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

from challenger Monday, January 17, 2005 - 00:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Good idea for a lawyer I would comment 20$ or something a month however, I have pre-paid legal which will intitle me to 25% of lawyer fees so if you get a lawyer get prepaid legal first.However, not all lawyers fall under the category of the prepaid legal company. So one needs to find out if the lawyer you are interested in is covered by prepaid legal insurance. (reply to this comment)

from Joe H Monday, September 08, 2003 - 16:18 (Agree/Disagree?) As I read this thread [below] I was greatly entertained, but now I've finally found my cue to enter the debate and throw in my 2 cents. I think Nancy has made some really good points this time, despite repeatedly falling back to her customary "You're a Berg-lover" retort. I wish she would stop doing that, because it detracts from all the intelligent things she has to say. I especially liked her statement that "Your 'good old fashion[sic] values' aren't the law of the land." It's interesting how people rant and rave about their "values" as though there were ever a time in America where everyone had "values" or that they were all the same. The fact is that "values" are subjective and relative (which is why I'm putting them in quotes). And how dumb is it to profess a fondness for "old-fashioned values"? Does that mean you don't think women should have the right to vote or have abortions? What does the term "old-fashioned" even mean? Are we talking about the 50's, the 20's, the Middle Ages, or the reign of King Solomon? Another thing that amuses me is Spat's claim that Nancy is being oppressive. As he grew up in a cult and suffered REAL oppression of speech and thought, it surprises me that disagreeing with someone and calling them stupid would be considered oppressive. It might be mean or even closed-minded, but it certainly isn't oppressive. Nancy is not your teen shepherd so get over it. And furthermore, I hate to return to my grammar-correcting ways like a dog to his vomit, but your writing demonstrated a lack of education, and I think that gave Nancy the right to inferr that you are uneducated. If this is not the case, will you please write in a manner more befitting of an educated person? I have a BS in Computer Science too, and you're embarassing me and my fellow alumni. Also, Nick's assertion that ANYTHING is "spelled out clearly in the constitution" is laughable. If it were spelled out clearly there would be no need for a supreme court to interpret it, nor would there be a constant debate on the matter. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, September 09, 2003, 07:39 (Agree/Disagree?) One final thing Joe, what is it you have to prove by being a grammar Nazi? A sense of accomplishment, or do you actually feel superior or intelligent for being a quirky geek? – What an absolute joke!! Those who get paid to write subject matter can hire anal grammar baboons to “insert comma, question mark or capital letter” where omitted or required. – And since when does a Computer Science BS make someone a literary authority or create the expectation of having to be a US law expert? If you can understand the point that’s being made, why not agree or disagree or argue the actual point instead of picking on some incorrectly spelt word or flawed grammar. -I know why, ‘cause you want to try and prove you’re smart, but without actually trying to express a point, just by picking on the innocent comma, and making it seem so important. Think what you want about me, you’re just a tosser! (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, September 09, 2003, 11:26 (Agree/Disagree?) The majority of my comment was targeted at subject matter, I don't really do the grammar-Nazi thing anymore, nobody listens anyway. And since none of you will learn your lesson, I'll just have to let you wallow in ignorance, while I weep in sackcloth for my children which have gone astray. Seriously though, what makes you think calling me a geek is going to make me feel less passionate about grammar? I love language, so I use it correctly, and I try to refrain from forcing others to do so as well, because I've realized that it really gets on their nerves. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 03:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, I hesitate to agree that you portray someone with a love of “language”. More just an obsessive love for grammar, spelling and punctuation. I disagree that your simply loving correct grammar or being able to speak Spanish and English gives you a “love of language”. A writer or poet for example is obviously someone who loves language in a wider sense, even though some aspects of grammar, spelling and punctuation are often handled by an expert in that area (grammar geek). – Now seeing as there’s nothing wrong with being a geek in this day and age, (after all the world is practically run by geeks calling themselves “programmers” and “IT professionals” etc), I don’t see that being an insult! I am also certainly not trying to suggest you should lose your passion for all things spelt, grammaticized or punctuated but suggest that perhaps instead of resorting to sackcloth mourning you’ll consider showing us your love for “language” by more expressive means, like lets see, satire, poetry or free verse! I personally can’t wait for some Joe literature coming to a bookstore near me! -Who knows you may be our very own 21st Century Chaucer! (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 09:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Why wait? I've posted numerous pieces on this site. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, September 15, 2003, 22:18

From Benz Monday, September 08, 2003, 19:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever Joe, Can you really say that Nancy does not have a skewed view of ex fam SG boys versus ex fam SG girls. The girls far less maligned and generally portrayed as true heroines, educated, all previously victimised and abused at the hands of ignorant SG Boys who will always and forever be uneducated, “cult-minded”, untrustworthy, good-for-nothing losers who will grow up to either be exactly like the worst type of men in the cult, or will at very least be wife bashers and neglectful fathers. Yeah, Joe, real intelligent! Of course Nancy does have her exceptions like Alb, Ant & yourself, those apparently with some glimmer of hope of ever becoming “professional”, and perhaps respected as a little more than low-lifers, provided of course that you continue to “kiss the hem of her garment”, and play the devils advocate or just ignore her biased ranting. As for you Joe, speak up for whoever boosts your confindence! - Real intelligence indicator. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Tuesday, September 09, 2003, 11:23 (Agree/Disagree?) JoeH, or anyone here, is far from kissing anything of mine. The distinction I draw is not between men and women in the Family. I acknowledge men suffered, a lot. I saw it. I even stepped in a couple times. I have a lot of respect and compassion for those men. Most of them don't post here, though. They are quieter about their pain. None of the men of which I am thinking have any real formal education or careers. Yet, I care for them just the same. I look at them from afar and wish I could do something. My own brother was horribly abused, worse than me or my sisters. I don't know how many times I've cried for him, bailed him out of jail, taken his side, sacrificed for him, given him money or something he needed, even out of my own need. I tried to be the mother he did not have. Yet, it was never enough to undo the pain and turmoil he felt inside. I could not exorcise his demons, but I continued to love him, to be there, to understand, to try, to let him know he was not alone, until he didn't want me there anymore. The distinction I draw is between those who suffered and those who claim to have not. That is just the whole of it. It just so happens that those few here are men. I could tell you some horrific stories. There are both men and women out there who really experienced hell. They weren't victimized by "SG Boys." They were victimized by the Family proper. We cannot allow that graying of the lines to lay blame on SGAs. I've never bought that. I know that if anything ever happened between SGAs, it was dictated and designed by the leadership. That was the structure of the cult. There were some really bad characters out there. Just as I have analyzed my thought processes and cognitive schemas over the years to make sure I am not allowing myself to fall prey to the Family's way of thinking, their paranoia, their conspiracy theories, etc., some men need to make sure their way of thinking about strong women is not affected by the sexist, oppressive doctrines of the Family. I lay no blame on any SGA men while in the Family. I'm talking about now. Are some of us allowing the ideas we grew up with to affect our perspective now? It is hard not to. Our childhoods shape our character and cognitive processes. I see it in myself. I see my vulnerable, emotional side often pulling me into despair and affecting my judgment. Sometimes I have to actually tell myself, it's just your heart, it's not real, it's not real, it's not that bad, the sadness will pass. I also have to be careful that I don't let my keen sense of injustice go crazy and fight worthless battles to prove small points or allow my anger to get the best of me in small matters. I'll say this, then stop. I love the book and movie The Count of Monte Cristo. I see the character, Edmond Dantes, as I see myself and others here. He was a young, generous, loving boy, who was naive to the evil in the world, even when it came into his life and victimized him. During that suffering, he learned to control his emotions, his anger, his pain, his hate. He educated himself. He strengthened himself. He changed. He used his strength and wits and desire to live to better his life and put himself into a position of safety and security. Then, he exacted his revenge on those that wronged him. He exacted justice. He was patient, controlled and thoughtful, even when faced with very emotionally charged information like the death of his father by starvation, the marriage of his fiancé to his best friend who betrayed him and the existence of her son. In the end, he finds the justice he seeks. He creates it in his life. When all others betrayed and forgot him, he didn’t give up. He struggled and worked and studied, and it finally paid off. I’m not saying that we all want or even need the same things. Some of us are validated and don’t need justice to feel whole. Some of us do. Some of us are in different places. Some of us are still pre-Chateau D’If Edmond, still naïve, generous, trusting and struggling with betrayal. Some of us are still in the Chateau D’If in the heart of our suffering or pursuing our knowledge, skills and education. Some of us are post-Chateau D’If Edmond, in that we are looking for justice out of need or want to be vindicated or whole. Wherever we may be, my point is to not allow ourselves to give up in the Chateau D’If, not lose hope, not give up trying, not give up bettering ourselves, not to go on just being a victim, surrendering ourselves to the circumstances. Does this make any sense? I apply it to myself. I don’t want to be 40 living with the same pain and destructive thought patterns I learned as a teenager in the Family. I do have a lot of respect for those who have gone out and created lives for themselves, who have educated themselves, who have decided that they are not going to be uneducated, debilitated by pain, cult victims. That they are not going to write poorly or give in to their natural weaknesses because of lack of opportunities and deprivations in their childhood. I constantly struggle with these issues, even small ones like spelling and math and reading. I read four times slower than my peers. It takes me hours longer than others to read something. It really makes it hard. But, I REFUSE to allow that damn cult to continue to affect me by giving up on it. Not to say my heart doesn’t break, even when I think it could not break again, when I see some of us slip under the waves of their lives. Lack of spelling skills doesn’t kill, but emotional pain does. There are those out there fighting losing battles with their pain. And that brings us right back to the beginning of what I was saying about feeling for those who have suffered. No, I certainly don’t look down on them. I feel for them. I want to help. In part, it helps me deal with my own demons. Yet, that does not prevent me of feeling happy and respectful of those who win their battles and become the Count of Monte Cristo in their lives. Living well is the best revenge. Smart, intelligent, thoughtful, determined, survivors who make their destiny and life what they will it to be, despite whatever early or prolonged injustice done them, that is what truly makes me smile. For some, it is being a damn impressive writer, having obtained formal education, obtaining well-paying jobs to provide for themselves and family, having the freedom to live as they choose, travel at leisure, creating a beautiful life for oneself, obtaining the acknowledgment one seeks, surrounding oneself with real loving people, raising loved well-adjusted children, in short defying all that was thrust upon us. Yeah, I just really love that movie. Someone once said, “The answers to all life’s problems are in the movies.” Maybe... (reply to this comment)

