Sunday, May 27, 2007

5/27/07, A Testimony Against Departure

From: Rod S.
To: [List]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: A Letter To You

Dear Brethren;
As people of association and membership in the Puritan Reformed Church since 1993 (now known as the RPNAGM), we believe the attached letter may offer a perspective not considered by many up to this point and hope you will prayerfully read it without bias.
A reasonable amount of time has passed since we received the Confidential Oath. This has allowed us to reflect, pray and finally to carefully compose this letter in the absence of any attempt by Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms to contact us in the past 6 months.
We do not speak on behalf of the Prince George Society, but only testify of our own household. It is presumed for purposes of brevity and minimal referencing that those to whom this testimony is written are reasonably familiar with the topic, with the correspondence of the past 3 or so years and with basic principles of Presbyterian church government.

Friday, May 25, 2007

5/25/07 - 6/6/07, The Further Unraveling of the "To Whom It May Concern" Email Fraud

As posted on The Covenant Reformation Club
[edited for email bloat, etc.]

#15802
From: Bob S.
Date: Fri May 25, 2007 8:50 pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern

To Whom It May Concern,
Mickey Mouse et al.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist, to discern humble Werner (Von Brahn's) fingerprints all over the item below. Evidently when you can't beat them in an "honorable" or reasonable way, sue them. Or at least threaten to.

As for who has a reputation for religion in light of 1 Cor. 6:1-8 or Deut. 19:19, let the reader judge. Our humble litigants and those with a love for tort law more than truth or those who oppose them?

As for those who think the church of Christ a "relatively private" organization or club, let alone their own little private preserve or tea party where they may do as they please and officers may excommunicate with abandon all the while howling "invasion of privacy" when those publicly excommunicated publicly protest, Jeremiah 12:5 is reproof enough.

"If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? and if in the land of peace, wherein thou trustedst, they wearied thee, then how wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?"

If you can't figure out the visible church of Christ is a public body and to be excommunicated from the same is a public action, you have defamed your claim to possessing any common sense or reason on the question, if not a claim to the public's ear and sympathy for your complaint. Hence we suppose this "gratuitously" helpful attempt to intimidate and harass in order to override that situation of one's own making. And no, that is not defamatory. Rather if somebody can't stand the heat, they ought to get out of the kitchen in the first place instead of blaming it on other people.

Yet we have one "simple request" of those who "allegedly" do the same: Specify the "specific names and specific content that you are hereby being requested to remove or amend" which "will not be provided to you for your direction in this matter [our emphasis]" or shut up and stand down. (Does this remind anyone of an oath to affirm a court before which a charge of sin has been made, but neither plaintiff or the specific sin is specified?) Play the man and come out from behind the curtains with your anonymous allegations and charges and make a reasonable request of those you disagree with rather than a ridiculous one.

Please. Otherwise this pathetic and wretched item will reflect poorly on everyone on your side, not just those responsible for it.

cordially yours,
in Christ
Bob S.

From: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
To: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
Sent: Monday, May 14, :06 AM
Subject: Notice
May 14th, 2007

To Whom it may concern:

You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. It has been brought to our attention by several private and aggrieved parties that the content of an Internet publication(s) that you either control, influence, or create or provide content for, allegedly contains that which is defamatory of specific persons and organizations expressly being named therein. You may have created or posted defamatory information, or facilitated its publication. These allegations pertain to the express use of names within this publication(s), and assert that the defamation is either of a direct nature (being derogatory predications or false information that is directly stated about such express names), or of an indirect nature (express names being implicated within a derogatory context), or by otherwise facilitating any such defamatory activity or content (allowing links to defamatory pages, failure to enforce conditions of use by moderators or owners, etc.). . . . [go here for the rest.]

#15803
From: "bob_s*"
Date: Fri May 25, 2007 9:07 pm
Subject: Re: To Whom It May Concern

Whoops, forgot to mention that in order to call attention to it, I added the UL to the original post quoted from the 'anonymous advocate for lawful harassment of those we disagree with'. I don't want to misrepresent our Perry Mason mystery man in any way, shape or form.

Bob S.

"The specific names and specific content that you are hereby being requested to remove or amend will not be provided to you for your direction in this matter: The moral and legal burden is upon you topublish only that which you know to be, in legal fact, not defamatory;and to publish only those names and that content for which you haveeither legal right or permission to so publicly make known."


--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*" wrote:
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
> Mickey Mouse et al.
>
> You don't have to be a rocket scientist, to discern humble Werner
> (Von Brahn's) fingerprints all over the item below. Evidently when
> you can't beat them in an "honorable" or reasonable way, sue them.
> Or at least threaten to. . . . .


> From: advocate.for.law@...
> To: advocate.for.law@...
> Sent: Monday, May 14, :06 AM
> Subject: Notice
> May 14th, 2007
>
> To Whom it may concern:
>
> You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of
> interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. . . . .


#15804
From: Walt B
Date: Sat May 26, 2007 8:20 am
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern humbled.learner


Bob,
I have just returned from 2 weeks in Singapore/China and finishing my work in Houston before returning home tonight. I'm assuming that you are not referring to me below, but since you talk in multiple tongues I am not always able to follow your discussions or allegations. If you are referring to me, I would request you provide some facts that you have received from others to lead you to this conclusion. Have you received information from other people alleging that I have written the document below? During the past 2 months I have been buried in work and privately have been in discussions with a couple former members of our church, but before you go out leading a massive smear campaign against me (as was done in previous documents I've read on your website about past situations involving you and others in our church creating all these public conspiracies) you better make sure I wrote the document below before publically leading others to believe it is an alleged fact. I'll be back home tonight and it will take me some time to get caught up on a host of issues, but if your comments lead anyone to believe something that is not true, or you are going to be pushing an agenda to smear me publically, I would ask you to kindly reconsider. I did not write the document below and you better be very careful what you and others are alleging privately (and now publically) about me if I'm the one you are talking about. You have no problem is smearing people publically as I've seen on your website, and if you are now going to drag me into this campaign I would ask you to reconsider and get your facts straight first. I will not tolerate how you have treated other peoples confidential and private correspondence, or the good names of others who have been allegedly involved in your perceived conspiracy against those that have been excommunicated. I will find it most interesting to learn who actually has written the letter below, as I have been out of the country, and indeed will put all my resources behind the legal cause should you begin a new massive campaign publically against me without having your facts clear. Please consider this a formal notice against you and others who are intending to drag me into this campaign to damage my name and reputation using your website, and the website of covenantedreformationclub. If this message makes it through, this will be your notice, if not, I will deal with your allegations directly (should you have publically intended that I'm the one referred to as "humble Werner (Von Brahn's)"). Again, so I'm clear, please be careful before you begin your public campaign leading others to believe another of your alleged conspiracies.
Walt.


#15807
From: "gmw"
Date: Sun May 27, 2007 7:11 am
Subject: Re: To Whom It May Concern raging_calvi...


