails from me that she believed would incriminate me. According to a deposition she gave for the WWASPS v. Sue Scheff, et al. lawsuit in December 2003, Carey Bock asked for $100,000 and settled for $12,500. She accepted money from the same organization she claims harmed her children.

    That same year Carey Bock started a hate campaign against me on Internet Forums. She received a copy of my private deposition taken for the case WWASPS had against me. In her deposition she states the transcript just appeared in her mailbox (no return address). This deposition transcript contained highly confidential and private information about my children and me. Carey Bock began posting portions of the deposition transcript on the Internet, threatening to post the entire transcript online.

    In December 2003 I hired an attorney, David Pollack, in an attempt to stop this from happening. In February 2003 Carey retained the same law firm that represented WWASPS (again the same organization that she claims abused her sons) to defend her. In her deposition taken in 2005 she claimed she did not know who paid for her legal fees.

    During Bock’s campaign to further discredit me, many people begged her to stop. I was fearful to have any contact with her since it was obvious she would stop at nothing. The attempts of others to get her to stop only escalated the vicious attacks.

    In June 2006 Carey Bock’s legal counsel withdrew from the Internet Defamation and Invasion of Privacy lawsuit. The Judge postponed the trial to give Ms. Bock ample time to locate new counsel or represent herself. In July 2006 it seems Bock decided to ignore all court requests and my attorney’s telephone calls and mailings.

    In September 2006 a Broward County jury spent two days in court listening to extensive evidence (volumious postings and emails). The jurors heard from five witnesses, including a Psychologist. They deliberated for hours and came back with a verdict of $11.3 million, $5 million in punitive damages.

    I was as shocked as everyone else with the verdict the jury returned. The jury shared with me their desire to send a strong message that you simply cannot destroy the lives of others over the Internet. This speaks volumes and I feel vindicated.

    Media have taken this story and run with it before finding out the facts of this case. Some portray Carey Bock as a Katrina victim. Katrina does not excuse her from her illegal actions.

    The misconception that Bock was without representation or could not afford it is simply another smoke screen in an attempt to condone what she did. Carey Bock was represented by a prestigious law firm in Florida for over two years. When they withdrew from her case she had ample time to find new counsel or represent herself.

    The Broward County Clerk’s Office, as well as David Pollack, continually sent her notices regarding the case including the trial date – it seems she made a conscious decision to ignore them. Some were returned. She claims she moved back to Louisiana. We wonder if she intentionally did not submit a forwarding address. The trial was postponed for two months in an attempt to give her adequate notice. This is not a default judgment.

    It has been a long five years, however, the victory of both trials have brought me vindication. The fact that I have been on both sides of the fence brings my story full circle.

    My book, “At Wits End”, is a place many parents end up when dealing with a difficult teen, as I did. It is also a place I ended up while defending myself. This book will chronicle both trials as well as much more. Look for it in spring of 2007.

15. Reader's Write Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 12:55 am

    Ditto to that.

16. Reader's Write Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    Katrina Victim Fights for Trial after $11.3 Million Default Judgment for Internet Blogging

    Carey Bock: Internet Blogging and Free Speech
    1/28/2007 3:03:56 PM

    WebWire Related Industries
    • Class Actions/Lawsuits
    • Government
    • Legal Issues
    • Media Advisory
    • Politics
    FT. LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA (January 30, 2007) - Carey Bock from Mandeville, Louisiana was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. She evacuated her family to a Texas apartment only to find her father was suffering from heart failure. Bock lost most of her money. One of Bock’s sons was in Iraq and the other son was in Germany. It seemed life couldn’t get much worse—that is, until Bock received word that a judgment in Broward County, Florida had entered against her for $11.3 million in a case filed by Sue Scheff and Parents Universal Resource Experts (PURE). Bock did not receive court notices after May 31, 2006.

    These facts are relevant according to Bock’s motion, filed in November 2006, to set aside the default. The Broward County judge will hear Bock’s motion against Scheff in early February 2007. A response by Scheff’s lawyer has not been filed with the court.

    Bock called Scheff a “crook,” a “con artist,” and a “fraud” over the Internet. Scheff told U.S.A. Today, October 11, 2006, that Scheff wanted to “make a point,” in suing Bock, but some feel Scheff went too far. According to Bock, she has witnesses who will testify in support of her opinions of Scheff.

    Scheff too was slapped with a lawsuit for similar Internet behavior directed at the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP). Scheff, unlike Bock, had business insurance covering her attorney fees. Scheff used false names when she blogged WWASP over the Internet.

    Scheff accused WWASP of fraud. Bock accused Scheff of fraud. The difference, some would argue, is only the ability to access lawyers.

    As oddity would have it, Scheff had a prior business association with WWASP. According to a United States Court of Appeals opinion, Scheff had been paid a substantial sum whenever Scheff referred a child to a WWASP program. After a “falling out” with the marketing arm of WWASP, Scheff now competes with WWASP. Some operators of the children’s programs to which Scheff refers have been accused of multiple counts of child abuse.

    The federal court held WWASP to be a limited purpose public figure and thus Scheff was not liable. Scheff too is a limited purpose public figure, according to Bock’s lawyer, because Scheff has cast herself in the public eye on the issues about which Bock has blogged.

    The chilling of speech is at issue. The sheer cost of defense may be enough to silence advocates attempting to expose fraud and child abuse in referral businesses—complaints, that is, such as those against Scheff and her company PURE. ###

    To contact Carey Bock, call (985) 789-9119 or by email at careycbock@aol.com. All news inquiries are welcome.

    Related Links

    Advocacy News
    http://www.waspsinfo.net

    Victim and Advocacy News
    http://www.isaccorp.org

    Legislation for Free Speech and Child Protection
    http://www.paulareeves.com

    Contact Information
    Carey Bock
    Defendant
    Carey Bock: Internet Blogging and Free Speech
    (985) 789-9119
    carey@careybock.com

17. Reader's Write Says:
    April 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Paula Reeves wrote this article. Good thing the truth is allowed to be told.

Leave a Reply