xFamily

Read Topic
Reply

to Peter Frouman

xFamily
» Contact Editors
» to Peter Frouman

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

to Peter Frouman
April 2, 2008
Dear Peter,
Greetings! I am taking this opportunity to communicate with you after the comments posted by Ashley and Martin, and after reading your response to them. First of all, let me apologize for anything offensive they wrote. This letter is an attempt to clear up some misunderstandings for your sake, as well as ours.
I want you to know that we were very fond of your brothers, and we remember you as well. We deeply lament the sad things that happened in your family, and we can only try to imagine how difficult it must be to have lost your Mom and your brother. Please accept our sincere respect and acknowledgement of them both. Many years have gone by, but it’s never too late to communicate and I’m sure no one wants to stain the memories of their valuable lives with unresolved conflict.
From your note to Martin, we realized there are some facts you may not be aware of about us. If you remember, we never lived with you, your Mom, your brothers or Stuart, except for a few short days when they came to the home where we were living after your Mom had left. At that time, the home was asked to receive them, and we did, just as I’m sure you would have, to help a friend in need. We personally never had contact with the authorities nor had clear knowledge of what was going on with your family in the USA. It was more than a year that we weren’t in a leadership position and we were far removed from other issues outside of our reality. Also, we were not at all aware of any abusive acts taking place, referring to the relationship between your brothers and their step father.
Unfortunately, the news articles and the accusations of individuals that are posted under our names online are merely opinions and have no legal standing and to be honest; they just aren’t true. From what you wrote to Martin, I believe you sincerely want to know the truth and simply haven’t heard our side of the story, so if you wish, I can send you the court resolutions from the trial that took place in Argentina where you will find factual documentation drawn up in a Federal Court of Law. The courts came to a not guilty verdict on all accounts after months of serious studies done by professionals who had been misled to believe child abuse was taking place, yet found absolutely no evidence supporting the accusations, as the court resolutions clearly indicate. We believe this is enough proof for you to clear our names, and we are asking you to do so.
We hope this can open a channel for us to peacefully communicate and that innocent people don’t have to keep on suffering unnecessarily. Here, I refer to the people who, sad to say, have been affected by the untruthful comments on the web pages. As Martin mentioned, last year we lost several key volunteers. We aren’t as concerned about how this affects us personally, but we are concerned because there is a group of children in our foundation who are now without teachers. We hope you will take another look at all of this under the light of our words and that somehow, you will feel greater peace in knowing that we are not indifferent to your feelings. I repeat; we want you to have the opportunity to hear our side so you have more facts to put things into perspective. Please write back to us if you have any questions and we will answer them promptly.
Sincerely,
Alice Sophia Dow & Mario Roberto Torres

Re: to Peter Frouman
Dear Paloma,
Thank you for taking the time to write in with your explanation and defense of your actions. Even though I obviously disagree with you about the facts of the Frouman child abduction case, your personal involvement in it and other matters, you certainly have the right to tell your side of the story and I do think it is very important that it be included in our articles. Please understand that, despite my own personal connection to the case and my personal opinions about it, my goal (and that of the other xFamily.org editors) is that every article we write for the wiki be as objective as possible and include enough factual information (including source documents) to allow readers to formulate their own opinions. I'll admit this is not easy but I also rely on our readers and the other editors to provide feedback and peer review. Thus, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to post your own statement on these matters and you are to be commended for your courage in doing so.

I also appreciate your offer to send me court documents from Argentina. As you may know, I only have a small portion (probably less than a thousand pages) of the tens of thousands of pages of documents from the many court cases involving Family members in Argentina.

Some of these documents are listed in the following articles.

xFamily.org: Causa No. 32.202, Frouman, Emanuel David y otros s/ infracion al art. 10 ley 10.067.

Causa 81/89 "CAVAZZA, Juan C. y otros s/Inf. arts. 125, 139,140, 142 inc.1º, 142 bis, 210, 293 del CP y art.3º Ley 23592"

As you can see, there are many documents that are missing. I am well aware that the the xFamily.org articles about the cases involving Family members in Argentina are quite incomplete and do not even begin to tell the full story. Indeed, for the case in which you and your husband were charged, we do not have *any* documents indicating what the final resolution of the case was. I am aware that some people have claimed that the Cavazza case was permanently closed on July 27, 2004 but I have not yet been able to obtain any documents that would support this claim or indicate how the case was resolved. I do know that in the Cavazza case there were apparently no convictions and you will note that nowhere have I ever claimed otherwise. However, I know for a fact that many children (myself included) who lived in Family Homes in Argentina experienced many types of child abuse including physical and sexual abuse. The fact that those (including you and your husband) who abused and violated the human rights of these children have so far escaped being held accountable for their actions in a court of law is indicative of a horrific miscarriage of justice.

