|
|
 |
|
Getting On : The Trailer Park
|
About The Trailer Park:
This section is for comments that get a little carried
away. When comments become flames, they are transferred
to this area. If you wish to continue the threads posted
here, feel free, but the content will stay in the Trailer
Park.
(More on the Trailer Park)
|
FBI/IRS update | from Cult Surfer - March 21, 2005
accessed 5804 times This Article is not in the Trailer Park. Go To Article |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Cult Surfer
April 26, 2005 - This comment is in the main site
| from GoldenMic
April 26, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | from Nancy
April 25, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | | from vixen
April 25, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | from one who knows
April 25, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | | from Zerbite
April 25, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | | from Eric Cartman
April 25, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | from FED UP
April 25, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | from Auty
April 24, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  From Cult Surfer
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 21:05
 (Agree/Disagree?)
[information regarding additional parties has been removed for their privacy]
For the record, Cult Surfer is John Jr.
I'm interested in seeing if any threats were made or if that was a misunderstanding on your part. Jim has been willing to post the emails from [_], Jules and yourself on his site and let the public decide if he truly threatened you. Jules has agreed to letting him post her emails, what do you not want the public to see in yours?
Jules is in Canada, you're out of state, [_] is in [_], the investigation is being spearheaded in San Diego (my town). If you feel that you can watch dog the FBI based in San Diego from your place, then I'll support that 100%. The same goes with the IRS. The LaMattery's don't care who gets the "credit" of dealing with the Feds, that's ridiculous. We do care that our personal abusers are brought to justice and that the job gets done. I was there when Jim was on the phone with [_], and didn't feel he "re-victimized" her at all. He already appologized for offending her, so far she seems to be fine, it's other people using her to further their own agenda. To me, that's re-victimization.
Look, maybe people got offended at his manner in asking for the name of the person Claire Borowick molested after the individual involved offered it to him and the FBI. That could be due to the fact that he doesn't understand the "triggers" that set SGA's off. I'm certain if he fully knew what set off SGA's he would have handled it differently. I’m no help in the "trigger" department because I'm passed caring about what people say to me, I care what they do. Maybe Jules or you should've offered to be mediator between Jim and the victims, but that didn't happen. The bottom line is that the Feds get all the info they need and that an independent US citizen pressures them to get it done right, insuring that the investigation doesn't fall through the cracks. Thinking that the Feds will "poof" bring an indictment is simply incorrect. The Feds need us to provide them evidence, I've given them all of mine and then some. I don't have access to the Dito book, Jules does and should give it to them. If she says she doesn't, then she can post on her web page that they need it. She can also post on the front page that there's an investigation into TFI and endorse this effort so that the passer by's are informed. Unless she's not for it.
Maybe I'm in the dark and Jules has this covered, if that's the case, then I would like to see a progress report. Jim has supplied us one from the beginning of him getting involved. However, I feel that Jules doesn't understand the precident of getting Sloan inidicted. I would appreciate an FBI update from Jules and Exister on Sloan and TF if they have indeed taken over the investigation.
You may not like Jim’s style, but I only wish Rick and Abe would’ve known that there was someone willing to hold TF’s feet to the fire before they did what they did. I think their outcome might have been different.
On a softer note, I do respect what you've done Nancy. I'm just incredibly saddened by what's transpired on the boards over the past few weeks. I feel it's only help derail the process and give TF something to smile about. I'm all about working together, I just need to know where people stand and who I'm working with. My motives are clear. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 21:31
  (Agree/Disagree?)
The core issues are not limited to this board. Why has exfamily.org also blocked your uncle from posting?
Is this also all their fault, whoever they are? Are they obstructing justice too? Whoever "they" are.
It's not about tiffs with Jules and co. It's about your uncle's highly unethical behavior. He's pissed a lot of people off and they don't want to play with him any more.
At the beginning, he had the benefit of the doubt -- and he fucked it up. Bigtime.
Tough. Deal with it. Your whining is so pathetic. Stomp your feet while you're at it.