Is it just me, or does this resemble the "You've been charged with a
sin, but we ain't telling you what it is or who is your accuser, but
the charges are very serious" thing that most of the X'd have received?

gmw.

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*"
wrote:
>
> Whoops, forgot to mention that in order to call attention to it, I added
> the UL to the original post quoted from the 'anonymous advocate for
> lawful harassment of those we disagree with'. I don't want to
> misrepresent our Perry Mason mystery man in any way, shape or form.
>
> Bob S.
>
> "The specific names and specific content that you are hereby
> being requested to remove or amend will not be provided to you for
> your direction in this matter: The moral and legal burden is upon you
> to publish only that which you know to be, in legal fact, not
> defamatory; and to publish only those names and that content for which
> you have either legal right or permission to so publicly make known."
>
>
> --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*"
> wrote:
> >
> > To Whom It May Concern,
> > Mickey Mouse et al.
> >
> > You don't have to be a rocket scientist, to discern humble Werner
> > (Von Brahn's) fingerprints all over the item below. Evidently when
> > you can't beat them in an "honorable" or reasonable way, sue them.
> > Or at least threaten to. . . . .
>
>
> > From: advocate.for.law@
> > To: advocate.for.law@
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, :06 AM
> > Subject: Notice
> > May 14th, 2007
> >
> > To Whom it may concern:
> >
> > You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of
> > interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. . . .
> .
>

#15808
From: Bob S.
Date: Sun May 27, :10 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern


Greetings Walter,

1. I said "humble Werner" not "humble learner".

2. That is not to say that you are not a possible person of interest/suspect in regard to the anonymous missive from our anonymous advocate. You have been very vocal in the past about what you consider to be your " confidential and private correspondence" on this public forum (as you mention below) so consequently the circumstantial evidence points in your direction.

Of course I glad to hear you affirm that you did not actually write it. Even further, I will take that to mean that you did not even put some green legal intern from a free legal service at lawyer.com up to it. Neither will I ask you to sign an affidavit.

4. That is because, as you say below: "I will find it most interesting to learn who actually has written the letter below." Well, it is not only interesting, it is downright hilarious. That is because a couple of `anonymous' brethren put together an impromtu Internet Fraud Detection Detail to snooker this whole thing out. Evidently, after looking over the email headers, it seems,

"The originating IP of the email resolves to a Niwot, CO regional office, with their routers (in the area north of Denver, CO). That address would be randomly assigned to some user connected to that office.
[The] originating IP of the email: 63.231.86.127 http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip (to look up that IP, enter IP and the captcha number displayed) www.mail.com allows you to sign up for a free lawyer.com email address that was used to email you."

Even further,

"(I)f you go to mail.com [updated] then click "Not a member yet? Sign Up for a free account." Then click the red "Sign Up Now" button, then click the red "See all our domains" button, you'll get a pop-up of all the different domain names that site somehow has ownership over, which is quite a few. So you get @lawyer.com, @doctor.com, @engineer.com or tons of you, for the choice of your (pretended) professional expertise. . ."

At this point are we ROFL? No, we are ROF[howling with]L. I followed the steps above and the only thing I have to say is that while the domain names include "toothfairy.com", somehow they seem to have missed "fraud.com" or "Ijustmadearoyalassofmyself.com".

That is, maybe this doesn't have anything at all to do with our dear brother in Longmont, CO who might have been our mystery plaintiff in the Confidential Oath and whom has received more visits from the elders than the Society in Prince George in all the recent hooraw, but one does wonder. After all, Niwot, CO city center is 6.8 miles (or 14 minutes drive) from the Longmont, CO city center. http://maps.google.com/. The legal speak and gobbledygook of "To Whom It Might Concern " might resemble his of Jan. '06 to the elders alleging whatall and whatever of the Society of Prince George and the undersigned.

But be that as it may, unfortunately, contra Rom. 3:8, someoney - we know not who - did evil that good might come. At least from his perspective anyway. From ours, it clearly looks like an intent to defraud and intimidate by impersonating a lawyer in all this, rather than "gratuitously" make a "simple request" in light of " common sense, basic civility, and good judgment".

But if whoever it is, considers all this a defamation of his anonymous character, some of us among those who have received the anonymous advocate's bill of goods, i.e. "TWIMC", actually have family members who have passed a bar exam or two and have practiced law, or have a real lawyer on retainer. In other words, if our aggrieved party would care to contact us privately, we would be happy to forward their request for legal services to the real thing.

Even further in the larger context, we note that in January `06 the elder surrogates and proxies, including our brother from Colorado, were impersonating a court, if not usurping its powers in asking affidavits of those who had the audacity to ask what the public sins were that were to be confessed in the Public Day of Prayer and Fasting. Come June `06 we had the Position Paper on Sessional Authority which asserted the legitimacy of three officers to impersonate an extraordinary standing/permanent session, if not also a presbytery or synod. In Nov. `06 the same even went so far as to enforce ecclesiastical penalties by excommunicating people. If that were not enough, now in May `07 we seem to have somebody from that same camp impersonating a lawyer in an attempt to intimidate, if not inflict civil penalties on the same excommunicated brethren.

Yet the doctrine of tacit consent as presently held and practiced in the "RPNA(GM)," might have something to say about all this, no? Do the officers of "RPNA(GM)" countenance this kind of behavior in their church when it comes to their attention? (God forbid they knew of it before it went out, which would make their silence even more reprehensible than the original document itself.) Would or do they discipline anyone that stoops to this level of interaction, even with excommunicated brethren? Would they require repentance and retraction of any of this? We do wonder. Particularly in that the question begging Position Paper, the compromising Confidential Oath and the invalid Excommunication Notices have not been repented of. Neither have they been retracted and all this brother is basically doing in our opinion, is defending those documents and positions in the same slipshod, zealous and legally - whether ecclesiastically or civilly - underhanded fashion.

cordially yours,
in Christ,
Bob S.

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre wrote:
>
> Bob,
> I have just returned from 2 weeks in Singapore/China and finishing my work in Houston before returning home tonight. I'm assuming that you are not referring to me below, but since you talk in multiple tongues I am not always able to follow your discussions or allegations. If you are referring to me, I would request you provide some facts that you have received from others to lead you to this conclusion. Have you received information from other people alleging that I have written the document below? During the past 2 months I have been buried in work and privately have been in discussions with a couple former members of our church, but before you go out leading a massive smear campaign against me (as was done in previous documents I've read on your website about past situations involving you and others in our church creating all these public conspiracies) you better make sure I wrote the document below before publically leading others to believe it is an alleged fact. . . .

