|
|
 |
|
Getting Out : Seeking Justice
Family Leadership On the Abuse Question | from Jules - Saturday, March 15, 2003
accessed 6102 times On January 9th of this year, I posted a letter from a second generation current member of the Family to Karen Zerby (aka Maria) and Steve Kelly (aka Peter). http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=31&ID=1133
The young person recently received a response from Matthew (aka John PI), for Zerby and Kelly, which they forwarded on to me, and I am posting here with permission from them (added emphasis is mine). I have included the original letter here for clarity.
I forwarded this letter to the other individuals who had been involved in contributing to the original letter to Zerby and Kelly, and an interesting point raised by one of them is that the Family "officially" banned sexual abuse of minors some time between 1986 - 1989 (dates confirmed by the letter below). The fact that abuse did occur has been confirmed by Zerby, Kelly (as recent as his 2002 letter, the Professionals) and by Lord Justice Ward in the 1995 judgement. Why has it taken 14 years to address the issue of recovery for those hurt, whether or not excommunication is permanent, and to address the issue of prosecution of offenders?
Wednesday, 15 May 2002
Dear Mama and Peter,
Hi, I’m K., I’m [an SG], and have been in the Family my whole life. ...
The reason I’m writing is because I have a couple of questions, and some suggestions, regarding our stance as the Family on sexual abuse, specifically regarding our policy on if and when offenders should be reported to local authorities.
I’m happy to say that in my time in the Family I have never experienced, or witnessed, any such abuse, and so it was never something to which I gave much thought. Recently I came in contact with some ex-members, and one topic which came up was past and present cases of abuse. I said that current Family policy would mean that any offenders would be excommunicated.
One of them, however, mentioned a specific case in which their sister had recently (in the past 3 months) been sexually abused by her step-father. According to this ex-member, her step-father has been guilty of such offences in the past but despite that he was only given a 3-week probationary period by the leadership (they weren’t clear on who.)
Having only heard one side of this story I’m really in no position to formulate an opinion on it. It does seem unusual though, as from what I remember Probation is a disciplinary measure administered by the Home - not leadership - and if it was something administered by the shepherds then the shortest period of Partial Excommunication is 3 months. Anyhow, I don’t want to get into the specifics of this case here.
I was first of all surprised to hear that any Family members would be doing that - especially now, after so much has come out in the Word, and after all of the legal battles which we have fought to prove that the Family is a safe environment for children to grow up in. For anyone to do that exhibits a real lack of love and it’s saddening to hear that there are still folks in the Family who do so.
The questions I have are what exactly is the Family’s policy in such cases? A couple of the ex-members who were involved in this discussion had some suggestions, and I have some of my own as well. Maybe all of this has already been covered in a GN, since I’ve never been involved in anything along these lines I could well have forgotten any specific counsel regarding it.
First of all here are some suggestions from one ex-member, I promised that I would convey their concerns and suggestions. I’ve included my own thoughts on them as well [below in brackets]:
1. Establish an internal child protection service to investigate allegations of inappropriate behaviour by adults towards minors. This would be an objective 3rd party group of qualified Family members. There are medical doctors in the Family, for example who would make excellent candidates for this, (I met a Dr. Chris in LA in what was then the "Sizzlers" home). IMO, having complaints investigated or handled by the parties involved (ie: the shepherds of the alleged offender) is not very objective or fair to the child, whose best interests should be considered first and foremost. The members of this body should be adults without even a hint of impropriety in their past to avoid any possible conflicts of interest (ie: not even unsubstantiated rumours about them).
(K.: While I think this would be a good idea, it does seem a little impractical on quite that scale. Perhaps it could be one of the responsibilities of the Children & Parenting Board?)
2. If there is sufficient evidence presented to this internal investigative body to conclude that abuse actually occurred, the adult in question should be immediately removed from the Family, and the evidence turned over to the appropriate authorities. (I think they should be removed on a permanent basis, but the Hare Krishnas have a 5 year waiting period for reapplication for membership for anyone who has ever been terminated for these types of offences.)
(K.: This is actually something I was wondering, do we have a policy on how long excommunicated members need to wait before rejoining? Also, regarding turning evidence over to the authorities, do we have a policy on that?)
3. The child who has suffered the abuse should have appropriate resources made available to them to aid recovery and healing from the trauma. This may include professional counselling, medical attention, or at the very least a caring adult, who was not involved in anyway in the incident.
(K.: I would think this would fall under the responsibilities of the Children and Parenting Board, I guess it would also depend on the individual situation, and how many ‘uninvolved’ adults there are available.)
4. Training on recognising and preventing abuse should be made available to all Family members, and all children should be educated on their rights to privacy and their own bodies. (Also, all children should know how to contact the child protection office if they need to without having to go through their parents or any other adults. Perhaps a toll-free number would help.)
(K: I’m pretty sure we’ve already done this quite extensively in the Family - perhaps after the person suggesting this left.)
