|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Cult Surfer
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 16:13
  (Agree/Disagree?)
Click here for new evidence submitted to the FBI today: http://www.lamatteryresource.org/Projects/FBIInvestigation/fbiblog/News2
Jim has been banned from posting, however, I would still like to keep the SGA's informed of the investigation.
(reply to this comment)
| from GoldenMic
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow, this entire series of comments has been exhausting! One nice thing about the IsotNot site is that the smaller numbers result in smaller threads, so the painful sections end more quickly. That is probably the only real advantage of a smaller site, so I am definately not crowing. Anyway, I think its important for us damaged exCult individuals to periodically get involved in touchy subjects and disagreements, because I believe that is truly part of the healing process, to fight and argue and defend, and then to see that no higher ups were able to fix things, or punish us, or to declare one side or the other as more godly. This is the taste of real freedom, and sometimes it is a bitter taste. Even Jules' right to ban somebody from a site that she owns, just because she owns it, is an important lesson in the realities of non-cult life. I do believe, however, that there needs to be a more concerted effort to provide healing venues and workshops for those that find themselves still strongly triggered by such exchanges, and who want to do some work on themselves. The AFF (now the International Cultic Studies Association) has a few yearly workshops that are very supportive and caringly done, but the numbers of survivors who participate are so small. Heck, even within my own small band of Isot survivors, it takes us months to set up a single reunion or self-help workshop, yet every time we do, the results are powerful and significant. OK, OK, I will mind my own beeswax! Its just that these kinds of threads display how deeply we have all been injured. I know that these message boards are such a powerful healing tool, and then I start wishing we could enhance that process. It is very inspiring to see people facing and speaking their fears and reactions and thinking, despite the cost. I think Jules is very brave to take these issues on, where there can be no winners, and I have been honored to see my fellow survivors speak so openly and strongly from their positions on both sides of this argument. Only we survivors can know how much it takes to speak up, and the insidious ghosts from our past that are challenged and overcome by our speaking. If I am sounding too sappy here, forgive me, but this work really does move me and make me proud for all of us.
(reply to this comment)
| from Nancy
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 15:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
[deleted at request of author]
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from vixen
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
*YAWN*
(reply to this comment)
| from one who knows
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 10:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
So now that all these victims you say you're trying to help refuse to have anything to do with you...I guess your job is done. Thanks for trying but at this point you're more harmful than helpful. I know this is hard with you having been a VS and all but, you're fired! Be well.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Zerbite
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 03:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yah, and I bet a bunch of YC's and Toddlers are praying against us now, and getting profeciez. "Divide them o lord dead carpenter, that they may be conquered" "use their own devices against them". "And lo, I saw a bunch of small horns named la-Mattery, and one of them had really foul breath" So-on and so forth........
(reply to this comment)
|  From
Monday, April 25, 2005, 09:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let em' pray! They'll need to do a hell of a lot more than that, like get with the real world and take a stance, and if it's a lying/deceptive one well, we have all the evidence we need.
Seeing as the Lamattery clan have stuck their neck out above the water, plus all this chat about Jim and what happened to his family in TF, (Peter and Zerby must be keeping up to date by now) so must they know that Jims' children were kidnapped by TF, a practise upheld within their writings and doctrines(see relevant MO letter/GN) and in practise, severly abused in many ways.
They can't deny that the man is bloody well angry and demands justice.
They have not written to JIm with any type of apology, we know this, the world is getting to know this, ut more importantly the FBI know this.
Touting Claire brodrick USA(who abused and helped in facilitating past abuse) and Abbey freeman UK (who has been found to be a liar-see radio show and "little girl seduced in the name of God" ) as spokespeople is plain dumb.
I want Karen Zerby and Peter kelly to do the talking-they've done enough of it in they're bloody "letters to the flock." Suddenly the cats got their toungue??? Please.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Eric Cartman
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 03:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hahahaha this is so lame, some people I don't know, in some land far away, in some silly fight I'm not a part of, still think that I am somehow controlled by two women queen bees I really don't know. Why don't you all the shit out of each other at a paint ball arena.
I don't really give a shit about either party, but since there is already so much mud flying, I'm gonna say what I think too. Hell, it's already such a nice fun party.
Jules, I admire you for keeping this post. I speak for only myself, but I appreciate what you are doing. Keep kicking butt please.
Nancy, Thanks for controlling me you bee!! What I meant to say was, I enjoy reading your comments. They are concise for the most part, and very often ask the questions I would, with a million times the eloquence. They'd hate you in the senate.
Auty, I'm sorry to see this kinda thing. I can't say I know how it feels, but I admire you for holding your own.
Cult Surfer, Jim and John? I admire what you are trying to achieve, but sometimes you should just back out of the fray and keep an ally. Grow up already. I think you people need to get some female hormones shot into u to calm down a bit. (I'm a guy thanks)
Eric Cartman, You idiot. You aren't supposed to be sensible. It's not your KaraChteer u dumass! Shut up mister Hat!
