Jump to content
FundieFarmer

Bill Gothard, Pt. 2: More & More Damning

Recommended Posts

Waffle Time
Palimpsest
1 hour ago, Don'tlikekoolaid said:

They’ve won a Lawsuit. Does anyone know any more about this?

I think it means that the judge told BG to take his attempted lawsuit against them and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine!  

Alfred's whine about BG losing the case against them is in FG's first post on this thread.

It is a victory for them.  It makes me very happy that they have good representation now after Gibbs III tried to screw the whole thing up.

Edited by Palimpsest
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite
58 minutes ago, HereticHick said:

But how much debt is also at stake? Did they ever manage to sell the Oak Brook Illinois campus?

I don't think he actually has a lot of debt. Gothard was always very crafty about how he got things. Hobby Lobby owners essentially gave him some training centers and the Big Sandy campus. He was good at getting people to give him properties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pecansforeveryone

Bill Gothard still had every physical capability of assualting girls and young women in his 70s and 80s. He is very dangerous. I always thought Gothard didn't marry because he is the fundie version of Roman Polanski. He is attracted to teenage girls exclusively and not to a woman who would age alongside him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
Lisafer
2 minutes ago, Pecansforeveryone said:

Bill Gothard still had every physical capability of assualting girls and young women in his 70s and 80s. He is very dangerous. I always thought Gothard didn't marry because he is the fundie version of Roman Polanski. He is attracted to teenage girls exclusively and not to a woman who would age alongside him. 

I have the same opinion about how he never married. A wife would get old. He wants to prey on youth, always. And I agree that he is probably still very dangerous and ready to abuse again if he thought he could get away with it, similar to Bill Cosby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hoipolloi
On 1/14/2019 at 6:21 AM, Palimpsest said:

BG might be 83 and appear a bit doddering, but he's more crazy like a fox than demented. 

Crazy like a rabid fox.

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
Palimpsest
17 hours ago, Don'tlikekoolaid said:

Yes I would do a forensic audit for free! Numbers are my drug of choice!  

Hee!  Now that would be really interesting.

1 hour ago, HereticHick said:

But how much debt is also at stake? Did they ever manage to sell the Oak Brook Illinois campus?

I should dig around for the latest Form 990 but IBLP has a lot of money.  I don't think 80 million is far off, and it may be even more.  It is true that annual donations were dwindling every year, even prior to the Fall of Gothard, but it is far from down and out.  It has huge real estate holdings in many locations and countries, for one thing.  Who knows what other assets are squirreled away.

AFAIK, the Oak Brook HQ and any other property in the Chicago area have not sold, but we don't have a list of all the properties.  IBLP, Embassy, the Journeys, etc. are still based out of Oak Brook.  Only the ATI department moved to Big Sandy.

However, the Chicago area properties were put on the market because IBLP wanted to get cash out of IL when faced with the original lawsuit in 2014.  Allegedly.  One good thing Gibbs III did was get a legal order to stop IBLP liquidating assets in IL.  I'm actually wondering whether they will move the ATI branch back to Oak Brook soon because the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn.  But perhaps not.  The RG Plaintiffs have the option to refile it at any time.

I do think IBLP is tightening its collective belt and consolidating a bit because membership and donations are obviously way down now.  They also put the Australian HQ on the market last year.  Consolidating and downsizing make good fiscal sense, but they have a lot of money to get through before Pecan Waller has to hit the unemployment lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pecansforeveryone

Ah Pecan Waller, the inspiration for my screen name. I predict he will make a stab at political office at the state level at some point, a seat in the Texas House of Representatives or something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HereticHick
11 minutes ago, Pecansforeveryone said:

Ah Pecan Waller, the inspiration for my screen name. I predict he will make a stab at political office at the state level at some point, a seat in the Texas House of Representatives or something like that. 

I made him a campaign poster:

Pecan.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite
2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

I don't think 80 million is far off, and it may be even more.