Another ex-member suggested the following:
I think a Family equivalent short of calling in the local authorities is to excommunicate the person involved. If he is later allowed to rejoin, then every home that he visits to afterwards should be notified of his tendencies and he should not be allowed to be alone with children. I think that if the parents of the children want to press official charges, they should not be refrained from doing so, and instead should be encouraged to do what they feel is best for their children (or if the child is old enough to press charges on his/her own, they should be aided at all costs).
This is actually more along the lines of what I would suggest myself - in other words some kind of system whereby the VS’s would be notified when anyone who has committed such offences, particularly if repeat offenders, moves into their area. Perhaps it could be something in the Clearance Request Form, to state that ‘I have not been guilty of any sexual abuse in the past 5 years.’ And if they have, then their shepherds could send a report of what victories they have gained since then, etc.
I realise that cases like this can be hard to talk about, due to the embarrassing nature of it all, but I think it’s only fair for Homes to have a way of knowing if someone joining their team has those tendencies. In most legal systems, someone who is found guilty of child/sexual abuse is usually not allowed to work with children - for a specified period, at least.
Also, regarding reporting incidents to local authorities, is this something which we have a specific policy on? Is it more or less up to the individuals involved as to whether they report it or not? Might it be a help if something would be mentioned about it in one of the pubs? I guess the goal in doing so would be to deter things like this from happening in the first place by hopefully giving folks a bit more ‘fear of the Lord’ about it.
I guess it could also work in our favour if we were ever faced with legal action in the future, if we could show from our publications that our members are encouraged to report abuse cases to the authorities.
Anyhow, I don’t want to take up too much of your precious time with this. As I’ve said, I’m not personally aware of any such cases, and I would think (and hope) that they are few and far between. I’m sure there are other issues which are more widespread or pressing right now. But I think it could be worth it - even if for only one child’s sake, as it’s just totally against all that the Family stands for, and a shame that it’s even an issue now.
Much love! I’m keeping you, and all the dear WS personnel, in my prayers. God bless.
K.
eom
MESSAGE TO K, FROM MATTHEW– February 20, 2003
Dear K,
We love you and appreciate you! Thank you, K, for your letter to Mama and Peter, and for the faith and trust you put in them and Family leadership. Mama and Peter were very happy to hear from you and truly appreciate your open and honest communications, and that you took the time to express both your concerns about certain things as well as to offer your suggestions. We are sorry that it’s taken us so long to answer you. We began answering your letter shortly after receiving it, but as there were some points that we needed to further pray and counsel about, it got waylaid, and we only recently realized that it had never been finalized and sent off. We are very sorry about this delay and apologize for any concern it may have caused to you. Please know that we very much appreciate your comments and possible solutions concerning any alleged instances of abuse that could possibly occur in the Family. Thankfully, the overall adherence of Family members to the strict guidelines enforced since 1986 and as codified in the Charter to protect minors has rendered such instances almost non-existent in the Family.
Concerning Family policy on child abuse or sex with minors—if someone is guilty of these offenses they will be fully excommunicated without exception. The instance you mentioned where a father allegedly abused his stepdaughter and only received three weeks of probation from Family area leadership sounds highly unlikely and would be an infraction of the Charter. It is not in line with our policy, as stated in the Charter, and it is not the way the COs would handle such cases, if they truly were aware of it. The Charter is very clear that anyone guilty of an excommunicable offence must be excommunicated, either fully or partially, depending on the type and severity of the offense, and our VSs and COs are bound to comply with these rules, and from all we’ve seen and heard do so.
In the case of sex with minors, the policy has been, and continues to be, full excommunication. Without any specifics or details concerning the instance you mentioned, we are not in a position to verify what actually happened, but our assumption is that if this did indeed happen, it must have been Probationary Status imposed by the Home itself, and that the VSs and COs had no knowledge of the instance in question, in which case responsibility would lie ultimately with the parents and the Home who failed to report the incident. We are concerned though that if such abuses did verifiably happen that those responsible are expelled from our fellowship. If you could give us more specifics we will immediately ask your COs to investigate the matter and take the appropriate action. We do take these matters very seriously.
How long an excommunicated member (the offence being sex with minors) must remain out of the Family is something we have discussed at length at the last two leadership summits with the Family leadership and have concluded that excommunication is permanent, but if someone reapplies for membership his or her case will be looked at. However, we would not readmit someone who had sex with a child. 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.)
Concerning the issue of reporting alleged offenses to the authorities, we do not consider it within the jurisdiction of The Family as a religious entity (aka “church”) to undertake the prosecution of members nor is undertaken by any church we know of.
The ultimate decision as to whether to report such alleged offenses to the authorities lies entirely with the parents, who are ultimately responsible for the well-being of their child. We’re sure you understand that this type of incident would impact a child and the parents’ lives immensely and would be a very sensitive issue for them. If either leadership or some other party were to take legal action against an alleged offender, thereby bringing the child and parents directly into the picture without their express wishes, it could be extremely hurtful for them. We trust that if the parents feel compelled to report the incident to authorities they will do so, and they are completely free to do so providing they step out of Family membership until the matter is resolved. There is an amendment to the charter in regards to this matter that is presently in the works, and a GN in the future, DV. will address this issue. Regardless, the Family, as a religious body, will continue to immediately excommunicate the offender, an action that has been found acceptable to all the courts that have investigated us and our policies.