(reply to this comment)
| from FED UP
Monday, April 25, 2005 - 01:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Fucking bloody hell, I am dead tired of this stupid mess! What the HELL is wrong with people that they can't just accept Jules' decision to ban Jim from this site??? I am sick and tired of hearing about this. I'm sick and tired of having to listen to childish recriminations and stupid, illogical arguments regarding 'poor Jim's victimisation by the Jules and Nancy conspiracy' when it's quite obvious to me, and probably to most of the participants of this site, that there is something dodgy about the way Jim operates. I'm sorry but I have had bad vibes about it since way before Jules posted her article. That's not to say that I don't admire his passion for the cause. He has every right to want justice for his family. But not at the expense of others who have also suffered. I trust Jules, JW and others FAR more readily than I do Jim, and unfortunately for him that's how it's gonna be. I DON'T CARE ABOUT READING UPDATES and I DON'T want them posted here every five minutes! Those who DO care are perfectly capable of finding the damn link on the movingon home page! This is driving me mad! Enough already!!! And for the record, in case it's not 100% clear, I am in full agreement with Jules' decision to ban Jim. If you all can't deal with it, why don't you start up your own damn website!?!
(reply to this comment)
| from Auty
Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 14:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can we all just get along? Gosh! I'm a La Mattery, but have chosen to keep myself out of this whole mess as I am a single mother with a four year old daughter and am a fulltime nursing student, thus my schedule does not permit participation of flame wars. However, this is getting a little ridiculous! Out of the 2700 some-odd members registered on this site there are just a handful that dis/agree. Although Jim is my uncle, I refuse to take sides on this manner and have remained a neutral observer. BUT I am tired of seeing my last name slung all over this website with such negativity, it's disheartening. Is there anyway we can simply move on, as Jules said, and agree to disagree? Or can this be taken to a private forum via email or phone calls? Or perhaps a meeting? Something! Please!
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 17:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Auty, I agree. I am truly sorry for any stress this has caused you and the other the LaMattery SGAs. It was not my intent but it has obviously had that effect. My respect and support for you, your siblings and cousins is the same as it always has been.
Without Auty, this web site would not exist. It was an idea we both dreamed up years ago. She created a mockup and planned many of the features that are here. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cult Surfer
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 18:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
It WAS your intent Jules, you didn't like us from the beginning because we never saw you or Nancy as "queen bees". You couldn't control us. You told me 2 months ago to "watch out, you don't want to mess with me, I'll $#@# you". Such amazing words coming out of such a nice person, I was shocked. Hell I just buried my brother in law, your timing was perfect.
Since you mutinied the FBI investigation, it's time to start answering questions:
1) Please give me an update on your last conversation with the FBI
2) Please give me an update on your communications with Zerby and Kelly
3) Please give me an update on the IRS investigation
4) Please give me an update on what the FBI wants from the SGA community
5) Please let me know if you've informed the Canadian authorities on the Family
6) Please explain to my family about how you "bullied" me when you flipped your lid over us starting Will to Life, way before Jim "bullied" anyone. It wasn’t about Will to Life was it Jules?
Or maybe you can get your spokesperson Exister to fill us in.
Your people deserve to know why they're backing you and what your agenda is. At least answer this: ARE YOU FOR AN FBI INVESTIGATION OR NOT? No more BS, I demand an answer because so far you're really fucking it up and I’m holding you responsible. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Monday, April 25, 2005, 06:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
You ass. I remember you and your pompous attitude of high and mightiness. The fact that you were ever a VS should be enough to keep groveling in penance for the rest of your pathetic life. I cringe at the memory of being forced to put up with you and your false spirituality. You are FAR worse than Phoenix. At least she believed in what she enforced. You simply used your position to run your peers into the ground. You knew what you were doing and yet you did it anyway. Have you no shame? Go to hell.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From xolox
Monday, April 25, 2005, 17:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that to assume that everybody wants the same thing is naive, if not obtuse. Here's why: Some parties seek to gain financially from their involvement in the search for "justice", while others wish only to see their personal tormentors in jail.
There's also the fact that some parties DON'T want their personal histories displayed publicly, while the other band could give a rats ass just as long they get what they believe is rightfully theirs.
It has been stated repeatedly that their uttmost priority is: "Seeing that the FBI gets all info they need." And nowhere does the concern for the victims, who've been kind enough to lend support to this highly personal cruzade, ever enter the equation unless specifically requested. Not a good sign, I'm surprised you missed it.
This issue is constantly clouded by the statement that we all seek the same thing. Again, that is simply not true. I think we can all agree that any molester of children should be behind bars. However, putting this Sloan character away, while a noble venture, benefits only a few. And when the cruzade begins to exact a high price in peace of mind, one expects the dividends to be worth the effort. I don't think the benefiting parties have made allowances for that, couple that with their pushy and demanding natures, and we have a problem.
Perhaps this is a bit oversimplified, and for that I apologize, but this post is long enough.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Monday, April 25, 2005, 10:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Didn't most of us have a false spirituality? Thats what we were taught. I hardly ever meant what I said in those stupid Open Heart Reports, we all grew up playing the game up untill some point. I would make most of it up LOL, How many times can you "overcome" the same thing? Don't forget he was taught like us that harsh beatings, control and sexual abuse was not abuse at all, no those were the Devil's lies, they were actualy of God and the best way to train a child. (reply to this comment) |
| | From
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 23:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your uncle is the one who has fucked it up more than anyone.
