JUDGEMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD CONCERNING THE FAMILY : PT 4
Click Here For A Warning Concerning This Judgment
THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD IN THIS CASE WHICH
HE GAVE IN CHAMBERS ON THE 26TH MAY 1995 BUT WHICH IS BEING
HANDED DOWN IN OPEN COURT TODAY. IT CONSISTS OF 295 PAGES
AND HAS BEEN SIGNED AND DATED BY THE JUDGE.
THE JUDGE HEREBY DIRECTS THAT NO TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT
NEED BE TAKEN AND THAT THE VERSION HANDED DOWN MAY BE
TREATED AS AUTHENTIC.
THE JUDGMENT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED ON THE STRICT
UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ANY REPORT OF IT NO PERSON (OTHER THAT
COUNSEL AND THEIR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AND THOSE PERSONS
IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN THE JUDGMENT ITSELF) MAY BE IDENTIFIED
BY NAME AND THAT IN PARTICULAR THE ANONYMITY OF THE CHILD, A
WARD OF COURT, AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY MUST BE
STRICTLY PRESERVED.
SIGNED:
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD DATED 19TH OCTOBER 1995
W 42 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IN THE MATTER OF ST (A MINOR)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT 1991h
Lord Justice Ward
THE EVIDENCE ON SEXUAL ATTITUDES GENERALLY
No witness called on behalf of the Defendant has repudiated
the Law of Love. It is the cornerstone of The Family's
creed. NT's closing words to me were to plead with me not to
denigrate the Law of Love. It was an extraordinary
observation from her. I would have expected her to plead
with me not to remove her son. Many mothers, often totally
hopeless mothers, have begged for that mercy. But NT did
not. It was as if the integrity of the Law of Love was more
important to her than S. Where is her sense of priorities?
The oral evidence was overwhelming that the members of The
Family generally adopted a freer lifestyle than was the norm
in any of the countries in which they live. I am satisfied
and I find that the attitude of the members of The Family
towards all forms of a sexual conduct was that it was a
God-given gift to be engaged in without embarrassment.
Nudity was not uncommon and sexual activity was not
discreet. I find the Law of Love to be a pernicious doctrine
because in liberating the ordinary sexual inhibitions, the
Law of Love empowers those with strong sexual urges but poor
judgment to act indiscriminately and it put pressure upon
the weak to succumb to that which does in fact harm them and
infringe their freedom. In short the Law of Love was liable
to be abused and was calculated to be abusive.
FLIRTY FISHING (FFING)
Whilst living in London late in 1973, David and Maria went
ballroom dancing. Many at their dancing club were lost and
lonely. It was an opportunity to witness to them.
Recollecting how in the Gospel of St. Matthew 4:19, Jesus
said to his disciples, "Follow me and I will make you
fishers of men", Berg cast his bait, the lure of Maria's
sexual appeal, to hook a fish on God's word. As the family
literature explained,
"Sex and actual love making (became) a means of witnessing
to and showing them (those with whom they wanted to share
their faith) a tangible sample and proof of the sacrificial
love of God."
Not surprisingly when the practice became widespread, the
media coined the phrase "Hookers for Jesus". The Family
seemed offended by the description. They should not have
been. Berg himself in the letter "God's whores" disclosed
that:-
"I threatened to call one of those first chapters we wrote
"God's whore". I was going to really shock people! I love
shocking titles that provoke people and wake them up".
One of the earliest letters was "Flirty Little Fish" in
January 1974. It is important to note that the letter is an
account of a prophecy Berg received from God, which gives
the letter special authority. Not surprisingly, not many who
read it and then understood its implications and how
allegory was soon to be translated into action. The letter
contained these passages recording his prayer:
"Help Maria to catch this fish. Give her, Lord, thy web. In
Jesus' name! Make the lure so attractive he cannot resist
it! He's hypnotised! He's fascinated in that which he dreams
of, the materialisation of a dream of love, the spirit
embodied in her flesh for which he hungers! He hungers for
the flesh, Oh God, but he hungers more for the spirit. Help
her to catch him with her fingers of flesh that she might
impart unto him thy spirit, Oh Lord, for which he hungers.
