Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from cultassassin Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:10 (Agree/Disagree?) The primary purpose of my post "ANOTHER CUSTODY BATTLE" was to inform our community about a custody court case between a cult member and a non-cult member. To my knowledge, there are currently three (3) of these custody cases in the State of California. Perhaps there are more in the state, the country, or internationally. I believe that awareness of these matters is important because of our one inexorable common denominator; we each chose to leave the cult and at that time experienced in varying degrees uncertainty and confusion. Some of us continue to survive; distressingly, some of us already succumbed to the pressure of a tortured past. Because a movement that forces its members to adhere according to a limited and restricted set of beliefs no longer suppresses us, our uniqueness is revealed. The expression of conflicting opinions bears witness to the ability of individual thought combined with the choice to exercise the freedom to voice it. I applaud the difference of opinion stated here by different members of this site. The ability to speak differing opinions freely and without fear of retribution is itself a testament against the suppressive cultic lifestyle in which we were reared. I am concerned about and warn against any individual that posts on this site disseminating the cult's point of view or "spin" on a situation. Such an individual is either a cult member or someone that holds a sympathetic view of and endorses the cult. Either way, that individual has no good intention toward any of us. The cult refers to any former member that voices dissenting opinion from them in extremely unflattering terms. Consider the source of the "spin". I state the facts of which I am aware. I stand by everything I posted in "ANOTHER CUSTODY BATTLE". I understand and accept that it is every individual's prerogative to accept or reject the veracity of my statements. The following is a summary of how this court case began: 1) FACT – David wanted an amicable settlement for joint custody of the children and offered to pay for all legal costs; 2) FACT – Faye rejected David's offer because she wanted full custody of the children; 3) FACT – Faye was the first party to claim representation of legal counsel; 4) FACT – David responded to Faye's claim by retaining legal counsel. Regarding regional cult leadership's attempt to excommunicate David from the cult by using false allegations against him, the history and details are too lengthy for me to address at this time. I am aware that this is not the first time cult leadership used their kangaroo court in an attempt to expel a member for a vendetta. This is the same leadership structure whose members up to its highest levels witnessed and participated in the physical and sexual abuse of minor children. Again, consider the source. In "ANOTHER CUSTODY BATTLE" I suggested a few methods of support for the former member involved in the court case with the intent to cause and affect positive action. Perhaps no vigils will be held. Perhaps the truth about the cult, its founder, and their beliefs will never be told to the masses. Perhaps the cult will continue to win custody battles as the organization squares itself off against a parent and picks off our children one at a time. Perhaps the children from those custody battles will continue to grow in an environment we each deemed unacceptable. Perhaps those children will choose to follow our footsteps and leave the cult. Perhaps those children will succumb to the confusion and torture like some of us and have their lives prematurely snuffed out. I will not pass judgment on anyone but me. I consider myself a little more complete if a portion of the sum of my actions is spent in the pursuit of preventing an innocent child from facing the uncertainty and confusion that we all faced when we left the cult. Those who know me know I do what I can. However, like many of you, I am not at a time and place in my life to attend a vigil, distribute flyers, or picket cult centers. Maybe I am a coward, too selfish and apathetic to affect change that way. But there may be among us better men or women who will go to any lengths to use all legal means necessary to ensure that if one of us decides that our child will not be raised in the cult, then that child will not be raised in the cult. Finally, I strongly object to the insinuation that I am inciting individuals to take the law into their own hands. I am a law-abiding citizen. My life and my words are a manifestation that I only advocate actions that are within the scope of the law. But then maybe one of your investigations proved otherwise time out. (reply to this comment)

From aka_hannya Sunday, June 17, 2007, 16:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I would never want to see any child raised in the cult. There are several ex-members that I do know that I would also never want to see raising a child. So, unfortunately for me it's not quite as easy as a senario as you have put it. I am honestly torn on this one. I do not know the indivudals involved and thus cannot blindly pledge support. I wish that it were as simple as you have put it. I wish all parties in this matter the best of luck and hopefully the judge will be able to decern the bs from the truth in this case.(reply to this comment)

From Hohumm Saturday, June 16, 2007, 13:44 (Agree/Disagree?) So someone was kicked out of the cult against his will (based on a false accusation against him). What kind of slacker stays in the Family until kicked out?(reply to this comment)

From helen of troy Saturday, June 16, 2007, 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) so are you calling the group the family with a capital F or the "evil cult".. i really do think you're hmmmm as well as hohumm (reply to this comment)

From Hohumm Saturday, June 16, 2007, 22:23 (Agree/Disagree?) lol, I have never posted under this board as hmmmm. And what am I missing in your 'capital F' reference? In English, we capitalize proper nouns even when they cults run by child abusers. I don't know either of these people. I've posted only b/c you've put so many bizarre postings up, that something seems fishy. I guess the judge will sort it out. Keep us posted. (reply to this comment)