He has misrepresented the FBI's wishes to the SGA community. Saying the FBI wants him to post a web page poll where people name and vote on top abusers? Not true. How fucked up is that kind of BS?
Now it comes out that he went public with the news of the investigation when the FBI really didn't want that. How fucked up is that? Wouldn't you say that was obstructing justice?
And threatening to post private emails to settle a score? Do you have any concept of how reckless that is? How harmful? How many boundaries he's breaking down? What kind of a precedent is this: Demanding people post private emails to prove their innocence?
How does that make all the people feel who sent your uncle emails and affidavits? now, even if they want to speak out against him, they can't, as he has the goods on them. He's got their email correspondance and their affidavits. He's got the power over them if they cross him.
Your uncle is a one man wrecking ball. He's obsessed with power and control. He's going to do things his way and will not hesitate to trash people who don't kow tow.
In my view he has become the enemy of this investigation because of his refusal to act in an ethical manner. He's the one who has fucked it up the most, and I hold him responsible. He's 52 years old, he's supposed to know better.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 19:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
John, I have always expressed my support for you, your siblings, WTL and the justice effort. I am sorry that you are so upset about your uncle being blocked from this site and you have every right to voice your opinions. However I must request that you please stop your personal attacks and sexist slurs. Please do so or your comments will be trailer parked. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Why does Jules have to prove anything to you? Her track record is a hell of a lot longer than yours. You forget, Jules is a victim too. She doesn't need your lectures or need to pass some litmus test from a sexist wise ass who just a few years ago was working against people like her.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 23:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Right on. This is her site. She owns and operates it and has put a hell of a lot of time and effort into it. This community would not exist if it were not for her. And she's never asked for a dime. Unlike some people who as soon as they start doing something, set up a fund in their own name and start asking for money.
And even if everyone of the 2700 posters disagreed with her on a point, she is still within her rights to ban whoever she feels like.
She has made herself much more accountable than some of these people slamming her right now. She has all her policies out there for people to see. I don't see such clearly articulated policies on other web sites.
Bottom line. If people don't like it here, they don't have to stay. Jules has worked damn hard to make this a safe non-threatening place. I support her 100% in her efforts to keep it that way. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sounds like it.
John, the core issues here transcend the bickering between your uncle and Jules and co.
Why did exfamily.org just ban your uncle from posting? Are they obstructing justice, whoever they are? Do you want a list of their emails? How are you planning to retaliate against them?
The core issue here is that your uncle has consistantly acted in a highly unethical manner. That's being polite.
Now a lot of people have decided of their own free will not to associate with him any more. A lot of people. They don't like him, they don't trust him.
The people who run these different web sites have decided to ask your uncle to leave.
So deal with it dude. Your uncle brought this upon himself.
Your insults of Jules amaze me. While you were a VS, still on the Family payroll, enforcing their crap, she was speaking out, with very little support from anyone else. WTF do you know about her commitment to bringing the Family down?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fish
Monday, April 25, 2005, 06:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
You ass. I remember you and your pompous attitude of high and mightiness. The fact that you were ever a VS should be enough to keep groveling in penance for the rest of your pathetic life. I cringe at the memory of being forced to put up with you and your false spirituality. You are FAR worse than Phoenix. At least she believed in what she enforced. You simply used your position to run your peers into the ground. You knew what you were doing and yet you did it anyway. Have you no shame? Go to hell.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From the plural apostrophe is evil
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 19:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Get this straight once and for all: when the “s” is added to a word simply to make it a plural, no apostrophe is used (except in expressions where letters or numerals are treated like words, like “mind your P’s and Q’s” and “learn your ABC’s”).
Apostrophes are also used to indicate omitted letters in real contractions: “do not” becomes “don’t.”
Why can’t we all agree to do away with the wretched apostrophe? Because its two uses—contraction and possession—have people so thoroughly confused that they are always putting in apostrophes where they don’t belong, in simple plurals (“cucumber’s for sale”) and family names when they are referred to collectively (“the Smith’s” ).
The practice of putting improper apostrophes in family names on signs in front yards is an endless source of confusion. “The Brown’s” is just plain wrong. (If you wanted to suggest “the residence of the Browns” you would have to write “Browns’,” with the apostrophe after the “S,” which is there to indicate a plural number, not as an indication of possession.) If you simply want to indicate that a family named Brown lives here, the sign out front should read simply “The Browns.” When a name ends in an “S” you need to add an “ES” to make it plural: “the Adamses.”
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 18:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Who is this "us"? Queen bees? What in the world?
John, the FBI doesn't need anyone to do their job, especially not someone uninvolved with law enforcement. No one needs to correspond with Zerby and Kelly in order to bring justice to anyone. What do you think they're going to do, turn themselves in? Why do you need an update on the IRS investigation? Are you a coodinating law enforcement agency? If the FBI wants something from someone, then they might ask for it themselves. If you really believe that you and your uncle need to make the FBI "do their job" in order for an investigation to succeed, then how do you explain every other successful investigation and prosecution in the country's history? You're holding Jules responsible for what? She's "fucking it up"? You "demand an answer" to what? It seems like the same aggression we've seen. All you have to do now is add a threat to do something like "go to the media" with a trumped up allegation and it would be impossible to differentiate your statements from Jim's.