I would have kicked your sorry ass out of here a long time ago. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Bella
April 23, 2005 - This comment is in the main site | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Cult Surfer
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 18:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Get over the "threatening" BS Nancy, turn off your computer or walk away. I've received more hate mail than I'd wish on anyone and it has done nothing more than strengthen my resolve. Death threats, phone threats, slander, everything. I've had FGA's and SGA's bitch at me and I told them to fuck it. The last thing I did was whine about being "re-victimized". Don't cry wolf unless you can actually prove it.
Post all the correspondence and get this resolved now. Stop hiding, face the music. People are dying, it's time to get them justice NOW, who the hell cares who the messenger is. I'm sick of your guys' politics. Jim never threatened anyone, tell the "victims" to post their emails from him, prove your accusations.
The first thing a shrink will tell you about being a victim is to get over it. You can whine about it for life, or you can move on and get something constructive done. We're survivors and comrades, we'll never be able to "cry" The Family to court.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Bella
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 16:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well then Nancy, perhaps everyone's emails should be posted so that we can see this pattern of conduct for ourselves. Would these five individuals you list be willing to come out personally against Jim? Again, you and Jules are expecting the public to think of Jim in a certain way yet you give us no proof. If you want us all to believe that Jim is the SOB that you are painting him out to be, then show me his emails. (reply to this comment) |
| | From xolox
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 22:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, I'm begining to see a pattern here. It would seem that if you're a Lamattery, and you frequent this site, it will only be a matter of time before you start to demand lists of names and private correspondence.
I remember a while ago there was another character demanding personal information. And as I recall, I was mistaken about this persons motives. I bear him no ill will, and I hope that's mutual. I hope I am mistaken about this situation as well, though sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 17:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not "expecting the public to think" a damn thing. I don't care what the public thinks. It is not a public matter despite what Jim may claim. And, at least five people have already communicated with Jim and gotten similar reactions as I did. I got involved when he bullied by dear friend. I didn't start this. But, I can say I sick and damn tired of it and him and all those who claim that the public has any right to anything. This isn't a friggin' public demonstration. Jim is a bully and threatens people, end of story. More than a lot of people have approached him and received the same treatment. I'm one in a list. I'm not the first or the last. I'm just one that stood up to it. Other people, more private people, went and hired lawyers, called their friends, wrote to their friends, cried on the phone with their friends, all due to his actions. There is no cause for his behavior. There is no excuse. This isn't expionage. There is no conspiracy. No one is hiding anything. It isn't a shell game. There is just a bully who Jules banned from the school yard, and he's making a fuss about it. The public can think whatever they like. But, I will have my rights to privacy respected. I will not be intimidated by him or anyone speaking on his behalf. He has no right to damand anything of me. He is not being persecuted. Much the opposite, he has threatened and intimidated and told half truths until enough people heard about it and got involved and said something. Now he's trying to turn it around and make it look like he's the victim. Not the case. First he said, it was a conspiracy regarding a civil suit, then he said Jules and I were working together, then he said everyone needed to stop talking about him and concentrate on some person in prison, then he said he needed to concentrate on answering current SGAs questions, then he said he needed to answer other people's questions on this site, then he brought up another totally different matter involving another unrelated ex-SGA editor on this site that doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in China, and finally he is saying that he is going to post all the private emails regarding subjects of priavte ex-SGAs, the FBI and criminal investigations, etc. This comes minutes after he demanded everyone only correspond with him in private. It's all insane. Next I'm going to hear heavens in the moon or I'm in the moon or a conspiracy against him is in the moon. I don't speak for anyone but me. I don't speak for my friends, yet that doesn't mean what he did to them didn't happen. And there's no calls to further violate my and their privacy and the integrity of who is cooperating with the federal authorities in order to prove anything to the public. There's nothing to hide, but that doesn't make any of our information public domain. People should be cautious that getting involved with Jim La Mattery at any level can lead to this. I called him initially to offer my support and help. I then emailed him when I heard what he said to my friend when she called in tears, after speaking with two other of our friends already and still being upset. I was nothing but kind and civil and this is what it has lead to. He's bullied and threatened me and insinuated that I'm some conspirator working in concert with Jules and others against him. It's assinine. Nothing will satisfy him. He seems to care for no one except himself and his own goals. He's shown he's willing to sacrifice the privacy and peace of mind of anyone who happens to disagree with him or he views as standing in his way. Well, I've worked too hard for this ex-FGA to take one minute of my peace of mind away.