I wouldn't either. There is a lot of money at stake here which is why Gothard is desperate to get back control(I think he is pretty much in poverty now) and the Bates and Paines are never going to let him get a stab at gaining control of the money back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tired
HerNameIsBuffy
2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I wouldn't either. There is a lot of money at stake here which is why Gothard is desperate to get back control(I think he is pretty much in poverty now) and the Bates and Paines are never going to let him get a stab at gaining control of the money back. 

I bet Gil's IBLP power keeps JB up nights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Themanda Duggar

It is possible to have tens of millions in assets, and still be in financial trouble.  I think a lot of the IBLP net worth is tied up in real estate, and it can be tremendously expensive to manage and maintain real estate.    I know of one very large and fancy house in a warm climate that takes approximately 26,000 a month to maintain, can you imagine the costs of maintaining and heating all that property in Chicago?  All that free labor they have still has to be fed and housed, the materials and equipment they work with still has to be purchased.  IBLP expanded as its’ fortunes increased, and that level of income is probably necessary to run all of those properties.  With income down, they may actually be in pretty bad shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
Palimpsest

I think a lot of their assets are in real estate.  In the glory days they bought up property as investments because the IRS doesn't like 501(c)3's to have too much cash lying around.

I think the big commercial properties, like the now shuttered HQ, are probably going to be hard to sell quickly.  I think this is the right listing.  https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/707-W-Ogden-Ave-Hinsdale-IL/14643949/

I also have the impression that they have a lot of residential rental properties.  Much easier to sell off as required.   

17 hours ago, Themanda Duggar said:

All that free labor they have still has to be fed and housed, the materials and equipment they work with still has to be purchased.

In the new, smaller, and desperately trying to rebrand IBLP, they have a only a tiny fraction of the paid staff and volunteer labor compared to 10 or 15 years ago.  The paid staff probably also have to pay rent to live on premises or they rent IBLP owned houses and apartments ... they owe their souls to the company store.

I'm sure they wouldn't still be running the Family Conferences and Journeys if they were not making money.  I think they will stop those when they are't cost efficient.  They are probably more than breaking even on dead-tree ATI materials and Wisdom booklet sales.  Most of their materials have already been developed and they sell them for cold hard cash, and far more than the waste paper and production cost them. 

The Embassy Media part of IBLP doesn't need many people to maintain and run it when you think about it.  The speakers are all the top echelon of IBLP.  

No, sadly I think they still have a long way to go before IBLP goes bust.  That is unless someone in the inner circle gets greedy and grabs more than their fair share of the perks and assets.

 

Edited by Palimpsest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite
18 hours ago, Themanda Duggar said:

All that free labor they have still has to be fed and housed,

I don't know how it is now but the free labor wasn't just free in the past, they actually paid for to work unpaid. Free labor paid for their own food and housing and anything they needed. Bill had a great scam going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wine time!
nokidsmom
4 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

I think the big commercial properties, like the now shuttered HQ, are probably going to be hard to sell quickly.  I think this is the right listing.  https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/707-W-Ogden-Ave-Hinsdale-IL/14643949/

I used to live a couple of miles east of there and passed by that property on Ogden Avenue regularly.   At that time, I did not recognize IBLP at all, not until I arrived here at FJ.    Mr. No worked at a local print shop the last year we lived there, and they got printing jobs from IBLP sometimes.

There's a number of similar office properties in that Oak Brook / Hinsdale area, some of them are owned by other businesses though.   I worked in one of them on a temp assignment once.  

Edited by nokidsmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spent
onekidanddone
On 1/15/2019 at 2:38 PM, formergothardite said:

I don't think he actually has a lot of debt. Gothard was always very crafty about how he got things. Hobby Lobby owners essentially gave him some training centers and the Big Sandy campus. He was good at getting people to give him properties. 

Hobby Lobby Thread drift: This was one of the ads on my phone today 

 

D73F7ACC-64A4-4563-9BF0-531CA8C6FE64.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite

Alfred seems to be implying that the Greens(Hobby Lobby owners) tried to give the Big Sandy properties to Bill's new ministry but the BoD put a quick stop to it. 