From Mir Thursday, September 11, 2003, 17:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Hear, hear Nancy! Brilliant as ever.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, September 09, 2003, 22:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Awarding an A+ overall performance! Nancy, a budding novelist no doubt! For what its worth I hope your novel becomes a “movie” one day. I like the total “Nancy” package to the seeming alter-ego, “litigator en-persona” widely experienced. In my own opinion, you’re actually a very balanced individual personally, but you take on a lot of other people’s personal problems, emotions attached. I think I know what you mean about your brother, if it means anything, I don’t think many guys want to be “mothered” by their sister (except if sick), no matter how good the intention. I appreciate what you’ve said about boys having suffered abuse as well, albeit probably different kinds of abuse than the girls. I also agree that it has affected the way most of us view and interact in relationships. Personally, I think most of us have learnt to not internalise our issues in the same way with the rest of the world, but on this site it seems different, and there are real issues due to real experiences. I think it all comes down to, as also in The Count of Monte Christo, not letting the hurt and anger make us become the monsters we hate or turn us into the evil which harmed us while we try so hard not to be victimised by them (or anyone else) again. Regarding the greying of the lines of who is responsible for SG’s behaviour in the group, or whether all SG actions can be blamed on directives of “The Family” leadership, I don’t think I’ll ever agree entirely with you on that one, it’s too personal in my opinion. I don’t believe there is any magic formula for determining if someone was unaware that what they were doing to someone else was inherently wrong, or whether they just took what they could get or knew would get away with. I’m sure there was a time that an owner of slaves may not have known it was wrong, yet even stories from those times have good and bad, hero and villain. Sometimes I think you have to have “been there” to understand, and even then it’s often a matter of perception, though if enough people share the same perception it becomes a more certain fact. – I think this will happen as more people leave and the longer we experience life outside the altered environment that is “The Family”. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 15:49 (Agree/Disagree?) We discussed the issue of varying levels of culpability in criminal law class in law school. One can imagine numerous scenarios in which one is forced to commit a crime under the threat of harm or coercion. There are defenses such as duress and necessity which can also absolve culpability in certain situations, if proven. Then there are issues of accomplice liability for aiding and abetting and conspiracy. As you said, it is complex and varies from one situation to the next. Each situation has to be analyzed on its own merits. That is exactly how the legal process works. The elements of a crime must be proven by analyzing the facts of the case and determining whether the particular facts fit the elements of the crime. There are innumerable fact scenarios, hundreds of thousands of criminal laws and certain legal rules which determine what evidence is sufficient to prove particular elements of a crime. Because we are dealing with an entire organization, made up of thousands of individuals, it is nearly impossible to analyze every fact scenario in which a crime might have or is claimed to have or alleged to have occurred. This is not even addressing the issue of identifying each of the participants and/or possible defendants. We are literally referring to thousands of victims, thousands of possible defendants and thousands of acts of alleged crimes. There are hundreds of layers. All these variables have contributed to the Family avoiding criminal prosecution. Also, most victims were children at the time of the acts committed. Children do not know their rights or have the ability to have crimes against them prosecuted. Children must advocates. In this matter we have thousands of children living in a clandestine organization so that authorities and child advocates on the outside remained unaware for years, until those children reached the age of majority and began to leave. Yet, despite all these variables, we must still address defenses, excuses, explanations and theories manufactured by the Family on a general level and mass scale. There are the explanations that we are all aware which claim that no abuse ever occurred. I call it the “What abuse? excuse” It was the Family’s long standing policy for a long time. There are so many examples in which they applied this policy in denying and lying and deceiving. Then after so many of us left and were living on our own, receiving educations, learning our rights, discovering what was done to us was abuse and speaking out about our stories, the Family switched to the policy of admitting some “people were hurt” but we were unaware of it and it was committed by particular individuals in isolated incidence. The Family took the martyr approach by feigning sympathy for those who “felt wronged” at the hands of some rogue individuals acting in isolation of whom they had no knowledge. There has yet to be any confession of the international conspiracy to exploit children. They did not sell us, but we were a commodity to the Family. They had so many of us to increase their work force. There were publications in which it was advised to use children to “open doors,” to “win hearts,” etc. One publication advised and used examples of using children as “a tool” when traveling and crossing borders to avoid immigration laws, travel restrictions and policies. We were used in the home to clean, cook, care for children, build, and on and on. There were whole books on how to do this work. Remember? All the illustrations and examples were of children doing the work. Homes and schools were like ant mounts with king and queen bees that did nothing but direct and reproduce, while scores of drone children did all the work and cared for the young. We have not even begun to address the obvious criminal acts of physical and psychological abuse dictated by numerous publications and the sexual abuse which permeated the very basis of the organizations beliefs of “sexual freedom.” I can remember the time when all publications were kept in a trunk. Children could read anything. There were years and years worth of publications emphasizing the sexual practices and beliefs which included children and pictures of sex and pictures of children in sexual situations. I remember the books, magazines, videos and photographs. It wasn’t until later that the Family began to censor their publications, cut out sections of books and burn whole other books and publications. Then came the classifications of publications for children, for adults, for disciples, for general public, for leadership to read and burn, etc. Now, it seems they’re not even putting their doctrines in writing anymore and the most radical beliefs are only practiced in select world service units. Yet, that does not erase the tarnished history of the Family. Burning a book doesn’t erase it and the thousands of individuals who read it and practiced its dictates. If you’re much younger than 27, you might not recall when openly pornographic materials were readily available in every Family home. There were no restrictions. Sharing nights took place on the livingroom floor on Saturday night with all home adults participating, children wandering in and out, just as laid out in the Davidito Book. There were also private “dates” occurring throughout the home which included children as young as 12. Then there were “isolated” incidents in which very young children were “fondled” or “touched” or even raped by adults in the home, often the home “shepherd.” There were books which taught how to devise “sharing schedules” which included children and teenagers. There were also loads of publications that advised on how to “discipline” children. They showed how to beat them, tie them to beds, restrict their food, make them work hard labor and on and on. The whole “traumatic testimonies” and “Last State” were meant to be guildlines on how to scare and deal with children. There was a large international web of “schools” and “training camps” were these methods were taught and used. They were held up as models. We know all these things, even if we haven’t thought about them for awhile. Most of us experienced them or witnessed them. The Family on a collective scale has designed and implemented policies on how to deal with us who have been abused and are speaking out. They give their tactics a lot of thought and they make sure that everyone is made aware and practices them. Among those tactics, there has been an attempt to shift culpability, blur the lines of knowledge and identity of perpetrators. The Family likes to lay blame on individuals having held positions of leadership who have since left. They’re perfect scape goats. They’re no longer present and cannot deny the claims. Among those they have attempted to lay blame are the very victims who have left. They’re also gone. And while I completely agree that we must analyze situations individually, we must also acknowledge that there are large scale attempts to deflect blame for such a huge injustice committed on a mass scale. The true culpable are desperate and will probably stop at nothing to escape responsibility. Simply identifying and exposing the Family’s tactics, one being to blame victims, claim SGAs committed crimes and try to shift the focus off themselves and blur the lines until you cannot see what is what, is not generalizing so much. It’s just acknowledging what has and continues to occur. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Thursday, September 11, 2003, 01:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I am aware that every one of the above things you have mentioned did in fact happen. I’ll explain my position on the “time line”. Approaching 26 years of age this January, I was 6 months younger than the other kids in my area who went to the TTC’s in Asia and South America, I think you had to be 11 years old, though I do know of some younger than myself from other areas who did attend. My parents were newly “separated” at the time as I recall & my mom attended the P.I. TTC, I believe as a trainee (rebellious parent), and the Thailand TTC as a shepherdess, though she certainly is not the “shepherding” type, more an “out of control/ emotional” person. In all truth, thinking back, to me it seemed a line was drawn which didn’t previously exist between my peers immediately older who had attended the TTC & those who hadn’t. I remember specifically that those who I had been friends with, suddenly demanded more respect and had an assumed authority (or so it seemed) to implement the “new revolutions”, including marching and singing the “Revolutionary Pledge”, yelling “Revolution for Jesus” and other such hype. It actually seemed an exciting time as a kid, as it made “the family’s” craziness “real”, and even though I “missed out” on the TTC’s I looked forward to growing up and being part of what everyone older than me was doing. Memories before that included living in a big “Combo” home, from about the age of 4 – 8, where we did have schooling and although all the kids were punished often, sometimes in weird and harsh ways, we coped because it was something we were all experiencing. I remember the “sharing schedules”, as something we made fun of and laughed at. I remember peeping in on and yes, in fact, walking in on “mass Abrahim orgies”, “aunties” dancing around topless etc. I guess as a kid when confronted by that kind of thing it’s hard to know what to think, but it doesn’t affect you as much if it’s not pushed on you to participate. From what I remember at that time at the Combo I was in, it seemed to be what the adults were experiencing between themselves, but I do remember one or two “older teens”, who I imagine may have participated in “adult” activities, they were under 16 as I recall. What affected me a lot was seeing my parents “sharing” with other adults and my mother “FF’ing”. Even though friends and I would joke about walking in on various sordid escapades, I remember sometimes rolling under the bed with a friend while “they” were at it, to watch the bed boards creek, & see if we could push some of them around, & in general fool around about it. I know now from discussions with my younger sister by just over one year that she was affected negatively in a big way by this, and is now understanding just how much. I know that although I was able to joke about this sort of thing at the time, it has affected my trust in relationships after seeing intimacy cheapened in the way I experienced it then. Back to the TTC era, I remember the Heavens Girl booklets and eventual big book which came out, the BTH with pictures of various teens and all that “we are it” crap. I remember the milder “Heavens Children” books with all that