Oh God, in Jesus' name! Each one of them seek after her,
suck of her, dream of her, drink of her! Help her, Oh God,
to catch the fish faithful to be a fisherman of men. Help
her Oh God to catch men! Help her to catch men, be bold
unashamed and brazen, to use anything she has, Oh God to
catch men for thee! Even if it be through the flesh, the
attractive lure, the delicious flesh on a steel hook of thy
reality, the steel of thy spirit! Hook them through her
flesh! Crucify her flesh, Lord, on the barb of thy spirit!
Oh God, even if it penetrate and crucify her flesh, impale
her on the point of thy spirit that she may die, that those
who feed on her flesh may be caught to live! Oh God, help
her, Oh Jesus to be willing to be the bait!"
In this way Maria and Becky and others close to the leaders
began their seduction of the men in the clubs in London. In
a series of letters called "King Arthur's Knights" the
disciples and friends were given some explicit instruction.
I say explicit for chapter 7 could not be more plain. In it
Maria asked Berg how she should proceed and she got the
answer: "Fuck the daylights out of him!" and the drawings
which accompany that message demonstrate, as if graphic
demonstration was needed, how she should "grab his dick out
of his pants." In January 1977 they published the "FFer's
Handbook" which is 31 closely typed pages of the "complete
instruction manual on FFing." I condescend to this nasty
detail only for the purpose of making the point that
literature of this kind, and it is one of an infinite number
of filthy examples, lay about on the bookshelves of The
Family for years and years until the literature purge began
in April 1990 and so was freely available to the children in
the homes. The children were well aware of this ministry and
knew full well what their mothers and sometimes their
fathers were up to. They knew all about "Jesus babies", the
children born to the FFers who, as a group, did not believe
in contraception. One sees this in the "Life with Grandpa"
and "Beauty and the Beast" comic series written for
children. In the comic "Real Fathers", the children are
introduced to Davidito and Techi, Jesus babies born to
Maria. Grandpa i.e. Berg, is seen explaining to Davidito and
Techi sitting on his lap, that:
"God just used Timothy and Carlos only to fuck Mama so that
I could have you both! They were just like an instrument or
tool that Jesus used to help create you wonderful little
children for his kingdom! Praise the Lord!"
He went on to explain how the farmer used a big plough to
open a furrow for the seed to be planted and how the farmer
thereafter tended the crop. He asked who was the real father
of the crop? The farmer who loved it and took care of the
crop until it was fully grown or the plough that just opened
the furrow for the seed to be planted? The children answered
the farmer, of course! Berg then explained that a penis was
like a plough and a woman's womb was like a furrow in which
the man planted his seed and the comic then had drawings of
the plough in the soil and the penis in the vagina. I have
had to look at text like that and pictures like that over
these many months but still I recoil from them. I find that
children exposed as they have been to widespread activity of
this kind and to literature as crude as that are children
who have been abused for they have been robbed of their
childhood sensibilities and have been exposed to that from
which they should be protected.
FFing was undoubtedly a widespread activity. I accept that
it was voluntary and that Berg had "said time and time
again, FFing is not for everybody. It's only for special
people who really have the guts and the time and the talent
and so on. It's not for everybody!" There was, however, very
great pressure on the disciples to take part in this
"ministry." The very failure of the "chain" leaders fully to
implement it, led to the RNR. Berg wrote that it was not for
"old bottles" and so, as Prof. Richardson wrote "The FFing
involvement is thought of as a test of commitment for the
members. Only the "absolutely 100%ers" would be involved,
Berg said, and he did not seem to mind if some left over
FFing." The women involved had to be willing to go to the
length of having sexual intercourse in order to show the
love of God to the men they witnessed to. That was their
sacrifice. So in the letter "You are the Love of God"
published in 1978 the sacrifice was described. This letter
was another with the drawing of the naked woman
spread-eagled on the bed which I find so utterly repugnant
to decency.
I am quite satisfied that most of the women who engaged in
this activity and the subsequent refinement of ESing, (which
was finding men through escort agencies), did so in the
belief that they were spreading God's word. But I am also
totally satisfied that that was not Berg's only purpose. He
and his organisation had another and more sordid reason.
They were procuring women to become common prostitutes. They
were knowingly living in part on the earnings of
prostitution. That was criminal activity. Their attempts to
deny this must be dismissed as cant and hypocrisy.
