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

from Jim LaMattery Friday, April 08, 2005 - 17:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Please read the lastest FBI update: We'll need everyone's help: http://www.lamatteryresource.org/Projects/FBIInvestigation/fbiblog/ (reply to this comment)

from Cult Surfer Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 08:28 (Agree/Disagree?) KFMB Channel 8 will be breaking the FBI and IRS investigation on Monday, April 4th. This will be the first coverage of the investigations by the media, the interview was done with Jim La Mattery. The media will not broadcast that there's an investigation unless it's validated by an inside source. We will post streaming video when it comes available on www.lamatteryresource.org (reply to this comment)

From Jim LaMattery Monday, April 04, 2005, 20:04 (Agree/Disagree?) NEWS 8, here in San Diego, will be breaking the FBI and IRS investigations into TF publicly for the first time tonight on their 11pm broadcast. They cannot air the program any earlier during the day because of the graphic content. If you miss the show, it will be posted on our site within a few days. The segment is an interview with me regarding the seriousness of this investigation, as well as a focus on the victor camps. The Law and Order espisode had a part of what the FBI focus is, but there is so much more. I am receiving emails from people who saw L&O and have decided to come forward and help us piece the history of TF together for the investigators. I am committed to getting into the public eye for the next full year to get the issues of TF squarely before the nation. The results of doing so are astounding! People are coming forward and bringing in information that would normally take much more time to obtain. So the exposure of TF in the mainstream media is working a success that we anticipated. As I continue to make myself available to news organizations, I encourage everyone to continue to send me information. My cell # is (619) 972-3051, and my email address is: jimlamattery@hotmail.com. Thank-you.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Another great job Jim. There's bound to be some major fear in TF now. While the investigation was private TF could keep most members in the dark about it but not now. (reply to this comment)

From Monday, April 04, 2005, 22:04 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.kfmb.com/features/special_assignment/story.php?id=9111(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 17:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Are the faces of the teenagers in the video purposely blurred or is that just the windows media player or the copy?(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 18:14 (Agree/Disagree?) It's not Windows. It was like that on TV. I think it's the copy because the kids faces weren't blurred when they were in the meeting.(reply to this comment)

From Bella Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 14:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Just watched the news clip, damn that was pretty intense. It's weird to hear that old song and see all those kids. Talk about a trip!(reply to this comment)

From Lance Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 01:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I know. I hadn't heard that fucking song in ages and not five minutes after watching that clip I found myself whistling the tune. What the fuck was I doing that for? Please excuse me while I slam my head into a wall.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) It's funny how no matter how much Berg bitched about the government and military, he still had us goosestepping like mini Nazis.(reply to this comment)

From Bella Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 17:25 (Agree/Disagree?) God, isn't that the truth!(reply to this comment)

From Question Monday, April 04, 2005, 22:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I find it very interesting that the dates for the banning of adult child sex keeps changing. The first articles read that it was banned in 1984, later articles read 1986, and this article reads 1996...any thoughts?(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 10:06 (Agree/Disagree?) KFMB must be paying attention to this site, all the dates seem to be correct now. :)(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Monday, April 04, 2005, 22:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that must be a mistake. Typo maybe. I know for a fact TF has always stuck to their story that abuse ended in '86 although anyone with half a brain knows it didn't.(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Monday, April 04, 2005, 22:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Here's something that was posted earlier on this site: (Matthew, aka John PI or Sam Perfilio, says:) What you must remember is that our official Family policy from 1989 until today is that those guilty of child abuse are immediately excommunicated, as stated in the following LNF. LATEST NEWS FLASHES No. 121! 7/89 --By WS Staff 10. "WHOSO SHALL OFFEND ONE OF THESE LITTLE ONES!" After a wave of false accusations of child abuse, obviously perpetrated by our enemies worldwide, Dad made declarations denouncing these charges, as officially stated in the 4-page "Child Abuse" tract. As this tract reads, "We love & cherish & thank God for our dear children, & would never even think about, much less condone, any abuse or mistreatment of them whatsoever!" It is clearly stated in this tract that "we do not advocate nor practice sex between adults & minors" & "intimate relations between minors & adults have never been officially encouraged or condoned within our fellowship." We want to reiterate that the "Child Abuse" tract was not only our official statement to the System but also our official statement to any Family members, part-time or otherwise, that any such practice is strictly forbidden within our group, & anyone found guilty of such will be automatically & immediately excommunicated--totally severed from receiving any literature or from having any contact with the Family whatsoever! (Right!--D.) (End of LNF.) Source: http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=31&ID=1272(reply to this comment)

From Reminder Monday, April 04, 2005, 23:08 (Agree/Disagree?) This was written by the same man who got a 14 year old child pregnant.(reply to this comment)

From skewed mindset Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 15:40 (Agree/Disagree?) This is because, underneath all their PR statements, the bottom line is that they don't think that what was done was fundamentally wrong. So how could it have been abuse if it was "according to the law of love"? That gives leeway to a lot of things that were abusive, as we all know painfully well. Speaking of apologies (in the above LNF), has Sam Perfilio apologized to the girl he got pregnant at age 14? (reply to this comment)

