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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] To Whom It May Concern

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Jun 6 9:17 PM
      --- 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:
      > > 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
      > >
      > > 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.