#15810
From: "Deejay"
Date: Sun May 27, 2007 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern righteous_rebel

You'd have thought they would have included the possibility of @genius.com I was going to sign up for one if they had, but all the ones they had on offer, were beneath me!! B-)

~Deejay

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_s*" wrote:
>
>
> "The originating IP of the email resolves to a Niwot, CO regional
> office, with their routers (in the area north of Denver, CO). That
> address would be randomly assigned to some user connected to that
> office.
> [The] originating IP of the email: 63.231.86.127
> http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip (to look up that IP, enter IP and
> the captcha number displayed)
> www.mail.com allows you to sign up for a free lawyer.com email address
> that was used to email you."
>

#15828
From: Walt B
Date: Sun May 27, 2007 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern

Bob,

I'm not going to get into another debate on
covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
issue. Obviously your own research has shown you what
you wanted to know without alleging "humble.learner"
was not really "humbler Werner". Dance around this
all you want, but when I read your public message with
your opening statement, "it does not take a rocket
scientist" or something like that, and your subsequent
comments, I became very upset.

It is very good that your group has lawyers on
retainer already and some passing the bar, because
from my experience these events are not going away
anytime soon. Your website will continue to publish
private discussions between Pastor Price and former
members of our church, and I suspect you will continue
to give people your brilliant "publisher" commentary
as to what it really all means (at all times seeking
to destroy the credibility and names of the Elders).

In all of this, I can truly say that the past couple
months have been a real "eye opener" for me to read
your and others commentary about our Elders. From
what I can tell (especially with some of you) this has
been burning inside for a few years. Clearly, with
your leadership (and your current publishing company)
you are able to make a substantial impact to destroy
whatever credibility the Elders had before all these
events.

I can see the day where you, the Elders and our member
in Colorado are going to be in front of a civil
magistrate to see who has the best lawyers. It is
just a matter of time, in my opinion, and your family
lawyers or current retained lawyers are going to be
arguing who caused the actual damage, who did what
they could to destroy reputations publically and
whether or not there was ever a membership agreement
in place between the Elders, representing Christ's
church, and the members (explicit or implicit).

There is no doubt in my mind this is going to get
nasty (based upon what I've read so far on your views
of the Elders) and expensive for all parties involved.
In the end, I anticipate you will be riding the wave
in the media spotlight to "uncover" the "great
conspiracy" that you have allegedly discovered. There
is no doubt from your website this role suits you
well, and with a hand full of good trial lawyers you
will be at the top of your game, but before you drag
me into this situation you best have your facts
clearly laid out about my intentions.

Let me make them clear for you here. You can be
absolutely 100% sure that I will do everything in my
ability to protect my Elders and their names in this
controversy. I do not do this blindly or out of
vindictiveness toward you or any other former member,
but out of love I have for these men, their exhaustive
labors and my desire for seeing reformation in
Christ's church and state. I'll not sit silently by
while you, your lawyers and your followers seek to
desteoy these men no matter what you believe and teach
about them.

From all of the evidence I've read so far, there is
nothing yet that will change my position. You are
going to need to bring up some real supporting
evidence to prove your conspiracy before I will give
any weight to your plan to destroy our small
covenanter congregation. I've commited to my
membership and the fraud and conspiracy you allege
needs to be supported by a lot more facts than are
posted on your website, or what I've heard from
private discussions with some of our former church
members. All of these documents that you men
supposedly possess will need to go before trial
lawyers and they will need to defend their positions
that all this really existed.

This is my last email to you on this matter, and if
you continue to allege that "humble Werner" is behind
this legal issue, and seek to destroy my reputation on
this yahoo groups site, you should gather more
evidence than "it does not take a rocket scientist" in
what you have presented in your initial public
allegations. I've expressed my concerns privately
with some by email and some face-to-face over my
position, but you have never been included in these
communications. If you are getting information from
others, without my permission to release my position
(and thus drawing invalid legal conclusions), I will
be very disappointed. I know some of you have zero
interest in protecting private communications, and in
your minds all private communication is open for
public distribution and publication, but I firmly
reject this legal opinion.

Again, this is my last message on this topic, and I
would ask that you not post another message alleging
I'm involved in something untrue until you have your
facts straight and are ready to defend them as a
faithful Christian man. What you wrote below is no
apology toward me, but the typical spin I see from you
over and over again. This might be great for your
followers to get you cheers and support, but I think
it is childish and mickey mouse (as you say).

Be further advised this is a private communication to
you, and obviously those on this yahoo site will read
it, but it is not intended for further public
distribution without my (the author's) permission. My
lawyers advise me that private communication can
certainly be protected even when more than one person
is on the receiving end, and even if its contents are
able to be accessed via those who were not intended
the recipients (e.g., the public).

Whether it is you, or another journalist/publisher
reading my messages on this site, it is a privileged
confidential communication it noticed as such. Sure,
you can publish it without my permission, and put as
much spin/commentary as you want on your website to
seek to destroy my and others reputations, but I would
ask that you please not take this position.

"Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I
cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart
will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the
faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he
that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. He
that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house:
he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. I
will early destroy all the wicked of the land; that I
may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the
LORD" (Psalm 101:5-8).

For the cause of Christ,
Walt.

--- bob_s* wrote:

> Greetings Walter,
>
> 1. I said "humble Werner" not "humble learner".
>
> 2. That is not to say that you are not a possible
> person of
> interest/suspect in regard to the anonymous missive
> from our anonymous
> advocate. You have been very vocal in the past about
> what you consider
> to be your " confidential and private
> correspondence" on this
> public forum (as you mention below) so
> consequently the circumstantial
> evidence points in your direction. . .

________________________________________________________________________________\
____Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated
for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow


#15829
From: "gmw"
Date: Wed Jun 6, 2007 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern raging_calvi...


[just wanted to point out that this is late in appearance because I
didn't notice it sitting in the approval box until just now -- gmw]

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre
wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm not going to get into another debate on
> covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
> issue.

#15832
From: Bob S.
Date: Wed Jun 6, 2007 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern

--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre
wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm not going to get into another debate on
> covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
> issue. Obviously your own research has shown you what
> you wanted to know without alleging "humble.learner"
> was not really "humbler Werner". . . . . .

Hey, Walt,
Can you spare us all the bad sportsmanship and give it up, please?

The reasons for that are:

1. I found out about where the phony lawyer message came from after you
denied having written it. My second post which yours replies to below
makes that clear. If you don't want to accept that, it is not because I
have given offence, but because you have taken offence.

2. That is not to say, because of your previous public statements and
your stated opinions about public/private forums repeated again below,
it is unreasonable to think you might have had something to do with it.
I was well within the boundaries of common sense and decency to
challenge you on it, which when you denied it, I was more than happy to
explicitly accept it.

3. There can be no real debate when we can't get our facts straight.
If anybody is accusing anybody of conspiracy as you repeatedly state
that I do of the elders, rather it is the elders who have accused the
Effort of being a conspiracy. I make no mention whatsoever of a
conspiracy on the part of the elders, whatever else I happen to disagree
with or think wrong of them.