Berg-Heaven garbage, and stuff about Davidito’s sharing schedules etc. Then came JETT Camp, and JETT School, which I was initially, again, excited about. What eventually became was 30+ JETTS from around the country as well as other adults and families crammed into one house with a tiny garden. Certainly some Adults did provide a glimmer of humanity within the intense indoctrination going on, but in thinking back, it really was all horrible, we just were just grateful for the small mercies. It was at this time that “Silence Restriction” became the weapon of choice for “JETT Shepherds”, I for one was particularly lucky with this one, getting it so often it was almost trendy (when its so bad you might as well joke about it). I remember being sick with pneumonia at this “JETT” school, and as we weren’t living with our parents, my dad actually came to see how I was. I had completely lost my appetite from the horribly baked fish we were having for days on end, and my dad made a great broth that tasted great. I was so cheered up after he came, and I started getting better. What happened was a week later the “teen shepherds” called all the JETT’s into a meeting to say it was unfair for my dad to have visited me when no-one else’s parents visited, and that they had told him what he did was wrong. – I’ve always felt so pathetic for that it made such a big deal to me, I guess it’s strange the things that affect us sometimes. I felt so low and bad that it was wrong for my own dad to visit me when I wasn’t well. Around this time I remember being segregated as underweight in the “maxis & mini’s” program, where a few “skinny” pre-teen boys and most of the “fat” girls had to do Jane Fonda aerobics while the rest played games outside. Being really into games & sport as a kid, that will always stick with me. I remember missing movies or other privileges often, being on “dishwashing duties” for weeks on end, and of course not to miss the occurrences of my run-in’s with the bread “Board”, or “boat oar”, to slam the “fear of god” into us. All this time my peers less than a year older than me were in another world, another group with their own “intense training” including “getting it right”, “marvellous marriage”, etc. Although we read some of these materials too, it was targeted mainly at the age-group above. 16-year olds were in serious life altering relationships with intense counselling on all aspects, & to be honest I was happy not to be a part. The one thing that did affect us more in all this was the grooming of many of these older ones to be “JETT” & eventually Teen shepherds. Mainly it was those who were the most revolutionary & unquestioning of leadership who were awarded with being JETT & Teen shepherds, and even then they were on probation, ready to be demoted at any time if not revolutionary or “in line with the spirit” enough. – Many of these older SGA’s went all-out to be exactly what was asked, if not above and beyond that, becoming frighteningly power hungry and willing to show their authority. There were 18-23 year old “shepherds” involving themselves with “JETT” or Teen girls, as to how much in each case, I really could not say, but the girls that young often enjoyed that sort of attention from someone in charge, even when it crossed the line. Perhaps it made them feel grown up, and who can blame a kid for that, but I know the reaction of the boys my age including myself was that I lost much respect for any of them, they seemed weird and stupid to me, yet they thought they were mature. – I realise that understanding relationships and human attractions is a part of growing up, but in the environment we were in it was all very strange, very accentuated, very controlling. Going on from there, we became teens, in a big teen group, plenty of weird happenings again including Victor programs, mass spanking sessions, teen camps and so forth over the next few years. – Too many stories to even begin relating. When I finally left that and moved to a “regular home”, it was a whole different kettle of fish, intense relationships, everyone knowing everything about everyone else, adult men in “positions” involving themselves with girls half their age and pushing their weight around. I involved myself in “CTP’s” which I actually enjoyed) and “witnessing” by trying to sell “Educational Videos”, for 10 times what they would have been worth in order to support a home that had taboos against “system” jobs. All this time I recall being so frustrated about not being able to get a proper education to allow me to do something useful, but primarily to let me run my own life. Although I decided I wanted to leave I was in “TF” for 2 more years, during which I moved to a new country and found out that “Family” in the new country hated “Family” in my previous country for various reasons. Primarily it was a case of being from a more sheltered environment and a new country where you were stigmatised as being “spiritual” because of it, and quite often ostracised by those who wanted to stamp their authority or seniority. Friends there were few and far between, but will always be remembered. I remember returning to my home country after having left before I was one and not having ever returned in over 18 years. I’m still learning about and getting to know my own grandparents and relatives, studying, and learning how to build a life and trust people again. I realise that most of this is a matter of my memories from a child’s perception of events, but my intention is to remember it from this angle so that I never forget it for my own kids, and never let it happen again to anyone I love. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, September 11, 2003, 10:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Ours was truly a terrible reality. Delving into it in detail brings back all the feelings of revulsion I felt then. It reminds me of the since forgotten motivation I had then to just get the hell out at the earliest opportunity. I had my plan, where I’d go, what I would do. I thought about it at night. I clung to it to get me through. It is nice that you have the memory of your father’s visit. A happy childhood memory with one’s parents is precious. Oddly, I have none. I wanted away from my parents as much as the Family. I suppose this explains a bit, though, why those just a few years younger don’t really feel the need to have some tangible form of justice. Rather, they just want to move on and try to forget. The Family is truly a sick, twisted organization. For those a bit younger, they didn’t experience the most extreme abuse, so they don’t feel driven to see it righted. They did experience an altered environment with intermittent physical abuse and ongoing psychological abuse, but nothing they’d compare to torture, it seems. While some older did experience rape and physical abuse which could be characterized as torture, hence their intensified desire for some type of justice. The passing on of power to SGAs seems like another twist in the sorted tale. It really affects me negatively. I don’t know why. Maybe it is because I remember the types that would have been selected for such position. They were exactly as you described, power hungry, sell-outs, totally blind followers, willing to do pretty much anything they were told. Thinking about it still infuriates me. There were those for whatever reason would “report” on other teenagers and children and the result would be favored status for them and punishment for the other. They’re like sick traders. They’re anti-Schindlers. Oh, why does it burn me so much 12 years later? I guess because I haven’t thought about it in so long. I almost feel the desire to name names and tell what little treacherous things I saw which resulted in more suffering for the traitors very own peers. Ugh! Yet, I am still aware of the Family’s tactic as a whole to shift blame and blame victims. I guess the reality is that there are varying levels of victims. I did not attend a TTC. I’m actually very happy about that and always have been. I was very happy in my private school in the U.S. about to enter the eighth grade when my parents yanked us out and drug us back to the “foreign field.” There was a “teen home” in the local area in which we first lived. Everyone asked why I didn’t live there. I was close in age to the very oldest teenagers. Yet, I didn’t want to be part of all that madness. I was still hatching my plans to escape. Over the years I was beaten down and began to think living in a teen home was somehow a good thing. I wanted to be around my peers, rather than washed-up old American men and their ten kids and droopy breasted wives and people who didn’t speak English, at all. I felt as though I was living with life on mute for several years before I learned Spanish. Well, as you said, too much to relate. All that to say that although we lived within the same cult, we do have some very differing experiences. It would be nice if some real research, scientific research using statistical analysis, would be done on our experiences, specifically the common factors, the varying factors, the stages the Family went through, the motivation and catalyst for the different stages, the specific characteristics of each stage, etc. Got to go teach class! With much to think about thanks to your very informative post. Thank you! (reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, September 12, 2003, 04:33 (Agree/Disagree?) It certainly isn’t pleasant thinking about all this stuff. I was in a pretty bad mood the rest of the day & exhausted just thinking over it all again. It’s not something I like talking about, even the good childhood/ parent memories, it is so bittersweet mixed. There’s no use whining about what might have been and I know in many ways I’ve had it better than a lot of others. I just don’t want to accept that it should ever have happened or that it should ever happen again, and that’s why I too don’t agree with just letting it go, forgetting about it entirely, even though I do know on a personal level it would be the “healthy option”. Regarding SG’s in authority, I think there comes a time where people have to be held accountable for what they decide to do, and who they decide to associate with, or what group they DECIDE to be a member of. “The family” scoffs at accusations of mind control, SG’s among their spokespersons, therefore they cannot hide behind “duress” or “threat of harm”, they and we have to realise they are responsible for their own decisions. They’re “not hostages” is often said about “family” young people when pointed out how bizarre it is for people to allow themselves to be so controlled as in “the family”. “They can leave at any time if they want to”, is another one I’ve also heard before. - As if I’m imagining the effort and struggle one has to make when going directly against what’s been taught to us all our lives when trying be the boss of our own lives for the first time, as if I’ve never been there myself. Maybe I’m wrong but now I’ve heard it all quite enough! - I’d like to let “The Family” SG’s eat their own lies. – They CAN leave at any time they want to! – They are NOT hostages! And every moment current “family SG’s” spend wandering around the four walls of their “family” home, taking orders about everything and letting other people run their lives can only be put down to their being idiots, losers, bums and stupid brainless dumb cattle. Certainly some SG’s are even worse, as accomplices in illegal activities they are aware of and choose to remain associated with or fail to report to appropriate authorities. Do they really think that god is going to punish them because they decide to disobey a “religion”, tailor made by a sex maniac? – I don’t think so! I’ve spoken to some current SG’s who want to be convinced they’re getting nowhere by staying in “the family”, they want someone to yell, scream and pull them out, putting in the effort for them. - Maybe they think it’s a bidding competition between “the family” & “the world” whoever’s going to yell the loudest, gets them, like an auction, and they have no say. – Maybe it’s just ignorance, otherwise they’d be yelling for themselves, to get the hell out of there! Maybe if they knew the amount of “catch-up” effort every moment in the group costs them they would stop playing games and get out quicker. I don’t want to forget that the reason many SG’s in authority are who they are is also due to the experiences of their own lives (including the kinds of abuse others went through), maybe it was the only way they could see out of being victimised themselves, or maybe it’s how they view “success”. The way I see it though, it’s either because they are either ignorant mindless pawns following orders, or because they are now intentionally taking advantage of situations and people themselves, having formed a coherent bond with “family” leadership. Regardless, it is in SG leaders interest to keep others being less ignorant than they are, because once a current “SG” is capable of seeing “out side the box”, and beyond the smoke screens they are either an immediate threat to be eliminated at all costs, or a possible convert, if they so desire the power. (reply to this comment)

