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

from sarafina Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 18:08 (Agree/Disagree?) We Won the custody case! Article coming soon. Read for yourself, watch the Video. http://www.cbs8.com/features/special_assignment/story.php?id=110250# I just wanted to share the good news! Thanks for all of you who helped with a lot of the compiling of info that we submitted and to those of you who wrote affidavits they carried a lot of weight and are what opened the door for the Judge to look further into the case and order a 730 evaluator. Hopefully this wills set a precedence in upcoming cases and the family will know that you will band together and fight for your children. They got nothing they asked for at all! They were so certain they would win, in the end it was somewhat sad to see Angela sitting in the court room alone with no one there not even her b/f or friends or any family members supporting her, I suppose they were all there "in the spirit" -Sarafina (reply to this comment)

from sarafina Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 22:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Just wanted to post a short up date on Pauls' case and Armendia's. Just as a refresh..both of these two parents are survivors and both have exes still in the family. They were sharing custody of the kids and trying to work with the other partner. The were both at the time able to visit or stay in the small homes that there kids were staying in, therefore they were able to monitor things on a personal basis. Then all of a sudden the other partners wanted full custody of the kids and stopped letting them into their homes. IN Amy's case which you can read about here http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=49&ID=4185 She was able to get a lawyer who read the article and called in offering to represent her for free. After her first court date the Judge gave her temporary full custody of all three of her kids till the evaluations and final decisions can be made. She no has them all three living with her and has them all in school! This isn't final but is a good start. So if any of you want to help her in any way please contact me, I'll be posting more on how you can help in a separate article. Paul has also gotten temporary custody of his son after the Judge read the evaluation report and is waiting final judgment in November. I want to thank everyone that submitted an affidavit for this custody case. I will post a more detailed report once the case is finished. But just wanted to thank all of those who have helped share their personal experiences. (reply to this comment)

From figaro Wednesday, September 05, 2007, 00:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Awesome, thanks for the update. :)(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Wednesday, September 05, 2007, 07:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes thank you, That is awesome! Armi has worked so hard to just live a normal life with her kids, bless her heart. I wish her the best and extra strength to deal with all of this. (reply to this comment)

from sarafina Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 11:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Anyone know where or have the address of the Rosarito Mexico home? OR any of the homes in mexico for that matter? (reply to this comment)

from sarafina Monday, October 16, 2006 - 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) It seems CBS Local channel 8’s David Gotfredson is doing another segment tonight Monday October 16th about this case. It will be on at 11pm in San Diego,CA. It seems the mothers attorney was trying to get a gag order and the case file sealed from the public. The judge said no way, and allowed CHN 8 their camera in court. Click here to view the last update. http://www.kfmb.com/features/special_assignment/story.php?id=64999 you can also watch the video of the interview. David Gotfredson KFMB-TV News Producer (reply to this comment)

From Nick Wednesday, September 05, 2007, 09:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I was just reading over the news article in that link. I find it funny that they always claim that the Family had banned sex with kids 10 years ago. Well why the hell would you have to ban something like that? Why would any organization in the western world have to actually make a policy that bans child rape? That to me is a pretty clear indication that there was abuse going on if they actually had to ban their members from participating in it.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 04:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately it seems there is too much emphasis on the sexual abuse in the media report. It would be hard to prove that former child molesters are still members of the group, since none of TFI's child molesters were ever convicted. It would be much easier to prove that Kyle is likely to be subjected to child labour, inappropriate indoctrination, etc. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 16:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, their worst child molestors are still in and running the cult. We're talking about Zerby, Prisca Kelley, Paul Peloquin, all their top leadership who wrote, condoned, practiced and facilitated child molestation. They never rejected it except in name only to escape liability. They have never renounced it. Many of the very top, including Berg's personal family engaged in incest. You don't just reject that and move on with your life. It has always been part of what the cult is. It is part of the identity of these individuals running the cult. They are pedophiles. That will never change, even if they were prosecuted. Once you've had sexual relations with a minor, much less multiple times, written about it and promoted it, then you are a pedophile. It certainly wasn't just Berg that molested thousands of children within the cult's care on multiple continents. It was their members and most importantly, their leaders, who are still running the show. If you think things have changed, then you're naive and buying the cult's propaganda. That cult has not significantly changed in any way since its inception, except to become more secretive and difficult to identify and prosecute. They're slicker than ever, and they know it and are proud of it.(reply to this comment)

From julia Saturday, July 28, 2007, 09:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally agree with Nancy. There was and never will be any real concern for the victims of abuse and as we all know to them ,who are victims? To them there were and are no victims. Everything Berg and others did it was out of lust,oops I mean love! To take responsiblity would be to renounce their whole existance and lifes "work" since most of them joined the family when they were young teens.Never gonna happen!(reply to this comment)

From julia Saturday, July 28, 2007, 09:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I totally agree with Nancy. There was and never will be any real concern for the victims of abuse and as we all know to them ,who are victims? To them there were and are no victims. Everything Berg and others did it was out of lust,oops I mean love! To take responsiblity would be to renounce their whole existance and lifes "work since most of them joined the family when they were young teens.Never gonna happen!(reply to this comment)

From loch Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 12:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Is not the fact that no one was ever taken to court or reported to athorities, dispite numerous reports and complaints by then minors enough in its self? I mean, if they admit to kicking these people out of the group because of child abuse, that is admiting it happened right? So why did they never report it to the athorities? And can they get in trouble for this alone? If nothing else it proves they are inadequate in protecting the best interest of their children. I know next to nothing about the law, so I ask all this out of pure curiosity.(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 10:56 (Agree/Disagree?) It is possible to prove, however, that at least one judge concluded that those members had been perpetrators of abuse. It is also possible to prove through TF's own publications that those members encouraged and/or engaged in acts of abuse.(reply to this comment)

From Lee G. Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) It is also possible to prove to a judge, to the very same extent as we did in England through our truthful testimony tested and verified by cross examination by cult lawyers opposing it, and ultimately accepted and believed as truthful by the judge, that we suffered or witnessed their child abuse. (reply to this comment)

From sarafina Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree and that is our focus, the media, while helpful, does usually tend to pick thier own focus.(reply to this comment)

From Newsbot Monday, October 16, 2006, 19:57 (Agree/Disagree?) News 8 Investigation: Judge Denies Motion To Ban Media From Sex Cult Case http://www.kfmb.com/features/special_assignment/story.php?id=66879 (reply to this comment)

from Just a thought Monday, October 16, 2006 - 03:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Reading through most of the comments on this article a few things come to mind. Basically i do not think sexual abuse is the key issue here as to be honest, while TF has a bad past record, they HAVE cleaned up on their act in recent years and i dont think this would be the main concern at this point in time. The things i would REALLY have issue with, having siblings in TF now would be: Lack of Education... the fact remains that despite all TF raving about the excellent education they give, it is by far wholly inadequate for the needs of the child. Even in the best of homes, children recieve a poor education at best, not enough for building a career or future outside of TF and seriously holding the child back from having options when they grow older. TF claims to have good early learning, but what is the point of teaching a kid to read at 4 yrs old and then not providing them with reading material for the rest of their life? I think most of us who have left would have felt the detrimental effect this has had on our trying to get our lives on track and this is something that should be made a point of. Secondly i feel the undue focus on having children at a young age and the non existance of any information regarding birth control and other options makes for a huge amount of young unmarried mothers, and not only is this tolerated it is actually encouraged. This is something i have a real concern about, especially having young teen sisters in TF at present. They are raised to believe that the only purpose of women is to bear and raise children, and are not given any opportunities to do otherwise. There are loads of other issues of course, such as creating low self esteem and self image, general deprevation, poor diets -- dependant on what was donated etc. that make TF a poor e4nviroment for children. Sexual abuse is of course one of these things, but i feel these other issues are just as, if not more important as they are the issues that will make a huge difference to any possibility of a normal life and future prospects. Just my thoughts on the issue. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Monday, October 16, 2006, 05:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Another extremely important issue is income -- the majority of the cult's income is still earned illegally, and children in the cult invariably play a role in soliciting the illegal earnings.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Monday, October 16, 2006, 19:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Exactly, Child labor should be a huge issue in this particular case. Lack of opportunity as well. I left had to get my GED and all those other things, very unrelaxed, and they haven't changed, kyle is going to have to go through the same thing. Yikes! Don(reply to this comment)

