Anti-cultists referred parents of “cult members” to deprogrammers. The latter, in turn, transferred a percentage of the honoraries to the anti-cultists.
by Anson D. Shupe (†) and Susan E. Darnell
Article 8 of 10. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4, article 5, article 6, and article 7.
![Carol Giambalvo, one of the deprogrammers who worked with CAN. From X.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-38.jpg)
![Carol Giambalvo, one of the deprogrammers who worked with CAN. From X.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-38.jpg)
Journalist Nora Hamerman, in writing about the D.D. deprogramming fiasco mentioned in the previous article of this series, referred to CAN as “a clearinghouse for kidnap-for-hire rings” (“Don Moore: Headed for the CAN,” “The New Federalist” 8,14, April 25, 1994, 12).This is an apt description. There was a corporate crime basis for CAN’s continuance and funding, as we suggested earlier.
Various background informant sources speak about a deprogrammer kickback/money laundering scheme by which deprogrammers received continued referrals from CAN in exchange for “repayments” or donations (i.e., commissions) funneled back to national CAN headquarters. Former deprogrammer Jonathon Nordquist “alleges that with each referral to a deprogrammer, a ‘kick-back’ is sent to CAN in the form of a ‘donation’ to ensure that the referrals continue.” If so, such claims would establish a financial symbiosis between CAN and coercive deprogrammers.
John M. Sweeney, Jr., past head of CFF as it turned into CAN during the early-to-mid 1980s, recounting how deprogrammers charged thousands of dollars per case, testified: “Because of the large amounts of money they make due to referrals received from CFF members, deprogrammers usually kick-back money to the CFF member who gave the referral… The kick-backs would either be in cash or would be in the form of a tax deductible “donation” to the CFF . …Adrian Greek, who was the national chairman of CFF at the time that I was its national director, had an adult daughter in the Unification Church. Mr. Greek was very cheap and didn’t want to pay money to have a deprogramming. He then attempted to get a deprogrammer to deprogram his daughter in exchange for Mr. Greek’s future referrals of clients to the deprogrammer.”
In documents we have mentioned in previous articles, deprogrammer Mark Blocksom alludes indirectly to this reciprocity, and deprogrammer Rick Ross seems to assume it. CAN’s last executive director.
![Deprogrammer Mark Blocksom (screenshot). He later tried to renege on his testimony about CAN.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-1-34.jpg)
![Deprogrammer Mark Blocksom (screenshot). He later tried to renege on his testimony about CAN.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-1-34.jpg)
Cynthia Kisser, in her weave-and-dodge responses under legal examination, is vague but suggestive of such a corporate policy:
“Q. …Whether CAN National during the period of 1987 to 1989 to your knowledge received donations, pleads, or funds of any sort from deprogrammers?
A. I would say given the definition I gave of deprogramming, yes, they very well could have.
Q. To your knowledge from 1987 to 1989 have any families who to your knowledge hired deprogrammers subsequent to referrals from CAN made any donations to CAN National?
A. I would have no way of knowing on a first name basis, if that was their reason for giving.
Q. So, to your knowledge some families have given, but you don’t know what their reasons were?
A. Thousands of people have given. I don’t know what their reason may have been.
Q. Well, to your knowledge have families who in fact hired deprogrammers and made that known to you, made donations to CAN?
A. I don’t know if specifically between ‘87 and ‘89 there were families who had hired deprogrammers who did also give money to CAN during that time period. I just do not know. It’s possible they could have” (Deposition of Cynthia Kisser in “Jonathon Nordquist vs. Larry Zilliox et al.” June 24, 1992. No. 92 L1447. County of Cook, II).
![An early image of Cynthia Kisser. Screenshot.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-2-22.jpg)
![An early image of Cynthia Kisser. Screenshot.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-2-22.jpg)
The attorney was chipping away at the possibility that deprogrammers “discounted” the price of a deprogramming if the families (not the deprogrammers) made the donation directly to CAN. That this practice existed appears likely. Notes on donor index cards for NARDEC (CAN’s National Resource Development and Economic Council) contributions in CAN desk rolodex files comment frequently on donors’ family members’ present or past membership in new religious movements (e.g., Children of God, Church Universal and Triumphant, Unification Church, Hare Krishna, Boston Church of Christ, Alamo) and sometimes if the deprogrammings referred were successful or unsuccessful (and conducted by which deprogrammer: see CAN Box 249, Rolodexes). However, a more direct answer can be found in other testimony and in CAN records themselves. In a deposition CAN staff member Marty Butz, who admitted having made around five hundred deprogramming referrals, was asked in a deposition:
“Q. Have any of the people that you made referrals to for deprogramming since you’ve been in CAN made any donations to CAN, any monetary donations?
