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-----
[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: (to look up that IP, enter IP and the captcha number displayed). allows you to sign up for a free email address that was used to email you.

Even further,

[G]o to [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, @, or tons of you, for the choice of your (pretended) professional expertise . . . .

As mentioned on CovRefClub (#15808), while owns the rights to "", some how "" or "" 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. 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 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.



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,

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


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!

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.



From: Bob S.
To: Cheryl G. ; John P ; Ben H. ;
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.

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.