From Just a thought Monday, October 16, 2006, 05:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes a good point, most kids once they turn 14 or even younger are expected to go out on the streets and raise the rent, by 16 i was fully supporting (along with my brother) the home we were living in. Children shouldnt be subjected to the pressure of providing for their parents. Also the whole Vocational training issue (what they call it) basically slave labour. U are expected to care for younger children at an extremly early age, cook, clean all the things that go into running a household generally are delegated to the children and young teenagers to take care of. The sad thing is that most adults in TF see this as a good thing and something to be proud about -- excellent training -- to the extent that the young ppl buy into that. I remember when i left i thought i was extremly well brought up and had all sorts of skills that other young ppl my age did not have, and while this was true to an extent, it took me a while to realize just how much i was lacking and how far behind i actually was compared to ppl my age in "the system" due to my upbringing. (reply to this comment)

from MovingOn Admin Monday, October 16, 2006 - 00:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Note to all about Avenging Angel: The user posting as "Avenging Angel" is JF. He was blocked from this site a few years ago for his comments endorsing child abuse and has now been blocked again. If you are reading this, Jonathan, please have the decency to respect the fact that you are not welcome here. (reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Monday, October 16, 2006, 19:34 (Agree/Disagree?) glad that psycho got off our site. That fellow is very bad news. "Dad"?!!!!!!!!!!!!! --- Goes off and vomits for a few minutes. Take care, ~D(reply to this comment)

From Nick Monday, October 16, 2006, 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh god! Has this pedophile resurfaced again? Just to remind you all, F has openly advocated child rape on this site and defended the family stance on this. He has himself been arrested for child abuse and has spent time in a few mental institutions over the past few years. He is almost as bad as Berg was IMO. (reply to this comment)

From Anonymous comment generator Monday, October 16, 2006, 07:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm quite easy with most things. In most cases, I can accept the agree to disagree principle. I'm also not totally opposed to trolling. It makes the brightest minds here fully examine their own views and voice them with clarity. It certainly brings out some good dialogue. However, joke or not, condoning or permissing any form of child abuse is in my book absolutely intolerable. Not even George Carlin should get away with joking about it. Anybody who voices support or understanding for the abusors, or the abuse of children should be hung under a bridge and shot, then buried in an unmarked grave. Personally, if I came across any person physically or sexually abusing a child I would not hesitate to kill or maim the predator, and go to prison for it. Unfortunately though, certain forms of abuse, although certainly to be avoided, just do not fall under the same severity of abuse. Case in point, "detriment to the education of a child". Certainly, this needs to be dealt with. But it's different from taking the dog for a walk, and chancing on a man raping a child in his car. Didn't the Lord Justice Ward conclude that TF was in that sense, now safe for a child to grow up in? It's been a while since I read those records, so I could be wrong.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Monday, October 16, 2006, 21:10 (Agree/Disagree?) In any court of law no person is ever pronounced "innocent", just "not guilty". In this case the judge ordered several things. 1. That the group denounce Berg publicly. 2. That the child be made a ward of the English Court system until he turned 18 years of age. 3. That the child attend public school. 4. That his grandmother have established visitation rights to the child. 5. That the child see a court appointed psychologist periodically. 6. That the group routinely do certain things yadda yadda, etc. ... 7. That the child not leave Great Britain. So the judge simply concluded that in this particular case Pearl, could keep living with her son as the primary care provider, under the direct supervision of the state with certain stipulations. Ward's comments about Peter Amsterdam was that he was a child rapist. Wards comments about Zerby and Peter was that they showed no more mercy than their "demented" leader. His comments about Berg were that he hoped Berg burnt in hell. He told them to make ammends for what they did to Merry Berg, they never have. He certainly established a pattern of deciet etc., notice that the top leadership immediately demoted Sara D, as well as Paul Pelloquin to cover their asses after the BI court case came into full swing and their criminal activity was brought to light. This sexualization of minors with this LJ stuff promoted etc., as well as the total lack of future opportunity for children is uncool. Plus sending 15% of your money to be sort of handled by people that judges have basically called child rapists in their findings, is very unrelaxed if you ask me. It's very uncool to grow up to find out that the person you were taught was this glorious founder was a practiced rapist, not molestor but RAPIST, of your sister and her little friends. Psychologically the fact that they're setting kyle up for that type of discovery later on in life is massively uncool. The father simply wants to give the child the opportunity to grow up without being indoctrinated with nonsensical foolishness. He's a father, that's his right, cult leadership and his wife are not respecting his rights, or that of the child. They certainly didn't respect mine or my sister's, or that of many of my friends. Apart from their horrific "paper agape", they've done nothing but lie about and attact survivors. Take care my friends.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 04:07 (Agree/Disagree?) TFI did renounce some of Berg's writings (they didn't specify which ones) and make a half-hearted public apology to Mene, in order to "win" the court case. However, a few months later Karen Zerby turned around and said that Berg wasn't really wrong after all…(reply to this comment)

From plus Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Then Zerby, who managed to make the judge think she was a sanitizing force, invented the Loving Jesus Revelation.(reply to this comment)

From Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Actualy, Loving Jesus was in the draft stages while the English case was still in the courts. Copies of Zerby's articles on the subject were circulating among the top leaders. They just knew they could never release it while the court case was going on. A few months after the case ended, bingo, Family fast and LJ for everyone. Barf!(reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 04:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I'm quite sure I remember a notice that came out with the publication that outlined what they had said to the judge, and the main gist of it was, we are really sorry that we have to say these untrue things about Dear loving Dad, but it's just a matter of appeasing the judge. Anyone else remember in greater detail, or am I getting mixed up? (reply to this comment)

From Broken espresso machine Monday, October 16, 2006, 23:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for clarifying that. I took a quick browse through portions of the records too. We all know that internally, the group has never denounced Berg at all. It would be impossible to, as Berg is the foundation of all their faith. No Berg, no TF. Denounce Berg, then the question is, "So who the hell put this maria biatch in charge now?" Did TF ever publicly denounce Berg? I couldn't find any statement to that effect on any of their websites, and instead found portrait photos of the cunt. (reply to this comment)

From Monday, October 16, 2006, 19:38 (Agree/Disagree?) If that is what Lord Justice Ward concluded, I respectfully disagree with him. I also doubt that he would have concluded the same for a child of his.(reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 02:34 (Agree/Disagree?) If what is what the Lord Justice Ward concluded, exactly? The judgement of Lord Justice Ward was fair, in my view. That's not the same as saying that I agree with it, necessarily, because as a former member of the cult I am well aware of the other abuses (emotional, psychological, educational - though not in this particular case - , 'child labour', etc) that are more difficult to qualify than straightforward sexual or physical abuse, and of course I would have liked for the child (and his siblings of which there are now quite a few) to have been able to have been completely free of any cult influence at all. However, to my understanding (please, if I am way off the mark here I'd appreciate it if any of you legal eagles would correct me, particularly anyone who deals with the nuances of UK law) the judge had to make a decision based on what he felt were the dangers of this ONE child being subjected to direct abuse within his own small family and a rather limited wider circle of cult members, and he rightly (in my view) concluded that since it was not certain that there would be such abuse, there was not enough ground for removing him from his mother's care. You have to also remember that this ruling was made quite a few years ago, and perhaps the judge would have ruled differently had he been judging the case now, given recent events and the greater number of ex SGAs who could offer insights into the cult environment of today. P.S. I am well aware of the fact that I can sometimes seem to be less extreme in my stance on matters relating to the cult than many of you, and I am sorry if I cause offence by erring on the side of caution when it comes to discussion regarding anything that touches on the sticky areas of protection of children vs protection of civil liberties, but i think it's important to consider the wider ramifications of some of the points of view expressed on this site. This does NOT mean that my loyalties lie anywhere but with my peers and I am wholeheartedly behind those of you who are involved in the very important work of bringing the cult to account for its manifold abuses. However, I feel it necessary to maintain a certain level of detachment from my personal views on anything at all related to these issues (except in straightforward cases, of which there are many) in order that I might weigh up the intricacies of philosophical tensions inherent to the subject. I do go on. Apologies if this is horribly muddled, yet again I've not had my cuppa and as such I'm not quite awake. As always I welcome challenges to my position. (reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 05:17 (Agree/Disagree?) 'You have to also remember that this ruling was made quite a few years ago, and perhaps the judge would have ruled differently had he been judging the case now, given recent events and the greater number of ex SGAs who could offer insights into the cult environment of today.' Weegirlie has kindly advised me that given the particulars of family law (is that even a valid term?) in this country, it is likely that the judge would come to the same conclusion if the case were proceeding today. (reply to this comment)