4. If mentioning any or all of this upsets you, you should really try
being excommunicated sometime.

5. As for destroying the credibility of the elders, IMO rather their own
arguments and the behavior of their proxies and surrogates do quite well
on their own without my help thank you very much, advocate.for.law being
quite to the point. That doesn't mean it is unlawful to point out
further some of the gross contradictions and shortcomings in the
Position Paper, Confidential Oath and Excommunication Notices.

6. As for a membership agreement, that is not in question. That the
elders modified that agreement and implicitly added to it all the while
relying on tacit, implicit, uninformed, yea ignorant assent and consent
is the question. To then insist that the other party still adhere to the
original terms is not a legitimate, honorable and above board way to
conduct matters in Christ's church no matter what anybody says.

7. As a man of your word, when you say this will be your last email to
me about this on this public forum - just like your denial of being
behind "advocate.for.law" - I will again take you at your word
on it. Please don't go back on it. After all, Ps. 101, which you
quote below, says that he who telleth lies shall not tarry in the
Lord's sight.

8. Even further, also from Ps. 101, "whoso privily [privately]
slandereth his neighbor" does not refer to public forums such as
this, but rather telling lies about someone secretly and behind their
back. But that has not happened, whether we are talking about slander,
privily or publicly and to say so without backing it up or even trying
to, is slander.

Thank you very much.
Bob S.


--- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt B
wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm not going to get into another debate on
> covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
> issue. Obviously your own research has shown you what
> you wanted to know without alleging "humble.learner"
> was not really "humbler Werner". Dance around this
> all you want, but when I read your public message with
> your opening statement, "it does not take a rocket
> scientist" or something like that, and your subsequent
> comments, I became very upset. . . .
>

<>
Message #
Search:
Advanced

Start Topic
Add to My Yahoo! XML What's This?
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines - Help

Thursday, May 24, 2007

5/24/07 - 6/4/07, In Case You Missed It

The Fraudulent "To Whom It May Concern" Email

From: Cheryl G.

To: List
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:55 AM
Subject: In Case you missed it...

Dear Folks,

I received the following brave communication in my knox inbox recently. I would be interested in hearing if any others have received anything similar.

Cheryl G.

PS. It is news to me that excommunication is now a private matter.

----Original Message-----
From: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
To: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
[Bcc: Cheryl G. ; Bob S. ; ?]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Notice

May 14th, 2007
To Whom it may concern:

You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. It has been brought to our attention by several private and aggrieved parties that the content of an Internet publication(s) that you either control, influence, or create or provide content for, allegedly contains that which is defamatory of specific persons and organizations expressly being named therein. You may have created or posted defamatory information, or facilitated its publication. These allegations pertain to the express use of names within this publication(s), and assert that the defamation is either of a direct nature (being derogatory predications or false information that is directly stated about such express names), or of an indirect nature (express names being implicated within a derogatory context), or by otherwise facilitating any such defamatory activity or content (allowing links to defamatory pages, failure to enforce conditions of use by moderators or owners, etc.). . . . [Go here to see the rest.]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S
To: Cheryl G. ; List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it...

Greetings Cheryl et al,
For various odd reasons I hadn’t gotten around to replying to this yet, having received my very own version of Lawyers R Us Monday, May 14th. Late as it is though, your post bumped the rough draft to the top of the "to do" list.

Yes, I think it speaks for itself. Vague, undefined, impersonal if not anonymous, threatening, but quick to assert the contrary, full of allegations, bluffs and "simple requests" etc. A sad and sorry, as well as carnal and cowardly response to recent events in Rpna(gm) circles.

It is certainly encouraging to know that there are humble brethren out there, who have such a high esteem for and love of the truth that they are willing to become humble litigants for the same.

But let the anonymous and aggrieved parties come out from the shadows and state plainly what is defamatory – i.e. unfaithful to the truth – not what is unpleasant and embarassing. (For that matter, early on when the "Confidential Oath" was posted, a mailing address was inadvertently left in, which when apprised of, we were happy to remove from the RPV site. Since then, we have received no further objections of that nature, only shallow, specious and spurious disagreements to our objections in principle to the RPNA(GM) and our audacity in implementing the sunshine doctrine on the doctrinal dungheap. Yes, it does smell, but what else would you expect?)

It also appears that our mystery advocate makes some claim to common sense and reason. Yet essentially as you mention, our legal scholar completely fails to recognize that it is one thing to kick people out of a "relatively private" little club, and entirely another to excommunicate them from the visible public church of Christ at large as was done in the RPNA(GM). In that we do not yet live under the persecuting circumstances that prevail now in China or N. Korea, if not the religious society times in Scotland, a full and public discussion of the matter is not only possible, but also called for and entirely lawful. Ergo by good and necessary consequences the relevant and "relatively private" documents become public items regardless if anyone cares to publicize them or not. Retract the Public Excommunications, the Oath and Position Paper and one might be able to make a case for the invasion of privacy. But that hasn’t happened yet. (For that matter, who gave their explicit permission to be publicly excommunicated in the first place?) Those who think that they have free rein from Christ to do as they please in his church and then skate when it comes to a public discussion of it because it is all "relatively private", deserve to be cashiered from office in Christ’s church if they hold it and go to work at McDonalds as a cashier or a happy greeter at Walmart. If they do not already hold "office" they have categorically shown themselves incompetent and no candidates for it. Unfortunately our humble and honorable litigants fill the bill on either account having defamed their own character by their doctrine and actions and not my mention of it.

Yet not only does Scripture forbid going to law with believers 1 Cor. 6:1-8, ‘if you can’t prove the crime, you do the time’ is an adequate paraphrase of Deut. 19:19. While lawsuits of a frivolous, nuisance or harassing character are categorically forbidden in Scripture, they are not ruled out in this missive entitled "To Whom It May Concern." Still, as has been the problem for some time now, the Position Paper on Sessional Authority, the Confidential Oath and the Notices of Excommunication are the standing material defamations of the truths of Scripture, history and reason/logic in the ongoing discussion. In other words, it might behoove this physician - if not quack - to heal himself. More to the point, that the shyster would prosecute himself. We ought to obey God rather than man, particularly those who attempt to intimidate and silence any who ask questions or object to their otherwise unaccountable pronouncements and discipline rather than answer them in substance.

More could be said, I suppose, but that ought to be enough for now for this kind of pretentious and infuriating, as well as hilarious and pathetic, drivel.

cordially in Christ,
Bob S

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S.
To: Cheryl G. ; List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Greetings again Cheryl and brethren, interested or otherwise,

Further developments in all this are verry interesting.
A little sleuth work by some charitable brethren turned up the following:

The originating IP of the email resolves to a Niwot, CO regional office, with their routers (in the area north of Denver, CO). That address would be randomly assigned to some user connected to that office.
[The] originating IP of the email: 63.231.86.127 http://www.maxmind.com/app/locate_ip (to look up that IP, enter IP and the captcha number displayed). www.mail.com allows you to sign up for a free lawyer.com email address that was used to email you.