Hmmm? Was I a "queen bee" in your mind when I put you on my email list to share information I turned up in westlaw and register of deeds searches? Was I a "queen bee" when I gave you the FBI's contact information in order for you to speak with them? Let me remind you that it was someone else who got the investigation started. I was the one who actually emailed you and gave you the contact information because I thought you were doing a lot of good and might be able to help give them information. You seem to forget the good will and cooperation we have had, even though I don't even know you. The way Jim treated me and my response to it has nothing to do with you John. It doesn't make it an us against them. There is no them on this side who is going to fight with you. There isn't even a them on this side who wants to fight with you. Your anomosity is misplaced because I won't fight with you that's for sure. I've got nothing but respect for you since I heard you sent a media helicopter over to the FCF compound. When I was talking with one of the agents involved with the investigation this past week, that came up and we both had a small chuckle thinking about it. Good work, John. Try to remember who the bad guys are and who the victims are. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cult Surfer
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 19:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
You lashed out at Jim on info provided to you by Jules, now you're mixed up in this mess.
The Feds were doing absolutely nothing until Jim walked in the door and gave it to them. The person that initiated the investigation wasn't an American and the Feds couldn't do anything with it. Jim deserves support, not slander.
The "good guys" are the people standing together and doing what's right, not stabbing eachother in the back, everyone else is a bystander. You guys threw the first stone, I told Jules a week before she posted "Jim LaMattery" that it wasn't smart to bring your disagreements in the public, now it's been blown out of proportion. But I guess I should've known that since Jules warned if I took a different line than her that she'd squash me. Sorry Jules, I wasn't squashed, just extremely disappointed. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 19:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
John, perhaps I can help clear something up here.
Nancy has stated on this site that she got involved with this because she feels Jim threatened her and her close friend in private emails and phone conversations. How does this reconcile with your statement that the information was "provided to [her] by Jules"?
Dude, prior to your posts this evening I thought you were a decent and respectable guy. I would still like to think this way of you.
I ask you as a potential friend, to please let Jim handle deal with the results of his own actions. He's a grown man.
I would request the same of my friends if my actions were brought before the public eye.
The core of the issues brought up in these threads about the FBI investigation is respecting the privacy of former victims regardless of the degree of their involvement. I urge you to please keep this as the foremost motivation in your posts here.
Thank you.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 20:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you John, I'm gald to see I had not underestimated you in that regard. Still, I feel I must caution you that unless your foremost priority is the well-being of the victims you seek justice for, you will find yourself without support.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "the victims have been more revictimized now than ever with MO using them as leverage".
If this is the case, why is there no outcry about what Jules has posted from the 6 to 8 people who are, according to you, being revictimized by the post?
Why, instead, is there nothing but support from these former victims for what Jules has done?
If you truly only wish for what is best for the former victims, then why do you so oppose what they support?
Also, I fail to see how you so easily equate failure to comply with your uncle's requests for information to be sent to him as disapproval of the FBI investigation. Could you explain?
Also, isn't the FBI quite capable of doing its job without being hurried along by a mortgage broker or any regular citizen for that matter?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 19:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're just dead wrong! Jules did not provide me with any information regarding Jim. Jules didn't come onto the scene until the very end.
I also did not "lash out at Jim". I never did any such thing.
John, really do inform yourself before you make accusations. That is not what happened at all. There were quite a few people that Jim had upset and intimidated before I heard about it and before I wrote to him a very kind letter.
The "Feds couldn't do anything with it"? They can do little with your uncle's pre-1975 story. What they can use is the information I have provided regarding my experiences and what my peers have provided regarding their experiences. That doesn't require anyone to harass or push or threaten anyone.
John, why don't you actually read what I wrote to Jim if you're so interested. You might be singing a different tune, then. Also read what he wrote to me in response and you'll understand who is "lashing out."(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cult Surfer
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 19:53
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy,
You should asked Jules if she's behind the investigation. You know that the feds need info, I don't care if it comes from Jules or King Kong, I just care when some someone obstructs that process. I support you fully in any effort to dealing with TF. That's what this was about at the beginning, working as individuals and not messing with each other’s projects. The Family has gotta be praising Mo for this fiasco.
We have separated between those that want criminal prosecution, and those that want to "reform" The Family. I don’t believe in reform, child molesters need jail time first, then maybe The Family will reform.(reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 20:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
John, again, allow me to clear up a matter for you.
If, for example, the FBI directly requests that I send them a copy of the Dito book because it holds evidence crucial to their investigation and I refuse to do so, then I would be obstructing justice.
If however, the FBI agent has merely expressed an interest in seeing the original of this book and has not requested it from any one, and I refuse to send them my copy, I have committed no crime whatsoever.
If, for example, a mortgage broker asks that I send him an affidavit and I refuse, again, I have committed no crime.
John, while you were still VSing around Japan, Jules was speaking to the media and has been involved in the justice effort for a very long time. It seem very audacious of you to be calling Jules position on all of this into question. You know right well were she stands, only you haven't looked over your shoulder yet.(reply to this comment) |
| | From xolox
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have no confidence in anyone who ever made it to the rank of VS! You had to be pretty "sold out" to make that level. What made him bitter enough to leave? Obviously it was the abuse, that went on long before the title of VS even existed.