If you want to send me any court documents you have I would be very grateful and would be happy to reimburse you for the costs of postage and copies if needed. You can send them to the following address:

Quote:

Peter Frouman
P.O. BOX 1652
AUSTIN TX 78767-1652
USA

I simply do not have time to address every one of your statements but I think it might be helpful to examine a few of them.

Paloma wrote:

except for a few short days when they came to the home where we were living after your Mom had left.

You make it sound as if, in 1993, the abducted children's mother had only recently been expelled from The Family without being allowed to take her 5 children with her. In fact, that event occurred in 1987 and and she only saw her youngest three children once (for a period of only a few days) in the last 4 years of her life.

Paloma wrote:

At that time, the home was asked to receive them, and we did, just as I’m sure you would have, to help a friend in need.

No, under no cirumstances would I have ever done what you did. If a violent child abuser needed a place to hide two abducted children, I would have immediately informed the authorities where to find the abducted children. While I might have pretended to "help" the kidnapper, this would have only been to give the police enough time to arrive to locate the abducted children.

Paloma wrote:

We personally never had contact with the authorities

When you make statements like this, the only possible conclusion I can draw is that you are lying. There is simply no way to reconcile your statement with all the evidence that proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it is absolutely false. For example, a court document (the authenticity of which has been established) from the Mercedes case indicates that on May 5, 1993, a government official acting on behalf of the Tribunal de Menores de Mercedes personally visited your residence at "Ombu No. 859, entre Maria y Diego" in Don Torcuato and interviewed a 41-year-old married woman named "Alice Sofia Dow" regarding the Frouman case. The document was signed by "Alberto Mariano Giardelli" whose title is listed as "Asistente Social, M.P. 1723." I'm sure you will understand that in this instance I find Mr. Giardelli and the other officers of the Court to be more credible than you and I believe these government officials told the truth about their contact with you and that you lied when you stated that you "personally never had contact with the authorities."

You openly admit that the two abducted children briefly lived at your residence in 1993 (long after Judge Campora's order dated May 21, 1991) yet you have not offered any evidence or even made the claim that you immediately informed the police and the court officials of their location. You certainly had an opportunity to do so on May 5, 1993 but did not. I don't know how you apparently failed to realize it but those abducted children are still alive and well and long ago told me exactly what happened. I know where they were hidden in advance of the visit to your residence by the government official acting on behalf of the Tribunal de Menores de Mercedes. I'm sure you will understand that I believe them rather than you not only because they are my brothers but also because their statements are both supported by other evidence and, in at least one instance, contained in a sworn affidavit made under oath. In contrast, your statement was not made under oath and has been proven to be false.

Quote:

Also, we were not at all aware of any abusive acts taking place, referring to the relationship between your brothers and their step father.

While I have few recollections of you, I do recall quite well the few occasions when your husband visited the Family Home in Corrientes, Argentina in 1986. If I recall correctly, he was there in his role as a VS (Visiting Servant). Because I am quite certain that he was not blind or deaf at the time, I do not understand how you can now claim the he was not aware of the horrific violent physical abuse Stuart Baylin inflicted on children, including myself and my siblings. Your husband was also there when he and other adults sexually abused children (myself included) by having adult women perform pornographic strip tease dances (in which they exposed their vaginas and breasts) in our presence. Thus, I'm sure you can understand why I am astonished that you and your husband now have the audacity to deny any knowledge of child abuse that you not only knew about but actually participated in.

Sincerely,
Peter Frouman

Re: to Peter Frouman
Dear Peter,

Just a question, are you at all interested in hearing what we have to say? It seems that your mind is so set against us that nothing I can say will open the way to honest dialogue.
You will find a summary of each court resulution in the following link, this should be sufficient proof of our innocence and a total contradiction to the false statements on the websites under our names.