To deny that the girls were acting as prostitutes because
"we are not charging but we expect people to show their
thanks and their appreciation and they ought to give more
for love than if we charged them" is an unacceptable form of
special pleading. The "FFers handbook" told the girls that
fishing could be fun but fun did not pay the bills. "You've
got to catch a few to make the fun pay for itself. So don't
do it for nothing." To add that, "We're not in it for the
money, but we are in it for the men" was an addition to
deceive the gullible girls. In volume 4 of "Heavenly
Helpers", "Bought with a Price", Berg wrote that:
"Many homes need more financial support at this time to
prepare for their survival as well as their day to day needs
and this kind of ministry has really given the homes the
boost they needed to tide us through some very tight
financial spot."
That is more like the truth. But once again truth had to be
dressed up in half truth. In asking "Does FFing Pay", in
January 1978 Berg wrote:-
"Now we have claimed and we have said with conviction and
it's the truth, that our girls never accept money. We have
told the kids and we have told the magazines and we told the
authorities, "Our girls are forbidden to accept a penny.
They have never received anything for their sexual
services". And that's the truth as far as I am concerned.
Whatever the man donated was for the work. ... It's a nice
way of doing it really. "Well, here's a donation for the
work. Here's for the piece of furniture. Here's to help on
the meal you gave me last night, your food," or whatever.
Not a direct payment to the woman just for a fuck, which
causes and makes it crude and about as low as you can get,
just like the rest of the world, but if they can feel like
they are not just paying a prostitute but that they are
actually giving it to the Lord and the work, this I think we
would all feel very acceptable, including the fish
themselves, right? It has got to come to this sooner or
later. ... We can't afford just continuing supporting some
kind of religious brothel, ministering to men who don't pay
their way."
Eventually in 1986, it was realised that:
"Sex only has to be a last resort, and if you can (witness
to them) any other way, you should. Usually all the other
ways are a lot easier and a lot less time consuming so why
deliberately try to get involved in a sexual relationship
with them?"
Although it is claimed that between 1977 and 1987 over a
hundred thousand people, fifty per cent of all those who
were F Fed, had been personally led to Jesus Christ as a
direct result of the FFing ministry, that represented only
one per cent of the recorded total of over ten million souls
won world wide over that ten year span.
In 1986 a new "Daily Food" ministry was developed through
the publication and distribution of a series of booklets
entitled "Daily Food" and "DFing" replaced FFing. As the
spectre of Aids loomed over the world, Berg officially put
an end to FFing in September 1987, by declaring:-
"All sex with outsiders is banned! - unless they are already
close and well known friends! - we are now D -Fing
instead!".
I am satisfied that the practice has indeed ceased.
THE EVIDENCE ON FFING
The evidence called revealed these facts:-
1. Almost without exception (SF being the only exception
I now recollect) the adult women who gave evidence practised
FFing.
2. Those who remain within The Family would do so again.
Those within The Family, men and women, and this includes NT
and CT, see nothing wrong with it. They do not see it to be
immoral; they do not see it as destructive of personal
relationships; they are offended when it is described as
prostitution. For them it is a sacred, sacrificial ministry.
They believe that no greater love hath anyone than this. And
for the men that included "laying down their wives" for
another. No challenge to their common sense shifts any one
of them from those fiercely proclaimed convictions.
3. I find that fervour disturbing. It demonstrates the
power which Berg wields through his letters to suborn the
will of his disciples so that they do not know right from
wrong. The error of her chosen way hit MCH when it suddenly
dawned on her how "atrocious" it would be if her father were
to be the next fish. Then she felt ashamed not privileged
that her prophet had chosen her to break up families. VJ now
looks back with equal horror to her activities. I have no
doubt that the ambience of the hotels and restaurants where
she hooked her fish was a good deal better than the cramped
quarters of the communes where she lived and that it was a
respite from oppressive surroundings but I find that it was
an unworthy attack on this lady by The Family to suggest
that she engaged in Flirty Fishing because she enjoyed it. I
accept that at the time she assumed Berg to be a man of God,
as the current members still assume him to be a man of God,
and so it seemed to her to be "incomprehensible he could be
evil or the Bible used for evil." She spoke convincingly of
her deep horror and regret at having taken part and it has
made her very angry.
