Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

To Whom It May Concern

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    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
    Message 1 of 9 , May 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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@...
      To: advocate.for.law@...
      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

    • bob_suden
      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
      Message 2 of 9 , May 25, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 beingrequested to remove or amend will not be provided to you for yourdirection 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_suden" <bsuden@...> 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, 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. . . . .
      • Walt Bre
        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
        Message 3 of 9 , May 26, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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.


          bob_suden <bsuden@...> 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.

          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, 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/adftrclic k?redirectid= 46843e8e28b40ecd 1bf1427a25cfba43



          Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.


          Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

        • gmw
          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
          Message 4 of 9 , May 27, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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_suden"
            <bsuden@...> 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
            > beingrequested to remove or amend will not be provided to you for
            > yourdirection 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_suden"
            > <bsuden@> 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, 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. . . .
            > .
            >
          • bob_suden
            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
            Message 5 of 9 , May 27, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              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 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. . ."

              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 <humbled.learner@...> 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.
              > 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.
              >
              >
            • Walt Bre
              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
              Message 6 of 9 , May 27, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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_suden <bsuden@...> 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.
                >
                > 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 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. . ."
                >
                > 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
                > <http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfpdhc2h_32dqbm58> "
                > might resemble his
                >
                <http://reformedveritas.blogspot.com/2006/10/jan26-2006-charges-of-some-\
                > sort.html> 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.




                ____________________________________________________________________________________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
              • Deejay
                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,
                Message 7 of 9 , May 27, 2007
                • 0 Attachment

                  You'd have thought they would have included the possibility of @...  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_suden" <bsuden@...> 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."
                  >

                • gmw
                  [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]
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jun 6, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [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
                    <humbled.learner@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Bob,
                    >
                    > I'm not going to get into another debate on
                    > covenantedreformationclub's website over this legal
                    > issue.
                  • bob_suden
                    ... 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
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jun 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Walt Bre
                      <humbled.learner@...> 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 Bre
                      <humbled.learner@...> 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.
                      >
                      > 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_suden bsuden@... 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.
                      > >
                      > > 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 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. . ."
                      > >
                      > > 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
                      > > <http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfpdhc2h_32dqbm58> "
                      > > might resemble his
                      > >
                      >
                      <http://reformedveritas.blogspot.com/2006/10/jan26-2006-charges-of-some-\
                      \
                      > > sort.html> 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.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      ________________________________________________________________________\
                      ____________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
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.