In a response to someone pointing out that Bill has no right to be on IBLP property because he owns none of it. 

Quote

t all belongs to Jesus. I suppose the donors – and we know some of them contributed millions of dollars – have not more say, do you think? We know the Board was given a letter from the donor that secured the Big Sandy property for the Board to transfer control to Bill’s new ministry. We also understand that the Board declined to acquiesce. If you are saying that legal technicalities trump all of that, well, then you can understand why some of these donors are funding the legal campaign to rectify this. A shame, do matter how you look at it. Bill appears to have succeeded in some of the legal efforts on his behalf. Others we shall see.

And in another response to Gothard being pushed out of power. 

Quote

.In the face of pleas from major donor who actually donated a chunk of those millions to provide some of the properties they bought . . . To him? 

I'm not surprised the Greens decided to side with the creepy old man accused of preying on young teen girls. 

And from another comment about Bill not being allowed on the property. 

Quote

One that, BTW, the donor of the property had explicitly requested the BOD consider transferring to Bill and his new ministry. 

 

Edited by formergothardite
  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite

Bill(and Alfred) expected unquestioning obedience from the BoD and both are furious they dared to not obey him. 

Quote

There is NO Scriptural requirement for a “Board” to oversee a man of God.

 

Quote

Bill is a “Father” to so many in this ministry, a ministry which is, has been, and always will be his personal ministry. Why should the Board members, most chosen for their status as his “children”, not obey him?

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Confused 1
  • WTF 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laura2730

 

 

On 1/15/2019 at 6:14 PM, Don'tlikekoolaid said:

They’ve won a Lawsuit. Does anyone know any more about this?

51F8B295-1088-481D-9BD5-5CDAB0648B5A.thumb.jpeg.4edb824511d0c69464bbd04f5e3cf761.jpeg

One of the ladies named there: Lauren Rose, seems to be friends with Kendalyn Staddon, there's a photo of them together at EXCEL at Dallas IBLP TC (Lauren Vandermeer (Bell) also features in the photo), Big Sandy Texas IBLP HQ, and from 2016, she also features in an old IBLP Journey to the Heart youtube clip  from 2007 (0.28):

Spoiler

Group-300x200.jpg.e1d15d939622dd603a979921f244bba4.jpg

Spoiler

aeclass12copy5.jpg.e28eee1c0e770e6f45b8ccf263a6d8f7.jpg

Spoiler

14141555_10153678720992680_4329840959821884353_n.jpg.f444e43a323aadda5312e6906838d462.jpg

 

Edited by Laura2730

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
On 1/15/2019 at 3:21 PM, Pecansforeveryone said:

Ah Pecan Waller, the inspiration for my screen name. I predict he will make a stab at political office at the state level at some point, a seat in the Texas House of Representatives or something like that. 

Yup, wouldn't be surprising, but Pecan better get to work earning his way up the ladder.  The current Texas State Rep for that district ticks all the boxes for that corner of northeast Texas and is classic East Texas conservative bidnessman rather than a Teavangelical/Fundiegelical hair-on-fire type.  That said, a classic East Texas conservative is seriously hardcore conservative: traditional marriage, open carry yada yada yahoo. 

This is part of his official bio from the Texas State House of Representative web site. 

Spoiler

For over three decades, Jay has served Longview and the broader East Texas region as a business owner, civic leader, and consistent conservative. His reputation as a budget hawk and successful job creator on the City Council led to his election as Longview Mayor. Under his leadership, Longview was noted for its responsible budgeting, low tax rates, and economic development. As a result, Longview was ranked one of the top ten U.S. cities for economic growth and earned the distinction of being named one of the "best places for business" by Forbes magazine.