4. I also find it disturbing that The Family cannot see
that the practice of FFing was harmful to the children in
The Family. Such harm arose from these matters:-
(a) The children were exposed to the explicit literature
as I have set out above.
(b) I am perfectly satisfied that many, many children
were full aware that their mothers were away FFing and were
aware, therefore, that their mothers were engaged in sexual
activity with strangers.
(c) I am satisfied that the "Jesus babies" suffer from
the knowledge that their father is unknown to them and that
they have had no contact with their father.
(d) I am satisfied that some Jesus babies will suffer
future harm for some have not been told the truth about
their paternity yet, and when the truth is revealed to them,
they will suffer deep distress.
(e) I am satisfied, therefore, that this practice was
inimical to the welfare of the children. In my judgment the
end never could justify the means.
I am satisfied, however, that it has ceased and I judge
there to be no substantial risk that it will be resumed.
This finding must be given its proper weight. It is a
sensational part of The Family's history which has helped to
give them such notoriety. But it is now a matter of history
and however reprehensible and misguided it was, it is not a
matter which impinges directly on the well-being of my ward.
SHARING
The "Revolutionary Rules" written in 1968 laid down a strict
code of no sexual activity outside of a monogamous marriage.
That was relaxed by the "All Things" revelation in 1970 but
the liberty to engage in sexual relationships outside
marriage was one taken only by the leaders. Within a year
Berg realised that some of his leaders were misusing those
freedoms and he had to rebuke some who had been "more
interested in pleasing the flesh .... and even causing some
of the weaker brethren to stumble." "Sin in the Camp" MO143
dated 1971. I note this as an early lesson from which Berg
ought to have learned that his flock would abuse the
freedoms which his teachings offered them. There is no
evidence that he did learn from it. The "One Wife" letter
published in 1973 alluded to the possibility that sexual
relations outside of monogamous marriage could be
permissible. He planted the idea that the marriage of the
individual to the group was the only true marriage. The
message was not widely received. In 1974 the FFing
experiment began. The result of freeing the women to go
outside to have sexual relations imposed a strain on the men
within and it became anomalous to expect the married men to
remain faithful to their wives or the single men to remain
celibate. The RNR threw off the shackles of past
inhibitions. The leadership were no longer in control of the
sexual activity of the members. The members were free. So
Berg wrote in February 1978, the "Happy Re-birthday" letter
in which he declared:-
"Family sex: no permission needed for sex! - if legal and
with mutual consent. No servants (leaders) need to be
consulted. Fire away! Praise God!"
In a document compiled by World Services on behalf of The
Family being SPM's 56th exhibit, The Family acknowledged
that:
"a period of great sexual liberation ensued. Single adults
who had not had their sexual needs met for years had the
opportunity to have sexual fellowship with consenting
partners, who cheerfully and sometimes sacrificially chose
to give of themselves to help these brethren. .... The
ability to sexually share with other members within the
community brought a degree of unity that was hitherto
unknown. Family members discovered that having sexual
fellowship with others of the opposite sex, regardless of
whether they were single or someone else's mate led to much
deeper emotional relationships and a greater understanding
and love for one another. Singles were extremely grateful
when married family members would allow their wive's
husbands to share with them so that they could have their
sexual needs met. Married couples who ventured to
occasionally swap partners with other married couples broke
out of their own private personal marriage relationships and
suddenly found themselves much more in tune to an
understanding of others' needs and relationship. All of this
fostered a more caring understanding and loving atmosphere
in our communities which is what Father David had envisioned
all along. ... In the euphoria of long awaited change,
everyone was eager to exercise their new freedoms. Revelry
and renunciation of the former repressive system and its
restrictions were the order of the day. In many cases,
caution was thrown to the wind."
In 1981 the Fellowship Revolution called for Family homes to
meet together regularly for spiritual fellowship. It was
becoming clear to Berg by 1973 that in some areas The Family
had apparently lost sight of the original purpose of those
meetings and that "many adults had become preoccupied with
personal intimate relationships." Sexually transmitted
diseases were being passed between the homes at such
meetings and Berg responded by placing a ban upon inter-home
sex at any area fellowship. Within the home sharing
continued. The scriptural exhortation to "Love one another
without partiality" (1 Timothy 5:21) was taken literally in
the belief that the sexual needs of all members should be
met as equitably as possible. Implementing that was complex.