Let him do as he will. No one seems able to reason with him to stop. But, let it be clear. I will protect my privacy and my name. That is why I hired an attorney and filled him in on the matter. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From porceleindoll
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 16:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
The problem with knowing how to make any sort of decision about this thing is that we, the public, have NOT seen any of this private correspondence, so we ONLY have your word, Jules' word and Jim's word.
This actually seems to me to go against the demand for openness that the exer community seems to want. If I am going to be pressured into deciding 'who was right and who was wrong' and etc., then I need to see all correspondence in order to make that choice for myself. Until I do, I cannot just say "Oh yes, Jules and Nancy, you are totally right and Jim is totally wrong.." or vice-versa. This is how it went down in the Family, we were told what to think without being a clear overview of things.
Since you Nancy, and Jules, and a few others have decided to make this all public, then I think you should go the distance and post up private email and correspondence, so that we, the general public who have been dragged into this online war, can make informed decisions as to where we stand.
Otherwise I think the whole Jim LaMattery article, posts, and etc. should be removed from this site since they do not have a pure openness in that we, those to whom all this information has been presented, actually know the full-scoop of what is going on, and only have the word of a few persons.
And before anyone accuses me of not being objectional because Jim is my uncle, I think if you remove the fact that he's my uncle, you'd see that it is objectional. I want to be fully aware of all that happened if I, as part of the public who has now been subjected to this situation although I didn't ask for it, before I draw my conclusions on it.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Bella
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 16:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with PD. I believe that in the interest of being fair to an individual who has been slammed all over this board and then totally banned, the emails should be made public (with private names of victims deleted, obviously). Like PD said, as of now all we have is Jules and Nancy and Jim telling us a story of events from their own perspectives. Jules, you list a ton of reasons why you banned Jim, but as far as I'm concerned (as are many others), that is all hearsay.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From JohnnieWalker
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 17:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmmmm...perhaps this is where the misunderstandings began.
I personally was never under the impression that Julia has asked people to believe the allegations against your uncle as much as simply be aware of them.
She has never advocated that people cease to contact Jim or give him their information. She has merely advised the participants of her site of Jim's conduct, just as she would advise caution in dealing with any journalist, academic, etc, who seems to have a questionable track record.
Jules has often stated here that her primary obligation is one of maintaining a safe environment on this site for its participants. I believe she is acting out of that motive alone.
She has repeatedly spoken highly, both publicly and privately of Jim's quest for justice for his own daughters.
I, too, would like too see the emails posted. Julia has expressed her consent to having her correspondence with Jim posted online as well.
If Jim believes he can post these emails without violating the privacy of any third parties, then the ball is in his court. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 17:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you would like to read the email correspondence JW, then maybe that could be arranged. Yet, I maintain that posting it publically will violate my and others' right to privacy. I do not know what others who have hired representation specifically due to Jim's actions and threats will do. But, I will defend my right.
Further, posting them will also compromise the integrity and confidentiality of others cooperating with investigations and the media because many of us were discussing Jim's interactions with other people when we wrote to him. That is why I got involved in the matter. I was concerned with what he said to a good friend and what he claimed he was going to do with the information he got from her.
