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

from thepersoniamnow Monday, November 18, 2002 - 23:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Getting lawyers seems to go against all family tradition. I find it hard to believe that it would be advised as a flat out general advisory. The fam has never been big on things like lawyers, doctors and anything politica because thats where they have they`re greatest weaknesses. (reply to this comment)

From remembers Tuesday, November 19, 2002, 09:00 (Agree/Disagree?) But I remember "persecutions" where they did "provision" lawyer services from "contacts." (reply to this comment)

from Albatross Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 12:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting. If true it would seem to be just another part in TF leadership effort to scare the members and to make them believe that this effort is targeting them. Unless it's changed ,here is how this search for lawyers might work: (I know because I was given a similar project when I was in TF in 93') I was 18 years old and was provided with a list of our city's defence lawyers. My job was to cold call every laywer on the list to set up meetings to talk about the possibility of them taking us on as clients in the event of any legal troubles. Their interest in us of course had to be pro-bono. Needless to say we had very little success in this. I was involved in a similar effort in Miami in 92'. The few lawers who would meet with us based only on the first amendment question or on the religious freedom question, had major problems with being involved with us after hearing about the Child Abuse issue or other controversial issues such as our Anti-semetic stance. In absence of a large fee, they had no interest in us whatsoever. So the Tf leadership tells the homes to get lawyers? What for? If those in the homes are just doing their simple missionary work and have never been party to abuse, then why should they waste their time? It is the ABUSERS and TF LEADERSHIP who should be(and I am sure are) hiring council. Daniel (reply to this comment)

from Jules Monday, October 28, 2002 - 17:53 (Agree/Disagree?) If this is true, good luck to them with that. It was extremely difficult for the Family to find a lawyer in the UK custody case, once they understood exactly what they were defending, let alone the expense involved. (reply to this comment)

from Ian Monday, October 28, 2002 - 17:46 (Agree/Disagree?) They should be scared! Getting a free lawyer to represent you because of religious persecution is one thing. Finding someone to represent you because you are involved in or have been an advocate or accessory to child abuser is another. Zerby will end up in protective custody because even the other inmates will want to kill her for her crimes. That will be my reward; seeing all of those pieces of shit with bright orange jumpsuits and big black letters that say "Seperatee", then we party in Vegas on me, or hopefully on them depending on how well things go. "Another fine post by ian" (reply to this comment)

From Ian Monday, October 28, 2002, 17:49 (Agree/Disagree?) wow! My writing skills just get better and better. Obviously I meant to say "child abuse" not "child abuser". Lucky for me bad-english skills are not a crime....yet. Ian(reply to this comment)

from faeriraven Monday, October 28, 2002 - 17:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd advise Zerby and Co. to get themselves a good lawyer, they should take their own advice if they know what's good for them... (reply to this comment)