From On the Flip Side Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:28 (Agree/Disagree?) You have to also remember that this ruling was made quite a few years ago, when there were only a tiny handful of SG's speaking out about the reality in TF. SG's who were among the first few to leave and were fresh out, with only a nascent idea of what their rights really were -- and how those rights were violated. I invite you to imagine for a second what it would have been like if there had been more of us. Imagine if he had heard what Ricky had to say. Imagine if James Penn had not lied for the family. Imagine all the people -- oh no, that was John Lennon. You get my point, tho, no?(reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes I do get your point and that is what I originally said in one of my earlier comments. However upon further consideration I tend to agree with weegirlie that it is likely that the judge would still have come to the same conclusion. There are several reasons for this, some of them being that it was not a case of parent-parent custody, the specifics of 'Pearl' and her husband's financial status (which rendered the issues of ensuring the child's access to excellent education and an acceptable standard of living less problematic), the fact that direct abuse and exposure to indoctrination are not one and the same in the eyes of the law, and so on and so forth. Still, this is only off the top of my head in accordance with the little I know about family law in this country. (reply to this comment)

From weegirlie Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 05:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Best not quote me. That was only my personal opinion. Family matters are not my field. I do think that in the UK case it would have come to the same conclusion, but only because it wasn't a parent fighting for custody. In a case where it is one parent against the other it really is anyone's bet and I think would have a much better chance I reckon.(reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 05:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, parent-parent cases are different. The two cases being discussed here (UK and the one happening now in San Diego) are not comparable at all except on the most basic level, IMO. But then what do I know... (reply to this comment)

from sarafina Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 23:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi Sorry, I'm just now getting time to answer all your questions. I'm just now off work and since there are so many I can't respond to each personal comment so I tried to answer most of them by adding it to my post. Please scroll up to the "answer to questions part. I'm sorry if I missed any others. IF you feel I've missed anthing important plase email me if they are serious questions and pertain to your writting an affidavit. This is what I meant by my perivious statement, I don't have all the time in the day to answer questions of people who just want to debate ,argue, or post opinions or who have already made up thier minds. I do however want to answer sincere concerns and questions of those who want to help. (reply to this comment)

from AnnaH Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 14:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I have heard a lot of comments on this article addressing whether or not the Family is NOW a safe place to raise children. Undoubtedly they have put an end to policies, maybe even attitudes, that caused sexual abuse to children. But how much have they really changed? We left the Family when I was 10(1995?), and I like to think I got out relatively unscathed. By the time I was old enough to know any better the Family was a much safer place to raise children and I have many fond memories. However, there is no denying that it was an extremely sexually charged environment. One of my clearest memories of the cult was when I was 8 years old and a couple of kids in our room started this trend of having sex. Pretty soon all these kids between the ages of 8 to 10 were doing it, or at least attempting to, and once the adults caught wind of it they had a talk with some of the older kids who were believed to have started it. At least they did something about it, but my guess is it was something to the extent of, "The system is out to get us so you can't do it till you're older." I also recall seeing adults naked on quite a few different occasions, and witnessed one of my supervisors having sex. I'm not gonna speculate on how negatively these incidents may have contributed to my development, it couldn't have been good, but the point is this cannot be a good environment to raise children in. You just can't do one thing and tell children another. What they're teaching is important, but what they are practicing is even more so. Children learn from adult's behavior. If the behavior is questionable, how can we trust them to be a good example for children? (reply to this comment)

from Valkyrie Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 12:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Lets pray to the gods against her will. (reply to this comment)

from Peter Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 04:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I think some people here have some fundamental misconceptions about this case and the role of potential witnesses or affiants. Deciding which parent should be awarded custody in almost any such case is an extraordinarily difficult decision. Fortunately, none of us here are being asked to make that decision. That is a decision the court will make after hearing all the evidence and carefully reviewing the matter. It is in the child's best interest that the judge have all the evidence and information he or she needs to make what we can only hope will turn out to be the right decision. Those responsible for making sure that the judge has all the information it needs to reach its decision are the lawyers representing each of the parents and the attorney recently appointed by the Court to represent the child. The lawyer representing the father and the lawyer representing the child have determined that the court needs additional evidence to make its decision and that many former members of the cult may be able to provide it. Hence, Sarafina's request. By providing this evidence and information, you are not being asked to decide the case or even to decide if the evidence you are submitting is necessary or relevant. The lawyers decide what evidence to present and the judge decides the case based on the law and the admissible evidence. This is not just a custody dispute between two parents. While they are not a party to this case, if custody is awarded to the mother, The Family will take on the role of the child's parent. Thus, what the judge needs to decide is if The Family is a fit parent. How can he possibly make this decision if he doesn't know how the organization has treated its children during the past 38 years? He needs to know what kind of job the organization has done in respecting children's human rights, protecting them from psychological, physical and sexual abuse, providing for their educational needs, making sure they have necessary medical care, providing them full educational opportunities, etc. He needs to know if the organization has an effective system in place to protect children from abuse and neglect. For example, if the organization has photographs of someone sexually molesting a two-year-old child along with a written account or confession of the abuse, what do they do? Do they immediately expel the culprit from the organization, report the abuse to law enforcement authorities and make sure the child has all the help he needs to deal with trauma of being sexually abused? Or do they publish 2700 copies of the photographs and written accounts in a book put forth as a model of ideal parenting and child care and put the abuser in charge of the organization's child care and development? If a judge rules that a member of their organization sexually abused a child between 1986 and 1990, do they expel the person from the organization and do everything they can to help the victim? Or do they call the victim a "liar" and give the pedophile tens of thousands of dollars to run a charity program involving contact with children? If a member of the organization beats his stepchildren until they bleed, do they expel him from the organization, report him to law enforcement and child welfare agencies and do everything possible to help the children recover from their injuries? Or do they instead help the abuser abduct the children and make sure the children's parents and law enforcement agencies can't find them? These are the kinds of questions a judge trying to decide if The Family is a fit parent needs the answers to. (reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Sunday, October 15, 2006, 12:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you peter. This cult is very deceptive. Knowing that your parents are sleeping with every random character that passes through your commune is a form of abuse. Being isolated is a form a of abuse. Being taught that a practiced rapists and child molester who raped several of his own children and grandchildren and abused myriads of other people's children, brothers, sisters and friends, is a prophet and a cool dude to look up to is just about the most horrible thing you can do to a child to my way of thinking. Let's do what we can do advocate for truth. Don(reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 05:56 (Agree/Disagree?) That's what we needed to hear. Thanks Peter.(reply to this comment)

From vixen Sunday, October 15, 2006, 04:49 (Agree/Disagree?) GREAT comment, Peter! I agree, 100%. (reply to this comment)

from Little Storm Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 03:26 (Agree/Disagree?) As people seem to have alot of opinions on this subject, can we perhapes move this to another thread? Make it just a debate not an indivdual case. (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Lisa I'd normally agree with you, I think, but in my opinion the debate is important in relation to this specific case. I think it might be helpful for people who are considering whether or not to get involved to be able to read opposing arguments and weigh up the considerations before they make up their minds. That's just my personal opinion, though. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Vixen, come to chat?(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:47 (Agree/Disagree?) On my way... ;-) (reply to this comment)

From Little Storm Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree vix but I also wished to respect sarafina's request. Btw both you and rain are on here and not in the chat! porque?(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe I misunderstood but i think sarafina requested that only people with serious enquiries should email her, I don't think she minds a bit of debate in the thread. (Correct me if I'm wrong please, Sara) (reply to this comment)

From Little Storm Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok then its on(reply to this comment)

From vixen Sunday, October 15, 2006, 04:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh sorry, I did misunderstand (and I didn't even need Sara to correct me!). Well, if Sara reiterates her wish that posts in this thread should not discuss the wider issues, then I am happy to comply with her wishes, however I maintain that discussion is positive and there might even be more people wishing to get involved due to serious exploration of the surrounding questions and concerns. Let us know what you prefer, please, Sara :-) (reply to this comment)

from sarafina Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 18:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks to all of those who have already emailed me offering their help..but where are the rest of you? There are over 3,000 members on this site.. and over193 personal accounts of abuse written on here. This is the time to stand by what you have written! If you are one of those who have written about it on this website just copy and past your previous post into the provided form (which I can provide you with) and sign it. It’s that simple, if the accounts you wrote on here are true then your work is half done, you are just signing you name to what you have already written. If there are any concerns please email them to me. But please take a few minutes out of your day to do this. This is where it counts, don’t let them take this child away from his father, next time it could be someone you know. Please talk to me about this. (reply to this comment)