From st. peter Sunday, June 17, 2007, 02:11 (Agree/Disagree?) well i'm sure certain harrops will keep you posted as they have me....(reply to this comment)

from time out Friday, June 15, 2007 - 02:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Putting all the back & forth aside, it is precisely for this reason (all the back & forth, he said/she said) that it seems best for us to leave the situation with David and Faye and the courts to sort out. My main objection was cultassassins post and the call to vigilanteism without knowing the facts which this thread makes abundantly clear. Not sure anyone will ever know all the facts considering that it is a custody case which are notoriously fraught with mud-slinging and whatever it takes to place the other person (father or mother) in the worst possible light so as to influence the court. (reply to this comment)

from forester Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 09:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I wonder what type of investigation you did to prove Miguel Emerson hasn't been getting invovled? Aren't Faye and her parents still on his homes TRF? Which means they are part of that home and since they are would have to be counselling with him or "the shepherds" there. Which conflicts tf charter anyway which states that member involved in court custody cases are not to remain "fd". (reply to this comment)

from st. peter Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 20:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I heard that he was falsely accused of having sex with an under age girl, there was no proof, or anyone who actually witnessed them having sex. Nether him or the underage girl were ever asked if anything sexual happened between them before the leadership kicked him out of the family it was only after that they officially kicked him out that the wrote and asked them to which both said nothing happened. Faye on the other hand had admitted to having sex with an under age boy and was not excomed for it. And while she is not at the moment in a family home per say she still receives family literature and is still reporting on a trf. (reply to this comment)

From Hmmmmmmmm Thursday, June 14, 2007, 08:50 (Agree/Disagree?) You can candy coat it all you want, but I spoke to members that lived in that home and it was very common knowledge that both him and his brother were sleeping with this underage chick. (reply to this comment)

From st. peter Thursday, June 14, 2007, 10:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok so now it's him and his brother that were having sex with this chic ok...so tell you what maybe you should say the names of these members that lived in the home that you spoke with that said that it was "very common knowledge" that both him (David) and his brother (???) were sleeping with this underage chick. Because the members who I spoke to that lived in that home have all said that it was not to their knowledge that David was having sex with this under age chic... much less his brother. I mean we might as well hear it from the "horses mouth" If you get the people who actually were a witness to this/these sexual act/s to come here on this site and say who they are and say exactly what they did witness between David and this underage chic. Since you are so readily willing to back the false accusations maybe you have a better chance of people actually believing you… or at least me, and have this matter settled and done. By the way I used to live with both David and Faye and was good friends with both of them and that is why I’m taking an interest in this. What associations are you or were you to David or Faye that you take such a personal interest???? (reply to this comment)

From afflick Thursday, June 14, 2007, 14:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Ugh. This is the ugly side of movingon.(reply to this comment)

From Hmmmmmmm Thursday, June 14, 2007, 11:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately when this person did speak out about what they saw, they were on the receiving end of some intimidating phone calls from certain people. (reply to this comment)

From st. peter Thursday, June 14, 2007, 12:17 (Agree/Disagree?) oh really now, geez "hmmmmm" you're so full of shit!!! You just keep making up shit as you go along, is that really the best you can come up with??? Come on now we need names!!!! Not "this person", "certain people" or "what they saw". (reply to this comment)

From Hmmmmmmmm Thursday, June 14, 2007, 12:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I am not making up anything at all. It's all the truth and he knows it. I am not going to reveal the person that witnessed this as they have asked me not to. What bothers me is that this guy is a grown man that knows as well as you and me how evil this cult is yet he continued to be an active member and supporter up until they excommunicated him very recently. He supported Zerby and Peter and their cause. That in itself speaks volumes about his character. It was not like he was some 18 yr old that was finally old enough to leave. This guy was almost 30! What the hell was he still doing in the cult? (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Friday, June 15, 2007, 10:36 (Agree/Disagree?) What bothers me is that you come here and slander this individual with out even giving us your real name. You don't even post under your pseudnom . If you think this guy is really a creep you need to stand up and stop hiding. Right now it sounds little more than gossip that you have heard. I think your posts should be removed from this site until you provide a few more facts and a bit less gossip. And shame on the rest of you for playing with this guy.(reply to this comment)

From Hmmmmm Friday, June 15, 2007, 14:04 (Agree/Disagree?) While I am not going to post my name or my "source" for the reasons I have already posted, (believe me, I would love nothing better than to use my real name, however I was asked not to by the person that told me this) what does remain fact is that this guy remained an active member of the cult, supporting Zerb and Peter and their beliefs and subjecting his kids to this cult even tho he is 30 yrs old and should have known better. He only left when he was excommunicated a few months ago. You can call all the rest of what I said "fake" or made up or whatever you want, I really do not care, I know it's the truth and so does he. However you can not deny that above fact and I have yet to get an answer from any of you as to why he remained an active member, a home Shepperd no less! (reply to this comment)

From helen of troy Friday, June 15, 2007, 17:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmmmmm?!?!!?!? did you not just read what cheeks wrote.. are you that daft or what??? (reply to this comment)