Here's this person who held considerable power in the cult, pointing fingers at others as if he's got a foot to stand on.
The more I see of the LaMattery cult, the less I like them.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From xolox
Monday, April 25, 2005, 20:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
So let me see if I've got it straight: You see nothing strange or hypocritical about a person climbing a very steep, slippery, and very political ladder, bowing all the while to any and all requirements necessary to get that position, regardless of the abuse heaped upon his own flesh and blood? Abuse that was summarily denied a hidden by his IMMEDIATE supervisors no less.
Or perhaps you mean to suggest that, because I can draw attention to this rather blatant discrepancy I happen to be prejudiced?
If your answer to any of this is yes, then I'll proudly wear your label as a badge of pride!
When you make it to one of the top echelons of power in an orginazation notorious for it's summary abuse (the sexual kind being the minority) of its members, it's pretty safe to say that you may bear resposibility by default. Especially if your position was that of strong arm or enforcer.
I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion, but it's mine and I'm keeping it. I'm willing to be unpopular. And as long as I'm still allowed to post on this site, I will do so as honestly as I can without overpoliticization. Too much honey just makes me sick!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Monday, April 25, 2005, 22:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Or you could just find 4 other people who agree with you and vote it there yourself, and not demand that censorship-by-exile be imposed on speech you disagree with by the administration of the site. :)
Please be aware that I'm not taking a position on the issue at hand, just expressing my disappointment in what seems like ever-more-frequent calls for editorial censorship of this site's content. The high-water mark of freedom is determined by how well or poorly dissent is handled, and so is, in my opinion, the high water mark of civility.
On that note, can we who are not actually involved in the undoubtedly dramatic events of late please be forgiven for not giving a flying fuck anymore about Jim LaMattery, the FBI Investigation (&/or obstruction thereof), Queen Bees or allegedly threatening email(s)? I mean, the first 4 zillion comments on these topics were just fucking gripping, but now that it's gone beyond that, I haven't any more fuck to give. I would if I could, but I can't, so I don't. Sorry. Mod me into the Trailer Park if you must. :) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 19:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe. I just don't know anymore.
I think the bottom line is that this is a guy who wants abuse victims of the Family to contact him with their information for purposes of bringing them justice. How does all this accomplish that?
If it is John and not Jim, then I really hope he gets the whole story. We all want the same thing. We want to see justice, any way it may come. We just don't want to be coerced and threatened into cooperation.
I know there was a lot of concern about posting anything online about the whole affair. It just became so serious that it seemed like the only option. I mean, when I receive personal threats to go to the media with claims that I'm withholding information, I think that's pretty serious. I would like nothing more than to put this whole matter to bed forever. I think the Will to Life Foundation is wonderful and needed. I told Jim that in our one telephone conversation. I think his and his family's efforts are well spent building that foundation. I think this whole matter is better gone so we can all do whatever we are involved with and attend to our own lives which are pretty hectic in and of themselves. Yet, I'm not capable of making it go away. I don't seem to be able to stop being accused of whatever the allegation de jour is. I've asked to be left out of the matter, but I still keep hearing about new posts with new outlandish allegations about me and some non-existant power I seem to have over this site. Does it not occur to anyone that I'm not even an editor here?
I found an article in the trailer park about me that made me laugh. It was written a year ago, but I only just came across it. There was a comment from the author about it having been put into the trailer park to the effect of "I didn't realize Nancy had so much power". Well, darling, neither did I. I missed that memo. Apparently, I'm missing some power and would like for it to be returned as soon as possible, as I would like to use it to deep 6 this La Mattery matter forever.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Bella
Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 11:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
We have just posted a new folder on http://lamatteryresource.org called "Letters." This folder now contains the letter I recieved from a very brave current member of The Family International. I say "brave" because he has not hid behind a web nickname, has used his legal name, and is speaking from his heart instead of a cue card from his leadership. I don't know how long our communication will last, that is, I don't know how long it will take Maria and Peter to censure this young man. But he has asked for a voice, and I intend of giving him an opportunity to discuss the current FBI and IRS investigations with me on our site. Nothing will be chopped and pasted, we will keep the original letters in their original form. I think that many of you will find this "living book" quite interesting, I know that I have.
Thank you.
Jim LaMattery
PS- Claire's letter and my response is located in this folder as well. I
will continue to post her letters to me as they come in.
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Saturday, April 23, 2005, 22:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would like to request that people not post content on Jim’s behalf. Jim has actually been blocked from posting further on this web site. Since he has again announced that he does not wish to post here other than to answer unanswered questions, which he did through nearly 100 replies, and seemed to be answered to the best of his ability, I was glad that this decision seemed to be mutually beneficial for all.
Jim has been blocked from this site for the following reasons:
1. Continued lack of respect for the privacy of others. He continued to pressure Nancy to contact him despite her publicly stating her wishes that he not do so.
