Unambiguous

I'm going to play devil's advocate here in an attempt to justify Bob's sexual practices:

Suppose there is mutual attraction between therapist and patient. Suppose against better judgment they fall in love. Suppose they discontinue therapy and allow a year to pass before entering into a sexual relationship. This may violate professional guidelines, but just maybe it's not something that should be considered abusive or unethical. 

Now suppose the therapist enters into sexual relationships with many patients. And has sex with them during* therapy sessions. 

There's no ambiguity here. A therapist who does this is a sexual predator. Depending on jurisdiction, they might even be considered a rapist. 

This is how Bob routinely operated. 

* Based on multiple witnesses who I deem as highly credible. 

Proof?

There are (potentially) two categories of readers here on this sleepy internet backwater. There are those who live(d) in the cult, or otherwise had deep exposure. And there are those who did not. Naturally, proving the truthfulness of the claims I've made is a different proposition depending on category of reader. 

Cultists

No proof necessary. They were there. They know full well that...

• Bob was everyone's therapist, and he was paid for it.
• Bob had sex with his patients.
• The Firestones assumed control over businesses started by Bob's patients.
• Bob hit his wife and justified it.
• Babies were systematically removed from parents and bounced around from surrogate to surrogate. 
• Bob's books are replete with lies.

They're able to justify these actions based on their adherence to Bob mythology. Their demigod can do no wrong. (That said, I have a high degree of confidence that many in the group were/are secretly conflicted.) 

General Public

Most of my claims aren't provable. And since I'm just an anonymous character on the internet, critical thinkers will quite rightly take everything with a grain of salt. But certain evidence does exist:

• All talks were recorded and transcribed. Alas, this treasure trove isn't within reach.
• Birth and marriage records would prove that Bob fathered four children with wife (and former patient) Tam, followed by five more children with three "sister wives". 
• Birth and marriage records would prove that one of the mothers was Bob's former daughter-in-law. 
• Public records of stock transactions for the computer company would prove that Bob became wealthy, but his patient DJ (who started the company and who was the driving force) did not. 
• Biographical information placed on the internet by Bob (who took over the computer company), his wife Tam (who took over the design company), and his son Dan (who took over the second computer company) lacked educational and professional credentials for the lofty positions they assumed.

I wish there was more hard evidence for the unaware third-party enablers who collaborate with Glendon Association and Psych Alive. However, I don't intend to pursue these data sources.  

Gaslighting

Bob frequently berated the group as a whole. His anger was directed at what he perceived as childish behavior. In particular, he was angry that nobody was willing and able to be his equal, harkening back to themes expressed in Bob's Song. 

This provided Bob with a handy self-exoneration for the fact that, indeed, everyone did act blatantly infantile in relation to him. Bob never once took an iota of responsibility. The inequality was everyone else's fault. 

Once or twice a year, the kabuki theater would rise to a crisis. Bob would rage and threaten to move out. During some (most? all?) of these episodes, he was furious with his wife Tam. It was obvious that the anger Bob was expressing towards the group was a spill-over effect. But nobody said so. 

Cult leaders berating their followers isn't uncommon. 

Transcript

By happenstance, I have a transcript of a group in my possession. (All groups were recorded and transcribed.) The person who sent it to me doesn't remember why they have it. It's ordinary yet highly revealing. 

The transcript is labeled "Therapist Talk". According to the transcript, the talk took place in 1994 in a hotel room. (I wasn't there.) Readers who aren't versed in E speak need to understand Bob mythology in order to grasp what's being said. 

In short, the mythology consists of: Bob is uniquely able to recognize and love the real you, unlike your parents. And that causes the recipients of his love to retreat psychologically, to act out against him. Accordingly, Bob is the central character in everyone's psychological development. 

Here are some excerpts. Tam is Bob's wife. GF stands for girlfriend of Bob. My comments are indented and bold. Everything else is the work of the transcriber (except the anonymous names). 

*  *  *

Bob: What do you think it meant that you were angry that day?

Tam: I think it's because I felt good. I just felt good and sweet toward you and really enjoying myself and feeling close. Feeling how nice you were. I think it was a reaction against that. I really do.

Bob: You don't think it had to do with me suggesting the itinerary? 

Tam: No I really don't. You didn't dictate it. You didn't care. You were totally easy. But I could tell that whatever you were going to say, I was going to be against it. 

GF1 proceeds to talk about being angry at her primary boyfriend, Bob's son, for reasons similar to Tam.

Bob: You're angry at Danny?

GF1: Yes but I feel that in general I'm angry at you. 

Bob is always the central focus.

Bob: What would you say?

GF1: I feel like I just want to curl up and be left alone. I don't want to feel. 