From st. peter Thursday, June 14, 2007, 14:17 (Agree/Disagree?) What bothers me is that both you and this "person" are full of shit and that obviously this "person" is making shit up and that is why this “person” doesn’t want to say who he or she is. Or you could just be making up this “person”, which you probably are, and that is really pathetic. And cut the bullshit about you being all bothered that he was in the cult, like you really care about it. If you think the cult is so evil quit defending it. It’s so fucking obvious that you’re defending the cult actions and that bothers me! Quit attacking David and start attacking this evil cult… that is if you really do think its evil (reply to this comment)

From matahari_jinx Thursday, June 14, 2007, 14:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeh really Hmmmmmm i think you're a tad bit overly concerned about this excommed dude with all your attacks against him. Take a chill pill and may the Van Dari??? be with you (reply to this comment)

From forester Thursday, June 14, 2007, 09:47 (Agree/Disagree?) lets not make up new stories from scratch you obviously haven't contacted any former members of the home, and if so your random conclusions are pointless. Suggesting that former members of the home would have said something they didn't even see or know is a bit bold and again very random on your part.(reply to this comment)

From Hmmmmmmm Thursday, June 14, 2007, 10:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I never "suggested" anything. I stated it as the fact that it is. Nothing was made up and I didn't contact former members, they contacted me. (reply to this comment)

From matahari_jinx Thursday, June 14, 2007, 12:42 (Agree/Disagree?) The formers members that contacted you, are they related to you???(reply to this comment)

from aka_hannya Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 16:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Not knowing any of the specifics below my only comment would be that I do not engage in the distribution of literature (regardless of what it's about), picketing (cult centers?), or any type of vigils. Those three description right there turned me sour on this whole ordeal. Reading the comments below has not helped to change my opinion. Granted, the comments were posted mainly by unidentifiable posters, but there is enough to provide reasonable doubt. (reply to this comment)

from time out Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 05:06 (Agree/Disagree?) That's simple--Miguel is not getting involved and has not been involved...contrary to what cultassisan has to say. Hohumm has it right and so does Cassy...why would Miguel get involved in this case? Sorry CA, but your facts...not much in the way of facts in your post except the name of the two people involved...are extremely skewed. From my own investigation of the custody battle, the cult is not involved and has never been since the beginning. Faye's father & mother, who are cult members, have been assisting her but the cult or its leadership has not. One other fact that you neglected to mention is that David was excommed for sex with minors which is what brought this whole situation about in the first place. Just thought I would set the record straight before you send us all on a vigilante romp. (reply to this comment)

From helen of troy Thursday, June 14, 2007, 11:43 (Agree/Disagree?) So “time out”… You said in your comment that David was excommed having for sex with minors. So are you stating that David was having sex with more than just one minor???? I assume you would know since you did your own investigation and seem pretty sure about your facts, enough so to set the record straight(reply to this comment)

From Hohumm Friday, June 15, 2007, 17:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Methinks this Helen of Troy & St. Peter are one & the same...and quite likely someone quite involved. Both new accounts w/ no previous comments...he doth protest too much... Same writing style, pretending to be uninvolved, but coming out quite passionately on the husband's side...not to mention also slinging attacks at the wife. Again, it seems to me, this has nothing to do w/ the cult and everything to do w/ a nasty divorce. The only fault of the cult is encouraging people so young to get married and have babies b4 getting an education, financial security, or even finding out who they are. (reply to this comment)

From helen of troy Saturday, June 16, 2007, 11:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Methinks this Hohummm & Hmmmmm are one & the same ...and quite likely someone quite involved. Both new accounts w/ no previous comments... she doth protest too much... Same writing style, pretending to be uninvolved, but coming out quite passionately...not to mention also slinging attacks at the husband. I just recently left and only just heard about this site... And since the past couple of days or so the "last 20 comments" have been about this subject, I've decided to join in. Which unlike most sites made by the group you're not allowed to freely speak your mind. And as far as st. peter goes… if you have any reading compression at all he did say that he/she was a friend of both the husband and wife… and even if we were the one and same person what of it it’s a free country… (reply to this comment)

From forester Thursday, June 14, 2007, 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) look up this article www.ocweekly.com "spare the child"(reply to this comment)

from hohumm Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 18:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I hear that the wife is no longer really in the family either, and that the divorce has more to do w/ typical divorce matters like cheating, parenting, and getting married too young. (reply to this comment)

From Hmmmmmmm Wednesday, June 13, 2007, 08:50 (Agree/Disagree?) From what I understand, the husband and wife were both in the family till the husband got kicked out for having sex with an underage girl and then decided he wanted to sue for custody of the kids. (reply to this comment)

From cassy Wednesday, June 13, 2007, 04:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Why is Miguel getting involved?(reply to this comment)

From forester Thursday, June 14, 2007, 09:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Fayes mom was miguel emersons wifes secretary, Fayes sister takes care of his kids...........makes sense?? Fayes 17 year old sister is pregnant from the Home shepherd.(reply to this comment)

From Hohumm Friday, June 15, 2007, 17:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Now this is something people should be in arms about! Who knows about this? Why haven't you reported this to the authorities? Statutory rape prosecutions when when the minor is pregnant is a slam dunk. If you won't do that, then please post the legal name of this "home shepard" and his address here and I will do the rest. (reply to this comment)