From + Wednesday, September 10, 2003, 17:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, I mostly agree with you, but I think there is one piece you may have overlooked. Those of us who left years ago have the image of the Family from when we were there. i think you have even mentioned this before. For me, it's the desperate days when the DTR was starting and there was not a ray of hope on the horizon, only heavy storm clouds. But with every year that passed, 2 things happened. Our former peers became a year older, and also the family moved toward the charter era, which we are told is like "TF lite." So maybe there are things that went on, what with SGs even becoming COs, VSs & whatnot, that were not a part of our reality, but later the SGs truly became players in the scheme. When I left, the SGs were only beginning to get bits of authority, and even that made a difference. Like the prisoners selected by the Nazis to have more authority, getting in exchage a few more macaroni in the bootom of their soup. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, September 11, 2003, 12:53 (Agree/Disagree?) What a perfectly appropos analogy! Bravo! You lead me into the image you have in your minds eye of your experiences. Nazi traitors, what an image.(reply to this comment)

From Spat Monday, September 08, 2003, 17:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, Joe, Joe when we assume we became asses. Have you considered the possibility I studied in a different abroad? So my English skills make me a moron? Maybe but I would like to judge your grammar in a different language and see how you do, besides that I really don’t use grammar much for my work (well actually, I had a bitch of a time last week over a program were I forgot to close a caption in the scripting) Well anyways thanks for the acute observation, your comments are appreciated –NOT. Lol Nah, I like your critical eye. By the way Nancy I just read “We are not Throw away”, it was a beautiful post. I found it hard to reconcile the gentle soul that surfaced thru that text with the mean bitch on this post, I guess that reflects our complexity as hurt souls capable of great emotion and compassion but at the same time capable of great violence and hate. (reply to this comment)

From Spat Monday, September 08, 2003, 17:33 (Agree/Disagree?) by the way this should read Joe, Joe, Joe when we assume we became asses. Have you considered the possibility I studied abroad? Not Joe, Joe, Joe when we assume we became asses. Have you considered the possibility I studied in a different abroad? Will that be a double or triple demerit Joe H? (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, September 08, 2003, 17:37 (Agree/Disagree?) You better give me a triple, cause when I studied abroad, I ended up studying several different broads. (reply to this comment)

From Spat Monday, September 08, 2003, 17:49 (Agree/Disagree?) K triple it is I truly repent, but can you send some of those broads these way? I'v been having a hard time getting any for a while (reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, September 08, 2003, 19:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm guessing the local girls are all too oppressive, well educated, & just generally mean to you.. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, September 08, 2003, 18:03 (Agree/Disagree?) What happened? Weren't you the one behind Nancy's woodshed yelling "I have sex. I have it all the time"? That image still makes me laugh. Nancy, you are indeed the goddess of hyperbole. (reply to this comment)

from Nancy Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Uh, give the justice system some credit. The U.S. Attorney's office was able to eventually successfully prosecute the five big mafia families in New York and even imprison the godfather himself, John Gotti. Karen Zerby and all her imaginary friends are not much more a challenge. Besides, there are hundreds more complaining witnesses and possible claimants in this case. No one is going to get wacked, either, for bringing their claims or testifying to the acts they witnesses or which were committed upon them. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 11:25 (Agree/Disagree?) *witnessed*(reply to this comment)

from Just a Thought Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 10:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Ystwisted, I commend you for your efforts & actually trying to do something rather than just talk about it, as well as the fact that you keep getting back to the point, which is, "are you willing to support". A thought I might offer to you is that although you may get a general idea of what people are thinking on this site, it's not a good over all judge of potential. When you ask people if they would be willing to get behind something like this, you have to understand that the immediate first reaction is that some of those people (myself included) continue the question with, "...with ystwisted at the helm". I know that for myself, WHO is involved is equally as important as WHAT is involved. Not only that but the AGENDA of what is involved. There are a lot of people on this site that would love to see the Family leadership brought to justice but are hesitant to start something that will end up only affecting the little people, and in the end, just give the Family one more feather in their cap as a "triumph" over "those evil bitter detractors who tell lies". You have to understand also, that there are people who would be willing to back something like this (in time or with money) if they actually trusted the people coordinating and leading it and had a good idea of what the game plan is. If you ask me if I would be willing to get involved, I'd say no. No for all of the reasons that I outlined above. If you came to me three months later and said, "these are the people that are on the team, this is the direction that we're going, this is about how long it's going to take, this is the agenda, and this is how much it's going to cost you, are you in?" If I agreed with the agenda, believed that the people at the head knew what they were doing and agreed that the direction being taken was one that would be effective, then you've got a good chance of getting not only my money, but also my time involvement. I realize (and actively support) the notion that details should not be discussed on this site, so I understand the catch 22. However, you yourself have done little to build your own credibility on this site which, I believe, will greatly hamper any positive reaction to your quest that you may be hoping to garner. It also seems that your overall agenda could be a little more specific (or at least thought out) without giving the game plan away to the opposition. It would take more of that to get any reaction from me in the form of a "yes" or a "no". (reply to this comment)

