Maybe then Suzanne could publish all the letters of praise from her
trainings over the years. Maybe she could request and opinion of her
work from those that are not online....LOL...NOT...she would never
endanger her good reputation offline to appease these 15 STM's.

I have no doubt that Suzanne maintains an outstanding reputation
outside this online craziness. It has unfortunately bled over into
her personal life, her family life and offline professional life. All
over, like you say, a few people without the brains they were born
with.

Corinne

--- In FamilyRightsAdvocacyIMPROVEMENTProject@yahoogroups.com,
lbe818@... wrote:
>
>
> Corrine,
>
> I think there are many Suzanne supporters who are not online. When
I was in
> training in FT Collins, I was surprised to see how many people
popped in
> over the two days to say hello to Suzanne. This included a local
legislator.
>
> As I said, in Connecticut she was a hit too. The family advocates
who
> contacted me for her training said they use her strategies every
day. Yes!! They
> go to court with their families. Yes, they work with the family's
> attorneys. Yes, they believe that Certification is valuable.
>
> Really, they are the only small group of detractors.
> Fifteen people who are pretty useless in this issue. I wonder
what they'll
> do now! Double post all of the same news articles I guess.
>
> If you would like, I can put the Bad Advocate List on my groups
file section
> so that at least we can warn parents about people who claim to be
in law
> school, paralegals, CASA/Guardian Ad Litems. People who claim they
are
> advocates making changes for people talking to Senators, bringing
kids home when the
> people in CT that came to my conference told me to stay away from
them!!
> Hehe. Guess their reputation precedes them! Most of the
referrals in my state
> will not go to them but to the certified advocates who were
trained by FRAI.
> Could AD be any worse of a researcher! The CT Bar Association did
accredit
> and approve the 8.5 CLEs. Otherwise, the Certificate of
Completion that must
> be signed wouldn't be valid. Yes, I am incorporated and she
understands
> nothing about the tax structure for 501(c)3s. Good thing she
doesn't work in
> finance. She just continues to make herself the butt of every
joke with these
> kinds of false statements. What is even sadder is these
other "bad advocates"
> are so quick to believe her without checking it out themselves!
They belong
> together. All fifteen of them.
>
>
> People who claim that you should give them money because theiy can
convince
> Congress to use their method in the foster care rate in California
had dropped
> when the census bureau specific to that area show an increase in
foster
> care. Talk about con jobs. We pay the first time, ut oh, all
kinds of
> emergencies and they didn't make it. Then they wanted more money
from us! I am glad
> they had to use their own money to fail this time.
>
> Mr. Wexler charged the Dutkiewicz a large fee for his public
speech.
> Suzanne never did that to me. Mr. Wexler talked about the problems
of the system
> but he didn't train one person on how to fight this system.
That's because it
> isn't what he does. He has no institute to train people. He is
an author
> who speaks about his research that he publishes. How come they
didn't gripe
> about having to pay Mr. Wexler? Oh that's right, they took the
money off a
> New Haven Grandmother. Somehow even though Mrs. Shell is an
author in her own
> right, only she cannot charge.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 7/30/2006 6:52:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> cemerwin@... writes:
>
>
>
>
> Suzanne needs support. Kay, Effie, Misty, Christine and me are the
only
> ones contributing to this current issue. Im happy to see the
regular
> contributors but there are other members. I am very sure Suzanne
would
> like to see included in this commentary. As soon as you get the
emails
> or check on the group...speak up...its nice to know whos in your
corner
> when you've got your back against the wall.
>
> Corinne
>