K, I hope this helps you better understand the reasoning behind our policies. We as a Family are categorically opposed to child abuse, and do not tolerate it, as our policies denote. It is our intent and prayer that any instances of sexual abuse towards minors are non-existent in our Homes and that if they do occur, the situations are not only very few and far between, but are dealt with swiftly and decisively.
The Family does not, in any way, shape or form tolerate such behavior. We have set up safeguards and have a clearly spelled out stance towards abuse of minors in the Charter (See “Rights of Children,” B. and “Offenses Warranting Excommunication,” D. & H.). If these things do happen, and are reported to the COs or VSs as they should be, the COs have been instructed to take action immediately. If the reports are verified, the offenders are expelled immediately.
Family policy is that we do not tolerate or condone such offenses and it is the duty of every Family member to safeguard our children and report any such abuse they have knowledge of.
We agree with you about having a possible avenue available for assisting any who have or could in future experience any kind of abuse. This is something we have also discussed with the COs and which hopefully the CP and VS boards will help with—that those involved with a certain age group can help the parents and the children affected to move on and overcome any difficulties they may have experienced in this area. Certainly having the Lord and a loving family atmosphere, such as we have in our Family Homes, goes a long way in healing any such wounds.
We hope this helps to answer some of your questions. We will also keep your comments and suggestions for future discussions on the subject. Thank you for your communications. Once again, we’re sorry for the delay in answering you, and please know that we very much appreciate hearing from you. God bless you and keep you and continue to make you a big blessing to many!
Love & prayers, Matthew
eom |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from clark
Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 11:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is there a way of posting a "black list" available for people in TF to know about and locate abusers that are still CM and could possibly be in their home? Like what you can do online to locate convicted sex offenders in your neiborhood? I know there are plenty of second generationers that have small children in TF who for whatever reason want to stick it out but would be concerned about this unappropraite behavior. And I bet you plenty of them visit this site. If I was in TF I would want to know about the "uncles" I lived with.
Do they really let them re-join after they are ex-commed?
(reply to this comment)
| from Jules
Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 10:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was just rereading this and what really makes me angry are the blatant lies told by Matthew. Family leaders in fact usually do know about abusers but do not notify anyone else (not even their own members) about the crimes committed by these people.
Some of you may remember the "Shangri-la School" in Ghent, Belgium. "Uncle" Pedro was a South American man (I think from Brazil) who came to this home to work as a "handyman" there in the early 90's. At the time I was 15, and a secretary for David and Sarah, the national leaders, and so had access to private communications regarding Pedro. Pedro was sent to this Family run "school" from South America because he had abused some little girls. They were only five or six years old. He had been a "child care helper" for a family in South America and when he was caught sexually abusing the children he was sent to Belgium. I was specifically told to not disclose this information to anyone and not one of the parents or other people in this school was notified of his past crimes.
(reply to this comment)
| from
Monday, January 17, 2005 - 05:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
In reading all the comments already made to this blatantly insulting letter it is quite obvious I would have nothing more to say exept that this shell of a man knows that what has done is wrong if he needs to cover it up in such a complete fashion. Sleeplessness and the vision of retribution will take up residence in his mind and while surrounded by a group that currently gives his vile behaviour a place to rest it's ugly head, the walls will crumble and he will lie with his demons for an eternity.
(reply to this comment)
| from Regarding John PI
Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 19:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
John PI...is this the same John PI that was married to Mary Mom? If so he was sexually inappropriate to me as a young girl in Japan. I will not go into details as this time but I was wondering if anyone remembers a young woman at the HCS in the early 90's. She had a daughter who was conceived in the Philipenes. I believe, if memory serves me right, that John PI was the father of this child. The mother was in her mid-teens when she got pregnant.
Does anyone remember this?
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From From an X-victor
Sunday, January 16, 2005, 20:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
In the Teen Victor Program at the HCS under Ricky and Elaine John PI was an "adult victor" at the Dorm. He would say "good night" to the girl teens . . . one at a time french kissing, fondling our breasts and other parts of our bodies. One of my best friends took the heat of this abuse, as he would pay her "special attention" all over the Dorm when no one was around. She confided in me and said that at every opportunity she would find herself cornered by him. Of course, according to John PI she was the flirty little teen and was put on reading assignments, silence restriction, corporal punishment was administered etc . . . as she was tempting him. Just thought I'd give an FYI on the credibility of this so called leader.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from faeriraven
Friday, November 07, 2003 - 14:43
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I think that 'they' should all be hooked up to lie detector tests and go from there!
(reply to this comment)
| from DarkAngel
Friday, November 07, 2003 - 07:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Very interresting how this guy Mathew ambassador for the queen and king would spent time going in details about how the familly policy would imediately excom. anyone guilty of such child abuse when he himself is guilty as well as many top leaders following the teachings of their most loving leader Berg ( the rock in english Iguess he didn't get a heart of flesh as the word talk about .)