If anyone was unable to manage to arrange a satisfactory
sharing relationship with another, he or she was able to
seek the help of the overseer of the home's sharing
schedule. These sharing schedules were not universally found
in every home and they were never part of Family policy. As
the scheme reported in the "Jumbo Story" in 1988, it enabled
members of the home to "get to spend love-up time with
specific partners at least a couple of times a week".
Sharing arrangements are said to be strictly voluntary and I
do not doubt that, but I am equally satisfied that once
again great pressure was put upon members to submit to
requests because not to do so was selfish and selfishness
was not to be tolerated. Sharing, like FFing, is another
example of sacrificial love. Indeed The Family use the
sacrificial nature of sexual sharing to defend themselves
against the charge of promiscuity. World Services in their
history of the sexual policies of The Family say this:-
"Learning that The Family engaged in FFing and continues to
share sexually among members of the group, can cause a
non-member to draw the conclusion that we inspire
indiscriminate promiscuity or "Free Love". Such a conclusion
indicates a lack of understanding of the true dynamics of
sexual sharing within The Family. Sharing a mate or loved
one with another requires a great deal of sacrificial love
for the third party. ... A large degree of sacrificial love
is also necessary when mates share with others within The
Family today."
Sexual intercourse between adults whether a sacrificial or a
promiscuous activity is not a matter of major concern to the
court if it takes place in private but where the welfare of
children is paramount, then any sexual activity in the
presence of children must be a matter which arouses the
Court's anxiety. I have already referred to the basic
philosophy of The Family that when God commanded Adam and
Eve to go forth and multiply, he meant that quite literally
and that it was therefore wholly right that they might do it
in public without embarrassment and without pretence. From
the writings of The Family it does, however, seem that
children were to be included among the members of the public
in whose presence sexual intercourse might blatantly take
place. I must refer later and in detail to "The Story of
Davidito", a detailed account of the early life of Davidito,
Maria's Jesus baby, written by Sara, his nanny, but here is
a passage written when Davidito was aged seventeen months.
"Sex!: Little David stood watching through the pool fence as
a couple made love in the water. He imitated every motion by
wiggling his bottom and his right hand up and down then went
into the house to show mommy the story of how to goose a
girl! He is still jealous when Alfred and I love up - Daddy
says he has been in love with me since the beginning! When
he saw he wasn't getting our full time attention because we
were "busy" in bed, he left the room and hid under the
dining room table to pout. He knew that if he hid, we would
have to stop and find him ..."
If that picture is accurate, then it gives some idea of the
sexual ethos of the place - the couple engaging in sexual
activity in the pool and the nanny and her boyfriend having
sexual intercourse in the bed in the boy's presence. It gets
worse. When Davidito was three years two months old this
appeared to have happened:-
"One night after a real good dinner talk by Dad on the
importance of sharing and how timidity is really just pride,
Dad suggested we have a "come-union". (The nauseous play on
words only struck me after several readings.) "He set up a
place for Maria and Timothy on the floor, we had the couch,
and a sister took care of sweet Alfred upstairs. Of course
it was really good for everybody to just love one another,
and was especially new and humbling for dear Timothy, God
bless him!" (The text is then interrupted by a small
photograph of a couple having sexual intercourse above the
caption "A Love-demo". The text continues:) "So Davidito
just wandered around from one group to another for a long
while. While watching all four of us in the living room, he
said aloud to try and get our attention, "Ah-hum! I would
like to play with my cars now", as if someone should stop
the fun and join him. Then he thought about getting my
attention and said in a very self righteous, straight way,
"Sarah, I want to go upstairs and read a book about Jesus!"
- how "saintly" and sweet! - he figured that he'd really get
me to pay attention to such a good little boy! Ha! He did a
few favours for Daddy such as turn off the lights, bring us
more wine, then he went upstairs to watch Alf in action.