From NClaunch Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 18:44 (Agree/Disagree?) The girl he got pregnant is my sister and i know for a fact that she holds no grudges against him or anyone for that matter. I don't even think she considers it something to be 'apologized to' for.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 19:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I can assure you that the FBI will think otherwise. Your sister may love her child and not think what he did was wrong but that doesn't change the fact that it was illegal. Statutory rape doesn't become legal with the minor's consent.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 19:51 (Agree/Disagree?) That exactly right John because under the law a minor does not have the capacity to consent. Statutory rape is a strict liability offense meaning there is no defense.(reply to this comment)

From NClaunch Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 20:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I am not saying that it wasn't wrong. It most definitely was. What i meant was that she would not testify against him and i find it pointless to even discuss it with her because she is still in TF and would be no help in regards to a possible conviction.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 21:57 (Agree/Disagree?) The child's testimony is not necessarily required to convict a perpetrator of statutory rape. Most of the time it is not the child bringing the charge anyway.(reply to this comment)

From DNA Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 22:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Could probably also get him through DNA testing. He had several children, some of whom visit this site. Not sure, but it would make sense for them to submit DNA samples which could be compared with the DNA of the girl in question. That is, if the parties involved would be willing to come forward. Perhaps, if all parties agree, those that are in contact with the FBI could arrange this. If this man is named as the Father on the girls birth certificate this might not be necessary. (reply to this comment)

From Bella Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 21:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Is the child still in? I'm just curious. I used to take care of her (briefly) while at the HCS. She was adorable.(reply to this comment)

From NClaunch Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 17:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Aww, she still is. lol . She's a member of this site actually. I don't know what name she goes by though. Come on out wherever you are! (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 21:07 (Agree/Disagree?) There would be no need for her to prosecute. All they'd need is birth records or witnesses to the whole situation. It doesn't matter whether or not she's angry about it or wants to testify, all that needs to be established is that it happened. Besides, she and the child could always be subpoenaed for blood tests. Not that anyone is planning that but there are many possibilities. Besides, she's not the only minor he molested. She's just the only one who we know of that he got pregnant. He'll go down with or without her.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 22:13 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right. I remember reading about Kansas where the AG is currently in a fight to get records from clinics that performed abortions on underage girls (as well as late-term abortions) because they want to prosecute based on statuatory rape. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C148625%2C00.html There's speculation that it's really an attack against abortion clinics by the GOP but I bring it up because post-abortion (no baby) they will prosecute statuatory rape cases with or without cooperation from the female party. What I have wondered is if there is a statute of limitations for these types of criminals offences and can cases be brought up in the U.S. for actions taken by American citizens while abroad almost 20 years ago. Had this event taken place in the U.S. it would proabably be a slam dunk case. IIRC the only reason they got that Catholic priest (Paul Shanley) in Massachusetts was because he had moved to California and the clock stopped when he left Massachusetts. (reply to this comment)

From sarafina Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 22:27 (Agree/Disagree?) They can! Someone sent me an article about it today, very interesting reading. U.S. Able to Prosecute Americans Who Commit Sex Crimes Overseas A warning to Americans against committing sexual offenses abroad. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11473&st=0 (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Tuesday, April 05, 2005, 22:56 (Agree/Disagree?) That's good. Hopefully it can be applied retroactively.(reply to this comment)

From xolox Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 09:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought that as an american, one was compelled to obey american law regardless of geographical location. Maybe I was wrong.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 18:57 (Agree/Disagree?) One example would be drug use in the Netherlands or solicitation of sex for money in a number of countries. Americans could be arrested for these activities in the U.S. but I don't think there's any way to charge someone overseas. Sarafina's link was interesting and encouraging because it indicates that some crimes are so reprehensible and universally condemned that Americans will be charged for these crimes even if they are committed abroad...but I was curious about the retroactive application of these laws because that would be required.(reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Query whether your hypothetical US citizen is violating US law or violating foreign law. If a US law, what kind of law are they violating? There are different types of jurisdiction. In the US, there is subject matter jurisdiction, which a party can never waive and can be appealed at any point in a proceeding. This relates to the "competency" of a court to hear a matter. BTW, The Family has rejoiced when judges have been removed from their cases, which they have translated as being "declared incompetent." I'll bet many members (like those who don't yet know what "corporation" or "R.N." means) thought that meant the judge was being found stupid. Then there is territorial jurisdiction, which includes personal jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction (over things) and the related quasi in rem jurisdiction. States can get long-arm jurisdiction over persons, a kind of "remote control" power. BTW, what do you mean by retroactive application? Do you mean that the law is created after the crime and applied to the prior crime?(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 23:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, that's what I meant about retro application...(reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, April 06, 2005, 20:50 (Agree/Disagree?) FYI, the above is also regarding xolox's comment above.(reply to this comment)

From di Thursday, April 07, 2005, 00:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the crime we're talking about was committed in the PI, an extremely Catholic, conservative country. The crime was illegal as far as US citizens go, and also according to Philippine law. (reply to this comment)