Even further,

[G]o to mail.com [updated] then click "Not a member yet? Sign Up for a free account." Then click the red "Sign Up Now" button, then click the red "See all our domains" button, you'll get a pop-up of all the different domain names that site somehow has ownership over, which is quite a few. So you get @lawyer.com, @ doctor.com, @engineer.com or tons of you, for the choice of your (pretended) professional expertise . . . .

As mentioned on CovRefClub (#15808), while mail.com owns the rights to " toothfairy.com", some how "fraud.com" or " Ijustmadearoyalassofmyself.com" got left out of the mix.

That is too bad because Niwot, CO city center is 6.8 miles (or 14 minutes drive) from Longmont, CO city center. http://maps.google.com/. Does anybody know anybody from Longmont, CO? (Consult your RPNA(GM) membership list if in doubt.) Could they be the same party also responsible for the following fine print rider on any emails they actually do send under their real name? After all our advocate.for.law. repeatedly confused defamation of character with invasion of privacy in regard to the supposedly/"relatively private" information and documents which surrounds the recent unpleasantness in the RPNA(GM) to the defamation of his competence to the question. (That information would include any of the material surrounding the Position Paper, Confidential Oath and public Notices of Excommunication from the visible public church of Christ by the RPNA(GM) officers, as well as the documents named themselves.)

This communication is CONFIDENTIAL: this email (its email address, content, and/or attachment(s)) is intended for the recipient(s) only. The information contained in, or attached to, this email is not intended for distribution or relation to any others by any recipient(s) apart from the express permission of the originator. This encompasses any disclosure of the originator's email address to others (via inclusion on other lists, etc.). If you are not an original recipient and have otherwise received this communication by some other person (other than from the original sender) and/or by some other mechanism (hard copy, facsimile, verbal relation, etc.), please immediately reject it by refusing to hear it and/or by permanently deleting or destroying it, its content, and/or attachments without hearing or reading beyond this statement paragraph. Confidentiality as to this communication is null and void if its content and/or attachments are unlawful in themselves and thus unlawful to keep in confidence, or when lawfully required to be so revealed by a lawful and faithful civil magistrate or by a lawful and faithful ecclesiastical court. If so made known by originator's permission (per above) or by lawful requirement (per above), this paragraph is not to be deleted from the communication (as made known) without the express permission of the original sender, unless otherwise required by a lawful and faithful authority (per above). In your reading of this paragraph, or hearing this paragraph read, it is witnessed that you are aware of and understand this declaration of confidentiality so as to lawfully abide by its lawful terms before voluntarily proceeding to the substance of the communication, in its content and/or attachment(s). Otherwise, please refuse and/or permanently delete this communication and do not voluntarily elect to proceed so as to otherwise know its content and/or attachment(s).

As one brother asks, just how far can an equal bind you to something without your prior consent? But even further, would our brother from Colorado care to sign an affidavit that he is not responsible for this scandal orginating with the courageous post from the anonymous advocate.for.(un)law(fully harassing anybody we disagree with)?

As far as the doctrine of tacit consent goes, as currently propounded and practiced in the "RPNA(GM)", did the officers know anything about this scam before it was perpetrated? And now that they do know, will they do anything about it? We respectfully think not. Even though, we are talking about a Ninth Commandment issue, wherein we are to appear and stand "for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice". Again, did that happen in all of this?

Just asking, though as a disaffected, i.e. excommunicated (translation "invisible") brother the chances of a real reply, never mind repentance for and retraction of this, humanly speaking are next to none.

cordially in Christ
Bob S

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Cheryl G.
To: Bob S. ; List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Dear Bob and others,

Thank you to you and your assistants for this helpful piece of information. I would like to assure the "gentleman" (and I use that term very loosely) from Longmont, CO that if he doesn't knock it off and that right quickly, that I HAVE retained a lawyer and I am not afraid to use him if I receive any further harassment from him or any of the other loyal followers of the so-called elders of the RPNA. I have to deal with enough baloney in my life at the moment without these unchivalrous, cowardly, anonymous, hateful things being sent my way by those who practice hit and run tactics, post parables and then claim they are too busy to respond after they stir up a hornet's nest, and then send harassing anonymous emails because they don't have the gonads to sign their names. Nor do I have any respect for the so called ecclesiastical authorities in his sphere of influence who turn a blind eye to this, and who, by their tacit consent, show that they actually approve of and applaud these tactics.

When I survey the personal damage and the damage I see in the lives of many others who have been impacted by this whole mess, I am moved to a great indignation and righteous anger over the havoc they and their minions have caused. A whole generation of young people have been lost by these lords of misrule and many of them are hardened against the reformed faith because they have been stumbled. They have much to answer for. I could say more but I am restraining myself.

Cheryl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ben H.
To: Cheryl G.
Cc: Bob S. ; List; ; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Cheryl and Bob,

Lest you think that, due to my silence, I endorse the letter you've received from the yet unnamed law advocate, I'm writing to confirm that there's at least one member of the RPNA(GM) who does not sanction this kind of action. Though I admit that, in the abstract, one may bring civil charges against a party who is publicly defaming one's character, I believe that going straight to law is not only unwise, it is also un-Christian. The following passage was brought to my attention by a friend:

Debate thy cause with thy neighbour [himself]; and discover not a secret to another: lest he that heareth [it] put thee to shame, and thine infamy turn not away. -- Proverbs 25:9,10

Even if you were publicly hosting content on your blogs that was offensive and possibly slanderous, I believe that in this situation, it would be best to contact you privately, in a non-legal capacity first to see if something could be worked out, rather than send an anonymous email requesting you to remove undisclosed content upon threat of legal action.

Needless to say, if it turns out that Brian is the one who authored the document, then I would disagree even more strongly as it is an outright lie for him to represent himself as a law advocate, no matter how much he may be able to write like one. That is, I don't endorse scare tactics, especially from those who can't deliver the goods.

In addition, I find it curious that a member of the RPNA(GM) would threaten you with legal action, especially in the present context, (though of course if it turns out that a member of the RPNA(GM) didn't originate the letter this concern is mooted). Presumably, any member of the RPNA(GM) would not uphold the lawfulness of whatever court at which the threatened trial was to take place, and if administered an oath to uphold the court prior to the trial, that member would be unable to do so for conscience's sake. So, it seems that they must admit that one can participate in a trial even when the authority of the court isn't explicitly owned (indeed can't be owned), or they must refrain from bringing any charges. But of course this would be problematic since many of the people recently excommunicated couldn't swear an oath to uphold the lawfulness of the court of the RPNA(GM), though they were certainly willing to defend themselves before that court. And what's worse in this situation is that instead of being required to defend themselves (as were the recently excommunicated), any attempt to bring legal action is a free and voluntary action by which one chooses to opt into that wicked, corrupt, tyrannical and Christ-usurping civil government under which we bear so heavy a burden. But like I said, this is all curious; as such, it requires further examination, and so I'm in no way committed to the above line of reasoning.