From thinking about the kid Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I wonder if some of us are actually thinking that this is a very personal child custody case involving a couple & their child & that's it. Maybe we feel it is none of our business to interfere with this sensitive issue of devorce & who gets the kid. I have kids, & if we got devorced, I wouldn't just want any old body sticking their nose in my business. I understand if you want to help --because you actually know the father of the boy--but for the rest of us, it is none of our business & this is a personal matter between the child's parents. If you can say "don't let them take this child from his father", by the same token you should be concerned about the mother. This is her loved child as well. Do you have kids, especially have YOU given birth? This is complicated & not everything is black & white. Either way, it will be devistating for the CHILD to loose one of his parents. I doubt if someone's victor program or FFing days gory story will help explain what TF is like now. Those of us who have left in the past few years know that. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Sunday, October 15, 2006, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, the issue was solely between the two parents until the cult stopped in recently. The cult is organizing and financing the fight against the father to remove his son from him. It was the cult and its leaders who filed the last 129 pages of documents full of lies about the father. This is not a situation between a father and mother. This is the cult's fight against the child's father to take his child.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Monday, October 16, 2006, 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Not to mention that the Father initially had no intention of fighting for full custody and was happy to share custody, give child support and let the kid live in a family home. It was not until they tried to take all his access away, move the kid to Mexico and deny the child any future education other than "home schooling".(reply to this comment)

From Sunday, October 15, 2006, 09:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Peter's comment above is brilliant, as usual. A few points I'd like to add why this is not a "typical" custody case. 1. The mother started this recent escalation. She wants sole custody of the child. If she had not filed for that, this would not be happening. 2. The mother is planning to leave the country. So if she gets custody, the father does not even get visitation rights. 3. The Family Factor cannot be ignored. Every child IN the Family is a child OF the Family. How many times have the publications or Family spokespersons talked of "our children" rather than "the children of our members." Letters such as "One Wife" are an integral part of the bedrock culture and collective psyche of the group. Think of Loving Jesus, a doctrine and practice that has never been repudiated. People in the group actually do that stuff. 4. The fact that the child is going outside the U.S. means that there is no way to verify that the child will be well cared for. Most of the abuse and neglect that happened in The Family was not in the U.S., but in developing world countries where foreigners were not subject to any accountability. 5. In the British court case, the Family did not "win" the case. The child remained a ward of the court until he was 18 years old. The mother merely got "care and control." The court did not trust the mother enough to let her have custody of her own child. (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 02:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, hesitantly, with some of what you are saying. Lisa, Rain and I discussed this in the chat yesterday and it's just one of those things that is almost impossible to look at in black and white. There are so many variables to be considered and the mother, while obviously misguided, loves her child too. So yes, I think it is important to see this as a personal case and to remember that as much as we despise the cult, there is a young mother involved who no doubt feels that the best place for her child is with her. If we were dealing with TF ten, fifteen years ago then definitely I would have no compunction at all in supporting any effort to get a child out of the cult environment without asking the more difficult questions, but at present I don't think I can be as decisive. So in some ways I can understand where you are coming from. That being said, however, I am still firm in my conviction that were the mother to gain full custody, the TF would have little if any respect for the father's wish to have a close relationship with his child and it is not unlikely that the mother would be advised to limit the child's contact with his father to an unreasonable degree. She's already said she's planning on taking him out of the country, and we all know how it goes with culties 'disappearing' and being ever so hard to trace. For this reason alone, I am on the father's side in the matter. In the real world most decent, responsible parents abide by the rulings of the courts, whereas there is no guarantee that TF would urge the same from the mother in this case. A child needs to be able to know and love both his parents wherever possible. Leaving aside the more philosophical arguments regarding weighting the child's right to be protected from the cult experience vs. the ideal of civil liberties, I would say that even on a personal level there is no question that the father deserves to have a fair chance at being granted custody. He is the parent just as much as she is, and the bias toward favouring the mother needs addressing because this IS more than a straightforward custody case and there are nuances that just wouldn't be present in the usual case. To those who say, well it's the child's best interests that we are concerned with, I would like to remind you that every child that grows up in TF (even now, where things have, for the most part, changed a great deal and there is far less chance of outright physical or sexual abuse) will certainly endure years of psychological imprisonment and a start in life that none of us who are parents, I'm sure, would wish for our own children. If it would be unquestionably harmful for MY child, it would be equally harmful for the child in question. And THAT, for me, is the crux of the matter. Forgive misspellings or grammatical errors - I'm just out of bed and have not had my cuppa ;-) (reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Sunday, October 15, 2006, 12:35 (Agree/Disagree?) If the mother gets custody of the child, they'll teach that liars, child beaters, and unrepentant child rapists, should not only be protected from law enforcement and given 10% of your income, but also told that are prophets, role modesla and people that you should listen to. My two cents. ~D(reply to this comment)

From Sunday, October 15, 2006, 14:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting that apparently Grant Montgomery of FCF fame has taken up residence in this Family Home. This in spite of the public declarations by Larry Corley a year or so ago that FCF had nothing to do with the Family. I remember when LJ came out, Grant wrote a big testimony about how great it was. Anyone got a copy of that? There are lots of things that he wrote and published while he was the Prime Minister that show how depraved he was / is.(reply to this comment)

From plus Sunday, October 15, 2006, 14:29 (Agree/Disagree?) He was one of the group of leaders of the first TTC, in Mexico, with Faithy, Damaris (Queen Peter's ex), Lois (Appllos' ex, now with Zadok/Philip). That's where they had all the teens write out detailed questionnaires of your life including all the people who'd had sex with you and who you'd like to have sex with. And then The Family published the Basic Training Handbook about Teen Training, with pictures of that little 2-month experiment, including such nuggets as "Questions You Always Wanted to Ask" http://media.xfamily.org/docs/fam/bth/bth-pg293-300.pdf(reply to this comment)

From Snufkin Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 12:35 (Agree/Disagree?) mated -- *shivers* ??? was Wizard of Oz an adult movie then??? And here is a gem from Berg himself -- "Dont watch ANY movie that you dont like" -- well duh! Hrm. And i didnt know they had a policy on pepper "because it is not nutritious and therefore not reccommended" ROTFL(reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Monday, October 16, 2006, 06:13 (Agree/Disagree?) That was sick.I am so glad there are copies of these things floating around to remind me that Im not just hallucinating when I remember things that happened. (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said, Vixen.(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:18 (Agree/Disagree?) P.S. to the above: I keep making the same mistake of referring to TF as a place where the chance of being sexually or physically abused is far less than it used to be. I should clarify that my experience with cult homes in the past few years has not been extensive, so my view on the matter might not in fact be representative of the average home. Child rearing practice seems to differ in severity from area to area, and while I am reassured that in the homes that I visited, during the times that I was there, there were no instances of abusive 'corrections', I cannot say with certainty that unreasonable cases of punishment do not still happen. As far as sexual abuse is concerned, my view is that there is less chance of this happening because most of the young adults who I know personally that are still cult members have expressed horror at the thought of such behaviour being condoned, however given the fact that so many of the 'old-timers' are still around, the tendency in some cases for those who have been sexually abused as children to perpetuate that cycle, and also considering the way children in the cult are taught to obey unquestioningly those who are in authority, I am unable to say with certainty that it does not still happen. Sorry for derailing the focus of the thread but I thought it was important to clarify my position. (reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:32 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From thinking about the child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, we'll never don't know all the details. It seems to me there is a lot of hurt in this divorce & custody battle, especially if the father is digging up all this dirt about the cult to give him an edge, & the mother is refusing to leave it (the cult) so that the father can have some say in the child's upbringing. If they truly had the childs best interests in mind, either one would make a compomise. But that's how these things often end, the couple just make digs at eachother rather than doing things amicably for the childs sake. So a loving mother can't really see the ex partner as a loving father & vice versa because it's too personal & they have such negative feelings for eachother. (Forest for the trees.) Who's to say the father won't deny or at least make it very difficult for the mother to visit if she chooses to remain in the family, just as the "leaders" could make it difficult for him to visit the kid if he stays with the mom. We could go on & on with speculations about how messy this could get, or we could let them sort it out on their own, which would be the mature thing for us to do. I disagree with you about how the Family would let her "dissapear" to another country. If the court ordered her to stay in the country or if the father was given equal parenting rights (which would mean she has to stay close by), the Family of today would comply with that. (reply to this comment)