A lifelong conservative Republican, Representative Dean is a strong advocate for cutting the size of government, upholding the Constitution, defending religious liberty, securing the border, strengthening education, advancing the 2nd Amendment, and protecting life. Jay is a graduate of Louisiana State University and the President & CEO of Shale Flow Specialties

Jay and his wife, Pokie (?), live in Longview where they raised their three girls and helped found their church, St. Matthews. 

I'll just note that the only thing this ass hat needs to advocate for is strengthening education and that should be at the top of his damn list.  The Texas Lege meets in alternate years and they just began the 2019 legislative session last month.  The process of funding Texas education is a continuing disaster; Texas ranks near the bottom of all the states in funding education and retaining experienced teachers because they don't pay them squat.  Honestly, he could do more for "protecting life" by being a champion for education than anything else. 

But back to Gothard: 

Quote

There is NO Scriptural requirement for a “Board” to oversee a man of God.

This is more of that "touch not mine anointed" crap.  SRSLY, at one time people thought Gothard was a prophet and poor misguided Alfred might be the only person hanging on to that delusional belief. 

Gothard is as poor as a little church mouse (!) and can't afford a lawyer.  Legally he doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on, so what lawyer would take Gothard on, on a contingency basis?

Edited by Howl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EmainMacha
46 minutes ago, Howl said:

Yup, wouldn't be surprising, but Pecan better get to work earning his way up the ladder.  The current Texas State Rep for that district ticks all the boxes for that corner of northeast Texas and is classic East Texas conservative bidnessman rather than a Teavangelical/Fundiegelical hair-on-fire type.  That said, a classic East Texas conservative is seriously hardcore conservative: traditional marriage, open carry yada yada yahoo. 

This is part of his official bio from the Texas State House of Representative web site. 

  Hide contents

 

Rep Dean is Catholic is though so not a 'real' Christian. Pecans for all!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite
1 hour ago, Laura2730 said:

(Lauren Vandermeer (Bell)

For those who don't know, the Bell family ran the Dallas training center and EXCEL. Lauren always seemed kinder than many of the other high ranking IBLP people. That is an Advanced EXCEL picture, I think. With EXCEL we made hideous tapestry vests while in Advanced EXCEL they made navy blue outfits. 

In the comments there is a discussion about one of the original Jane Does and it really shows how totally evil Gothard and Alfred are. So Alfred says that Gothard had compassion and grace on particular plaintiffs because of hardship they were going through. 

Larne(whose wife was hurt i the original 80's scandal and is very well informed about all things Gothard) wrote:

Spoiler

Funny how you said Bill gave grace and let plaintiffs with particular hardships slide by. What about Emily Jaeger? In Bills public letter to her, less than one month before his sanctions against her were filed, he wrote about how incredibly concerned he was about her physical health and how the lawsuit could be damaging it. Why did Bill not see her physical health is a big enough hardship to give her the grace to let her slip by? He says in his letter how he cares for her and her wellbeing so much and yet one month later he slaps her with a motion for sanctions?

It sounds like Gothard tried to emotionally manipulate her by pretending to care about her and when that didn't work he got angry and decided to hurt her in another way. 

Alfred replies:

Spoiler

I do not speak for Bill. I am privy to some of the conversations, but not all. Actually, I asked the lawyer about the choices, and he mentioned some of the concerns there were. Emily . . . Is Emily. Emily’s situation was particularly onerous to me, given the amount of sincere effort invested in her situation, let alone the clear testimony she gave to Bill’s honor, multiple times, uncoererced as her personal letters and responses appear to be.

To then subsequently rage and revile him as she did when it was politically cool to do so was just wrong. I read every word of her bitter and scathing statement written to Bill during interogatories, several times. She told Bill – formally – that she forgave him, even as she proceeded to ready the next phase of her $500,000 lawsuit against him. If THAT is what Christian forgiveness looks like, then small wonder the world wants none of it.