It just goes to show that you can't trust any of them they'll lie straight to you in the letters they have forked tongues Ha!or in meetings they'll even lie in court after having put their hand on the Bible and promising to tell the truth just the truth...I guess James had to obey his leaders and perjure himself to be able to stand in court defendind the Fam.
It also shows what kind of people are the queen and king to choose such characters as ambassadors the ones that will obey their faintest wish or in other words partners in crime.
Of course they don't believe in swearing over the bible or the name of God as expressed in old testament I guess some great revelation from Berg
How evil can someone be to keep on preaching the word of God in one hand and doing the opposite in the other
As Jesus told us ''Do as they say ,but not as thet do "It was the same with the leaders of the temple and nothing has changed with Berg's crew; as he himself expressed the fam. is a bit like the mafia with Berg beeing the final authority ,the boss ,the Don....
(reply to this comment)
| From challenger
Sunday, January 16, 2005, 11:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes the ambassodor is sent to write a letter but the subject matter is not importaint for K&K to address themselves. Anyways how long was the subject disscussed, how long was the meeting. Apparently if the subject had value they should have contacted the home and done an investigation before writing back, so they could say "yes we found out what the situation entailed and the offending member is gone." Or "There is no evedence and no one was abused, the Family is still the paradise of the Garden of Eden." Let us be clear anything done in love should have the concent of Both parties not just the adult involved. (reply to this comment) |
| | From
Sunday, January 16, 2005, 13:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
True. A child has no understanding of the "done in love" concept. Infact the very fact that the person is supposed to love you, protect you etc.. makes the act even more vicous for the child esp.in later life, who infact gets two messages. Nothing knew thou, most sexual abuse happens within a family or by a neihbour, where they can gain the trust of the child. And their excuse is to lay the blame on the child.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Julia Rose
Monday, June 02, 2003 - 17:09
 (Agree/Disagree?)
"Concerning the issue of reporting alleged offenses to the authorities, we do not consider it within the jurisdiction of the The Family as a religious entity (aka "church) to undertake the prosecution of members nor is undertaken by any church we know of."
I find it interesting that over the years The Family has held the belief that they are superior to other forms of Christianity and has tried so painstakingly to separate itself from mainstream Christianity and religion, or "Churches", yet when confronted with taking responsibility for their actions and the actions of their "disciples", the excuse they use is 'Well, none of the other Churches are doing it.' In essense, grouping themselves with the very "Church(es)" they've been condeming for so long. Isn't that an extreme double-standard? And if The Family is so much better than all of the other religions out there, then why not 'set the example' and be the first to implement reporting offenders and alleged offenders to the authorities?
"The ulitmate decision as to whether to report such alleged offenses to the authorities lies entirely with the parents...............and they are completely free to do so providing they step out of Family membership until the matter is resolved."
So let me get this straight, from the time you join The Family (or for your whole life for those who are born into it) we will tell you what to do, when to do it and how to do it; you will have no desision-making capability other than the most miniscule details of your life which we haven't the time nor energy to be bothered with. However, for this traumatic experience which will affect the rest of your life and the life of your child who was 'allegedly' abused, you have the choice to let the perpetrator go unpunished (except for excommunication, where he/she can continue to molest and abuse children) or you can kindly leave and then good luck persuing this matter on your own. Oh, and when it's done and over with and everything's hunky-dory again, we'll gladly welcome you back. That really pisses me off! Where's the love and caring in that?
It may just be me, but the only direct answer in that response to the questions that were addressed was the fact that the offending member would be excommunicated. All of the other issues were sidestepped with answers like 'This is something......we have discussed with the COs' and 'We have set up safeguards'. To me that just isn't enough, especially in a group where over 60% of their members are children.
(reply to this comment)
| From xolox
Sunday, January 16, 2005, 12:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
"The ulitmate decision as to whether to report such alleged offenses to the authorities lies entirely with the parents...............and they are completely free to do so providing they step out of Family membership until the matter is resolved."
And when you do... We'll label you a Vandari, an apsotate, and call the curses of the keychain on you.
"Concerning the issue of reporting alleged offenses to the authorities, we do not consider it within the jurisdiction of the The Family as a religious entity (aka "church) to undertake the prosecution of members nor is undertaken by any church we know of."
