Covering for the Family

JULES. You are accusing former members of covering for the Family, and from your “attitude” towards me, I can only assume you are referring to me as one of these people.

SAM: I don't exactly remember what you are referring to, it would be good if you could point to what I have actually said. I don't remember how I put it and I don't want to respond to a statement by you, filtered by your perseption of what I said. If you want to take the time to quote me directly, I'll be more confortable in answering you.

I will however mention something that I read on your website.

Someone asked you or suggested that if you Jules are so against what has happened in the Family, why is it that you have not taken legal action against your own parents.

Have your parents abuses you sexually or physically in any way?

Have your parents abused sexually or physically any other young members in the Family?

Have you taken the time to ask them or try to find out in some way if this might be the case, that is, if you parents have molested any children.

Has anybody abused you sexually or physically and your parents knew about it or know about it now?

Did your parents know of the molestation that was going on? Have they ever seen the Book of Davidito? The Devil Hates Sex?

Is this all crazy from my part to be asking you these questions?

You know, you wrote me a long post, and to answer it the way I feel I should answer it, it may take me hours, days.

But before I do get into all that, what is your specific, clear reaction to the questions I just asked?

Before we get into the meat of the subject, let's start with the pre stuff, as in pre-evangelism.

Recently we read in the papers about the Hare Krishna young ex-member who came against the Krishna movement and this handicaped one guy with his computer caused the cult to declare bankrupcy.

I rememer either seeing the picture of his father or a quote from his father and the father was totally subdued, he looked like a man who knew there was no other course but to accept (or pretend to accept) that he has been wrong.

At this time there was a lot of discussion about this on your website.

Then the Catholic scandal came.

Thus we saw in the media examples of the devastation of children similar to what happened in the Family.

One of the Catholic priests guily of such was murdered, though I don't know for sure what the motive was.

Child abuse in 2003 is a very, very big subject!

So, here you are, Jules McNeil, an influencial voice among hundreds of such young people, many of whom would come against the Family, if only they had someone to motivate them in that direction, encourage them that they can do it. They also need some organizations.

Daniel told me when I asked him during the conference, that he told his father Ado: "I'll see you in court."

I understand something is happening.

Having felt ostacised from your website, and not having felt the freedom to ask you personally, all I knew from asking another local SG was that, yes, something is going on, but it is not what I, Sam, might thing is going on.

I understand the need for secrecy, so I will not ask what is going on, at least not publically.

What I do understand is that you feel that individual former members should come against those who abused them.

Does it mean that you are against a class action against the Family?

I have read some posts on Moving on on the issue of Juristiction and on the Statute of Limitations.

I don't know much about the legalities of these matters and I have never pretended to know.

In fact I have purposely stayed away from going to lawyers, because I am already so busy with other things related to COG.

When the subject has come up, I either told them to go to the police, or go and see a lawyer.

Part of that was because I wanted to see if they have what it takes to take the initiative themselves and start things themselves.

One of my concerns has been that some young people may start some legal action, but down the road get tired, discouraged, and all that work goes for nothing.

Maybe I should had been more helpfull, I don't know. There has been a lot of talk in the past but nothing came of it.

At any rate, you said somewhere towards the end of your post, that people abused in the Family should own their stories.

Well, Julia, if your parents have abused you, and you want to own that story, if I find out about it, I own that story too.

There were three girls in France, ex-COG, abused by their father for a long time.

Their mother of course knew all about it, and didn't turn him in. I suppose she wanted to own that story.

The girls took the parents to court and the mother got three years in jail, for wanting to own the story. He got 19 years.

This is bigger than you and me, Julia. This is such a big deal, that we should try to look at it with the due historical reverence. We should be very humble.

You are a young peson that had the misfortune to grow up in this terrible cult. I am just a little guy that got cought in the nightmare.

It would had been nice to have never met them. But I did.

They are part of my live, I am part of their life.

I am part of your life, you are part of my life.

I can't just walk away and do nothing. For one thing "The Love of Christ constaineth me" as corny and/or religious as that sounds.

Anyway, my point is, if you feel that your own private life is your own buniness, that is true in most of what makes up what your private live is. I really don't have much to say about that, if anything at all.

But something happens in life and the result is that part of our lives is no longer private. It becomes part of the public domain.

Not only that, but as a public figure in charge of a most important website that shapes the thinking of many, many young people, I do have audacity, the right and even the obligation to question you if need be, and I should be free to do so.

I know there are a million ways to find holes in what I said if that it your motive.

There are some new posters who can't understand the simplest thing I say, and ask ridiculous questions. I don't know who they are, maybe some little termite that comes out of the woodwork to cause trouble, make me look bad, confuse the issues.

There may be some details that I could have said better, organize my post better.

But there is something that I am trying to say. Something that is simple and tries to stay simple. If you want to carry a conversation with me Jules, staying simple is the key.

People who try to come on with airs, wannabee experts, don't impress me. They downright bore me or make me laugh.

Furthermore I am not to convince you you Jules.

I am just telling you what I think. That's all.

And remember, I said in my original post that I don't want this to become a long threat.

You asked me, I am answering you.

That's basically all I care to do.

But your post is so long it will take a number of posts just to answer it.

Sam A.