This of course doesn't endorse anything you've said that is false and of a defamatory nature on your blogs. But then again I've not read much of either of your blogs, so I'm not aware of any such claims on your parts. Nevertheless, since nobody's perfect, perhaps you could take this letter as a Shimei-like warning, and reconsider some of what you write publicly. As a people who are to 'turn the other cheek', 'be patient in tribulation', 'repay no man evil for evil', 'live peaceably with all men', 'provoke one another to good works', bear the burdens of the weak, 'bless the ones persecuting us, not curse', 'be filled with love, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness' etc., I'd encourage you to temper your comments about the RPNA(GM) with some charity. Perhaps these men are sincerely under some kind of delusion and deserve pity rather than open scorn and derision. I'm not saying this is the case, but were I in your shoes, such a position is certainly a charitable way to read them. But then again, whether that is the case also requires further examination. Either way, there may be truth lurking even in the most unlikely of places.

Bob and Cheryl, though we've never met face-to-face, I like you both for your virtues and I miss having you in our church. I didn't rejoice when you were excommunicated, and I'm not one to write you off, especially under the circumstances in which you were excommunicated. It grieves me that this recent turn of events will likely alienate you, most of the recently excommunicated, and many outside of our church even further. I do hope that what I've said goes some way to ameliorating your frustrations in the hopes of reconciliation.

Kind Regards,
Ben

PS -- I'd appreciate it if this email could stay as public as I've intended it, and not end up on someone's blog. Of course, should you fail to honor this request, I won't be bringing any legal action, though I would be disappointed as a brother in Christ.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John P
To: Ben H.
Cc: Cheryl G. ; Bob S. ; List; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Greetings,

As a member of the RPNA(GM), I agree with much of what Ben said in his first paragraph. Anonymous letters threatening legal action, especially when they don't specify the exact faults of the parties threatened , seem to me a juvenile and overall bad way of dealing with one's problems. Furthermore, even as Christ was slandered and died as a criminal for the church, it seems to me that people ought to be willing to be slandered and persecuted rather than make the church look like a bunch of bullies (or worse). I have little doubt that there are several ways that the so-called 'Law Advocate' could have gone about his/her business without an anonymous legal threat. One such way would have been to just talk with the Cheryl and Bob, for instance, about the specific nature of the offense(s) taken and politely request that they be removed, or even that one's name be removed from the blogs. It seems to me that the chances were good that one or both of them would have honored such a request. There are other ways one could have done this, as well. The most unwise, however, seems to be the action taken by the 'Law Advocate'. (Is it just me, or is it just plain ridiculous to sign one's name the 'Law Advocate'? From now on, I shall refer to the 'Law Advocate' as 'LA' just so that I don't have to write that silly name.) After all, LA's actions both risk the image and reputation of the church, and they were too vague for Cheryl and Bob to take any reasonable steps to correct their blogs.

First, LA's actions risk the image and reputation of the church. What if, for instance, Cheryl and Bob really are slandering the RPNA(GM) and some brethren in the church, and a wicked judge rules in favor of the slanderers? How does the church look then? Did LA – who seems so intent on protecting his or her own image – consider this possibility? S/he seems quick to run to a court that – due to its secular perspective on things – may very well rule against the good. If that were to happen, then those that oppose the church will have a judge's ruling with which to discourage prospective members from joining the RPNA(GM). And all this to protect one's reputation? It seems too high a price to pay. The passage Ben quoted from Proverbs is to the point. The church risks being "put to shame," and our "infamy" from a loss in court may not "turn away" for a long, long time.

Second, LA's letter was too vague for Cheryl and Bob to take any reasonable steps to correct their blogs. After all, no specific instances of slander and misrepresentation were cited. Perhaps this kind of absurd warning (where specific instances of the alleged slander aren't cited) follows naturally from the absurdity of anonymous threats. After all, anonymity (I suspect) disappears the moment one names the person slandered!

Accordingly, while I am convinced that silly and even unwise decisions don't always qualify as sins (or at least don't need to be judged as sins), I still think it is important – as Ben did – to point out that I don't tacitly consent to the actions of LA. By not tacitly consenting to LA's actions, I mean that I believe there were better ways for him/her to go about responding to what s/he takes to be slander (whatever that may be!).

Finally, I also ask that this email not be posted on websites, or in any other way that makes it available to people other than those to whom it has been sent. I would really appreciate it if everyone honors this request. Thanks!

Regards,
John P.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Cheryl G.
To: John P ; Ben H.
Cc: Bob S. ; List; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Dear Ben, John, Etc.,

Thank you for your replies. And thanks to others who responded to me privately. If anyone cares to examine my blog, what they will find is that the only correspondence that is posted there is what was addressed to me personally and to the rest of the Body, namely, my notice of excommunication, which is a public act, and my opinion of that act as well as my opinion of the excommunications of others. In the heat of the moment, I did post some other personal correspondence, again addressed to myself alone, but subsequently took it down within 24 hours of posting it. If the elders and whoever feel that they have been defamed or slandered by what is there, well by their own words they are condemned. When it was pointed out to me that I had indavertantly left in things like phone numbers and addresses, which things would impact the elders' families, I had those things removed. Otherwise, the elders should be able to stand by what they have done, or retract it.

I want to beg everyone's pardon for the tone of my emails. I am feeling somewhat provoked at times, and don't always react well as I ought. I just find the whole thing grievous, tiring. It irks me to no end that people are willing to stoop to using a club, but want to do so from behind a veil. This is like being assasinated by an unknown assailant.

You know what else I find sad, but not surprising? That again, it is left to the sheep to try and do damage control and mend fences. Not a peep from the elders. I also find it highly ironic that they would take the time to write up a paper about steps to repentance for those whom they excommunicated, but then fail to send it to them. It leaves me to ask who the real intended audience was for that paper? It doesn't appear to be the ex'd. How serious is their desire to restore us to fellowship, or is it a case of "Thank God the trouble makers are gone!"? I am reminded of the story of the Good Shepherd who left the 99 to find the one lost sheep and wonder what got lost in the translation when they apply it to their own duties and how they carry it out.

I better quit before I descend into sarcasm again.

Cheryl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S.
To: Cheryl G. ; John P ; Ben H. ; advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
Cc: List; Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Monday, June 04, 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Dear Ben (and John),

While I can appreciate the spirit of the response of the ‘St. Louis Session of the RPNA(GM)’ to the revelation of our anonymous and phony advocate, some further comments are in order. (For starters, when does the RPNA(GM)’s GM meet? Better yet, has the GM ever met, if not what is a GM?) As in does anybody see a pattern here? Phony affidavits, phony analogies and parables, phony excommunications by phony courts and now phony email address lawyers? No, I am not alienated by the most recent from our legal beagle brother. (While he was inadvertently left out of previous mailings, I have rectified that for this one which includes the previous. And no, I haven’t got around to updating the website, but I certainly intend to.) But I am disappointed as a brother in Christ when someone says they haven’t read much of either blog in question and then go on to quote some biblical snippets that leave out Rom. 12:18: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." The point is, sometimes it isn’t possible to be at peace with some men, never mind all. Jeremiah 6:14 also comes to mind: "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace." Exactly.