Her use of the “Jane Doe” status was also really, REALLY offensive. As you likely know or can figure out, not knowing who your opponents are in a case greatly impedes your ability to defend against them. So the granting of “Doe” status is not made lightly. She claimed fear for her life from her father to get that status – but privately told her “mates” when asked about her Doe status: “I’m still a part of a very conservative/pro-Gothard community and if they found out my reputation would be ruined”. And she went out of her way to trumpet her real name – “I am Jane Doe III!” – and status as a plaintiff the split second the suit was over. Where is the “personal danger . . . Physiological, psychological and emotional distress” she told the judge that would cause her? That stinks. That is disingenuous. I bet Chuck would tell her to not do that – would you also tell her that that is wrong?

So there she is in public again, railing on Bill. Demanding that we publish her complaints. She wanted a confrontation. And, if anyone deserved to get one, it was she. The Lord is the judge of all flesh, knows it all. But . . . I am surprised to forced me to say all of this, since I would gather you would have known it.

So then Larne quotes from the hearing. 

Spoiler

Alfred, you can read the quotes from the hearing and the judges ruling below and it’s really simple to figure out why she became a Jane Doe III. I pray God has mercy on you and Bill for your viscous attacks on her and the other women. Having lived through the 1980 scandal and the subsequent 39 years of dealing with Bill I have no trouble believing the women’s stories!!!!!!!

“P35 of Hearing
BY MR. SOTOMAYOR:
Q. So then the — so then your affidavit to keep your identity secret, based upon the fact that you didn’t want anybody to know that your father had sexually abused you, was not the true reason for your pleadings requesting your identity be kept secret?
MR. MINCIELI: Objection to form.
THE COURT: You may answer.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. The affidavit gives two reasons, both my father and then also the second line lists the pro-Gothard community.
…..
P37-38
Q. So the truth is, you never feared any retaliation by your father or your pro-Gothard people?
A. Incorrect.
Q. What is incorrect about that?
A. The reason I came out with my name is because Gaffney called my father and told him I was involved in the lawsuit before it was dismissed.
MR. SOTOMAYOR: At this point, Judge, I am going to object to the non —
THE COURT: Overruled. You asked for it.
BY MR. SOTOMAYOR:
Q. Okay. So your father told you this or — A. My father called me.
Q. — or Mr. Gaffney told you this, which one was it?
A. My father called me immediately after Gaffney called him and wanted to talk.
Q. That is what your father told you; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So you never heard from Mr. Gaffney. This was something that you believed to be accurate solely based upon your father’s statement to you, right?
A. I have a voicemail from Gaffney left on my mother’s cell phone that said he called my father. I listened to it.
Q. When did this allegedly occur?
A. December of 2017.

…..
P42-45
BY MR. MINCIELI:
Q. Is this a copy of your affidavit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this the affidavit that you submitted with respect to the application for a fictitious name?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you to take a look at the allegations in the affidavit on the second page.
A. Yes.
Q. Starting with No. 12, can you read those out loud.
A. No. 12. My father does not know I am a part of this lawsuit. I am fearful that if my identity is revealed, my father will become aware of the claims I have made in this lawsuit.
Q. I will ask you to stop right there. Was that statement true at the time that you made it?
A. Yes.
Q. Next one, Paragraph 13.
A. If my identity is revealed, my father will find out that I publicly disclosed that he sexually abused me and that will place me in personal danger, as well as cause me psychological and emotional distress.
Q. Did you believe that to be true at the time you signed this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Next.
A. If my identity is revealed, I risk being harassed by those who are affiliated with Mr. Gothard and/or IBLP.
Q. And when you say those who are affiliated with Mr. Gothard and/or IBLP, who are you speaking about in that statement?
A. My current community, my support systems at home.
Q. Is that the church community that you were referencing in the chat that Mr. Sotomayor brought up to you?
A. Yes.
Q. That was true at the time you signed this?
A. Yes.
Q. And you — did you learn at some point that during the pendency of this case, Mr. Gaffney, attorney for Bill Gothard, did, in fact, contact your father and reveal the fact that you are a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
MR. SOTOMAYOR: Objection. Based upon — hearsay is what my objection is.
THE COURT: Overruled. You asked her that question in direct examination and elicited answers from her on how she knew about it and in what manner she knew about it and the voicemail that she heard that was left by Mr. Gaffney to her mother, so it’s a bizarre objection. Completely overruled. Continue on.
BY MR. MINCIELI:
Q. So at the time that it was disclosed to your father that the lawsuit — that you were a member of the lawsuit, you no longer needed — that reason for the protection was no longer present, correct?
A. Correct.
……
P48
BY MR. MINCIELI:
Q. Thank you. After the case was voluntarily nonsuited, why did you disclose your name?
A. Two reasons: My father had been told, so I had no reason to remain anonymous for that, and I am a completely different woman than I was three years ago when I filed this suit.
Q. Stronger?
A. Very much so. I have a new support community that is not affiliated with Gothard anymore and I have the strength and courage to be me.