From charity Monday, February 26, 2007, 14:32 (Agree/Disagree?) What you are saying is rediculous! Obviously from previous posts, and from all that you can read regarding this case--the mother wanted to take the child away from the father and started this court case to begin with! You said if either of the parents had the best intents for the child, then they would be more amicable, however when someone wants your kid taken away from you, where you can only visit the child 2 weekends, per month --then for sure your going to fight her on it! Not to mention her whole home getting involved wrighting how evil the father is because he doesnt worship Berg, yet has to pay child support wich all goes to TF and not even to his kid and TF paying all the court fees while she sues him 20000 dollars. Can you see yourself in this situation? Paying child support to a group you hate, bieng sued all your hard earned money, and then still not having your child? The wife lives in a big gated cult out in the boonies where the father cant even go inside and see his childs living conditions. They treat him like shit, and endoctrinate the child that his father is somehow deficient because he isnt like other family dads, while the father is still nice to the ex-wife who is a total B#$#, alowing her in his home etc. You somehow fail to realize what this does to a child living with 30 other ppl. who hate his dad. You think the dad has 30 friends around the kid talking crap about the mom? Of course not! Wake up woman! you think its even? (reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Sunday, October 15, 2006, 12:46 (Agree/Disagree?) The family was given every opportunity to back off and treat this young father with respect, and give him opportunity to raise his son free of the abuse he suffered. The cult doesn't care about the individual child, the child is a political tool to them at this point, the same way Mene was, the same way Rick was, the same way the young people still in are to them. If they truly cared about the kid they wouldn't have moved forward with court action when the father was looking other ways to simply ensure that this son wasn't having to witness one of Thomas Hack's spawn have sex with his mother in the same room he is sleeping in. The group would have moved for mediation as opposed to moving to the legal system. They're hoping to set a president which will effectively give the group, not the mother, more coontrol of the children. The group, "took control" of me when I was 10 years old, they viewed me as a political tool etc., and prevented both of my parents from seeing me and or having direct, unfettered access to me. They still engage in mail fraud, tax fraud and about 25 other different types of criminal activities on a daily basis. Now they've got Grant, one of Merry Berg's captors, running the home where the kid lives, when less than two decades ago, Grant Montgomery was busy molesting little girls, keeping the books, and printing books, for Berg and Zerby and being one of Merry Berg's captors. The dude is more untrustworthy than the pope is catholic, and a practiced liar. I'm certainly for giving the fam the benefit of the doubt once they have made amends to the people they've hurt and show evidence of discontinuing their criminal legacy, which I haven't seen yet. But they are deceptive and have no respect for individuals rights. Name on instance of an abuser being handed over, by the fam to the authorities to make their children safer? I guess these things start with leadership. Did they turn over berg for raping, Davida, Merry, Joyanne, Bethy, Kristy, Amendria, Sara and others? Hell no. They gave him other victims and imprisoned, married off or otherwise disgarded his others. Charity and accountability begin at home. Justice Ward told them that they needed to make ammends with Merry Berg, they never did. They're very ignoble characters. ~D(reply to this comment)

From Monday, October 16, 2006, 19:12 (Agree/Disagree?) This is the same Gary that we all had to dance naked for his birthday at the HCS right? It would have been maybe 87? Anyone else remember this? I know that the teen girls had to strip for Peter's and then Ricky's birthday (cause he felt left out). And then some months later we had our little graduation and then there was a gyspy dance for Gary where all the girls @ 12 and up were told to strip down. I think it was in September...anyone else remember this or am I confusing him with someone else?(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 03:29 (Agree/Disagree?) 'It seems to me there is a lot of hurt in this divorce & custody battle, especially if the father is digging up all this dirt about the cult to give him an edge...' That statement is so offensive that I'm not even going to bother to address it. 'If the court ordered her to stay in the country or if the father was given equal parenting rights (which would mean she has to stay close by), the Family of today would comply with that.' If the father was given equal parenting rights then she would not, to my understanding, be given full custody, which is what she has filed for. (reply to this comment)

From vixen Sunday, October 15, 2006, 04:15 (Agree/Disagree?) 'We could go on & on with speculations about how messy this could get, or we could let them sort it out on their own, which would be the mature thing for us to do.' This is NOT just a straightforward custody battle. It just isn't. The judge is being fed reams of pro-family cultist propoganda, and in the best interests of the child involved there should be evidence from the other perspective as well. (reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Sarafina, I agree with a father being able to see his child, and I know first hand how depressing and difficult it can be when access is denied, but surely there must be another way! I don't agree with litigation except if there's no alternative. I think it can show a lack of finesse' on the part of the litigator to find a more creative solution! I know the family are adamant in their beliefs, and there's nothing wrong with that, but even Dad's letters say that children should not be denied their father. Has this man shown hostility to the Family that would make them react in such a way? Are we getting the full story..or this guy charging off half-cocked simply for a vendetta? Remember out of court settlements are almost always the best way forward if there's sensitive issues like family matters at stake! Remember, if the judge rules against this man then that's it...finito-la-musica for his getting to see his kid! but if he can show that he's willing to be reasonable, then there's more chance that the Family won't react defensively....which is only a natural human reaction.....and might be willing to be understanding! They're human beings after all and have feelings themselves...and besides that they're christians, who are commanded to love even their enemies! As far as I can see...he's got everything going for him in a logical sense to finding a peaceful solution! I wish him all the best! (reply to this comment)

From Sunday, October 15, 2006, 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) 'Remember out of court settlements are almost always the best way forward if there's sensitive issues like family matters at stake' Ha yeah if you are micheal jackson or the criminal party it's better. please cite a reference for us to 'Remember' (reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Monday, October 16, 2006, 00:08 (Agree/Disagree?) So obviously simple LOGIC isn't enough to convince you that when families go into courts and start mud-slinging matches, that the people who can most easily get hurt are often those we love the best! And that coming to amicable and reasonable consensual agreements before it goes that far is clearly a much more civilised, not to mention dignified way to go about things! I'm sorry, but I haven't the time or inclination to bother trying to gather "references" for the sole purpose of trying to simply convince you of logical and obvious principles! Do your own research...or don't...I don't care! (reply to this comment)

From Sunday, October 15, 2006, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) avenging angel sounds very vengfull , the father sounds and is indeed concerned for the welfair of his child. Berg wrote mo letters saying it was right to disapear with children if your spouse leaves the family. and you calling him Dad is just sick-I know I wouldn't want a father who raped his daughters and granddaughter(Mene). TF don't love their enemies, they call them vandari and demon possesed. The lack of remorse shown by Karen Zerby aka Maria , even after the tragic death of her son and TF's future prophet, just shows the real nature of the cult. Actions speak louder than words....(reply to this comment)

From smashingirl Sunday, October 15, 2006, 09:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You want him to be reasonable? He was reasonable. He was sharing custody. It wasn't until they decided to move his child out of the country that he acted. One cannot reason with the unreasonable. The very nature of the family is unreasonable. They're the LAST party to accept any sort of reason.(reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Good, well if he was being reasonable then there's no reason to stop now! I wasn't saying that he WASN'T being reasonable, I was simply asking some straight-forward questions to clarify some things and trying to unhype things a bit. I mean, where does it say anywhere that anyone has to follow the crowd blindly and go along unquestioningly with what everyone else is? Isn't it good to have someone who stops and thinks and questions and brings up another side of the equation...giving everyone a chance to re-evaluate! Re-evaluation is something that is helpful to do often! Like someone said, there is no single right or wrong answer to this situation when there are so many emotive issues, not to mention lives at stake! I don't think anyone can be too careful! I personally think the Family WOULD be willing to be reasonable if it was presented to them in a Christian and palatable way! Perhaps that way has yet to be found out or tried!(reply to this comment)