This amazing statement then follows:

I'd encourage you to temper your comments about the RPNA(GM) with some charity. Perhaps these men are sincerely under some kind of delusion and deserve pity rather than open scorn and derision. I'm not saying this is the case, but were I in your shoes, such a position is certainly a charitable way to read them.

Translation, again someone hasn’t read much of either of the blogs, but they are charitably recommending that I consider the parties responsible for the petitio principii of a Position Paper, the compromising Confidential Oath and the phony Public Notices of Excommunication as charitably deluded and deserving of pity, rather than open scorn and derision. The reply in one respect, is that it is a moot point. To a hostile audience, how much difference is there between derision and delusion and will not pity be seen as a patronizing and scornful, charity not withstanding?

That of course is not say that we have not seriously considered delusion a reasonable explanation for the current madness in our circles. God does gives people over to nonsense when they persist in it. (Even further, though we are no stranger to sarcasm, in our opinion a straightforward recitation of the facts in all this still leaves one open to the charge of derision and scorn by those who favor the powers that be in the former RPNA. Yet thirty four plus and counting have been excommunicated out of approximately ninety members.) Nevertheless, even if in charity one does view those responsible for the three items above as deluded, does charity also dictate that we are to let them go on in their delusion, as well those under their sway and influence? While it is agreed that those who flew the planes into the WTC were sincerely deluded and deserve pity, that does not mean that NORAD should stand down now (never mind that they essentially did on 9/11) and we should mothball all the antiaircraft guns and send the crews on a permanent sabbatical.

In other words, are we to take this as a more temperate request to pipe down compared to the blatantly sinful and wicked – as opposed to "silly and unwise" – effort of our pretentious advocate to fraudulently quash lawful public discussion and debate? I hope not. Neither do I intend to be quiet, because that is what the real issue is. Rather as Isaiah 58:1 says, one is to "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins."

After all, it is not that hard a thing to do. Narrowly considered, the delusion in all this at least begins with the misread of the quote from George Gillespie out of his Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies in the the Tattoo paper of 4/30/06. It is fundamental to the argument that tattoos are indifferent in the paper. Gillespie clearly states that there is moderate and immoderate mourning for the dead, i.e. lawful and unlawful. One is cutting one’s hair, beard or eyebrows and the other is cutting and making marks upon oneself. The Tattoo paper however combines the two and considers them indifferent as long as they are disassociated from pagan religious practices. Hence its silent compromise regarding the explosion of the pagan practice of tattooing in our day and tattoo parlors springing up like mushrooms in the springtime, all around us.

This practice of conflating and confusing the salient distinctions is even more evident and developed in the Position Paper on Sessional Authority. Nothing less that stupefying describes the first example in Q.1 where the officers of a congregation alone in an island, because they cannot ordinarily meet with other officers, can exercise the extraordinary powers usually reserved to a true greater presbytery when it comes to matters which only involve that congregation. To "reason" from this and claim that the officers of the RPNA(GM) who cannot [and do not even] ordinarily meet amongst themselves – never mind with other officers – may likewise exercise presbyterial power is extremely wishful thinking.

As previously noted, this is what is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle term and it is distributed equally among all four of the examples in Q.1. The appeal to Matt. 18:20 necessarily ignores what the text assumes, that the two or more officers are actually gathered together in one place in person. But that is precisely what the two or more officers of the extraordinary RPNA(GM) session ordinarily do not do, gather together in one place in person in order to constitute a court. Likewise the appeal to the Grand Debate and Acts 15. In both instances we are talking about courts in which there is a plurality of teaching elders, as well as representative ruling elders. In Q.2, just because an ordinary congregational church court may extraordinarily take up the power of excommunication, does not necessarily mean that an extraordinary congregational court may do likewise. But so it goes with the Position Paper. Deluded by its desires, it assumes what it needs to prove and considers it a done deal with self-excommunications to summarily follow.

Yet regardless of how we mince terms, the Paper, Oath and Excommunications are wrong. They are unreasonable, unscriptural, compromised and hasty. No amount of simply parroting the mantra and repeating the spiritual abracadabra that the extraordinary court of the RPNA(GM) has been ‘proven from Scripture, history and reason’ and since there were ‘no objections or questions in the four month time frame given,’ that nothing further of substance needs to be said to any questions or objections since, particularly those which come from brethren, who are invisible because they are excommunicated. For that matter they are already considered disrespectful enough for daring to speak up, without even considering certain principal parties deluded as per your questionable advice and recommendation above, however well meant.

Still as you say, "Either way, there may be truth lurking even in the most unlikely of places." Maybe even amongst the excommunicated and fly by night websites? I wouldn’t rule it out and no, I am not deluded. But even if I were, it would be preferred to the pride, hubris and well, you know what demonstrated in the Position Paper, Confidential Oath and Excommunication Notices.

Thank you for yours,
cordially in Christ,

Bob S.

PS.In reply to those who would say the elders are too overworked for ‘damage control’ and ‘mending fences,’which is why it gets left to the sheep, that was what the church restructuring was all about, wasn't it?

As for your statement that "Presumably, any member of the RPNA(GM) would not uphold the lawfulness of whatever court at which the threatened trial [by our fraudulent advocate] was to take place, and if administered an oath to uphold the court prior to the trial, that member would be unable to do so for conscience's sake (ul added)." Don’t worry about it, that is not how it works.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
To: Bob S.
Sent: Monday, June 04, 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

You have tried to email an account that is used for outgoing messages only.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob S.
To: Cheryl G. ; John P ; Ben H. ;
Cc: List, Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Monday, June 04, 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: In Case you missed it... Further Developments

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing speaks for itself.
Poorly. Very poorly.



Monday, May 14, 2007

5/14/07, The Email Fraud: "To Whom It May Concern"

From: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
To: advocate.for.law@lawyer.com
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007, 11:06 AM
Subject: Notice

May 14th, 2007

To Whom it may concern:

You have been identified as a person or organization that may be of interest in regards to the following matter under investigation. It has been brought to our attention by several private and aggrieved parties that the content of an Internet publication(s) that you either control, influence, or create or provide content for, allegedly contains that which is defamatory of specific persons and organizations expressly being named therein. You may have created or posted defamatory information, or facilitated its publication. These allegations pertain to the express use of names within this publication(s), and assert that the defamation is either of a direct nature (being derogatory predications or false information that is directly stated about such express names), or of an indirect nature (express names being implicated within a derogatory context), or by otherwise facilitating any such defamatory activity or content (allowing links to defamatory pages, failure to enforce conditions of use by moderators or owners, etc.).

