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

from EyesWideShut Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 09:54 (Agree/Disagree?) When I was in I certainly viewed them as part of the Family. In fact, they were WS in my eyes--part of it. From lists I've seen, I believe that all the money raised or given to them by "richer" Family Homes is dealt out to "poorer" Family Homes, mostly in ASCRO and Latin America: Cambodia, etc. Definately bogus and not helping anyone but the Family, if anyone at all. (reply to this comment)

from Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey I saw a headline today with an expression that reminds me of The Family, "kleptocracy." (reply to this comment)

from Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 18:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Interestingly, James Chancellor's book documents the Family Care Foundation - The Family link. I say, if they really didn't think they were making the Family Care Foundation an arm of The Family, why didn't they pick a name different from Family Care Foundation? Plus, does anybody else remember that from way back, Family Care was WS' unit on all things relating to childcare? (reply to this comment)

from Always Monday, August 30, 2004 - 15:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I think good works are never wrong. Hmmn what was the story, The Loaf of Bread. (reply to this comment)

From Monday, August 30, 2004, 20:12 (Agree/Disagree?) The problem is that the good works they should be doing is something to remedy the destruction they wreaked in their children's lives. They justify their not doing this by saying "we're too busy doing good for the needy," but they are neglecting to remedy the havoc that they caused and which is their job to remedy. While they are at it, they continue to slander their abused children who have the gall to tell something that would raise questions about the "good deeds" mask their empire of misery wears. In this context of useing them as an excuse to not do what they should be doing and to continue to harm their children, I think their "good" works can be seen as quite wrong.(reply to this comment)

from Wolf Monday, August 30, 2004 - 09:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I’ve taken flak on this site before for posting on this subject, but I’m going to reply anyway. I wasn’t involved when the FCF was set up, but I know it’s a cult project, set up and run by cult members, specifically to fund “homes” that have legitimate or semi-legitimate charity and missionary projects. Some of the individuals in homes they fund are former abusers, such as Victor Landivar (Peruvian Manuel, a child rapist) and Mary Malaysian (of BI court case infamy). They quickly removed the photos of these individuals from their web site after the former abuse was brought to their attention, but I doubt this was because they are actually concerned about the crimes committed, more likely they are trying to protect their reputation. I’m actually very surprised that they’ve made it this far without the cult connection being exposed. I heard some of the FCF directors were involved in abuse themselves, I’d like to know if anyone has first hand information about this. To answer your questions, a cult “home” gets involved with the FCF by applying to become an FCF project. If the directors think the home is involved in a legitimate charity or missionary project they may grant them project status. Missionary work is part of FCF’s mission statement, so they can openly fund a project whose only goal is evangelism. The relationship with the FCF is not a source of income in itself; the FCF doesn’t give hand-outs to homes, no matter how good their charity projects are. However, since the FCF is a 501c(3) charity, donations are tax-deductible for US residents, so being an FCF project widens a cult home’s potential sponsor base. They used to take 10% of all income as a fee before passing it on to the recipients, but they stopped taking a percentage – presumably they started getting enough income to be more concerned about their reputation than the 10%, i.e. they knew it wouldn’t look that great if some donor found out only 90% was going to the designated project. That’s where the catch comes, any income that isn’t designated to a specific project can be used for whatever the FCF wants (though they have to somehow make the expense look legit). So the FCF has a bunch of legitimate and semi-legitimate projects that get sponsorship money through them, but they can funnel whatever non-designated money comes in to WS. And if anybody inquires about what happened to their money, the FCF can say “look, we have all these great projects around the world” – and many of their projects are doing some legitimate charity work, which is why the FCF has lasted this long without their dirty secrets coming out. So, in answer to “Did they actually do any good, or was it just a money laundering organization?”, I think the answer is yes and no. Some FCF projects have done some good, and the members of FCF seem to sincerely want to help people. There are a few FCF projects that are not Family homes. However, like all of TF’s members, they’ve let themselves be duped into thinking that supporting WS is a good thing, so while they’re supporting some legitimate charity projects they are also supporting a bunch of foul criminals by funneling money to WS. Also, some of the “legitimate” charity projects are run by former child abusers. The FCF is certainly a shady organization and I’m pretty sure its end is just around the corner. However, as I’ve said before, I’m much more concerned about bringing Z&K down. Why go after the drones if you can kill the queen? (reply to this comment)

from Remembering... Monday, August 30, 2004 - 09:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Wasn't James Penn involved in setting it up? Or at least doing the initial research? (reply to this comment)