from Ne Oublie Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 19:59 (Agree/Disagree?) What's the plan for how the money won from the suit would be used? Would it be used to start a foundation to help children who leave the Family? Would it be divided by the plaintiffs? Or is this all to early on? (reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Sunday, August 31, 2003, 01:18 (Agree/Disagree?) all good questions but yeah it's way too early. im just trying to determine interest levels here. you interested in supporting something like this?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, August 31, 2003, 06:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Nah, I have too many good friends in the Family, and as I said before - I wanna KEEP my money!(reply to this comment)

from Wolf Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 17:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you loco? I already wasted enough tithe money on those lunatics! Leave them in their cauldron and let them stew themselves to death. (reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Saturday, August 30, 2003, 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) no i am not loco. i am however, enojoso. and want to start something like a small guerra. but to do that we need funding so i am asking if like minded people would step up and donate dinero for the cause. comprender? (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 30, 2003, 19:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Call me stingy, but I'm rather keen to keep the money I make for MYSELF. Must be the Scot in me!(reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Sunday, August 31, 2003, 01:21 (Agree/Disagree?) ok, thanks for the feedback. (reply to this comment)

from frmrjoyish Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 11:57 (Agree/Disagree?) While I would love to see the abusers in TF be brought to justice, given the results of court cases in the past something would have to be done differently in order to avoid the same fate of these half assed victories that TF puts their own spin on and uses to their advantage. I think any more cases that TF is not absolutley and completley defeated will only serve to bolster their lies and deceptions to the rest of the world. Without a complete and total win on our part resulting in an undeniable and public defeat to TF with the courts explicitly rendering the justice they deserve, TF will just find a way to twist it around to their benefit. We can't have any more half assed victories with the judge basically saying, "OK you guys have treated children wrong in the past but I'll still allow kids to remain in your custody." I think maybe a public relations campaign would be more effective if the goal is to be ultimatley rendering TF invalid. Since we all know they use deception and lies to cover up their real identities while fundraising, if the public were made more aware it may hamper their fundraising efforts. Local politicians should also be made aware so they are not taken in by TF's snow jobs. So, while I'm all for bringing TF to justice, I want to make sure its done in the most effective and public way possible. I think ultimatley the total abolishment of this destructive cult should be our real goal, however that may come about. (reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Saturday, August 30, 2003, 18:48 (Agree/Disagree?) i agree, i think that public awareness campaigns would be very effective in the fight against TF. would you such an initiative financially? (not asking you to sign a contract here, just want to get an idea of where people stand on the issue. :)(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, August 30, 2003, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, while I'm not totally against legal action, I'd be more apt to financially support a public awareness campaign. I think in the long run it'd get better results.(reply to this comment)

from Maniac Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 10:56 (Agree/Disagree?) While I disagree with alot of what you wrote, Spat, one thing that I can agree with you on 100%, is "The Family is not an active TREAT to the children that now exist in it". Truer words were never spoken..... (reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 02:22 (Agree/Disagree?) nice work recognizing that error. would you be willing to support an initiative to investigate, build a case and attempt to sue TF? Would you be interested in supporting public awareness campaigns?(reply to this comment)

From Maniac Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 08:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I mean no disrespect to you, twisted. But I have a bit of a problem with an anonymous person coming on this site, someone who just recently signed up, wordish a desperate plea for legal advice, and then a few weeks later, posts a article asking if people want to chip in their hard earned cash to fight a legal battle. Call me sanicle, but i really don't know anything about you. How can you in good conscious try to raise funds/support from a group of young people who spent large chunks of their lives scamming the public for donations, using grand "social work" stories, with very little to no details.... It would seem to me that if you were serious about this effort of yours, the very least you could do is put up a profile, so we could at least put a face to the twisted name... That said, as to your question of whether or not I would support such a project, I am by nature a very selfish and lazy person, i have also been out of the group for 10 years, and i am pleased to tell you that as of the beginning of the year, i do not have a single person that i am close to left in the family. So while I would love to see the group disbanded, and the leaders held civily accountable, it would really only be from a bystander watching an accident sort of way.. I really have no vested interest in what happens to the family any longer... Besides, as i recall, Albatross, a intelligent and well spoken, as well as very public member of this board was already working on a similar project, maybe you should link up with him, and see if you can't "pool your resources"... good luck in your endeavours twisted, i believe you'll need it....(reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 14:34 (Agree/Disagree?) thanks maniac - points are all well taken. perhaps eventually we can all enjoy the accidental disbandment of TF while standing by and enjoying our lifestyles however lazy and selfish they may be. i'd like to reitereate here that i am not asking for your money. i apologize if that was at all nebulous. i am asking simply if people would support anti-family action. i am not even purposing that i would be the vanguard in such an initiative.(reply to this comment)

from Spat Friday, August 29, 2003 - 22:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I appreciate all efforts to bring the individuals that committed abuse to Justice. However I feel that suing the family as a group is a waste of time and intimately hurtful to the children we are trying to protect. My reasons are the following: 1 The Family has few to no physical assets to be obtained thru a suit 2 The Family has a very loose leadership with a virtually untraceable chain of command and a code of silence that would make the godfather proud, which would make tracing and punishing the leadership a daunting task 3 The Family is not an active treat to the children that now exist in it I would dare say I find the abuse encountered in mainstream society equals or in some cases surpasses that found in the cult; before you all bash me I’m the 1st to admit I do not believe most of their teachings, furthermore I refuse to believe that a group founded by a criminal and pedophile mind could evolve into a productive entity. Nevertheless I find that the catholic church is also a group were abuse has run rampant and has been used as a tool for oppression for millenniums, but in good faith I would not demand or participate in any action to terminate its existence (just ask an orphan in a catholic orphanage in Calcutta what he thinks). 4 I believe the only outcome of this publicity you so proudly announce would be in people like my brothers and sisters (who are still in the group) will suffer further recrimination and isolation. I can Still remember walking down a street in Mexico trying to sell a tape in some little hut feeling absolutely horrid about having to explain my lifestyle (better said my parents chosen lifestyle) to a little Mexican grocer who read about us in the news. Needles to say I always denied all abuse and showed a proud face, but the pain I felt in having to explain away my group’s mistakes is a painfully memory I would hate to put anyone thru. In conclusion all I can say is make the guys who deserve to pay pay, and let my little brothers live. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Monday, September 01, 2003, 23:02 (Agree/Disagree?) It doesn't matter whether the family has recognizable assets that we can win from a law suit; what does matter is that they finally get to recognize us second generation former members as a real voice. we are no longer the obedient children that stood by and watched one atrocity after another. We are the families watch dog; their own personal consumer group, dedicated to making sure that what ever we have experienced never happens again. If we do not show our strength, we are the only the victims; if we stand up, we are the reformists. I know that thefamily has made many changes for the good, but I'm not ready to lye down and let them be satisfied with that.(reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 02:24 (Agree/Disagree?) lance thanks for the comments. would you be willing to help support investigations, law suits or public awareness campaigns?(reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Saturday, August 30, 2003, 18:19 (Agree/Disagree?) spat - the words treat and threat are distinctly different in meaning. so while i would agree that the family is not a treat to children i am directly opposed to the notion that the family is not a THREAT to children. try these on for size...who do you think "the guys who deserve to pay" are abusing now? did you think they stopped abusing kids when we grew up? what do you think about the kids that were abused as children and are still in the family with responsibility over 3rd generation children? do you think they would make stable and trustworthy, guardians for your children or siblings.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, August 30, 2003, 12:10 (Agree/Disagree?) So your willing to allow your own brothers and sisters to remain in a cult that openly encourages pedophilia? As long as TF exists it will ALWAYS remain a threat to its children. Maria openly stated (to TF, anyway) that their policy banning child molestation was only due to pressure from court cases and "persecution" from the system and exmembers and not due to any sincere change of heart or concern for the welfare of theirkids. Once the pressures off there is a very real danger they may revert to their old ways, if they haven't already! The humiliation you felt as a child from public knowledge of the real truth of TF may have acutally saved you from being abused (I sincerely hope you were so lucky). The same awareness may also save your brothers and sisters from abuse if its not too late already! Trust me, a little humiliation is better than suffering the life long consequences of being abused. Public awareness of TF's REAL beliefs will only protect your siblings, who you obviously care about a great deal.(reply to this comment)