I mean, my God, we might as well copy Claire Borowik and Zerby and Kelly on all our private correspondence. This is beyond frustrating and upsetting to me. I begin to feel completely overwhelmed and victimized. There are other La Matterys stating that they're upset about their name being drug through the mud. I'm sick of being drug back into this over and over. When private threats didn't work, then I started receiving public threats to first claim I was withholding information from the federal authorities, that I was in conspiracy with Jules, threats to go to the media claiming I and others were withholding information from the authorities, and now threats to violate my and my friends and peers privacy. That is very, very upsetting. I mean my God, anyone who knows me knows I am committed to many, many efforts to expose the Family. I want justice as much as anyone. I challenge anyone to show me where or how I've ever withheld anything. I've been in arguments with even you JW over the Family and how justice should be pursued. I just don't understand this. I don't see how anyone who has read my posts here over the years can bring such an outrageous claim that I'm withholding information, as though I'm guilty of something. I've been involved with efforts for years, at great expense to myself. I'm pissed off and upset and stressed out and feeling overwhelmed all at the same time. I feel threatened and violated and powerless to stop it because it's Sunday and I cannot reach my attorney. I don't understand how this sort of treatment can all originate from someone who claims to want to help us. I just don't get this. But, it certainly has been more damaging to me and upsetting and time consuming and soon to be expensive for me than anything the cult has done to me in 14 years since I ran away. It's revictimization all over again. At least the cult, just blames their victims. They don't claim we're responsible for lack of justice by "withholding information from the federal authorities." That's ludicrious! I spent an hour on the phone last week with one of the agents involved with the investigation. I spend more than an hour the week before. But, again, explaning and defending myself from these outlandish claims COMPROMIZES THE INTEGRITY AND PRIVACY OF MYSELF AND OTHERS COOPERATING WITH THE AUTHORITIES. Why is that so hard to understand. In bringing up specific people and events, we might as well copy the Family and Zerby!
God, I am so sick of this. I can't even think rationally, it's so upsetting!!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From
Monday, April 25, 2005, 00:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
It is utter insanity to demand that people post private email to prove their innocence.
This tactic in effect shifts the burden to Nancy to prove her innocence on a web site for some nebulous wrongdoing. If she doesn't produce her private email, she's guilty.
It's Kafaesque insanity, pure and simple. No one who has any interest in doing things ethically should tolerate this.
John Jr and Jim are completely out of line for demanding this. Whatever credibility they may have managed to hang onto has gone.
Nancy and Jules, stay strong, and don't compromise. If you give in and post your emails, it sets a precedent for bullies like john Jr and Jim to do the same to other, weaker victims. It makes such demands acceptable, and they aren't. That kind of behavior is never acceptable.
In my view,Jim and John Jr are bullies. They cannot be appeased. Then they'll just demand more.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 18:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Such aggression surprises me, especially from someone with whom I have never had anything but cordial correspondence. Is the apple not falling far from the tree or am I reading this wrong? Where does the us against them attitude and "keep your nose out of this" come from? Has this become a clan fued in your mind? It isn't in mine. There is no other clan for one thing to fued with, just individuals who have been intimidated and threatened. While it is very upsetting, I can assure you I will not be coerced or harassed.
Someone emailed this to me. It seems Jim has been making threats on other boards that I didn't even know existed. I heard he was also banned from other boards. Now, that's interesting and seems to demonstrate a pattern of conduct with other people beyond just the ex-SGA community here. At any rate, this is a comment someone forwarded me from another board. It seems even non-legal experts have an understanding of the issues here.
"Posted by Not a lwyer but... on April 24, 2005 at
14:04:06
In Reply to: Better get legal counsel first posted by
Observer on April 24, 2005 at 13:43:33:
The supreme court has ruled that certain types of
person-toperson communications belong to the sender
and not to the receiver. Personal email falls into
this category.
Better get your lawyer ready Jimmy Boy."
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, April 24, 2005, 16:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy did not make this public. That was my decision and my action. It is extremely unfair to target her or demand that she post her private correspondence. It was my decision to block Jim and to post the reasons for doing so. I am not going to post my own emails to Jim on this site because I don't think it's an appropriate use of this forum. You may disagree and you have every right to your opinion, but I also have the right to my own. I have no problem with Jim posting my emails to him on his own site and when he does anyone who is interested can read them there. I will even put a link to them in the closed thread. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]