From smashingirl Sunday, October 15, 2006, 19:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, if anyone had any doubt as to your loyalties or current membership; thank you for clearing it up for us. Your diction (that means "choice of words", dipshit) shows your lack of social experience. Hate to break it to you but most people don't end questions with exclamation points. Those who've left the family don't continue to call a child-molesting, drunk "Dad". We call him many expletive laced things but not "Dad". As for a "spell in solitary" (that would be one of them there phrases that give your fucking family loving ass away), I've done my time and actually have to admit it was the one punishment I truly enjoyed. At least I was spared from having to interact with emoticon abusing fuckheads like yourself. So shove your smiley faces up your ass and go pray in the name of the keys to strike me dead. We'll see how well they work for you. In the meantime, leave the rest of us the fuck alone. You and yours have done enough damage.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Sunday, October 15, 2006, 13:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm willing to work with them in that "Christian" platable way if necessary. There are a few things I'd like, though, before working with them. I'd like them to apologize for setting up the rape of my sister by Berg and his leuitenants. That apology can't be "we're sorry if bad things happened to you". This selective amnesia that people have, is very weird. They tied children to beds, set up and financed victor camps run by rapists where they beat children for not wanting to be "Christians". Which leads me to yout point of putting things in a Christian and platable way. Who gives a ____ if it's Christian or not. Who, prey tell, is the arbrator of what is Christian or not. Certainly not AA. I think lying is unchristian, I think allowing a perverted 65+ year old child rapists to fondle, and sleep with both my sister and other little girls, like Peter Amsterdam, and Zerby did, not to mention their direct involvement in raping children, which justice ward documents in his findings, I find those actions pretty damn unchristian. At some point a little reality check should be in order for some characters. However, I'm willing to go the "Christian" route, although, I've already established to my own satisfaction that these people I'll have to deal with (fam leadership) are pretty damn unchristian in any material or serious definition of what it means to be christian, especially one that has anything to do with mercy, love, compassion, and honesty. Who do you suggest I talk to? What do you suggest the script be? Can you help set it up? Hey I'm game, but I'm also honest, I'm not going to pull any punches when it comes to dealing with these people. Allowing them to continue to be the deceptive slippery characters that they are would be very unchristian of me. (reply to this comment)

From remember Sunday, October 15, 2006, 14:01 (Agree/Disagree?) The kids in these victor camps were not objecting to being "Christians," but to having to be the Revolutionary Christian Soldiers a la The Endtime Family of Love/Sex, with all that entails. Remember how the one 12-year old kid had GN's written about him and his "problems" such as his dad being taken away for "the Lord's work", liking to collect stuff, and not liking sex and lovemaking? Excuse me while I go and gag.(reply to this comment)

From Sunday, October 15, 2006, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) yeah you do that, write to your leaders and get them to change---good luck with that. As it stands it is a criminal evil orghanisation. Fuck yes lives are at stake! in this case a little girls. Please anyone who can help and values truth and justice, and is not afraid of standing up and being counted, contact Sarafina.(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 02:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Did you even READ the article??? (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, October 15, 2006, 02:36 (Agree/Disagree?) 'And besides that they're christians, who are commanded to love even their enemies!' OMG that is just the most simpleminded, ridiculous defense of a given position that I have encountered in a very long time. Maybe you don't realise this, but simply calling oneself a Christian does not make one a decent, moral, kind-hearted person. (reply to this comment)

From smashingirl Sunday, October 15, 2006, 09:41 (Agree/Disagree?) The family is NOT a "christian" organization. Tell me where in the Bible it tells you to pray to keys or masturbate with Jesus. If they're christians my dog is a cat.(reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 11:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, so then they're Bhuddist or would it be Hindu?! Tell me where it says you CAN'T masturbate to Jesus, the godess of Isis, Jenna Jameson...or whoever you want! :-P Goodness are you gonna start telling someone who they should be thinking of when they're pleasuring themselves?! LOL! As far as the keys, I haven't really read anything specifically on that subject, but I don't think they pray TO "the keys", I think that's an ex-cultie" defamation-exageration. I think they do claim their prayers in the power of the Keys of the Kingdom that Jesus said He gave us, His disciples, to bind or loose on earth and in heaven anything we wanted! Now how does a spell in solitary sound for you?! :-P (reply to this comment)

From Nick Monday, October 16, 2006, 08:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I was reading the bible and I was unable to find anything that said I can not hire a hooker for my son's 10th B Day party next week. So since I can't find that in the Bible it must be OK, right??? Your logic is so skewed by all the drugs your shrink has you on. Go climb back under whatever rock you came from Framton and stop trying to spread your evil none Christian views.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, October 15, 2006, 17:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Jesus and Abrahim called. You were late for the gangbang. Ivan Ivanovich was so upset at not being able to violate your spiritual rectum that he now has an ejaculation problem, yes he do, he do. Who the fuck are you? How fucking dare you tell victims of abuse to try to see it from the abusers point of view in ANY goddamn situation! Who gives a fuck about the mother's feelings if for her to be happy, that child is taken from his father, brought to a third world country, raised by pedophiles, not given a proper education and made to spend the rest of his childhood in an abusive-YES it is still abusive-environment. I do not believe that you are not in TF or still have some ties to it. Everything you've said has reeked of Berg and his moronic gibberish. "Dad"??!! Who the fuck still calls his rotting ass Dad? "I think they do claim their prayers in the power of the Keys of the Kingdom that Jesus said He gave us, His disciples, to bind or loose on earth and in heaven anything we wanted!" WhooppeeDoo Fruitcake! You kinda gave yourself away on that one. And please do as Anna says and get rid of those smiley faces you prancing little shit! Yes we live in a free country where you're free to respect who you want. It just makes me sick that me, my buddies and 150,000 others are across the world fighting a war to keep it that way so you can be free to respect and cozy up to freaks like The goddamn Family. I hope you get spiritual and physical STD's. FUCK OFF!!!!(reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Monday, October 16, 2006, 00:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I was almost not going to pass this message on, but since you were "kind enough" to make up those imaginary messages for me, I thought I'd let you know that Satan called and said your soul is overdue! Note: No smileys.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Monday, October 16, 2006, 06:53 (Agree/Disagree?) JF! I should have known it was you, you sick fuck! What's the matter, got bored cause the kids weren't falling for the lollipop gimmick any more? You deserve what every pedophile loving freak deserves; two in the chest, one in the head. Die, shithead.(reply to this comment)

From Lord of the Leeches Monday, October 16, 2006, 07:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Paedophiles shouldn't even be considered human. I'm not even sure we should waste tax bought ammunition on them. Might as well spare some labrats, and test chemicals on the perverts, or give em to terrorists in exchange for innocent captives. TF had a good idea for the execution of sick pervs, landmine removal. Or throw them in one big ranch, and declare open hunting season. I couldn't give a fuck, as long as they have zero access to children.(reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Sunday, October 15, 2006, 13:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Spare us your cutesy little smiley faces, please. I don't what infuriates me more: the fact that your pro-TF or the fact that you think this is all a light-hearted debate as evidenced by your overall tone and insulting emoticons. I'm glad that you got out with a positive view of the Family but in case you've forgotten, this is a site for ex-members, many of which have less than pleasant memories of the Family so excuse us if we don't take this subject lightly. I'm all for opposing points of view, but you need to remember how serious and how deep-reaching the abuse some of us suffered was. I'm less offended personally than I am for everyone else on this site. "Now how does a spell in solitary sound for you?! :-P." That is insulting on so many levels. It's not a fucking joke! People have to deal with this ex-member stigma every day of their lives and then to get slapped in the face by attitudes like yours is disgusting. Show some fucking respect. (reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Monday, October 16, 2006, 00:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I am pro-fairness, pro-decency, pro-choice (how I hate that the pro-abortionists have hijacked that perfectly good phrase to justify murder) and most of all pro-God's Word...and I try to best interpret those principles in any situation I encounter. If that entails being pro-Family, then I will do so without fear of what anyone will say, if that entails me being pro-someone else at other times, then I will do so. I had it rough in the Family as well, for much of the time. That doesn't diminish the difficulty or pain that others went through, and I'm sorry if that little light-hearted joke touched sensitive nerves. And I'm sorry that you obviusly can't just take a joke for what it is..a joke!(reply to this comment)

From Nick Monday, October 16, 2006, 08:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Your not pro family! You were arrested for beating your own son! You even posted that "If you girls were really honest with yourseves you would admit that you kind of liked it." (Referring to being rapped by older men.)(reply to this comment)

From loch Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 13:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Who is this guy Nick?(reply to this comment)

From Nick Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 13:42 (Agree/Disagree?) He is an X member in the UK called JF. He is really a nutter.(reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Then again, since I'm an intelligent person who can actually work things out for myself, it's possible I've figured that out! ;-) The fact is that Jesus HAs commanded us (I say US, because I am also a Christian) to love our neighbours ANd our enemies, difficult as it may sometimes be. You're right, "simply calling oneself a Christian does not make one a decent, moral, kind-hearted person", any more than calling oneself an ex-cultie does so. But BEING a Christian should certainly make a difference, and if nothing else it, it can at least be used to prick christians' conscience should we, like any human can, temporarily forget our obligations of kindness and love! (reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 06:00 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 06:12 (Agree/Disagree?) No! Does one have to be in the Family to take an honest and (I trust) charitable view of the situation and simply put forward some alternative ideas? (reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 06:24 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 06:25 (Agree/Disagree?) How do you come to that conclusion?(reply to this comment)