Paloma

http://www.cesnur.org/testi/TheFamily/se_thefamily.htm

To Paloma
It seems to me that you are the one who is not interested in hearing what Peter has said, or in having an honest dialog about the evidence he has presented. You have not addressed a single point in Peter's post to you. Anyone who does research on TFI is familiar with the Cesnur version of the group's legal history in Argentina. We've read it, we've heard it, and the researchers here have provided quite a lot evidence that would call the Cesnur conclusions into question.

When you defend yourself and your husband by labeling the evidence and testimony presented on this website as false, you are, among other things, calling the Frouman children liars. Is that your intention? If so, simply state for the record that the court documents Peter has cited got the dates and facts wrong and that the Frouman children are liars and leave it at that. I will advocate that your statements of self defense be added to the article about you and your husband if (and only IF) you address specific evidence and testimony that has been presented.

Dear Paloma,

Paloma wrote:

Just a question, are you at all interested in hearing what we have to say?

Of course. If I wasn't interested, I would not be responding to your posts in such great detail or helping to provide you with a public discussion forum.

Paloma wrote:

It seems that your mind is so set against us that nothing I can say will open the way to honest dialogue.

Honest dialogue requires actual honesty so if that is what you actually want then you should stop lying. I don't expect you to express any remorse for your crimes against children and the violation of their basic human rights or even to demonstrate that you comprehend that what you and your husband did was wrong. However, telling blatant lies (as you did in your first post) does not help your position. I don't understand why you continue to lie when it is actually quite possible for you to logically and persuasively defend yourself without actually lying or being deceptive.

Paloma wrote:

You will find a summary of each court resolution in the following link, this should be sufficient proof of our innocence and a total contradiction to the false statements on the websites under our names.
[...]
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/TheFamily/se_thefamily.htm

I am well aware that the CESNUR site hosts some of The Family's PR material. I am also quite familiar with CESNUR's page purporting to contain a "documentary history" of "The Children of God/The Family Court Cases in Argentina." It is almost completely useless to anyone interested in learning the facts about all the civil and criminal court cases involving Family members in Argentina. First of all, it completely ignores and does not even mention numerous cases (I would guess that it ignores at least two-thirds of the cases). It does not include a link to a single one of the court documents it refers to. When it does purport to quote a carefully selected brief excerpt from a court document, it does not actually quote from the original but from what it implies is an accurate translation. The rest of the page primarily consists of brief excerpts from editorial opinion columns it claims were published in Argentine newspapers. Once again, it does not quote from the original but from what it implies is an accurate translation. The first paragraph of the page and other sections contain unattributed direct quotes from Family publications and PR statements. Because of these and many other problems, that page is not proof of anything except its existence and is almost completely useless to anyone.

Here at xFamily.org, we have much higher standards.

When we refer to a court document that is in our possession, we actually make the original document in its entirety available to anyone. Similarly, when a translation of a court document (or any other document) is available to us, we provide our readers with a translation (with appropriate disclaimers and link to a copy of the original document) of the entire document and not just a few carefully selected excerpts. So far, the only exception to this general practice has been for a collection of sealed court documents detailing court findings regarding abuse by child molester Phillip Sloan, a long-time Family member and Family Care Foundation project manager, and other Family members. In that case, even though xFamily.org likely had a legal right to publish the sealed documents it and other news outlets (including the San Francisco Chronicle) obtained, I decided to only post redacted excerpts to protect the privacy of the victims. But that is the only exception so far and in any case, the documents in question were not actually public records. We respect the intelligence of our readers and thus whenever possible make court documents and other public records available in their entirety. It would be intellectually dishonest for us to only offer our readers a few carefully selected excerpts from carefully selected cases and completely ignore everything else. (Indeed, I plan to create an online archive of every single available public record (including court records) pertaining to the Children of God/The Family cult with a special emphasis on those pertaining to children born into or raised in the cult. Although this will be a huge project and require not only some money but also a small army of volunteers to contact and travel to courthouses and government agencies all over the world, I intend to see it through to its completion.) The Family claims that it has won every single court case its members have ever been involved in and that "no one has been convicted of any crime in relation to abuse within the organization" but has never made a single court document from these cases publicly available in its entirety. Surely if its claims were true, it would actually make all or at least some of these documents publicly available.

