Thanks Joseph & George. It was late when I posted & I was tired & trying to draw attention to the posts by Windy (Jim LM's niece) & her husband, Rixil. I should've just put the link to her article instead of trying to quote her, but I don't know how to post links to exact posts, sorry. Thanks you guys for doing it. Windy was one of Jim's strongest supporters all last year yet now Jim managed to hurt even her & her husband, Rixil. $17,000 is a lot of money to be out of, but Rixil said the sense of being betrayed was what really hurt.

> We've not only got smoke in this situation,
> we've got fire.

> I've met Jim LaMattery personally, and
> exchanged some emails with him over the last
> year. If I didn't have personal experience
> with him that tended to agree with WC's
> article, I would probably think it was all
> made up. It really is almost too strange to
> believe.

> In April of last year, I was away from home
> on business. I got back to the hotel, and
> checked my email. Jane asked me if I would
> please look at a series of emails between
> her and Jim LaMattery.

> In these emails, Jim was asking Jane to give
> him any information she might have so he
> could turn it over to the FBI.

> Jane and I were already aware of the FBI
> investigation, and had been before Jim
> suddenly appeared on the ex-member scene. I
> already had the name and telephone number of
> the Agent in charge of the investigation.
> Jane told him that if she had any
> information for the FBI, she would contact
> the agent herself.

> Then Jim became very agressive toward Jane,
> demanding information, and threatening her
> if she didn't give it to him.

> This is the point where I stepped in, and
> emailed LaMattery asking him very politely
> to please stop emailing my wife, and if he
> had any questions, to direct them to me in
> the future.

> Then, he became very agressive toward me,
> and suggested that I had something to hide,
> and asked how many children I had abused
> when I was in The Family.

> As everyone here knows, I was never in The
> Family. In fact, I raised two children born
> in The Family as my own, which is more than
> Jim can say about his own kids.

> His remarks to me were agressive, offensive,
> and completely out of line. After that, I
> have no problem believing the accounts of
> SGA's who also say that Jim was threatening
> and abusive toward them when they also told
> him that if they had anything to say they
> would say it directly to the FBI.

> Some people now believe that Jim was
> gathering this information to use in his
> book, "Stealing God":

>
> http://lamatteryresource.org/projects/stealing-god
> I also find it interesting, that Jim
> explains that he is not welcome on boards
> like NDN because of his stance against The
> Family:

> "The controversy that has arisen around
> me on the former member website chat boards
> has its origins in the public stand that I
> have taken against The Family International
> and its various charitable fronts."

>
> http://lamatteryresource.org/letters/controversy
> He goes on to suggest that the people who
> have prevented him from operating on the
> ex-member sites have, in effect, been paid
> off by The Family.

> Take a look at this statement, that is in
> the document from the link above:

> "Controversy arose once I made it clear
> that I felt that individuals who had left
> TFI membership fell into two camps- one
> which I could sympathize with and support,
> and one which I could sympathize with, yet
> not support. Among the former members of TFI
> there are those that committed crimes
> against children and those who did
> not."

> Doesn't this sound just like what I
> described from my interaction with Jim? When
> Jane told him that if she had information
> for the FBI, she would contact them
> directly. At that moment, in Jim's mind, she
> became one of "those that committed
> crimes against children". When I stood
> up for my own wife, so did I.

> Anybody who has been on these boards more
> than a couple of years knows that WC and I
> don't agree on a lot of things. But, I can
> tell you that based on my personal
> experience, WC's article goes right along
> with the behavior Jim exhibited with me.