GF2: This morning you (Bob) said that I had been acting out rather than talking. I had a fury at being noticed, someone caring about me. I'm so angry about that. 

GF1: I feel so much better when I admit the anger. My anger at living a feelingful life. I really hate you especially. 

Bob: We're getting somewhere with this. 

That somewhere being an intense focus on Bob. And not just the women... 

Don: Through knowing you, I was able to achieve levels of changing myself and advancing and learning to embrace my life. And then I'm out on a limb and I feel terrified and I resent you particularly. I turn on you because you were a friend to me and supported me. 

Bob: That's right. 

GF2: I wasn't happy before my relationship with you. Then I was happy about everything. 

GF3: I felt like I hated myself for so many years before I came here and before I met you especially. 

GF4: There's so much love and hate directed to you in particular, because I've never met anybody who really is acknowledging of each person individually. That's why there's so much paranoia directed towards you. The minute someone turns against themselves they turn against you.

And so on ad nauseum. Creepy beyond belief and ever so typical. 

More Mothers and Children

In Mothers and Children I wrote about the systematic way that babies/toddlers were separated from their parents.

The parents would invariably acquiesce and the baby would be transferred to surrogates. Permanently.

Not quite. Most of the kids were bounced from one surrogate to another to another. These decisions came from on high, without input from the biological parents nor the surrogates. 

Again I will rely on reader/commenter GMC for their painfully insightful observations:

I understand, in retrospect, that a fundamental aim of Bob's was to prevent all deep attachments (bonds) between people except for their attachment to him. He was to be the center of everyone's world. This was especially damaging to parents and children.

I was told that I was "poison" to my young son. No explanation or specific evidence of this was given to me. Bob just said that if I cared about my child at all I would support his being raised by others. Like the other children - except for the Firestone children - my son lived in several different households while growing up. It was rare for the kids to stay in any given household for more than a year since any apparent "bond" between adults and children was to be avoided. Thus, everyone - parents, children, caregivers - were anxious and insecure about their relationships to each other. We were vulnerable and frightened. Just the way Bob wanted.

It's hard to imagine that experts wouldn't view this as obviously, seriously harmful to the kids and the parents. 

OPM

It's clear that reader/commenter GMC was there because the details are spot-on, and these sort of shennanigans were par for the course.

Background: Glendon Association is a non-profit that was setup to promote Bob's books and films. It was funded by the community.

I was a good friend and roommate of Anne B., who managed the Glendon Assoc. and much of the cult's finances.

Anne had considerable responsibility in the group, however, she apparently received a modest salary, for she rarely went on vacations, dressed inexpensively and drove an ancient car. She was serious, circumspect and definitely not a gossip.

After I returned to teaching after taking a 3 year break during which I slaved for Design One, I had my summers free and often worked - free - for the Glendon Assoc. with Anne. One day she seemed uncharacteristically upset. I asked her why and she blurted out that Bob, who was on vacation in the Mediterranean, had phoned, asking her to write a check for "thousands of dollars." "It's for SUNGLASSES!" Anne said. "He's bought all his girlfriends designer sunglasses!"

Not out of his own pocket, but with the group's money.

A small example of Bob appropriating our hard-earned money for his private slush fund.

Bob was all about OPM. Other People's Money. 

Lies by Omission

I've already detailed some of the explicit lies in The Fantasy Bond. There are some critical, damning facts that Bob omits. From chapter 20:

The friends had formed a general partnership where they contributed a certain percentage (33 percent) of their gross income to pay for rent*, food**, utilities, and boat expenses, and they decided to continue this financial arrangement on a permanent basis.

It's true that "the friends" paid 33% of income which covered most of the things that Bob enumerates. But what he fails to reveal is that everyone paid Bob for therapy in addition. Cash and only cash. The reason for this omission is obvious. He's obscuring the fact that he was everyone's therapist. He also fails to mention that the partnership paid a chunk of that 33% to him for services rendered.

An investment fund was started; with this new financial arrangement, each member of the “cooperative” became an equal partner in a general partnership.

First off, there was no transparency whatsoever for these financial arrangements. It's not until you depart the cult that the bullshit comes into focus. Somehow your ownership of an impressive array of assets...

• 36 unit apartment building in West Los Angeles
• luxurious 100 foot yacht  
• 80 foot schooner
• various large, deluxe motorboats
• investment property

... amounted to small change. 

And then take into account how Bob assumed control over businesses started by his patients.

The Firestone family is filthy rich. Emphasis on filthy.

* Implies more value than readers might imagine. We lived dormitory style, except for Bob and Tam.

** There was a communal dinner prepared four nights per week. For the first few years, it was prepared by the Firestone's long time housekeeper. It was truly awful. Think pot roast at Denny's with added salt and butter. This was the only "free" food.