Making them just as bad as the Catholics. They shift and move their offenders around. And speaking of putting children at risk... When I was in The Heritage in Argentina (the very same school as you Borowik), I was delibearately infected with measles, and Whooping cough, along with dozens of other children. The idea was to get the quarantine over with as soon as possible. Did this happen anywhere else?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Monday, June 02, 2003, 21:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course they won't report it, it would open up a whole can of worms they sure as hell don't want to deal with. I can't believe that if a member wants to report a child being abused they have to leave the family. That's protecting their "precious little lambs"??? They're all a bunch of hypocrites. Have you seen their official website? It's such a bunch of BS it makes me sick! What a crock!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Monday, June 02, 2003, 21:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course they won't report it, it would open up a whole can of worms they sure as hell don't want to deal with. I can't believe that if a member wants to report a child being abused they have to leave the family. That's protecting their "precious little lambs"??? They're all a bunch of hypocrites. Have you seen their official website? It's such a bunch of BS it makes me sick! What a crock!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Monday, June 02, 2003, 21:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course they won't report it, it would open up a whole can of worms they sure as hell don't want to deal with. I can't believe that if a member wants to report a child being abused they have to leave the family. That's protecting their "precious little lambs"??? They're all a bunch of hypocrites. Have you seen their official website? It's such a bunch of BS it makes me sick! What a crock!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | from frmrjoyish
Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 11:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why would charges on sexual abuse of minors be so hard to prove? I read something somewhere where someone states that TF could never be brought up on charges because its just too hard to prove. How hard can it be? In my opinion, there's more than enough written evidence in the Mo letters and other publications to prove it was not only condoned but actively encouraged as well. There are literally thousands of us who can testify to the fact that it did indeed happen, we saw it with our own eyes or worse yet, actually experienced it. It seems there is overwhelming evidence! So why so difficult? Now, I'm not burning with desire to "sue the Family" (may they rot in hell, BTW) or anything like that, I just don't understand the problem here!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Sharon.
Sunday, May 11, 2003, 18:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
There are a few reasons why it is difficult to charge the family with sexual abuse. Difficult but not impossible.
The first being that the family is so spread out, different countries, laws etc,. Also, they use other names, so many of us don't even know the legal name of abusers. We have some of the more famous pervert's names, but it's harder to remember the other's names.
On the good side, the family will be unable to use their "individuals acted by themselves, and they didn't represent the family as a whole" crap, because we all know that TF has condoned, implemented and encouraged sexual abuse in writing.
The biggest obstacle, in my opinion, is the children themselves. We were always told that the "family at their best is better than the system at their worst". The family youth are scared of outsiders. The police, lawyers and social workers are not the good guys. They are the people who they must be 'decievers yet true' to. Family children will swear till they are blue in the face that they have never been abused. They will act appalled and indignant. We all know--we were there. I remember memorizing the "answers to him that asketh you" GN, I knew all the questions, and there was no way I was going to say I was being abused or neglected in anyway.
The worst part is that we (for the most part) did not even think we were lying. The family youth have always been told that they are not abused. "Mistakes and unwise decisions" maybe, but not abuse. "If you want to see abuse read the Traumatic Testimonies" Now why on earth would a child, after reading the Traumatic Testimonies and finding out what the average lifestyle in the System is like, plus knowing what God does with backsliders, want to tell the evil police that they are not getting any schooling. why would they want to tell that their daddy was touching their privates, when they "know" that it was their fault for being too flirty.
That in my opinion, is the issue. Sexual abuse is always hard to prove because children are reluctant to get the people that they love in trouble and with the exception of extreme cases, little physical evidence is available. Emotional scars are harder to prove. OUr legal system places a lot of emphasis on the child's story. If it's hard to prove it with secular children, think about what happens when the dynamics of a cult are brought in. Social workers use things like play therapy, role playing, and drawing to find out if a child is being abused without them actually saying anything. TF children are trained at this. I was always told not to draw dark pictures. Always happy pictures (never of naked people). I was taught that if I was given dolls to not do anything sexual in front of the social worker. This coaxing of the children is a strike against the investigators. Social workers, judges, etc. have to be trained in the unique situation of cult children. The dynamics of these children are different than anything they have usually worked with. Once the investigators learn how to work with these children, it will be easier to get the truth.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From makes me sick
Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 11:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
One way to get them in court is to antagonize them to sue, once they are out of the woodwork, bang, no judge in the land would believe them over all of us!
It would also eat away at their money.
I wonder when Zerby and Kelly "go down", if they'll squeal on everyone else?
Also you don't have to be a christian to want to report abuse that you know about. It's a crock of shit! (reply to this comment) |
| | From wildirishrose
Sunday, May 11, 2003, 10:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is also not only our accumulated testimony, as you said, but also that of our parents who have also left TF. I know for a fact that my Mother, who courageously took her children out of TF as a single mom for the first time in 20 years, would shed some pretty damaging light on how she felt compelled by TF leadership and letters to condone (or as she felt, forced to allow) sex with minors. I bet there are quite a few parents who would stand up and testify to what they, at the time, believed were actions and attitudes which they were to follow or else they'd rot in hell. (reply to this comment) |
| | from frmrjoyish
Monday, May 05, 2003 - 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
But, let's face it, if the leader of the group was the pervert that he was (may he never rest in peace for the damage he has done) how do you exect the rest of the "leaders" to do anything about it. Despite what the family states publicly, thier own writings will do more to damn them than anythg else. Maria or Zerby or whatever the hell her name is is a sexually disturbed human being who has turned the level of sexuality in TF way up from what it was even before Mo died. TF will NEVER be a safe place to raise children, period. Children in the family will always be subject to an inappropriate level of sexual perversion and the really sad thing is is that they will grow up thinking this is normal, that is, unless they're lucky enough to get out.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From xolox
Sunday, January 16, 2005, 15:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do you ave ANY IDEA how many times John Gotti was vindicated of Murder, Extortion, Kiddnapping, and countless other crimes before he was finally convicted? And the only reason he was convicted is because one of his drones finally cracked!