From it's obvious Sunday, October 15, 2006, 08:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Because David Berg stops being "Dad" once you are truly out of the cult. Calling him Dad is a form of respect that only members show. If you use it, you are still in - even if you have physically left.(reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 10:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Since when do you decide who "only" does what?! And here I thought we were living in "the free world"! If it's all the same with you I'll be deciding for myself who I call what, and who I respect or don't respect! Got any problems with that?!(reply to this comment)

From Sunday, October 15, 2006, 11:59 (Agree/Disagree?) yep. Yo go ahead and decide who you respect but don't be surprised that I got a big problem with you respecting a peadophile false prophet. Ain't a free world great!(reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 06:36 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 07:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, OK!(reply to this comment)

From sarafina Monday, October 16, 2006, 00:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Avenging Angel, can you meet me in the chat room? I was just writing you back but see you are on line.. look for me in the chat room.(reply to this comment)

From Chloe Midwife Sunday, October 15, 2006, 02:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I couldn't have said it better myself Vix.(reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:35 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Sara I have to say I really disagree with you. This case completely divides me, I want to support this father in anyway I can, I don’t think either parent should be deigned shared custody. It is the attitude that, all children in the family should be taken away, simply because their parents are in the family, that scares me. Members of my family and their children are still in the family, and I do worry that my involvement in something like this could result in them losing their children. A lot of us went through the raids and The Family’s splitting up of families and know first hand what the pain of separation is. This is an incredible complex issue, which brings up a lot of personal emotions. I don’t think you should attack someone for expressing theirs. (reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:12 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From Rain Child Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Good point, Sara. Although my feelings on all of this are similar to Lisa's, I have to agree after speaking to you about your childhood that I have absolutely no idea what it must have been like to have grown up in The Family in the part of the world you did. It would be really nice if the parents could come to some sort of agreement to share custody and to give the child all the benefits a normal child growing up outside The Family would have. I guess the best outcome would be if the mother left The Family.(reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:22 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From charity Monday, February 26, 2007, 14:50 (Agree/Disagree?) the mother lives in a house full of young ppl where she gets 50 bucks a week (of the poor missionaries tithe in india and africa)to blow, not to mention her laid back life style of not having to work at all. She sits around expecting her ex husband to give her money for doing nothing. She doesnt even take care of the child, someone in the home does. All she wants is to mess around with her 19 yr old boyfriend who she sleeps with next to the child. You think a good mother is a mother who sleeps with her 5 year old child while fucking around with numerous partners? Good exposure! It was only because of the court rulling that the child had to have his own room wich he doesnt even sleep in anyways. This mother obviously doesnt care much for the child!(reply to this comment)

From mia1 Sunday, October 15, 2006, 20:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I was just thinking, you people probably know about the cycle of abuse, right? Do you think that seconed generation family members could be just as abusive as their parents or caretakers before them? (reply to this comment)

From One Opinion Friday, October 20, 2006, 07:47 (Agree/Disagree?) BY BRYN NELSON Newsday Staff Writer October 19, 2006, 9:30 PM EDT Up to one-third of girls and one-fifth of boys in the United States will be subjected to it before the age of 18, according to some experts. Many of the victims will keep their silence for years -- or decades. And contrary to a lingering myth, the vast majority will never become sexual abusers themselves. The sensitive subject of child sexual abuse has again been pulled to the fore of public discussions in the wake of revelations that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) sent inappropriate e-mails and explicit instant messages to underage House pages. And a new admission by a 72-year-old Catholic priest that he touched an adolescent Foley nearly 40 years ago has only compounded the uproar. Lost in much of the hullabaloo, psychologists say, is an unfortunate reality: Child sexual abuse remains a thorny but chronically underfunded area of research in which no simple patterns have emerged. Robert Prentky, research director for the Boston-based Justice Resource Institute, warned against making an "extraordinarily complex equation" into a black-or-white issue. "The reality is that the vast majority of kids -- be they boys or girls -- who were sexually abused do not go on to become abusers," he said. "By the same token, if you look at all of those adults who abuse children, a much higher proportion of them were, in fact, sexually abused than the general public." The take-home message, Prentky and other psychologists said, is that a multitude of life experiences can color how sexual abuse might affect an individual over the long term -- and whether that person will continue the cycle of abuse. Studies have suggested that sexually abused adolescents are more at risk for developing everything from depression and eating disorders to drug abuse and criminal activity. But again, psychologists caution, individual effects can vary widely. Most abuse, researchers agree, is committed by a family member or a known authority figure, a prime reason why so many cases are not disclosed for years -- if ever. "One thing we know is that silence is certainly a part of the problem," said Jennifer Freyd, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon. Remaining quiet about the abuse can dramatically increase the risk for negative consequences later in life, she said. But if a child tells and is blamed, rejected or not believed, the psychological toll can be even worse. "It's an incredible catch-22," Freyd said, and one that perpetrators who are in positions of authority can readily exploit to make their victims feel guilty, ashamed or helpless -- and keep the secret well-hidden. Richard Gartner, a Manhattan-based psychoanalyst and the author of "Beyond Betrayal: Taking Charge of Your Life after Boyhood Sexual Abuse," said the betrayal can taint an individual's relationships for life. The victim, he said, may view all subsequent relationships as having power differentials instead of being collaborations. "That bodes ill for really good, intimate relationships," Gartner said. Furthermore, the myth that sexually abused boys almost inevitably become abusing men can create so much pressure that even changing a baby's diaper can spur an anxiety attack among some fathers. Whenever the abuse occurred, he said, the victims need to know they'll be listened to. "I think you have to not do what you're tempted to do, which is to minimize it," Gartner said. "And to not say, 'It's in the past. Get over it.' It's kind of the worst thing you can say to someone in that situation.'" http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsabus1020,0,2294971,print.story?coll=ny-leadhealthnews-headlines(reply to this comment)

From sarafina Friday, October 20, 2006, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Excellent article! Thanks for posting this.(reply to this comment)

From Removed Sunday, October 15, 2006, 21:44 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From my understanding Sunday, October 15, 2006, 21:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Is that most people who were abused don't go on to abuse, but many abusers were abused themselves. I definitely think that buying into that system of secrecy that the cult has, with child abusers leading it and which stopped only so they would avoid legal consequences, while writing "Flirty Little Teens Beware" leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to breaking the cycle of abuse.(reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, October 16, 2006, 12:22 (Agree/Disagree?) There are patterns that show that being abused is a factor in becoming an abusive person. That is not the same as stating that the two are always linked, and of course there are many people who break the cycle. (reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, October 16, 2006, 12:33 (Agree/Disagree?) It's worth considering the fact that SGAs who are still in the cult environment might well be slightly more inclined to give in to less than decent impulses built in to them by their own experiences of abuse, given the fact that they still do not believe that much of it was actual abuse. I am not going to go so far as to say that I am *sure* that some of the second generation are now suffering from psychological ill health to the extent that they have paedophilic tendencies (I've already said that all the SGAs that I know of profess great disgust at the notion of adult-child sexual contact), but I would not be surprised if there is a minority who are a danger to children. (reply to this comment)

From Matero Latero Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 01:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Some people who speak strongly against child abuse have strong paedophilia tendencies. Especially if they were brought up like that. They KNOW it's wrong, but that doesn't stop them from wanting it. I think there are a lot of SG's like that in TF. Just wait. They'll hit their midlife crisis and go haywire. The young children are sitting on a powder keg. History will repeat itself. Someone is going to join the leader ring from the SG group and say why did we stop this. He'll want the leader perks too.(reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 02:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry but while I agree with your first sentences, I cannot support such a shoddy assertion as 'I think there are a lot of SG's like that in TF' because it's nothing but conjecture, and I think you're quite wrong to assume that there is an inevitable cycle of perpetuation. That being said, I've already acknowledged that my personal views on the subject are also nothing but conjecture, seeing as it would be impossible to know for certain, so I don't really know where I'm going with this. (reply to this comment)