In any case, the page you claim has "sufficient proof" of your "innocence" does not even refer to any court document detailing the final resolution of the case, Causa 81/89 "CAVAZZA, Juan C. y otros s/Inf. arts. 125, 139,140, 142 inc.1º, 142 bis, 210, 293 del CP y art.3º Ley 23592", in which you and your husband were arrested and charged. A web page by The Family claims that "the case reached final closure on July 27, 2004" but does not provide any detail or even explain how the case was resolved. The only court document in the Cavazza case referred to by the CESNUR page is the December 13, 1993 majority opinion of Federal judges Horacio Enrique Prack and Alberto Mansur (which xFamily.org has available for download in its entirety along with the 135-page dissent of Federal judge Daniel Mario Rudi). As you well know, the legal effect of the opinion by Mansur and Prack (as well as the 1995 decision by the Supreme Court to let it stand) was to simply release those in preventive detention and to send the case back to the lower courts and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a final resolution of the case. That (the final resolution of the Cavazza case), according to the Family, took almost 9 years. The court records I am interested in and the ones I thought you offered to send me are all the missing ones including but not limited to any documents from July 2004 which detail the final resolution of the case.

In any case, even though you have posted semi-anonymously and without providing me any way to even attempt to verify that you are actually the person you claim to be, when I have time I intend to rewrite the articles about you and your husband to refer to and quote from your posts here.

Sincerely.
Peter Frouman

Re: to Peter Frouman
Dear Peter,

Can I write you to a personal email address? I can assure you that I am Paloma, A. Sophia Dow and have nothing to hide or lie about. I would like to communicate with you personally and not with a whole community of people who obviously only want to call me a liar. I have much to say, but I'd rather speak to a willing ear, so I would appreciate this. You say that the CESNUR site is practically useless, then you are regarding the public authorities as useless and incapable of making correct decisions. I was hoping you really wanted to know the other side but if all you do is come back at me with your onesided views then I doubt you are truly willing, neither do you care, about my personal story.

Paloma

Dear Paloma,

paloma wrote:

Can I write you to a personal email address?

Of course you can. You don't need to ask for my permission. It's quite easy to find. My email addresses have been publicly listed and easily available to anyone for more than 12 years. Furthermore, my email address, [email protected], is included in every single post I have made on this forum since March 2005.

paloma wrote:

I can assure you that I am Paloma, A. Sophia Dow

Indeed, I think it's quite likely that you are who you say are. However, I'm sure you can understand that it would be easy for an anonymous poster to impersonate someone else and thus your assurance alone is not enough and extreme caution must be exercised in relying on such statements (particularly when they contain damaging admissions) or making assumptions about the identity of the person making them.

paloma wrote:

I would like to communicate with you personally and not with a whole community of people who obviously only want to call me a liar.

It was your decision to make this discussion public and it seems now that you are being asked to answer some very simple questions, you now want it to be private. You are free to write me privately but please understand that I reserve the right to publish all of your email messages (or any other correspondence sent in any other way) to me in their entirety, to publish excerpts from them, to publish summaries of their contents, to publicly refer to them in any way I deem necessary and to provide copies of them to any person or entity. I'm not saying I will do this but only that I may if I think it's necessary.

paloma wrote:

You say that the CESNUR site is practically useless

I did indeed state that it was "almost completely useless to anyone interested in learning the facts about all the civil and criminal court cases involving Family members in Argentina" and I explained the reasons why in great detail.

paloma wrote:

then you are regarding the public authorities as useless and incapable of making correct decisions

I never said any such thing and I find it incredible and incomprehensible that any logical person could draw that conclusion from my evaluation of CESNUR or any other statement I have ever made. CESNUR is an organization established to protect the interests of cult leaders and disseminate cult propaganda and fortunately is not, as you imply, equivalent to government agencies established to protect the human rights of children.

paloma wrote:

all you do is come back at me with your onesided views

You have yet to answer a single one of the very simple questions that have been asked or make any meaningful response to the facts that have been presented here other than to label those facts as either false or "onesided" [sic]. Instead of actually responding to anything it seems you expect us to read your mind and present your "side" of your "personal story" without you ever actually presenting it. It is simply not possible for anyone to know what your response and defense is unless you actually tell us what it is. Refusing to do so and then complaining that no one is sincerely interested is unlikely to be an effective strategy.

Sincerely,
Peter Frouman

PS: I am going to move this thread to the "Contact editors" board as that is a more appropriate place for it than the "Connections" board.