The allegation further points out that the express and universally public employment of these express names on the Internet publication(s) in question is not occurring by the explicit consent of those being so named and allegedly defamed. Nor, the allegation also notes, are these names being used therein with any kind of implicit consent having otherwise been granted to you by the named persons, such as by way of any common and express membership with the named in any voluntary organization or special Internet group (wherein such names are used).

Furthermore, it is alleged that you may have also publicly disclosed that which was relatively private information belonging to an organization and those of its membership, without having either any right or permission to publicly publish such information beyond such boundaries; and, that you likely have done so with malice in order to defame or derogate. It is alleged, thereby, that you may have violated the rights not only of this organization as an organization, but also the privacy rights belonging to all of the persons named (or otherwise listed) in such publications as may have now been, by your unilateral and presumptive action(s), made universally public on the Internet.

Lastly, if such allegations are substantiated in a court of law, it appears that you may likely be found to have also violated the explicit terms of service (TOS) stipulated by your Internet service provider (or host, etc.), which terms you previously had contracted and covenanted to abide by. If this is the case, any secondary liability you may have to them arising from any legal action taken by others, is unknown.

Request is hereby made that you immediately suspend and survey your Internet publication(s) and/or posts in order to arrest any ongoing defamation by forthwith removing any such defamatory content as you may be held directly or indirectly responsible for (including legacy threads and posts); and, in the future (when sites/pages are re-activated or posting is resumed), that you desist from engaging in any activity as is defamatory or in a violation of rights. There are not only moral implications to defamation, but there are also civil and legal consequences for defamation. You do not have legal impunity or liberty to do ills that are unlawful, whether in Cyberspace or otherwise.

The specific names and specific content that you are hereby being requested to remove or amend will not be provided to you for your direction in this matter: The moral and legal burden is upon you to publish only that which you know to be, in legal fact, not defamatory; and to publish only those names and that content for which you have either legal right or permission to so publicly make known.

If any such defamatory content (or links to such) be allowed to persist on your Internet publication(s) or posts, or if you continue to create and/or publish other defamatory content, it should not be unexpected that full financial reparations for the same shall be sought for any and all direct or consequential losses to the earnings, reputations, or estates of those alleging defamation of their persons and names. This includes financial reparations for any and all hindrances or obstructions to their present or potential capital, employments, organizations, or business interests, and for all legal fees and costs in prosecuting a case relative to such damages, and for any and all possible punitive damages that might be recoverable by any and all legal theories that may be lawfully allowed in such a case.

It appears from the content of the Internet publication(s) in question, that you may likely make some claim to religion. It would seem to be good for you and for all concerned if you simply practice the ethical behavior and morals of the religion that you apparently claim that you have. It would seem that discussion of such religious topics might be engaged rationally in an honorable way, without defamation or without Internet publication of relatively private information without permission. If you are held legally liable in civil court, in accord with just laws, for doing otherwise, have no illusions as to that you are being persecuted for religion when you have rather, by lawless behavior, abandoned its very principles in these very things.

A simple and reasonable request is being made of you per the above, and only on behalf of private persons. No further notifications or requests will follow this first and final request that is here made to you. Your activity (or inactivity) on the Internet publication(s) in question will be monitored in accord with this request, and copied as requisite. The next contact you will receive, if any, will be by service of papers upon you, likely either at your residence or workplace, or wherever else the server might find convenient at that time. This will occur only if it is deemed necessary according to the results gathered by the aforesaid monitoring.

This is not a threat, nor to be construed as a threat, but it is simply cautionary information that you are now being given the opportunity to consider and wisely use ahead of time. It is not the purpose of this cautionary information to judge any case, or to set forth the proofs to such an end. This shall be done, as necessary, in civil court. Please use common sense, basic civility, and good judgment by simply complying with this simple request as is now being gratuitously made available to you in advance.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.


Law Advocate

=
Solid Oak Furniture. Free Shipping
Solid Oak Bedroom, Living room, Dining, & Office Furniture. Free Ship.
http://a8-asy.a8ww.net/a8-ads/adftrclick?redirectid=46843e8e28b40ecd1bf1427a25cfba43

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

5/2/07, For Your Consideration: Q.5. Scriptural Justification for a Three Week Excommunication Notice

The other posts in the series are:
For Your Consideratio
Q.1 Excommunication by Email?
Q.2 Limits of Modern Technology?
Q.3 Immediate Excommunication?
Q.4 What is the standard Presbyterian procedure for excommunication?
Q6. Misinterpretation by Price, Barrow, and Dohms
Q.7 Why Read the Banns?


From: Stan B.
To: List
Cc: Lyndon Dohms ; Greg Price ; Greg Barrow
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: Q.5: Is the three-week excommunication procedure based on Scripture?

Dear Brethren,

Below please find a Scriptural basis for the Presbyterian procedure for excommunication that we considered last time.

Your brother,
Stan

===================================================================

5. What is the Scriptural justification for a three-week public excommunication procedure?

Last time we saw that standard Presbyterian practice, according to the writings of the Scottish church of the First and Second Reformation, is to publicly announce an excommunication for three consecutive weeks (at a minimum) prior to the final pronouncement, for both private and public sins. In their letter of Nov. 4, 2006, Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms explain why they do not follow this procedure:

"The specific order laid out in the _First Book of Discipline_ is agreeable to the Word of God, and while its specific practices may be altered, and can and should be altered to suit different times and circumstances, the scriptural principles upon which these specific practices are built, remain unalterable." [Session of the RPNA (GM), Response to Recent Objections, Nov. 4, 2006]

These men note that the order in _The First Book of Discipline_ is, to some extent, based upon expediency when it says, "And therefore this order we think expedient to be observed before and after excommunication." [_The First Book of Discipline_] They write,

"Note the word 'expedient'—which means, doing that which is proper and appropriate under the circumstances. The writers of this section did not say that their specific directions for Church discipline were unalterable in every age, case, and circumstance, but rather that the whole section on excommunication which follows is a combination of scriptural principle mixed with elements of 'expediency'. To some degree, at least, judgments would have to be made according to particular circumstances." [Session of the RPNA (GM), Response to Recent Objections, Nov. 4, 2006]

In other words, Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms argue that the Scottish church based her three-week public procedure upon general Scriptural principles, and that if we apply these same principles to our circumstances, we will discover that it is more expedient for us to adopt an immediate excommunication procedure. What these men have yet to reveal, however, is *why* they believe that their procedure is more expedient, or *what* are the Scriptural principles that they apply in making such decisions. As it is, both remain unspecified. In fact, these men go one step further by expressing doubt that the three-week procedure itself is based upon Scripture, arguing instead that it is a "mere changeable expediency" without specific direction from the Word of God. . . . . (Go here for the rest of "Q.5. Scriptural Justification for Three Week Excommunication Notice").