$15 worth of feckless legal threats

  1. xFamily
  2. » Contact Editors
  3. » $15 worth of feckless legal threats

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 09:01 pm
The xFamily.org editors sometimes receive feckless legal threats. Most of them are unremarkable (even the ones from actual lawyers who should know better) but occasionally there is one whose fecklessness stands head and shoulders above the rest and thus deserve to be archived for posterity.

Here is one from someone who actually paid $15 for legal information and relied upon it as legal advice and sent me an email despite being repeatedly warned that the information provided was "not legal advice" and "to be used for general information purposes only, not as a substitute for in-person evaluation or specific professional (medical, legal, veterinary, tax, financial, etc.) advice."

justanswer.com: Criminal Law $15 Question: I have a friend who is a well known artist and someone...

Below are the first message and my reply on January 23, 2008. Note that at the time I replied I had no idea she was relying on information sold only for general informative entertaintment purposes but that makes her feeble plea on behalf of a confirmed child molester all the more feckless. It may perhaps comfort some to know that the public revelation of his horrific crimes against children reportedly caused him "loss of income, mental fatigue and physical illness" but it doesn't comfort me at all because I know the survivors of his crimes against children have suffered far worse. It is tragic that he, like almost every one of the thousands of adults who violated the basic human rights of children raised in The Family, will likely never be held accountable in a court of law. I was hopeful that perhaps Hugo Westphal or one of his feckless supporters would sue me so the irrefutable facts about his egregious violations of the basic human rights of children (including the right not to be sexually assaulted by Hugo Westphal) could be once again be documented in official public records but sadly I have been waiting over 4 years for his lawsuit without any luck.

However, I am hopeful that at least publicly documenting what happened may protect other children from harm as those who know him and have children will naturally take sensible and legal precautions to reduce the chance that he would have an opportunity to harm their children.

Tina Marie Watson wrote:

To Whom it May Concern-

Peter Frouman
[Another] Frouman
aka: High Priest of the Repeatership

Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 477
Location: Austin, TX

This is a demand that you immediately cease and desist the posting of the untruths and innuendos about Hugo Westphal and his work on your website. I further demand that you remove any all comments pertaining Hugo Westphal. These statements have caused Hugo Westphal grave concern and have resulted in financial loss. The comments certainly are not stated as opinions. They are stated as facts and if stated as facts and untrue and it is causing a loss of income, mental fatigue and physical illness then we unquestionably have a law suit against you. If you do not adhere to this cease and desist we will have no other recourse but to pursue this with a civil defamation suit.

Your prompt and immediate attention to this matter is imperative. Also remove your posting at once. http://xchildrenofgod.xfamily.org/viewtopic.php?p=2495&sid=7b8675fcab8021893e873d7f3992f876


Tina Watson

Watson and Associates, Inc

BCC: Attorney General Greg Abbott

Austin Texas 78753

PO Box 1652

Peter Frouman wrote:

Dear Ms. Watson,
I have no idea who you are or what your connection to someone named
"Hugo Westphal" (and I assume we are talking about the Hugo Albert
Westphal, Jr. who is a former member of the Children of God sex cult
and was also known as "Eman Artist," "Al Eastman" and "Snowy") might
be but you should know that I am not at all impressed by your feckless
legal threats and that I have no intention of complying with your
vague demands. Before you write such a letter again, I strongly
suggest that you consult with an actual attorney who might be able to
help you avoid looking like a complete idiot. A competent attorney
might be able to help you draft a proper "cease and desist" letter
that might have a tiny chance of prompting a serious consideration of
its feeble arguments rather than inspiring hysterical laughter.

If you actually intend to abuse the legal process by filing a
frivolous defamation suit against me, please go ahead and do so and
don't waste my time with this meaningless nonsense.