2. Continued false allegations and attacks against abuse victims.
a) Has accused SGAs of attempting to derail the FBI investigation. This is not true. What they have said is that the information they received directly from the FBI was very different than the information he has been disseminating.
b) Has accused SGAs of attempting to stop him going public. This is not true. People simply wished to know the reason for him disregarding the FBI’s advice to not publicly disclose the investigation.
c) Has accused the MovingOn administrators of a conspiracy to hide the FBI investigation. This is as ludicrous as the Family’s statements that the MovingOn admins have a conspiracy to promote violence. This is an open forum. What is or is not said on this web site is up to the SGAs who participate here.
d) Has accused me of attempting to thwart his attempts to gather information. Again, simply not true. He has repeatedly asked me to post on this site on his behalf. I explained to him that I do not do this and that he could post his own statements.
e) Has accused other SGAs of trying to derail him to protect their own parents. Also untrue. People have explained to him that they do not wish to arbitrarily turn over information to him, but would rather work directly with investigators.
f) Has asked that people write him privately and then insinuated that there was some hidden secret going on behind the scenes when people tried to accomodate him. Personally I have consistently and only written him about the need for caution and sensitivity when working with abuse survivors. I have nothing to hide and anything I have said to him privately, I would and have said publicly.
g) Has accused SGAs of inaction. Just because they do not give information to him does not mean that they are inactive. The FBI and IRS investigations were not initiated by him but by others. The current level of mobility is due to the outrage that many SGAs feel and has nothing to do with him at all. In any regards, abuse survivors have the absolute right to be as "active" as they themselves feel is appropriate and safe for them.
3. Persistent patronization of SGs on MovingOn. First generation people who post here do so as guests. They are asked to be respectful of us and our space and if they are not then they are blocked from posting.
4. Demanding that those he has hurt directly confront him, with no thought to their own vulnerability or his triggering behaviour. The definition of advocacy is to speak on behalf of others. Jim has stated that he plans to make a career out of advocating and speaking on behalf of others and so should understand that there are times when it is necessary to do so.
5. Privately threatening people while simultaneously publicly apologizing to them. He has threatened to sue victims, to attack them in the media, to attack them online and in circulated emails to others. He has harassed abuse victims to the point of them seeking legal counsel to protect themselves against him. Many SGA abuse survivors have enough going on already with recovery and attempting to rebuild their lives and this has been a completely unnecessary stress factor for them.
Jim is obviously a bit of a bull in a china shop. Blocking him from this site is simply an effort to remove him from the china shop and to free up his energy and effort to be devoted towards justice for his family. Being a bull is not a bad thing when his passion is directed towards the justice effort. It takes great energy and effort to see justice done and Jim certainly has a lot of energy.
Jim's taking his time previously to address the issues people raised here was greatly appreciated. I wish Jim the best of luck in his endeavours and I wish him all the best in his efforts to see justice done for his family. A link to the LaMattery Resource web site has been posted on the home page of this web site and anyone seeking further updates from Jim can find them a click away there. (reply to this comment) |
| | From confussed
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 11:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Shouldn't Jim be able to answer and post his defence to these allegations? From what I've read Jim has said nothing intimidating or patronising and has answered past questions to my satisfaction. I don't know what you know about this situation but I don't like rumour and projections (something the last thread contained alot of) but if there is evidence shouldn't we be able to hear or see it?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From (((
Monday, April 25, 2005, 06:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear SamVS,
Stop trying to be a leader again.
You were a pretty lousy VS leader in The Family & an even lousier leader out of the Family.
Lets not forget that you were right up there with the CROs & all. To a lot of young people you were the leadership. You were the one that forced all the Family doctrines on them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Monday, April 25, 2005, 11:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Please can we stop these personal attacks? John's history in the Family is not the issue here.
The issue is that I believe that Jim violated the use of this site for the all the reasons I listed below. He has been blocked from participating here. That's it.
Whether Jim's family agrees with me or believes that he did in fact violate the rights of the participants here, what John's history in the Family was, or any other of these issues are all irrelevant to this decision.
In addition comments such as the continued demands that the privacy of others be violated through posting of private correspondence are themselves a violation of the use of this site. All comments with these demands (and the following replies) have been trailer parked. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Still confused
Monday, April 25, 2005, 10:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have been reading whats been going down at NDN and exfamily and from my perspective Jim was bullied and put down, alot of people read meanings into his comments, which didn't match from what I recognised to be his intent. I don't know everything that went on with Elixcia and Nancy, but I have read his apologies to them and I'd like to believe he is genuinely sorry for getting it wrong. He voided the contract and has tried to make up with Nancy-but it is of course up to her to forgive or not, which he excepted.
I guess he's been learning about those triggers that both SGAs and FGAs sometimes suffer from. He left so long ago that he may not have realised just how bad TF got.
Some one was even picking on him for posting, yet he had no choice but to go back, both here and there to answer the questions-now that is childish. And now John JR is getting attacked! ;((reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although being threatened like this is not pleasant, I have no objections to Jim posting my emails to him on his own web site so that anyone who cares can read my emails there. I have consistently said to him privately the same things I have said publicly. This is moving from the mildly annoying into the absurd and it would be nice if we could just move on. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 12:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Keep in mind that Jim has seriously pissed off the coordinators at the FGA sites at exfamily and new day news They have both restricted his postings and one of them seems ready to pretty much cut him off.