In answer to your question: "what are you so bitter about??" Uh getting diddled, psycological abuse, CHILD LABOR, lack of education, and basically being treated as human rubbish. Or are you blind!
Oh excuse me, I must be stupid. Of course your blind you still support them! And defend them!
Look at youself! You've got your head up your ass, and your trying to convince us that the wind you feel is fresh air! Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining!
By the way, to know of a crime and to turn a blind eye is called being an accomplice! That is a crime! You are a criminal! I think I speak for more than just myself when I say: WE WANT NO TRAFFIC WITH CRIMINALS!! SO STAY THE FUCK AWAY, THIS FORUM IS NOT FOR YOU!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Silence_Restriction_Kid
Sunday, January 16, 2005, 14:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I am not in a a cult"...."I am will adjusted"..."we have been vindicated"..
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
the family is the best place on earth....
No, Urquel you don't sound brain washed at all.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nan
Monday, May 05, 2003, 21:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, now that you mention it. It is a superior education to the one obtained, say in the Nazi concentration camps, similar, but since not all the children in the cult were killed, I'd say superior to the concentration camp experience. Victor/Nazi very similar, but alas, superior, as you say.
Environment with varied experiences. Yes, indeed. They certainly were varied. Let's see, there was a plethora of everything from mental torture, starvings, I mean, fastings, hard labor, exploited child labor, if you were lucky enough to get to beg for or sing for money and get out of the camp, I mean home, there were mass seances, I mean prayer meetings, there were all sorts of sexual abuses to suit all manner of child molester/pedophile, I mean home shepherd, and there was mass hysteria and paranoia in the form of constant "security measures," "endtime prophesies" and "selah practices." Wow, you're absolutely right! So many varied abuses, I mean "experiences." Is that what their calling it lately? Experiences? Praise God! I am, like, so saved by your reminder of the cult's latest cover-up, I mean vindication. Aren't you Tim?
What I wouldn't give to have the "experiences" I endured, I mean experienced, thrust upon my son! Oh, that's right! I have an obligation before God and the law to protect and provide for my son and do everything in my power to prevent him from ever being exploited, tortured and molested by the "experiences" you bastards are peddling! Buddy, if you have the slightest belief in that God whose name you toss around so often, you’d do well to get down on your knees and pray for forgiveness for the evil international mass conspiracy to exploit children that is that wicked cult! And take your vile excuses and shove them before I really lose my temper. People like those you consort with deserve to be rotting in prison in a third world country, because even the U.S.’s prisons are too good for pedophile/child abusing/ cult members like yourself, where you can revel in all manner of various torturous experiences. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From DarkAngel
Sunday, November 09, 2003, 19:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
To UrquelGuardian pease explain to me how are things so different now in the Fam . Recently the drinking limitations and age limits for sex with younger menbers has been lowered and to top it off you get all these new totally weird L.J. revelations were masturbating to Jesus is the greatest weapon of our days if we are to believe the latest Queen and King ; does this sound like a healthy environment for anyone to raise their kids???
Or even for anyone to live in?
How about the less than poor financial conditions than most homes in the Fam. operate in dragging their kids down to depression not beeing able to help them with basic fun ,enjoyable life after all if the adults want to sit on nails and masturbate to Jesus and live in spiritual darkness that is their problems but I don't believe that it's God's love to push it on kids ,like the judge in the B.I. mentioned to Fam. leaders.
This is another religious persecution pushed on children by their own parents ,no wonder" Go for the gold" is a Fam .doctrine as they can't keep their members in unless conditionned from a young age and even this is not working .
God 's ways are way above the trickery and planning and makings of men, much more evil men
I wish the End time troupers could be a little smarter and start using their brains or what's left off it instead of just nonotonously repeating their leaders chants ....
If you're serious about helping NAN; How about coming down from your heavenly quarters and spent a few months up to a few years may be .I'm not talking about 33 years this is more for real man like Jesus and live with us on planet earth. Start to use the help of the Holy Spirit to filter your thoughts intead of the Fam. vinegar then you'll find out how great this world is with all his troubles and problems ,then you'll have the chance to really help others without hiding in some special places following some people that you've never meet ,that are themselve always hidding preaching some weird doctrines that you have to hide (Selah lit trunks)and that you even need to destroy once in a while (bar pubs)and sending your money to some secret bank accounts whose receivers have had to change their real names to be able to keep doing this dirty busisness....
Well you crack me up and you might want to desperately pray before influencing NAN again with your garbage.After all we'll all give an account to our actions one day and no one is an Island
But off course you live in the fam. and most fam. members are not responsible of their actions because guess who is ? God is!