I see that your letter includes the text "BCC: Attorney General Greg
Abbott." It's not clear for what purpose (other than to inspire
hysterical laughter at your fecklessness) you would claim to have sent
a copy of your email to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott but it may
interest you to know that when used in the way you have used it, the
letters "BCC" usually stand for "blind carbon copy" or "blind courtesy
copy" The key word there is "blind" which means that you do NOT
inform the recipient to whom you have sent carbon copies of the

I do not know why you have included my father's name in
your message but he has nothing to do with this so I would appreciate
it if you would leave him out of it.

Also, I think you will be very pleased to know that your email has
inspired me to update the article at

I updated the article to add the following excerpt about Hugo Westphal
from a best-selling book first published by HarperCollins in 2007.

Source: Jones, Celeste. "Behind Four Walls," Chapter 4 in Buhring,
Juliana; Celeste Jones, Kristina Jones (2007). Not Without My Sister.
Harper Element (HarperCollins), pp. 66-67. ISBN 0007248067.

Peter Frouman

Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2012 06:47 pm
@Peter Frouman,
Since you quoted "Not without My Sister" I was wondering if you are sure the accounts in that book are not embellished? I openned it when I was still in the Family and was incredulous at what I read. I was in the Family 30 yrs from 1977 to 2011 so I have a thorough knowledge of what went on. I should look at it again now that I see things differently. I know some ex-members though, that make up stories, like my ex- daughter in law published that I know were lies. The truth of the cult was so bad as it was, why do people feel the need to make it sound even worse? I admire the intelligence and factuality of this site so I`d appreciate your opinion of the factuality of that book.
Peter Frouman
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2012 01:09 pm
Absolutely nothing in "Not Without My Sister" is exaggerated or embellished. It is 100% factual and cooroborated by a small mountain of irrefutable evidence. Before it was published, every single word in the book was subjected to extensive legal review and fact checking.

I'm not aware of any child abuse survivors raised in The Family (or anywhere else for that matter) who have ever embellished or exaggerated their negative childhood experiences. If anything, most abuse survivors (and particularly survivors of sexual assault) have a natural instinct to try to protect themselves psychologically and socially by minimizing the extent of the abuse and the harm it caused when they recount those experiences or are asked about them. That was certainly the case for me. What I have publicly revealed about my own childhood abuse while being raised in The Family is only a tiny part of the abuse I experienced and I might never publicly disclose the full extent. Like many children raised in The Family, some of the abuse I experienced was so horrific that it would be virtually impossible for me to exaggerate anything if I was so inclined (which I'm definitely not). Sexual assault of children and incest rank up there with cannibalism as taboo activities that nearly all modern human societies regard as extremely repugnant yet in The Family they were practiced openly and not just tolerated but actively promoted. I've done quite a bit of research on the topic and not yet found any similar community existing in the 20th century that provided such an extraordinarily safe and welcoming environment for child molesters. Now that The Family has disintegrated into a failed cult and a hollow shell of its former self (instead of a growing new religious movement, it now appears to be little more than a small and relatively unsuccessful online religious business network (with total gross revenue that is less than an average single McDonald's franchise restaurant in the U.S.) led by a tiny group of elderly child molesters), children raised by its "members" are definitely safer than they were before.

I don't know who your "ex-daughter in law" or what she "published," but, with all due respect (in this case, very little), I'm highly skeptical of your assertion that it was false. Since, by your own admission, you were a first generation member of The Family for more than 30 years and didn't leave until 2011, I think it's quite likely you have an extraordinary capacity for cognitive dissonance and thus are more likely to reject factual statements that have the potential to disrupt your self-perception and make you uncomfortable as false, embellished or exaggerated rather than admitting their truth.
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 05:52 pm
I'd really like to know more about the desintegration of the Family. I thoroughly enjoy this news. May they get what they deserve.
Reply Fri 24 Aug, 2012 10:28 pm
@Peter Frouman,
I`m sorry. I came to the site with honest questions not an agenda.
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2012 08:50 am
I have been researching this group for some time and the xfamily.org website has been very informative. Read the lates book on it too, The Nameless by Natalie Sauret, unbelievable how these things were allowed to go on for so long!

  1. xFamily
  2. » Contact Editors
  3. » $15 worth of feckless legal threats
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/30/2023 at 10:43:20