From Spat Saturday, August 30, 2003, 12:52 (Agree/Disagree?) 1st of all maybe you were not listening, but I do not find the family to actively support pedophilia at this time. It has occurred it probably still occurs in a smaller an isolated manner. But your contention is that because the family changed due to external pressure it is still guilty of the same crime makes 0 sense. I do not contend that they changed on their own accord, but if external pressure is the issue, then I can contend that me being a African American with family tree rooted in Tennessee. Where my dad (who never joined the family but was a fish) can remember the time when they were forced to go to the back of the bus, and my grandaunt can remember the day that black women hid after 6pm to avoid rape, in a state that only changed due to the Federal pressure and the guilty conscience of a whole nation, then all black people should stay out of Tennessee, because down at the heart it still is a racist and bigot state were most of the riches are still controlled by the families that derived their wealth from the slave trade. In order for what you are saying to be true that would be the case. I mean what about Germany? Change when real weather voluntary or forceful is still change. I love my brothers and sisters I do not believe in what they believe or do, but I would die defending their right to live as they believe. Now don’t get me wrong if I felt they were being abused in any matter I would be the 1st to try and protect them. Some people will probably contend that their indoctrination is abuse, but I believe that indoctrination is a parents right until the child is able to make up his own mind. I mean it happens in every society it is a part of life. So bottom line is this: yes if my brothers at this moment have chosen to live in this matter I support them, and feel you and I have no right to tell them how to live.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 17:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, I totally agree that a suit against the family right now would not only be a waste of money and time but in my opinion would be detrimental to people like my family that are still in. My family along with probably the majority of current members are just trying to live their lives according their personal faith and beliefs no matter how messed up we believe these doctrines to be. I think that we all know that there is not any sexual or physical abuse going on right now and even though their doctrines are beliefs are way out there, it’s their right as a human being to make that choice. We have to accept the fact that freedom of religion cannot be served out only to those that we agree with. Same goes for the way they raise their kids. I don't agree at all with the way my sisters are held out of school and not given the chance to get a good education. However my parents have a god given right to raise their kids the way they see fit. Just like the Amish or any other fundamental group. As long as what they are doing is within the law then it boils down to a matter of morel principles and that goes back to freedom of religion. The same freedom that we enjoy that allows some of us to believe in Wicca or paganism or Atheism or whatever it is that we chose to believe. (reply to this comment)

From Never Forgets Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 23:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Peter and Maria were both involved in torturing Mene, and many other children. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY "CHANGED". They need to answer for their crimes. "Religious freedom" has NOTHING to do with it, we are talking about criminal actions.(reply to this comment)

From Spat Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 16:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Agreed, but my point is try and find them and charge them for their actions don’t fuckup the innocent bystanders life’s if somebody did commit the crime let them do the time. But respect their right to live and belief as they choose as long as its within the confines of the law. So go find Peter, go find Maria or go and find anyone responsible for the abuse and have them brought to justice but leave the little guy alone(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 11:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Absolutely! The issue of civil remedies has nothing at all to do with children still remaining within the Family. Rather, it has to do with those of us here who suffered actionable torts and criminal abuses. The claims which could be brought by a civil action belong to those of us upon whom the acts were committed. Bystanders, whom are all children who remain in the Family are, if at all, are irrelevant. Whether abuses have occurred with regard to them or continue to occur has nothing at all to do with the claims belonging to those who have left. This is not a campaign to change, disband or even affect a religious sect. Rather, the issues at hand concern righting, in a civil arena, wrongs done a large number of individuals. Laws exist to address such wrongs and civil torts. The burden of proof exists to assure only those responsible are held liable. Rules of civil procedure exist to assure proper jurisdiction and properly named defendants who are required to appear before a court endowed with the authority to hear the matter. Rules of evidence exist to assure that only relevant, reliable and admissible evidence is heard by a jury. A jury exists to decide the matter as the law dictates. Requiring an organization and its leadership to answer for civil torts committed on such a large scale is the heart of the matter, not affecting some pawn of the organization. This is the United States of America, with one of the most highly developed judicial systems in the world. Most are discussing bringing such an action here. The organization known as The Family has never defended a civil action in this country. We are not dealing with a simple custody dispute, which deals with different issues, requires different proof to decide different matters. No, this is entirely new. A civil action turns on whether or not an actionable claim exists, whether or not the elements of the claim can be shown and what damages, if any, are available. Whether or not individuals responsible or an organization responsible for committing civil torts have reformed themselves is irrelevant. Even in a criminal proceeding, reformation would only be an issue at sentencing. It is irrelevant to the case in point. Whether a criminal has reformed or has found Jesus, rarely even affects parole hearings. In a custody dispute, the issue of change of circumstances within a child's living environment is relevant. A member of an organization being awarded custody, because a mere family law court found that the organization had changed its practices from those which were detrimental to a child, is hardly vindication or exoneration. Rather, look at the findings of fact of the court. They make out a prima facie case for a civil action belonging to those individuals upon whom the acts were committed. It is so frustrating when I see people, who have little or no understanding of the law and how civil litigation proceeds, speculating to the effect of "well, my brothers and sisters are not being abused, and I support my parents in their choice to raise them in a religious cult." Well, good for you. Gold star! But, that has nothing at all to do with the price of tea in China. You and your siblings are irrelevant to the claims belonging to other individuals. Just because your parents may belong to the same religious sect as the potential defendants in a civil action is really of no account. Did your parents beat, rape or falsely imprison anyone? No? Then you have nothing for which to be concerned. Whether there are identifiable assets to use to satisfy a judgment is also really unimportant in the early stages of a civil action. As an attorney, I can tell you that assets are important, but they are not a deciding factor in whether or not to bring an action. In some cases, discouraging an individual with a recognizable claim from bringing such an action, based merely on a first blush assumption that there are no easily recognizable assets, is legal malpractice. Most claims are considered property rights which belong to the claimant. That potential claimant owns those claims and has a right under our Constitution to have them heard by a court of proper jurisdiction. That is the heart of our system of justice. It is similar to bringing an action against Enron for its corporate malfeasants. Assets may now be difficult to locate. There may be little people who worked for the corporation who bear no responsibility for the criminal acts and civil torts of the corporation’s directors and executive officers. Yet, that has no bearing on whether claims should be brought for the civil wrongs committed on such a large scale and affecting so many individuals.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 20:24 (Agree/Disagree?) While TF may claim to have changed, their track record of child abuse an negligence is too serious to so easily dismiss. But, abuse is a tough subject and not easily faced esp. by someone who has never experienced it personally. We were brainwashed our whole lives to think that what we were experienceing was normal and OK! Its no wonder some of us still feel that way. My whole concern is that I don't trust that the same people guilty of child abuse can run an organization suposedly dedicated to its children and doing right by them! Neither do I trust any parent who can stay within a group that has commited such crimes against children. Anyone who so freely admits to such despicable child abuse as Zerby and other top leaders have, have no right to be within 10 feet of a child let alone exersizing so much control over the lives of thousands of families! I'm more inclined to support a public awarness campaign then a lawsuit. I'm not interested in compensation for myself but only to make sure that children are not harmed in the future. I think making the public more aware of where their money goes and all of TF's many aliases would have more of an effect then just suing for compensation. I see your point about freedom of religion and parents rights, but the right of a child comes above anything. A parent whose religion does not permit western medicine is still required by law to see that their child recieves proper medical care regardless of the religious beliefs of the parents, the same thing goes for education. Even the followers of Voodoo can't practice the ritualistic killing of animals that their religion calls for since its considered animal cruelty! I'm all for the right of some stupid cult followers to practice whatever stupidity they choose, as long as the rights and futures of their children are not violated in any way!(reply to this comment)

From plus Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 21:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Besides, as the Family loves to advertise, they "change on a dime," and having established patterns that they have not yet answered for, who is to guarantee that with one of their swings they will not go back? (reply to this comment)

From shroom Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 18:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I love morel principles, but I prefer portabella or even shiitake.(reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 10:25 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! This is why I enjoy reading the posts on this website. (reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 10:25 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! This is why I enjoy reading the posts on this website. (reply to this comment)

From ChrisBadAss Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 18:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Absaloutely right, and its presumptious to assume otherwise. (reply to this comment)

From chime Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 18:45 (Agree/Disagree?) OK, I'm going to get obnoxious here. Why don't those who feel they were never abused just butt out? Nick, I have not seen you say you weren't, but I get the feeling you are one of these people, don't ask me why. Lawsuits are for those who have suffered damages!!!!!!!!!! Or have you learned nothing about American culture? CEOs, like Maria and Peeter always want to discourage suits by saying "it will hurt the shareholder" or "the consumer will pay for it." So it might be in the interests of the shareholders or consumers who were not damaged not to sue, but that is beside the point! It is a free country and if I was hurt and I want to sue, who cares that those who were not hurt don't want to sue or don't want me to sue?! One thing that the people opposing action are not making clear is HOW a civil lawsuit would hurt their siblings or parents still in. Ystwisted, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like the lawyer would take on, a lawsuit for money damages from the defendants. Maybe if I knew what they thought would happen to them I would feel differently. If they are innocent, they would not be named as defendants. What am I missing? Finally, I don't know what "we" you are referring to, but I for one do not "know that there is not any sexual or physical abuse going on right now." I have heard it is no longer policy, but that is very different from knowing it doesn't go on, especially given the fact that the perps have never been held accountable for, as Lance put it, the "atrocities."(reply to this comment)