At least that how they face problems and responsabilities in the Fam.So you don't feel to much condemnation for your actions knowing that God is in control and He forgives
One more time hidding behind God
Would you like to join the Fam?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From 2 cents
Monday, May 05, 2003, 21:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is painful for me to think of when I had to go by a name not my own. But if I may, you have nothing to be embarassed about! You managed to leave younger than I did, I always admire that in a person. And I love your picture, you look so much more fabulously "systemite" than I have managed to yet (tho I try, I try). (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Monday, May 05, 2003, 18:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
oh yeah, one more thing..... a "superior education"???? what planet are u living on? Since when is reading, writing, and barely basic arithmatic a "superior education"??? The family puts all their children who wish to leave at a huge disadvantage with their very inferior education. I will agree with you somewhat on the varied experiences as I do have a few good memories of hiking in Baguio in the PI when I was young, but litnessing SUCKED!!!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from frmrjoyish
Monday, May 05, 2003 - 12:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is just yet another example of how what TF does and what they say are two different things. TF claims that after the new policies disallowing sexual contact with minors that is now an excommunicable offense. They fail to adress the fact that so many perverts and child molesters would still be in the family still continuing to abuse and molest children. If they were really serious about this issue then they would have excommunicated them immediately.
(reply to this comment)
| from Auty
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 11:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Seems ironic that John PI would of written this response considering he was in the VP in Japan for his sexual tendency's towards teen girls. My longtime girlfriend has many John PI stories of her terror with him at the Victor Program. Anyone who was in Japan at the time knows the teen girl I speak of even if they do not know her personally.
Peace
(reply to this comment)
| From venus_fly_trap
Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 10:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
JOHN PI MOLESTED ME!!! I cannot believe that he is now a top leader. Change your name, change your life, I guess. OMG! He didn't actually get to rape me because his daughter got into the pool. She was diving in on one end. He was trying to move my swim costume and get me to sit on his thing under the water on the other end. Even with her in the pool he still kept trying to grab me. I just got out and left them there, alone. He is gross...(reply to this comment) |
| | from Nan
Monday, March 17, 2003 - 20:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
What a bunch of garbage! They are always trying to rewrite history! Sex with children was going on in Mexico in 1991! Hello? I was personally molested by the "home shepherd" in 1991 in Monterrey. Among those who knew about it did nothing and told me not to tell my parents: Ado & Kanah, Marc, John, Rose and the rest of the CRO "teamwork."
What about the 1993 Summit Jewels? That condoned "child fondling." Liars! Liars, liars, pants on fire! I smell smoke!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from katrim4
Monday, March 17, 2003 - 17:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
"After a wave of false accusations of child abuse, obviously perpetrated by our enemies worldwide, Dad made declarations denouncing these charges" That's almost like Ted Bundy denouncing charges that he killed people. You can denounce all you want, that doesn't change what you did. I wonder how far back they go to excomunicate someone that was a child molester. Does it have to be a new offence or can you go back say 10 or 15 years? If memory serves, Matthew aka John aka Sam shouldn't be receiving (or helping write) any family letters and he shouldn't be having any contact with family members much less living in the core center of operations.
(reply to this comment)
| From Agree
Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 16:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, and the insistence on "false accusations of child abuse, obviously perpetrated by our enemies worldwide" shows that they deny, deny, deny.
The climate when I was there was never even remotely one of encouraging children to come forward about having been abused and being assured they'd be believed and helped (maybe that was because the child abuse had been their policy, after all - but that's where it gets complicated).
I remember this GN to the children saying basically "we know and you know that our loving aunties and uncles would never do such a thing because they are loving and not like the lustful system."
That is TF language for telling the children "there is no way you will ever be listened to regarding an accusation of abuse that you bring." (reply to this comment) |
| | From
Monday, May 05, 2003, 21:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
"false accusations of child abuse, obviously perpetrated by our enemies worldwide..."
Does it ever occur to you, Family Leadership, to consider the possibility of anything being amiss? Does it ever cross your mind you could be wrong? Do you ever think "I wonder if the kids are being harmed by peculiarities of our revolutionary lifestyle?"
And why are you not outraged about the acts of abuse perpetrated by your emissaries worldwide?
You constantly make collective pronouncements such as:
"We love & cherish & thank God for our dear children, & would never even think about, much less condone, any abuse or mistreatment of them whatsoever!"
(which must be true, since it's stated in your tracts...)
You used to say, I think, "what's everybody's problem is nobody's problem," yet for the children, it's enough to be the Family's as a whole, "we are one wife."
Then you totally undermine your credibility (ha) by switching the discourse to something that sounds more familiar and private to the rest of the world (hint: it works IN CONTEXT):
"The ultimate decision as to whether to report such alleged offenses to the authorities lies entirely with the parents, who are ultimately responsible for the well-being of their child."
I also have a question about the following paragraph:
"How long an excommunicated member (the offence being sex with minors) must remain out of the Family is something we have discussed at length at the last two leadership summits with the Family leadership and have concluded that excommunication is permanent, but if someone reapplies for membership his or her case will be looked at. However, we would not readmit someone who had sex with a child. 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."