Whenever Dito had ever seen me with Daddy before he'd always
act very jealous and sometimes naughty, so, hoping not to
offend him, Daddy suggested a while later that I better go
find Dito and pay him a little special attention now! And
guess where I found him? Sitting on the stairs peeking down
at us! So when I offered to read with him he told me, "I
have already read this book because with this "Love-make"
going on, Alf just threw me the book when I was in my bed
and said here, read this! So I have already read it. It's
about the first airplane that men flew." (It was about the
Wright Brothers!). So next he wanted his turn, and as soon
as I got into bed he jumped on me and said, "Sarah, love
me!" He specifically asked for several swigs of wine, and
got "happy" real quick, so we really had a good time! Alf,
Tim and Mommy were outside the door listening to him.
"Sarah, now kiss it!", and then he began to laugh and laugh.
"Oh, it flopped in your nose! ...!
I have no doubt from the context of the book as a whole that
what Sarah was required to kiss was his penis. Exposure of a
young child to a sexual activity of that kind is in my
judgment utterly deplorable. Those guilty of abusing
Davidito by wholly inappropriate exposure to sex included
the leader and his likely successor. Their attitude to these
matters was fully set out in the letter "My Childhood Sex"
in which it was written:-
"In nearly all families they watch couples making love and
parents fucking etc - so what? it's perfectly natural!
(Sara: Davidito's seen it too; he knows what it is. He knows
the results too! He sees pregnant girls' big tummies. He's
seen it in books, he knows all about it. He knows you get up
and wash afterwards and everything, he knows all about it!
So what's new, what's "wrong"? why is it bad?) I think it's
so much better that they just learn that way naturally ...
(Maria: But we never knew about our parents' relationships,
because they did it behind closed doors!) Yes, they hide it!
isn't that terrible! They leave you so ignorant of one of
the most important things in life, and act just like it was
something evil it's all they're teaching that it's bad,
wicked, sinful, dirty, nasty!"
As if to emphasise that it is God's will for man, the comic
"Heaven's Children" has a cartoon of Heaven or the
Millennium with a little girl nestling against a Lion. They
are watching a naked couple in intimate contact in a pool,
the man saying, " Love you" and the woman saying, "That was
terrific". The Lion says, "They are really having fun" and
the girl replies, "Yes it's called sex"
THE ORAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO SHARING
I can make these findings:-
1. Sharing between adults over 21 does take place within
the United Kingdom. It can be voluntarily arranged between
the couple and the home team-work become involved in the
mediation of any disputes that may arise in the arrangements
for sharing. A married partner may share but that is a
decision requiring more prayer and discussion. Sharing
schedules are not the norm.
2. NT has shared. S's father is WA, a married man. An
issue arose during the course of the trial when it appeared
that SPM had also shared with NT at or about the time of the
child's conception. Blood tests were needed to resolve the
question of paternity. SPM was excluded.
3. At the end of the hearing I was disconcerted to learn
that NT was again pregnant. The stress of this litigation
not surprisingly took its toll upon her and she needed to
get away for some rest and relaxation. I can sympathise with
that need! It was arranged that she should have a weekend
away with RB, another married man. He is the putative father
of the child born to her on 5th January, 1995, a boy named
S2.
4. I have no evidence to suggest and I do not find that
sharing, as practised in this country at this time, is
flagrantly conducted in public. I have no evidence and do
not find instances of group sex occurring here and now in
this country though I am utterly convinced it took place
elsewhere, not least in Berg's own home, and frequently
within sight and sound of the children.
5. More specifically, I accept that NT has been discreet
in her enjoyment of sexual relations and has not exposed S
to them. Although she, like all members of the movement
exults in the glory of their sexual freedom so that she,
like all others, proclaims that there is nothing wrong with
sex, I accept her protestation that she will not knowingly
permit her son to be a witness to sexual activity.
6. I also utterly and totally satisfied by the evidence
called by the Plaintiff from the young teenagers who grew up
in the family in the 1970's and 1980's that it was common
place for children living within The Family during those
times to have grown up seeing and hearing their parents
engaged in sexual intercourse not only with each other but
with various and numerous partners. Berg, Maria and Sara
practised what they preached and what they preached was
practised by their flock. Children should not have been
exposed to blatant and indiscriminate sexual activity. It
was an early experience for many, many children. It robbed
them of them of the precious youth. It defiled them. It was
abusive. It was deplorable.
[ Click Me ] Go To Part 3 . . .
[ Click Me ] Go To Part 5 . . .