A. I know that [deprogrammer] Carol Giambalvo has been a Nardeck [sic] member. That’s the only extent of my knowledge of any contributions going CAN’s way.
Q. What does “Nardeck” mean?
A. I don’t know. I don’t know what Nardeck represents.
Q. Nardeck members are people that make substantial monetary contributions to CAN isn’t that correct?
A. Yes. [Butz suddenly remembers.]
Q. There’s a—that’s kind of the select people that are the primary financial supporters of CAN?
A. I believe what it is, is a commitment for three years donating a thousand dollars.
Q. A year?
A. I can’t say that’s where CAN’s primary support comes from.
Q. How much money has Miss Giambalvo donated to CAN since you’ve been involved in CAN?
A. I have no idea.
Q. At least $3,000?
A. If she’s been a Nardeck member more than once, quite possibly more than $3,000.
Q. She’s the person you’ve made the largest number of deprogramming referrals to. Correct?
A. Yes” (Deposition of Marty Butz in “Cynthia Kisser vs. The Chicago Crusader et al.” October 26, 1994. County of Cook, Illinois. Case No. 92. L 08593).
The court recorder had the subgroup of CAN spelled incorrectly: not Nardeck, but rather NARDEC, National Resource Development and Economic Council. This was the heart of deprogrammers’ money-laundering operation and a key area of financial support for CAN. Its referral-in-exchange-for-a-kickback-of-deprogramming-fees is why CAN deprogrammer Rick Ross, in a “slump time” for business after having “paid his dues” to NARDEC, wrote CAN activist Priscilla Coates in a huff: “Have not received one really solid referral, C.A.N. included. I don’t know why. Perhaps summer, ‘turf’ issues, or lack of desire to deal with fundamentalists. Phil and Annie have called from N.Y. and Annette is trying, but some parents are so cheap they prefer to let their kids ‘bang the Bible’ than pay” (letter from Rick Ross [Phoenix, Arizona] to Priscilla Coates (Glendale, California), July 30, 1985, CAN files).
Ex-CAN executive director Cynthia Kisser acknowledged the existence of NARDEC deprogrammer contributions in a deposition:
“Q. Do you know of any donations that have been made to CAN by deprogrammers?
A. Let me just take a minute to look at some of the people that you’ve identified as deprogrammers to let me answer that question. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Steve Hassan, Carol Giambalvo, and … Randall Burkey” (Deposition of Cynthia Kisser in “The Emery Wilson Corporation d/b/a Sterling Management Systems Plaintiff vs. Cult Awareness Network et al.” Case No. BC 043028. March 3, 1994).
Formed in the mid-1980s, by 1987 NARDEC had become institutionalized as a special unit within CAN. Ronald N. Loomis, CAN president, wrote in a June 26, 1987, letter to all CAN affiliates and newsletter subscribers: “We are grateful to those of you who responded to our appeal for contributions with the February meeting. The number of persons who have become members of the National Resource and Development Council (NaRDeC) by pledging $1,000 per year for three years continues to grow, but we need that level of commitment from many more persons. Based on your generous support in 1986, we determined that we could afford to commit ourselves to the full-time salary of an Executive Director for the future. A letter from our Finance and Development Chair… together with a pledge card, is enclosed. It will be a real challenge for us to continue in 1987 what we did in 1986. Please do what you can to sustain that effort. Remember that we cannot expect anyone to support the cult awareness effort unless we provide the first level of support (letter from CAN president Ronald N. Loomis on CAN letterhead to all CAN Affiliates and all CAN Newsletter Subscribers, June 26, 1987, from Ithaca, NY, CAN files, p. 4).
![Ronald N. Loomis (1938–2020). From X.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-3-14.jpg)
![Ronald N. Loomis (1938–2020). From X.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-3-14.jpg)
Apparently deprogrammers (renaming themselves “exit counselors”) understood the message. Under the NARDEC aegis they began to organize within CAN. In the Preliminary Program of the Portland, Oregon 1987 annual CAN conference there was scheduled a Wednesday, October 19 special evening meeting for exit counselors (and added below that announcement: “will not post on hotel meeting sign or brochure”). On Saturday, October 22 at the same convention there was also a special NARDEC breakfast (Preliminary Program for the October 1987 annual CAN Conference in Portland, Oregon, CAN files). NARDEC also had special 7:30 AM breakfast meetings at the 1989 CAN annual conference (program noted: “NARDEC members only”) and at the 1990 annual CAN conference.