My question is, what would you define as "sex with a child?" Hopefully "child" does not mean what it did when I lost my virginity at the ripe then-deemed "adult" age of 12 to the area shepherd. Hopefully, also, you have broadened your definition of what is unacceptable sexual behavior with children since your 93 Summit. Hopefully, your definition of sex is not coterminous with Clinton's. You say:
"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." "
How do you think a single one of us in our upper 20's or older would ever want to believe anything you say after you say that? You taught us the story of Peter and the Wolf, remember? We can't trust your assurances of how straight you've gone (even if the English Judge was hoodwinked for long enough that you felt you could turn around and declare "Loving Jesus" in the next breath). (reply to this comment) |
| | From .
Friday, May 09, 2003, 18:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Quite right. I was a witness in the trial, during which I, and the media were told the offending fuckwit was ex-comunicated. Was he fuck. He remains till this day nestled in the family. No one wanting to marry him from the secound gen? well he's now married to a new member [2 years younger than me] and have a daughter together. Will he not want to abuse this child? we all know the answer.
There is bound to be people who can genuinely support the group now, as they may not have been in for long and have not read the "meaty" versions of our past. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Holon
Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 23:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Any suspicion of child abuse or otherwise should always be brought to the attention of proper authorities! No if's and's or but's about it.The police should be called!
In allot of professions now they are making more and more people aware of what to look for and what to do as far as abuse goes.I'm a freaking hair stylist and 2 years ago( In the state of Florida)&;they now make you take a course on suspected abuse. It's a requirement in&;part of your yearly 16 hours of continued education here.In other professions like my mothers( She is an RN)if she knows or suspects abuse of a person or persons she is required by law to go straight to the police.If she does not do so she could be brought up on charges herself.
&;Again, this is in Florida, and I dont know what the rest of the US does about this.I can only imagine things are&;far less tolerant&;in other states seeing as Florida is about the only place left where it is still legal to spank your children( with an open hand on a covered butt.)
There are the laws of the land that whoever lives here must follow.Regardless of what there religion is.
(reply to this comment)
| from Greenstein: sub ; legal Jesus, Madrid
Sunday, March 16, 2003 - 20:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Readers,
Cult-Speak is so funny. Matthew says that: "We began answering your letter shortly after receiving it, but as there were some points that we needed to further pray and counsel about, it got waylaid, and we only recently realized that it had never been sent off."
Waylaid being a verb transitive needing a direct object, makes for a very interesting sentence. HMMMmmmm? Let's see. It sounds so passive, yet I wonder....
"IT GOT WAYLAID" Waylaid or waylay means to be intercepted or to be ambushed in order to rob,seize, or slay. Did the leaderships prayer and counsel ambush the answer to this young person's letter? This phrase would be better rendered as: It was waylaid by my(names of others involved also helps) own fears and lack of immediate deniablilty.
Or maybe, the literal response by leadership was itself accosted unexpectedly by important thwarting tactics from the Lord himself, or His angels? Or dare I say it, the Devil?
Who or what did the waylaying here. What was lying in wait to muzzle the answer to this young person's letter? Fear, bureaucratic ineptitude, cover-up, further legal counsel sought? Does it matter?
In any case, they have finally answered and as expected their hands are ever so clean: AKA the Pontius Pilate syndrome. And they again were able to wrap themselves ever so tightly in the natural protection of their favorite fig-leaf: the Love Charter.
Deniablilty at last, guilty at first. Oh well Matthew, Ten for One, you are happy and isn't that the most important thing?
Warning to Readers: This is simply a reminder that many things, people, dreams, hopes, lives, and precious time can also be mysteriously and seemingly innocently be Waylaid in a Cult. When the "waylaid" object is found again--it is probably too late anyways.
(reply to this comment)
| from JoeBlo
Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 19:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I find it mind boggling that they require you to step out of The Family to report or take legal action against a child abuser. Of course it serves to intimidate and and minimise the likelyhood of justice being sought. I do think it is pretty obvious why they require this, besides making prosecution less likely (which I think is only a minor side benifit in their eyes). In case of publicity etc, thay want to be able to say "no one involved in the case is a member of our group". Basically it is a "COA" (cover our ass) policy. But it shows they don't care about the kids at all only the ramifications for them.
(reply to this comment)
| from rc
Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 09:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
why should parents leave or step out of a home, to follow up on a court case???
wouldn't this make the parents desist from taking accion on the matter, due to the mind control the family has on their members about living by themselves?
I belive this is one of the reason why in most of this cases the only ponishment the abuser gets is to just be excom from the group, but what about the damage in that poor child's mind???
I don't know people...I just really hope for family children to have a better life and hope for their parents to somehow ensure this.
(reply to this comment)
| From Peter
Saturday, March 15, 2003, 11:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Incredibly, they seem to be stating that their policy is to at least temporarily excommunicate anyone who dares to reports abuse to the authorities. In many jurisdictions (including all 50 states in the U.S.) there are mandatory reporting laws that require teachers and other professionals to report cases of suspected child abuse. In some jurisdictions, it is a crime for any person who has direct knowledge of suspected child abuse to fail to report it to the apropriate agency or authorities. It seems strange that they have taken all these months to formulate a response stating that their policy is to temporarily excommunicate parents and others who refuse to commit a crime by not reporting child abuse to the authorities when the law requires them to do so. (reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]