From Anonymous Synonymous Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 06:53 (Agree/Disagree?) The Family has never recanted those teachings. They simply destroyed incriminating evidence. At the time, they said they had to forgo some god given right to rape children, because the system was getting tighter. In essence, where and when they feel they can escape persecution or prosecution, they still believe in the moral correctness of their actions. They walked through the door, but left a foot in there so they could always go back. Why the big exodus to India, Russia, Thailand, Mexico... All generally tolerant about pedofilia. In India, it is culturally accepted. A paedofiliac feels no guilt. The Family also has a culture. People know they shouldn't, but have the tendencies. Given an excuse, the tendencies will come out in action. I've seen SG's who are just too "sweet" with young children. I don't believe for a moment that the Family will get safer as the brainwashed SG take on larger roles. I thought that was what some people were implying. That somehow only the FG was wicked and twisted, and SG's are good and pure, even if they stay. I don't think so. It runs a lot deeper. It's culture.(reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 07:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, I am clearer on what exactly you were saying, now. I will not go so far as to agree with you but I understand the very valid reasons for the position that you hold. I still think you are making some wild assumptions, and overlooking some of the aspects that were present during the cult's notorious period of institutionalised abuse which may not be present now - or at least not to anywhere near the same degree. The possible differences in cultural climate are crucial when attempting to rationalise whether or not abuse will be present when the older generation falls away, IMO, and until I have a better understanding of how the second generation that is still in the cult truly feels about PRESENT abuse (rather than the abuse that they may have heard about, witnessed or been subjected to themselves but which they've conveniently detached themselves from in order to suspend misgivings), I am not going to agree with you that many or most of them have paedophilic tendencies and would fall into that behaviour (which is what it sounds like you are saying). This line of thought is almost irrelevant, though, seeing as there are MANY confirmed abusers within the cult - specifically within the leadership structure - and as long as they are there, there is certainly some chance that a number of children, however limited, will be in danger. I feel really muddled today, I'm sorry if my arguments are all over the place. Pick holes please, I'd like to force my brain into gear. (reply to this comment)

From mia1 Monday, October 16, 2006, 21:41 (Agree/Disagree?) you know if you think back about the general mindset before you finally left the family would you think, hypotheticaly speaking, that it was bad to have or ingage in sexual activity with someone way younger then you? Everyone knew it was wrong it wasn't like some big secret or anything, it happened. I personaly don't have any memories of sexual abuse but I remember it being talked about I know in the city I lived in some sga was on probation for having sexual activity with a minor. All he got was probation. PROBATION! That is what the family is doing to their dear young perverts. Make them read a bunch of holy ghost shit and keep them horny for about six months. As long as the family thinks they can get away with it they will. As long as they think that someone is of some value to them they will feed their appitite for as long as it takes. I am a mother and I feel that if this Mother still wants to raise her child in some fucking cult then something is definately wrong with her. This isn't about serving jesus or buda or who the fuck ever. This is about your child. Your flesh and blood. I'm not saying the system is perfect but the lack of that kind of fear I felt every day while I was in the family and seeing my kids grow up without the kind of fear I grew up with is worth it. (reply to this comment)

From vix Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 01:38 (Agree/Disagree?) What exactly does this have to do with my comment above? (reply to this comment)

From A Mommy Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 01:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I still have issues with fearing my kids might get sexually molested, there are plenty of peverts outside the cult too. What I do feel secure in, is knowing that if (god forbid!!) something should ever happen, the cops, a judge, lawyer, the media and people with morals will be on my side to supPORT me, not vice versa. Hell, if something did happen in TF it was either hushed, minimized or you (in this case me) were accused of lying. Speaking to current Family Members WITH children, I think the issue is not about if or when abuse happened/could happen in TF, the real point is: what did/would they do?? Are you willing to let your child grow up in a community that will excommunicate an offender with a 6-month probation, or one that will put him in jail? (reply to this comment)

From On the Knee-Jerks Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you noticed as well that every single time somebody accuses one of their members of child abuse, the group automatically asks their loving keysmith husband to get the relevant accused member out of trouble? Have you EVER ONCE seen them tell their members to pray that the alleged victim will be vindicated? Even qualified by an "if the allegations are true"? No, the victims are "enemies" to pray against. (reply to this comment)

From vix Monday, October 16, 2006, 12:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Sigh, I do misuse the term 'a fact' a little too freely. You know what I mean though, I'm sure. (reply to this comment)

From lisa Sunday, October 15, 2006, 01:01 (Agree/Disagree?) *denied(reply to this comment)

from monger Saturday, October 14, 2006 - 12:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I've sent you an email. (reply to this comment)

from Nick Friday, October 13, 2006 - 09:40 (Agree/Disagree?) We see so many people on this site going on and on about how they want to be a help in the fight against this cult. Well now is the time to put your money where your mouth is! Contact Sara and find out what kind of letter needs to be written and do it! Take it down to your local notary and get it notarized for $5 and send it off. You all know that the family will get a million of their brainwashed droids to do the exact same thing so we need to fight back! Being a father myself and seeing how great my son turned out by having the choices that we were not afforded, makes this fight even more important to me. (reply to this comment)

From Avenging Angel Sunday, October 15, 2006, 00:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Why don't you put your mouth where your ass is! Since you're talking out of your ass, you might as well at least be speaking with one voice! :-P Anyone who writes anything to the contrary of this point of view must be a "brainwashed droid"....before even reading what they may write. But anyone who writes something you agree with is an intelligent and enlightened person, right?! So basically you are saying that you right, by default, and anyone opposing is wrong by default...no matter who it is or what they write -- simply because you say so! Now why am I not surprised!(reply to this comment)

From nikki Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:04 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From nikki Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:03 (Agree/Disagree?) WOW! You REALLY sound like a loving christian. God bless you!(reply to this comment)

From nikki Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:03 (Agree/Disagree?) WOW! yOU REALLY Sound like a loving christian God bless (reply to this comment)

From nikki Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:02 (Agree/Disagree?) WOW! yOU REALLY Sound like a (reply to this comment)

From nikki Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:02 (Agree/Disagree?) WOW! yOU REALLY Sound like (reply to this comment)

From nikki Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:02 (Agree/Disagree?) WOW! yOU (reply to this comment)

From nikki Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:21 (Agree/Disagree?) uh, sorry bout that...something's up with this computer.(reply to this comment)

From Removed Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:32 (Agree/Disagree?) [Removed at author's request] (reply to this comment)

From Sharon Friday, October 13, 2006, 10:38 (Agree/Disagree?) If it's easier for anyone--most banks (if you have an account there) will notarize a document for free. Also, post offices will notarize for a couple dollars, or many employers have someone at the office who can notarize for free. (reply to this comment)

From sarafina Friday, October 13, 2006, 10:44 (Agree/Disagree?) You don't have to get it notarized as long as you have the correct wording at the end, if you have the time to get it notarized then great if not I can send you a form to sign to sign and attach to your affidavit. I can give you the fax number where you can fax it or the lawyers address to send it. Either way both are welcome.(reply to this comment)

From lisa Friday, October 13, 2006, 14:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Compleatly aside from anything to with the family, its really sad to seperate a child from a good and willing parent. I hope everything goes well for you. Good Luck(reply to this comment)

From I think she knows Sunday, October 15, 2006, 08:38 (Agree/Disagree?) The Family is precisely trying to " seperate a child from a good and willing parent".(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, October 13, 2006, 14:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but what exactly is an affidavit? Is it things that actually happened to you in The Family? Is it things you observed? Can it be both? Sorry, I know an affidavit is a document that you write and notarize for admission into court, but I'm not exactly sure what you're supposed to put in it. Samuel Mercuri(reply to this comment)

From smashingirl Friday, October 13, 2006, 15:48 (Agree/Disagree?) An affidavit is a legal document sworn to be true. In this case, what's needed is personal experience. It can be what you've observed. It can attest to what you've experienced. You can write about your lack of education, health care, attention from parents, abuse suffered, etc. It can only attest to what you have witnessed, read, seen or experienced. Good: I was not allowed to read a science textbook. Bad: I heard that in this one home a guy I know once told me that ..... Good: They used corporal punishment to treat my ADHD. Bad: My friend says she wasn't allowed to drink soda. Good: I was sexually abused, my brother was abused, my nephew can't add or subtract. Basically, if you can take an oath that what you've written is true, you're on the right track. It's helpful to also touch on what experiences you've gone through in adjusting to society once you left.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, October 13, 2006, 18:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks, I thought I was on the right track but I just wanted to double check. Well, I'll write an affidavit but it might be rather short. Like I've said before: I was lucky. I had public school education, lived with my parents my whole life (usually not in communal homes), and always enjoyed fellowships because I thought of the other kids as my brothers and sisters (being an only child). Which is part of the reason why it's hard to come to grips with the fact that I'm out, and they're still stuck in the cult. (reply to this comment)

From lisa Monday, October 16, 2006, 01:42 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From smashingirl Friday, October 13, 2006, 15:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Everyone might do well to note that we were both taught and encouraged to lie to authorities in order to hide the true nature of the bastards. It's hard for people to understand that. The judge needs to understand that whatever they say is complete bullshit and no, they don't seem to be lying, because they have no conscience about doing so.(reply to this comment)