There is a verifiable pattern here of manipulation and disingenous conduct. It's all been openly debated ad nauseum.
When this board was set up, Jules clearly articulated the "rules of engagement" in her FAQ and other policy posts. She has every right to enforce them. I think she has demonstrated incredible restraint, given all that has gone down.
Jim has his own site. He can exercise complete freedom of speech there. Maybe he'll build a board where he and others can post, free of the shackles and constraints of MO.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Bella
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 13:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules - this statement by "??" articulates my problem with your censoring of my uncle, Jim LaMattery. First you public accuse him and force him to come here to answer questions and defend himself on a number of issues. Then, as soon as he answers many of the questions, you ban him and basically tell him to get lost. What's up with that? I would have a huge problem with this behavior regardless of who you were doing it to - an SGA, FGA, relative, or otherwise.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 11:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's not a personal dispute by any means. It's not personal when not one, but six or more people are threatened. Ricky's widow had to get a lawyer to void the representation contract Jim forced her to sign just days after Ricky died. That's not personal, that's coercive.
The email which was sent to him by me was chocked full of information regarding the efforts of my friends and peers in matters to expose the Family, things people are doing and some information they have. I'm not concerned with anything I wrote being wrong. I haven't threatened anyone. But, I am concerned with privacy. You can't just change people's names and think the information is not compromised.
I also told him things I have said and done in efforts to support the criminal investigations. That is private. If I'd known what kind of person he'd turn out to be and that he would have ended up making threats against me or publishing my correspondence, then I would not have told him what I did, much less even contacted him.
Besides, if he insists on promoting himself and making a scene out of things and violating my privacy and others, then he might end up publishing his correspondence, as well, not just to me, but the other people he's threatened as well, who are even more private people than me. It completely undermines everyone and their efforts. Why is he not able to see that? Why does he continue to try and make this about something it's not? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From I agree
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
It does seem like a personality clash between a few people.
How did it get from this to this?
From Bella
Thursday, March 31, 2005, 14:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would contact my uncle, Jim LaMattery directly about this. His email address is: jimlamattery@hotmail.com. Also, if you go onto lamatteryresource.org and click on "Projects" there are updates and info about the FBI investigation and how to send in your affidavit. Good luck. (reply to this comment)
From Shaka
Thursday, March 31, 2005, 21:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I agree. Your uncle is the one who set up my interview and took me to it. He already has a good working relationship with the agents involved so to all of you who are unsure about how to go about getting your information to them, I would suggest you go through him or at least talk to him first just for the sake of convenience. Of course like I said, if you don't want to go through a median that's fine too. (reply to this comment)
from Nancy
Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 13:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow! That is wonderful. So, I'm going to finally sit down this weekend and draft an affidavit of the abuse I suffered that I promised Daniel ages ago. John, if I don't send it on Monday, feel free to email and call me and make me feel like the slacker I am. I know how important it is. I've just got to make the time to get it done. I also think it's important because I suffered abuse within the US, so jurisdiction is there.
(reply to this comment)
From Bella
Thursday, March 31, 2005, 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, I agree with Nancy - outstanding John. Thanks for doing that. (reply to this comment) (reply to this comment) |
| | From vixen
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 10:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ummmm, yes, you certainly could not have read everything.
Jules' article was fair and her actions responsible. She, rightly, feels a responsibility to those who frequent this site, and I believe that Jim's subsequent actions (as reported by others, mind, seeing as I personally have not dealt with him) have demostrated the fact that she was right to caution people about trusting him.
Perhaps we should have a poll, Jules, and see how many of this site's participants agree with your justification for Jim's ban? To me, it seems there are only a handful who disagree.
And finally, no, we don't all want the same thing.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 11:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks, I wish I felt as okay about the subject now. I thought I had freed myself from this matter, but apparently it's like the movie Pet Cemetary. It keeps coming back!
It's the most stressing thing I've had to deal with since leaving the cult. I don't understand why an ex-FGA would go to such lengths in his ongoing actions towards me and other people. I only got involved when he reduced a good friend of mine, a survivor of worse abuse than I ever experienced, to tears due to his bullying and threats against her in order to get information from her regarding the names of other victims. I wrote him a nice email and told him how much I supported him and asked him a few questions. I specifically stated I did not mean to take any sides. That is when all hell broke loose and I became the target of the same treatment my friend received. I tried to work things out but the more things I said to resolve things and help him understand there was no conspiracy, the more things he began to use against me and other people. Now, he's tried to blow this into some sort of public dispute. I just want to be left alone.
Why can he not respect that? I wasn't the one who blocked him. I'm not even an editor here. Yet, he seems eager to find a target for blame. But, I do support Jules in her decision because I've been on the receiving end of a lot of his threats and aggression, so I know where she's coming from.