NARDEC members met in conjunction with the CAN Advisory Board. Referring back to earlier articles of this series where CAN officials tried to distance themselves on paper and in legal testimonies that CAN in no way encouraged deprogrammings, an examination of real CAN activities belies that claim. It would appear that “exit counselors,” formerly deprogrammers, were invited (literally) to sit at the CAN table.
Of course, not all contributions to CAN and NARDEC were from deprogrammers or persons who favored vigilante actions over educational goals. CAN donors each received identification numbers and were listed/enumerated in files. An inspection of such lists would include, for example, a July 25, 1988, contribution of $2,000 from the Grainger Foundation and a more modest July 21, 1995, contribution of $35 from evangelical Christian (counter-cult) sociologist Ronald Enroth (ID# 912). However, many were from known deprogrammers and their sympathizers, such as Carol Giambalvo, Paul Engel, Janja Lalich, and David Clark.
![A CAN Christian sympathizer, Evangelical sociologist Ronald Enroth (1938–2023). From X.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-4-8.jpg)
![A CAN Christian sympathizer, Evangelical sociologist Ronald Enroth (1938–2023). From X.](https://bitterwinter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BITTER-WINTER-4-8.jpg)
Inspection of NARDEC contributions by month for 1998–95 shows a fairly stable pattern: yearly totals averaged between $40,000 and $54,000, always strongest in January (around $7,000 for that month) and then leveling off to less than $4,000 per month. NARDEC’s contribution to total CAN revenues was about one-third.
However, it appears likely that under-the-table deprogrammer referral kick-backs made up a substantial proportion of NARDEC funds. NARDEC had its own CAN account number, 4080, as opposed to the general fund, 4000, or CAN’s mail order “bookstore” selling tracts, tapes, and books, 4020. Apparently some deprogrammers did not use this traceable account for “donations.” Examining monthly NARDEC contributions for the 1990s, for example, they rarely approached the reported monthly total contributions in CAN and never approached the reported annual totals. Cash receipts for April 1992, for instance, show a total that month of one $1000 contribution. October 1992 shows the same. In other words, NARDEC fund totals in any given year cannot be explained by cash receipts or recorded individual contributions (which, as numerous boxes of rather tediously studied files show, were quite meticulously detailed).
In fact, many recorded NARDEC contributions were in “nickel-and-dime” modest amounts: $30, $50, or $150. Some donations to CAN were even split between other funds and NARDEC; for example, out of $50 donated by an individual in 1993, $30 went to NARDEC and $20 into CAN’s general fund. Such are the minutiae of the CAN files. There were some perennial NARDEC stalwarts who were family relatives of present or previous NRM members (and some deprogrammers). But NARDEC had a serious problem if it is assumed all monies taken in are reflected in the books eventually shown outside auditors.
There were many donors who welched on their pledges, decreasing overt NARDEC revenues: in 1992, 59 persons pledged $1000 or more, but 26 reneged; in 1993, 30 persons pledged the $1000 minimum but 14 reneged; in 1994 23 of 27 persons reneged; and in 1995, 38 of 50 persons reneged. True, towards the waning days of CAN there was a strong, last-ditch resurgence of giving to help. January 1996 checks (from a very small, “select” group of persons) of $1000 to NARDEC totaled around $10,675. But by then CAN was struggling amid many lawsuits, having lost the Jason Scott deprogramming civil suit, and squandered an insurance settlement thereof on pointless litigation—much of which it ultimately lost or conceded.
So where did NARDEC make up the difference if recorded dollar totals do not square with meticulous, computerized receipt statements?
Two separate rolodex lists of NARDEC donors and general contacts in media, law, industry, and social sciences (marked “Major Gifts and NARDEC: comments to be included when required”) include a Who’s Who of dozens of coercive deprogrammers’ names, telephone numbers, and addresses. We suggest a triangulation of evidence from: (1) deprogrammers’ testimonies; (2) former CFF/CAN officials’ testimonies; (3) the obvious accounting lacunae in CAN financial records; and (4) the “cash-only” nature of deprogramming fees. Deprogrammers typically didn’t take credit cards or provide receipts. So complained families who felt taken advantage of by expensive, ineffective deprogramming interventions. Our opinion and conclusion is that systematic records of the kick-backs that went on in CAN’s offices during its last days were never kept in the first place or destroyed. The shoddy bookkeeping of CAN, and the likelihood of white-collar crime committed by certain CAN leaders, to which we will turn in the next article, are part of the NARDEC story.