From to chime Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 04:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Chime, first of all, the reason why 'those who feel they were never abused' don't 'just butt out' is because this is a public forum with a stated purpose of being "The website created by and for young adults with parents who joined the religious organization The Family / Children of God. Pull up a chair and stay awhile -- Browse, read, rant, write, whatever." As such, the fact that our parents joined The Family gives us as much right to post here as anyone else... even if it's just because we want to debate! To answer your second question, of HOW we think our siblings would be hurt in the event of a lawsuit against the Family, I'll list a couple ways that I can think of off the top of my head: 1) Family leadership is notably secretive about their locations, and even their full names, etc. As such it's more than likely that those who would be 'caught' would be a local Home. 2) Even if only the leadership were brought to court in the initial case, chances are that other cases would copy-cat, but based on less information would again only affect local Homes or families. 3) Living through a court case, having every aspect of your life brought into the open, and potentially even being removed from your parents, can't be any less than a traumatic experience for any child to undergo. 4) Where would any finances come from to pay for the Family's legal defence or the settlement of any suit? Whether WS actually has financial reserves is debatable, thus any financial burden placed on them would likely be passed on to the average Homes. And when it comes to the crunch, I imagine that the first thing to 'go' will be all the kids' 'special activities', and other 'extras' (ie: anything other than food, clothing, housing, and maybe a movie once a week). These are just a few things I'm thinking of now, but is by no means a complete listing! This doesn't even bring into account the 'Fast Days' which would likely be held, and any other ways of 'raising the level of desperation' that the Family would undergo. If there was some way that I could be assured that none of the above (and possibly a few others) would take place, then I would support efforts to prosecute proven child abusers within the Family.(reply to this comment)

From chime Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 10:45 (Agree/Disagree?) OK, on your first point I should have been clearer. I should have said that comments like "nah, I won't sue cause I have too many good friends in the Family and I want to keep my money" are nonsensical coming from people who don't believe they were hurt. I can just picture judge judy: "JJ: ok, sir, and you want to sue because?" "Answer: because I had it good in the family and my siblings have it better than they would otherwise." "JJ: contentment is not a cause of action; dismissed. NEXT..." That's all I meant, I did not mean you should not be on this site, which you seem to have thought I did. And of course you are free to say anything about a lawsuit, but that doesn't mean it has any bearing on the plans of those who do consider themselves as having bee injured. On your other points, thanks for the reply, it helps. Here are my comments as someone who has been out in the world a long time: "1) Family leadership is notably secretive about their locations, and even their full names, etc. As such it's more than likely that those who would be 'caught' would be a local Home." Caught in what? I did not hear anybody talking about raids. There was a case years ago where the plaintiff was never able to serve the person she was suing, MO, but that did not mean anyone else got served with papers, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BEING SUED. BTW, she won $1,000,000 (which Mo always said "haha, they'll never collect." I think she still hasn't collected). "2) Even if only the leadership were brought to court in the initial case, chances are that other cases would copy-cat, but based on less information would again only affect local Homes or families." A: see comment above about effect on uninvolved local homes. B: what is this about "copy cat" suits "based on less information"? What "legal" system are we discussing here? I'm lost. "3) Living through a court case, having every aspect of your life brought into the open, and potentially even being removed from your parents, can't be any less than a traumatic experience for any child to undergo." Who is talking about a case that could entail any of this? This would be more like a custody case, or raids, which I don't hear ystwisted mentioning. A lawsuit targeted at abusers would not involve any children period, in my understanding. "4) Where would any finances come from to pay for the Family's legal defence or the settlement of any suit? Whether WS actually has financial reserves is debatable, thus any financial burden placed on them would likely be passed on to the average Homes. And when it comes to the crunch, I imagine that the first thing to 'go' will be all the kids' 'special activities', and other 'extras' (ie: anything other than food, clothing, housing, and maybe a movie once a week)." Nice people your siblings live with! "...This doesn't even bring into account the 'Fast Days' which would likely be held, and any other ways of 'raising the level of desperation' that the Family would undergo." Ah yes, I remember the desperation, for MO's health, etc., etc. The Family has to do this from time to time in order to keep people in fear, whether people sue or not, so I'm afraid the Family will find reasons for it even if we do nothing. Along the same lines, if this is so hard on people, then they must not be having it so great in the Family... Finally, "If there was some way that I could be assured that none of the above (and possibly a few others) would take place, then I would support efforts to prosecute proven child abusers within the Family." OK, I guess it would be up to whoever is organizing an effort to assure you that such things would not happen. But when you say "proven child abusers," you mean "proven" exactly HOW? In a court of law? But then prosecution would have already happened, no? And if it hasn't, we're in a catch 22, because you think they have to be proven abusers before action is taken, but how do we prove it then? Again, what am I missing?(reply to this comment)

From Eaglebleeds Monday, September 01, 2003, 03:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with what Spat is saying here. If my parents, brothers and siters choose to remain in TF, before and after turning 18, that`s their choice and I`ll back them up. They all know that I don`t agree with TF policies and life style. And I know for a fact that they`re not being abused, actually they have it pretty good. If the circumstances changed to where I believed they were in danger or needed rescueing I`d be there instantly. But I also know my parents wouldn`t allow it and would choose to leave for the sake of their kids(my brothers and sisters). And I don`t think sueing TF as a group would bring justice. It would just hurt the ones trying to do good and let the guilty parties escape; with the $$$`s. There`s too many trying to be missionaries, whether they actually are successful doesn`t matter, that would be hurt. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, September 03, 2003, 11:19

From Ne Oublie Monday, September 01, 2003, 06:59 (Agree/Disagree?) As the quote which I believe someone on this site has already used says 'I may not believe in what you do, but I will fight for your right to believe it!' Just because I am no longer a Family member does not mean that I will not fight for their right to believe what they choose. I, and my parents, KNOW that my brother, sister and niece are NOT being abused in The Family - if anything, they have it better than they otherwise would (better than what my cousins, or other friends, have). And so long as that is the case, I will support their choice to remain in it! If that were ever to change, I would likewise change my position!(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Monday, September 01, 2003, 16:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I sincerely hope that you are correct in your assumption that your siblings were not and are not being abused. My own siblings, who do not frequent this site, would probably swear to the same thing, that none of us were abused either, since I chose not to share my story with them! It's something I chose to keep secret from them due to their ages and the circumstances! My point is that even inside immediate families it's impossible to know for sure if abuse is taking place, esp. in an environment such as TF that actively supports the abuse and then covers it up after the fact! Not to mention the many other forms of child abuse, other than sexual, that have and probably still are occuring today. If any of my relatives were still in TF I'd fight to the death to get them out, even if my parents were still in and I had to take them from them!(reply to this comment)

From me too Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 00:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I would fight too. As the Summit 93 Jewels show, you can never really count on the Family's claims. For all I know they may still be whispering with leadership about thinking child molestation is really OK and trying to figure out how to make sure kids don't get the wrong idea from the fact that it is forbidden because it's "too dangerous" or start to think of things that happened "in the past" as abuse.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, September 01, 2003, 20:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the concern fmrjoyish! In this case I CAN say that I KNOW that my siblings are safe in their current situations! There are far more important ways of recognising abuse than just being told about them by the victim. I have interacted with children who have been abused in various ways, so I know what I'm talking about! Especially when it comes to my own family I am confident that I would recognise any possibility of abuse - and if I ever did, you'd better believe that I would get them out of that situation in a heartbeat!(reply to this comment)

From Eaglebleeds Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 00:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Same here. I can`t speak for every situation out there. And I`m sure alot of situations aren`t good for kids in TF. For example daily fundraising, no studying, no chance at their dream, etc......But I know my brothers and sisters do study, pursue their interests, ones that don`t want to be in TF and are under 18 are encouraged to prepare for their future. They aren`t being abused and that I know for sure. I`m not speaking for others or about TF. (reply to this comment)

From Syd Monday, September 01, 2003, 20:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne Oublie: "There are far more important ways of recognising abuse than just being told about them by the victim." I am sure there are other ways to recognize abuse, but in the Family children are trained to act non-abused, so it's very risky to rely on signs that you'd expect elsewehere, like some not-the-brightest-bulb-in-the-box academics have done.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 04:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Like Eaglebleeds, my siblings ARE recieving a good education, they ARE able to pursue their dreams, and they ARE making their own decisions regarding their life. I recently decided to leave the Family, and my parents were and have been 100% supportive! To date I have not heard a single negative comment from them regarding my choice. That is because my parents raised us kids to think for ourselves, and to make our own decisions, even as a child they respected us and our choices. The key word in my interaction with my parents has always been respect - they have respected me and my choices, and I have in turn respected them. Similarly, I can safely assume that my siblings would be treated with the same respect, and that my parents would be equally as supportive of ANY choices they would make regarding their career or lifestyle. As for the 'signs of abuse', I would point out that I've had the same behavioural training as my siblings. I also personally know the individuals who are involved in my siblings' education and training - in many cases they are people whom I've known and lived with for over 15 years! These are people whom I know and trust, and who have never once abused me, nor have I seen them abuse anyone else! In my experience with these individuals, I have been their student, understudy, peer and even superior. I believe I know these people well enough to speak with confidence about their character and current behaviour. AND I also trust that my parents are perfectly able to protect my siblings from any form of abuse - as they did me.(reply to this comment)