I mean, for Christ sakes, this man even purports to be a Christian, but he's forced me, a single parent, to retain an attorney. I'm not the only one either. There are three people I know of who contacted asking for legal advice in this matter. I couldn't give it because this is not my area of expertise, so they also retained lawyers in their area. What the hell is wrong that abuse survivors are retaining lawyers to protect themselves from a man who purports to want to speak for them and champion them? Is anyone home?! This is insane! I'd never even consulted an attorney to advise me regarding any repercussions from speaking to the FBI and IRS investigators, knowing full well that if the investigation progressed, I might end up testifying. I know what the Family has done to other victims who have testified regarding their abuse. Yet, not even that very real possibility made me concerned enough to get representation. Only this matter, only Jim La Mattery and his ongoing threats have been concerning enough for me to obtain legal representation in the 14 years since I ran away from the cult. Does that not seem backward? I mean this is really, really insane!
I even had the irrational thought that Jim might be working with the Family for a moment because I could not see any other explanation for his actions and targeting of individual survivors. I even asked a friend if I was crazy in thinking that for even a moment because his actions have had far worse effect on me than anything the cult has done or published or stated in the past 14 years since I left. This is nuts!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From porceleindoll
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 02:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm sorry Jules but I don't understand the deicision to ban anyone from posting updates on what is happening at Jim's site. As an editor of one of the boards here I wasn't contacted about this choice or decision, unless I don't have a say as I'm just an editor, or because I'm part of the 'LaMattery Clan'. I can understand about blocking Jim, but this too, as an editor I wasn't contacted about and at least asked for my opinion, and in other places where I have been involved in coordinating, I have always been included in any of those sort of major deicison making processes.
What though is the problem with posting any updates or links? That seems to be going a bit too far. I would vote for allowing the updates, and people can say or not say anything about it if they want. It's not like Jim is going to be involved in debating the subject, it will simply be a link to latest developments.
Unless the real reason is you or the other editors of this board don't support what Jim is doing in any way whatsoever. That's how it would make sense to me. Yes, people can click the link on the home page of this site, but I am too busy to always be clicking into every single site, and would like to have updates posted where I can get to them really quickly and not have to check the site every single day for any news or events.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vixen
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 09:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I understand it and what's more I agree with it, 100%. I've been irritated by the way this site has been high-jacked recently and from now on, the less I hear about this stuff the better. IMO, I know where the link is and I am certainly able to click on it, and I'd imagine anyone who actually cares about Jim's updates would surely be able to find the extra minute it takes to go to the home page and find the link.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Monday, April 25, 2005, 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
You're correct, "..like a bull in a china shop" is indeed a common expression. (48,200 google hits for the phrase)
In a similar vein, Movingon.org FAQ #17 http://www.movingon.org/faqs.asp#17 is almost undoubtedly incorrect in stating: "Grammar Nazi is a phrase coined by an exceptionally brilliant and witty participant of this Web site." With all due respect to Joe H (pardon me, I mean Joe, just plain Joe) and all other movingon.org princes/ses of pedantry, but that phrase wasn't coined by anyone here. Google turns up about 27,100 hits for "grammar nazi" that aren't from movingon.org, which ought to be in itself a fair indication of said phrase's widespread use outside the online exer community, if nothing else.
Additionally, Jules, you should also be aware that FAQ #20(b) is misleading in that the privacy claimed to be on offer via the chatroom can be trivially circumvented by creative use of the Chat Transcript page. I'll email you with what the specific problem is, it might be an easy enough fix.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 10:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
It has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with common decency. How is it that someone who purports to speak for abuse victims threatens them, privately in emails, over the phone, in person and online?
This is not about Jules, or me. This is about Jim and his actions towards lots of people. Eight total of which I am aware and I know no one compared to other people.
If he's not wanted on an internet site by the owner of that site, why is he not capable of respecting that? Why must he continue to send threats to people? If he's so concerned about victims, why doesn't he leave them alone? Why does he continue? Why doesn't he go help some people, like the young man in prison, and leave other folks alone? Especially, when he's been asked over and over to stop. I even had to block his email to stop the agressive and threatening emails. Even after I did so, apparently from what he's said online, he's continued to send me more. I'm so glad I have the option to block him, as certainly not asking him to stop was doing the trick. Why is it necessary to take such steps? Why am I not the only one who has been forced to block his email? And why do those who have not blocked him continue to receive threats from him?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Saturday, April 23, 2005, 22:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
LMAO. I've held lengthier email dialogs with current Family members more intelligent than Stephen Buckle and Jim combined (unless, of course, Jim is intentionally stooping to Stephen's level of coherence in his replies).
Good luck with that, Jim. Many of us have tried dialoging with relatives and friends still in The Family. I've taken the time to express in detail to some current members why I feel the way I do about their leaders. I've presented evidence in the form of their group's own publications and written accounts of abuse victims.
In the end, they still chose to believe only what they can prove for themselves -- trouble is, they're content to not bother proving it.
Enjoy the flashbacks, Jim.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Lance
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 02:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Between Borowick's typos and misspellings and Jim's comma splicing and excessive, unnecessary use of the quotation mark, it was quite painful to read.
Now that I'm on the subject let me just say that I REALLY can't stand the erroneous use of quotation marks. To me it's the literary equivalent of someone doing the quote unquote hand signal in mid air while you're talking to them. I can't stand that!
Use them on what they are meant for: Direct speech and excerpts from texts.
Ah yes, and I do agree that Jim is wasting his breath with Borowick. Just put her on the stand already.(reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]