Re: To Paloma
Paloma/Sophia,

You were the leader of the country and beyond, controlling the area for the cult while you ran a brothel for the cult. You and your husband abused me and the other children you made labor for you. Your husband molested me. Will you ever wake up and smell the roses? Not all those you and your cohorts enslaved are dead. We remember. We are willing to tell the truth.

Researcher wrote:

It seems to me that you are the one who is not interested in hearing what Peter has said, or in having an honest dialog about the evidence he has presented. You have not addressed a single point in Peter's post to you. Anyone who does research on TFI is familiar with the Cesnur version of the group's legal history in Argentina. We've read it, we've heard it, and the researchers here have provided quite a lot evidence that would call the Cesnur conclusions into question.

When you defend yourself and your husband by labeling the evidence and testimony presented on this website as false, you are, among other things, calling the Frouman children liars. Is that your intention? If so, simply state for the record that the court documents Peter has cited got the dates and facts wrong and that the Frouman children are liars and leave it at that. I will advocate that your statements of self defense be added to the article about you and your husband if (and only IF) you address specific evidence and testimony that has been presented.

Re: to Peter Frouman
it's funny how when things are finally blatantly spelled out by an x'er, in a way that cannot be refuted, the family person no longer feels the need to respond or make peace. but by this point, the other readers are sincerely interested in hearing both sides. By the family person no longer responding to the thread when the topic becomes hot for them (which happens 99% of the time), they, in essence, respond with a blanket statement of guilt.

Paloma, if you read this, ANSWER, please. we are interested in answers that make sense, if you have one to give.

Paloma's email
Well, actually she did send me a short email. I didn't post it here because it didn't really say anything except repeat her absurd request for secrecy. But in case anyone is interested, here it is along with my reply (to which there has no been further reply). I haven't taken out anything except her email address and the full email headers.

Quote:

From: Paloma Dow <palomadow@[redacted]>
Date: Fri, May 2, 2008 at 6:38 AM
Subject: from Paloma
To: [email protected]

Dear Peter,

Greetings once again! I have written you quite a long letter, but I hesitate to send it unless we can come to a simple agreement; can I request that you will only publish or use excerps from it with my previous consent? I ask this to create a mutual ground for trust and respect, and that our motives for further communication may be to sort things out, not to add more
"wood to the fire". My wish to communicate is in part out of respect for your family and for mine as well, seeing as we have been the subject of defamation and lies all these years. I trust your good will and believe me, I come in peace. You can understand that in order to express myself freely, I must have the assurance that there is the will to hear me out without using my words out of context or twisting them to create more negative mindsets. I am not a lawyer, and so my words may be clumsy, but if I have to be overly concerned about how you will use them, then I'll never write at all. I guess what I'm trying to say, is for us both to "put our guns down" and come together around the issues in an impartial manner.

Thank you for your time,

Paloma

Quote:

From: Peter Frouman <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: from Paloma
To: Paloma Dow <palomadow@[redacted]>

Dear Paloma,
In my reply [posted at
http://xchildrenofgod.xfamily.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=15253#p15253] to
your April 9, 2008 post to the xFamily.org forum, I made my position
clear. To refresh your memory, here is what I wrote:

Quote:

It was your decision to make this discussion public and it seems now
that you are being asked to answer some very simple questions, you now
want it to be private. You are free to write me privately but please
understand that I reserve the right to publish all of your email
messages (or any other correspondence sent in any other way) to me in
their entirety, to publish excerpts from them, to publish summaries of
their contents, to publicly refer to them in any way I deem necessary
and to provide copies of them to any person or entity. I'm not saying
I will do this but only that I may if I think it's necessary.

You will notice that nothing in the above statement could possibly be
interpreted to mean that I would be willing to agree to the
extraordinary secrecy and unprecedented level of control over the
editing process that you request. My position has not changed and
what you are asking for is simply not possible.

However, perhaps it may help if I further explain my position.

In 2005, I (with some assistance from the other editors) wrote and
published a number of articles about (or, in some cases, which merely
referenced) you and your husband. At the same time, I made publicly
available several hundred pages of related court documents and
newspaper and magazine articles as well as some television news
reports.