From You're Dead-on Right Monday, September 01, 2003, 20:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Speaking as one ex-cultist who only recently told his parents and siblings the truth about what he went through, you are absolutely right. You can't trust anything you hear from a Family member, even if they are your relatives. Remember: "Deceivers Yet True"? Not to mention: "Matthew 10:36ers".(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, August 30, 2003, 18:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Since you wanna bring up Germany??? If Hitler was still ruling Germany but was "forced to change due to external pressures" do you really think it'd be safe there for anyone who isn't a blond haired, blue eyed caucasion? Sadaam Heussein was "forced to change due to external pressures" and it didn't make the people of Iraq any safer! Do you think you really know for sure what is happening in such a non-public, secretive environment such as TF??? There are people on this site who doubt the countless stories of abuse right here, many of whom were in TF at the height of it all in the 80's! It would be a huge mistake for you to assume abuse isn't happening in a cult with a proven track record of not only supporting it and the abusers, but encouraging it as part of their doctrine. My contention is that TF is still run by the same child abusers who ran it right along side the Grand Dragon of Perverts, Berg. Zerby has admited in writing that there is nothing wrong with "loving adult-child sexual contact". Until she is no longer receiving the support, monetary and otherwise, of members of TF then children will be at risk! No parent whatsoever, has the right to subject their children to such risk. It's criminally irresponsible and neglectfull!!(reply to this comment)

from Noodle User Friday, August 29, 2003 - 00:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Just a thought... (and by this I am in no way passing judgment on ystwisted's character) I don't think it would be wise to post responses to these type of post on here. Follow my line of reasoning, if you will. If I were a current member of the Family who had heard about this site, discovered its strict adherence to its policy of complete user anonymity -- if so desired by the user -- and was interested in what sort of enemy the Family was up against, here is what I would do: Post an article of the above sort, and keep track of how many people, and which ones, replied and would be willing to shell out to pay a lawyer to take on a court case against the Family. Now, mind you, I'm not saying this is the case with this article. I'm just saying that people shouldn't let their desire for justice end up getting the better of them. (reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Friday, August 29, 2003, 16:42 (Agree/Disagree?) thanks for your response. i was aware that this article could be deemed as some kind of trickery. for what it's worth, i communicated at length with the admins of this site in order to demonstrate that they this is a legitimate attempt at gauging support for some organized civil law suit against the family. we conversed for several weeks before they finally agreed to post this article.(reply to this comment)

from more info Thursday, August 28, 2003 - 17:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Could there be some more information given about this lawyer? For example, his name, some of the cases he's been involved in and their outcome, etc. To do something on such a large scale, with so many of us with so many stories, we would certainly want to make sure that the lawyer would have some experience in such cases. Also, what would be the angle that he would want to come from, as I imagine that there are many different opinions on that with each of us, with many wanting to sue for many different reasons, so it would be something to put together an argument that would unite so many voices. Does he have any thots on this? (reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Friday, August 29, 2003, 16:55 (Agree/Disagree?) The original version of this article had details about the lawyer i spoke with and some information about his history and experience. i was advised to remove this information as it could potentially be useful to the family in some kind of pre-emptive action against a law suit of this magnitude. I will reiterate however that he has made a career out of investigating and suing cults. he has won some great lawsuits and even helped shaped legislation. he has been attacked by members of the cults that he's sued, his family has been threatened by them and he carries on fighting harmful religous cults. to further claify, let me say that this idea is so infintile its too early to speak about the "angle" of the case. so let's just look this from a higher level of abstraction. if there was some organization of ex-family members and other volenteers, that would be dedicated to menicing the family (wheather its legally in a court room or funding public awareness campaigns etc.) would you be willing to support such actions by making financial contributions? would you want to be involved in the organization in some way? (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 29, 2003, 17:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I commend you for your efforts. Just an FYI, there are attorneys out there who have the same experience bringing actions against abusive religious cults who offer their services on a contingency basis. That seems the most feasible method given the size of such an action. The hourly rate for such a large action could reach into the hundreds of thousands, not to mention expenses. But, you still must be commended for what you've done so far. Keep up the good work! There are people out there who are able and willing to assist. It may take some work to find them. I mean those willing to become named plaintiffs. But, whatever you do, I suspect that doing it publicly on the site would be risky. That would be like informing a defendant of the elements of your claim before bringing it. Litigation is like war. Surprise and secrecy are beneficial in the beginning. (reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Friday, August 29, 2003, 18:50 (Agree/Disagree?) i submit that it would be hard to find a lawyer who would be willing to take this entirely on contingency basis. the reason being that i think it will be difficult if not impossible to actually collect money from the family.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 29, 2003, 20:55 (Agree/Disagree?) It's neither difficult, nor impossible. You should speak to people here off the site. What's not posted is often the most important. You just need to get to the right people, and they are often those who do not post much. Or if you'd like to do things on your own, then start by looking for attorneys who have represented Catholic Church victims. A large majority of those attorneys are contingent fee attorneys.(reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Saturday, August 30, 2003, 18:35 (Agree/Disagree?) if i may point out a small difference between TF and the catholic church: $$$ the chance of actually getting $ as a result of a civil suit against the family is quite small. lawyers typically take cases strictly on contingency when they are quite certain that they will be able to get cash out of the entity being sued. that is simply not the case when we're talking about TF, the case could last years, and have little to no payout at the end. my opinion it would be unreasonable to expect a lawyer to take a case like this strictly on contingency. they'd go bankrupt before the case went to trial. (reply to this comment)

From krystine Tuesday, September 09, 2003, 22:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe a lawyer would not take the case based on contingency but a lot of hot shot lawyers take cases because on the immense media exposure especially if it has a high profile. Sueing TF has a lot of potential of being explosive and once the ball gets rolling many lawyers may jump at the chance at being part of the action. Sueing TF is not about money but about closure and seeking justice in our lives and if this case gets big it can raise awarness even if we don't win.(reply to this comment)

From steam Monday, September 01, 2003, 20:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I understand a lawyer has got to make a living as everyone has got to. I wonder though about the "dedication and sincere motivation" of a lawyer who wants 200$ an hour fees to supposedly fight for something he believes in. If he has been very successful in major anti cult litigation in the past it would seem he is already quite wealthy, and if he believed in the cause, he probably should be willing to take a risk on the contingency fee as he would be wealthy enough to have a "miss" if worse came to worse. It would certainly increase his profile, and a big name in the legal world is worth a fortune. If he was successful even without money, there could be book deals and media coverage that could make him a star.(reply to this comment)

From water Monday, September 01, 2003, 21:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, but a lawyer has to balance the possibility of a huge miss, a miss maybe in their biggest case ever, against the possible benefits. Because if someone is going to tackle the Family's abuses in the legal system and do it right, it's going to take a lot of resources, whereas the nature of a proper civil case against the abuses of Family is not something that is really provided for so there is uncertainty. The kind of abusive stuff that happened in the Family does not come along every day nor do the circumstances. Plus, the risk with a contingency fee is not just will he win, but will a winner be able to find the money that the Family moves around in their halawa-like underground economy.(reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 02:47 (Agree/Disagree?) water, your assertion is a good one. while the $200/hour fee was somewhat arbitrary I am quite certain that in order to do this right it will take some substantial financial backing. I believe that we can achieve this kind of backing by pooling our resources, and that is what this article is all about. whether the money goes towards a lawsuit or a media campaign to increase public awareness is an after thought. the first thing we need to determine is if there is a willingness to support these actions. water, would you be willing to support this type of initiative?(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 30, 2003, 19:26 (Agree/Disagree?) How little you know.(reply to this comment)

From ystwisted Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 02:35 (Agree/Disagree?) nancy, how little do i know? I would really appreciate more of an explanation. specifically, is TF really as easy to track down and as wealthy as the catholic church? if you are not comfortable writing with less ambiguity in this forum, would you please explain this comment to me in a direct email? ystwisted@yahoo.com thanks. (reply to this comment)

From Tim R Saturday, August 30, 2003, 01:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said Nancy, what is posted is often just the tip of the IceBerg (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Thursday, August 28, 2003, 21:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I would like to see more information about this, perhaps you could set up a mail account and interested parties could contact you personally if you would rather not give to much information over the net. I'd be interested in the angle, approach, and goals. As well as more info about the lawyer himself/herself. I would like to know more about the character of the lawyer too. (reply to this comment)