On April 3, 7 and 9, 2008, you made 3 posts in a public xFamily.org
forum which you addressed to me and made a number of statements about
the information in the articles I wrote and the information found in
the public records (court documents) referenced in those articles.
You basically stated it was all lies. You denied ever having any
"personal contact" with the authorities in Argentina. Because
officials from the Tribunal de Menores de Mercedes and other courts in
the province of Buenos Aires recorded personal contact with you in
official court records, your denial that you ever had any personal
contact with them implies that these court officials are all liars and
committed criminal acts of fraud in creating these documents and
adding them to the official records of the cases. Considering that
most of these officials are also lawyers, the allegations of fraud and
deceit you have publicly made against them are very serious. You had
no problem publicly calling these officials liars as well as publicly
calling the abducted children and the witnesses in the Frouman and
Cavazza cases liars but now that you have been asked some simple
questions and asked to back up your assertions with factual evidence,
you suddenly want everything to be secret and private and to have
complete control over whether any statement you make is used in an
xFamily.org article. That is not fair to anyone and one reason why it
is simply not possible or ethical for me to agree to what you propose.

The only reason for you to write me or any of the xFamily.org editors
is to provide us with your side of the story and factual evidence to
support your position so this information can be included in the
relevant xFamily.org articles so they can be as accurate, complete,
fair and balanced as possible. If there is information you don't want
to be made public, then you simply should not include it in any
correspondence you send me. There is no point in sending me
information which you don't want me to use.

There are certain circumstances under which I will agree to not make
public certain information I receive but your request does not
indicate that any of those circumstances exist. If you have a
specific request regarding specific information that you want kept
confidential or private, that is something I would be willing to
consider.

You mention that you are concerned about your words being used "out of
context" or being "twist[ed] to create more negative mindsets."
Clearly, the only way to resolve such concerns is to publish your
correspondence in its entirety and thus provide our readers the full
context of your words.

Sincerely,
Peter Frouman

Re: to Peter Frouman
"I guess what I'm trying to say, is for us both to "put our guns down" and come together around the issues in an impartial manner"--?

Jeez, Louise. This woman is totally, completely clueless. Only a perpetrator would be brazen enough to ask for impartiality from a victim of child abduction. She acknowledges that the Frouman family suffered. But, oh, she's also suffered. She's suffering now that one of the Frouman kids lived long enough to tell the family's story on the internet and implicate her and her husband in the crime. She has no insight into the difference between having your childhood totally f*cked up and having to deal with a bad reputation from the public record of her association with TF.

IMO, Paloma has no capacity for empathy and is very likely a sociopath.

Re: to Peter Frouman
I have recently been informed that this cowardly child abuser has made unwelcome contact with one of my siblings regarding the factual information about her available on xFamily.org.

She should know that any further unwelcome contact with and/or harassment of my surviving siblings will not be tolerated. As the posts above indicate, nearly three years ago she was offered an opportunity and public forum to present her side of the story and present any supporting evidence. I even offered to reimburse her for the costs of sending me copies of any relevant court records. Nearly three years later, I have yet to receive anything from her. Nevertheless, the offer to present her side of the story still stands. What I will not tolerate is her bothering my siblings about this.

more from "Paloma"
Sophia (or whatever name you're using this week),

As promised, I have added your recent emails here.

I have no interest in having a "conversation" with you. However, as I stated several years ago, you are more than welcome to post in this forum and to provide us with any relevant legal records, documents or other information that presents your position on the basic human rights of children and parents and the facts of the 1990 and 1993 legal cases in Argentina involving the protection of those rights. As I have noted before, none of us here are capable of reading your mind so we can't know what your position is unless you tell us.

Regards,
Peter Frouman

Sophia Dow wrote:

From: Sophia Dow <[redacted]@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 6:40 AM
Subject: Paloma
To: [email protected]

Hello Peter,

Can we resume our conversation that began a few years ago? I would like very much to clarify some things that I think can shed light on the misunderstandings of the past.

Respectfully yours,

Paloma

Sophia Dow wrote:

From: Sophia Dow <[redacted]@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:07 AM
Subject: Paloma
To: [email protected]

Dear Peter,

I sent you a short note a few weeks ago. Since I haven't received an answer, I am writing again. A few years have gone by since we last communicated and during that time I have searched through the information you have posted about our involvement in the events of the past that have caused you to target us online. Once again, I would like to open up a space for a mature dialogue because there are some things that perhaps you don't know, or that we can clarify together. My hope is that you will be open to our attempts to set things right.

Best wishes,

Paloma

xFamily
» Contact Editors
» to Peter Frouman

Read Topic
Reply

xFamily

to Peter Frouman

Quick Links

My Account

able2know