Alfred's defense is that she is a liar since Gothard's lawyer didn't call the father, he called her mother and the father heard the message. Either way Gothard figured out who she was, read she was remaining anonymous because she feared for the impact it would have on her life and then called her parents to tell them. 

Spoiler

As to the rest, it really comes down to one salient point. Glenn did NOT call her father, no matter what she said. Glenn declared that in his response to the plaintiff comments. He left a message for the mother, which Dad heard. That negates at least half of the narrative there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laura2730
34 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

For those who don't know, the Bell family ran the Dallas training center and EXCEL. Lauren always seemed kinder than many of the other high ranking IBLP people. That is an Advanced EXCEL picture, I think. With EXCEL we made hideous tapestry vests while in Advanced EXCEL they made navy blue outfits. 

In the comments there is a discussion about one of the original Jane Does and it really shows how totally evil Gothard and Alfred are. So Alfred says that Gothard had compassion and grace on particular plaintiffs because of hardship they were going through. 

Larne(whose wife was hurt i the original 80's scandal and is very well informed about all things Gothard) wrote:

  Hide contents

Funny how you said Bill gave grace and let plaintiffs with particular hardships slide by. What about Emily Jaeger? In Bills public letter to her, less than one month before his sanctions against her were filed, he wrote about how incredibly concerned he was about her physical health and how the lawsuit could be damaging it. Why did Bill not see her physical health is a big enough hardship to give her the grace to let her slip by? He says in his letter how he cares for her and her wellbeing so much and yet one month later he slaps her with a motion for sanctions?

It sounds like Gothard tried to emotionally manipulate her by pretending to care about her and when that didn't work he got angry and decided to hurt her in another way. 

Alfred replies:

  Hide contents

I do not speak for Bill. I am privy to some of the conversations, but not all. Actually, I asked the lawyer about the choices, and he mentioned some of the concerns there were. Emily . . . Is Emily. Emily’s situation was particularly onerous to me, given the amount of sincere effort invested in her situation, let alone the clear testimony she gave to Bill’s honor, multiple times, uncoererced as her personal letters and responses appear to be.

To then subsequently rage and revile him as she did when it was politically cool to do so was just wrong. I read every word of her bitter and scathing statement written to Bill during interogatories, several times. She told Bill – formally – that she forgave him, even as she proceeded to ready the next phase of her $500,000 lawsuit against him. If THAT is what Christian forgiveness looks like, then small wonder the world wants none of it.

Her use of the “Jane Doe” status was also really, REALLY offensive. As you likely know or can figure out, not knowing who your opponents are in a case greatly impedes your ability to defend against them. So the granting of “Doe” status is not made lightly. She claimed fear for her life from her father to get that status – but privately told her “mates” when asked about her Doe status: “I’m still a part of a very conservative/pro-Gothard community and if they found out my reputation would be ruined”. And she went out of her way to trumpet her real name – “I am Jane Doe III!” – and status as a plaintiff the split second the suit was over. Where is the “personal danger . . . Physiological, psychological and emotional distress” she told the judge that would cause her? That stinks. That is disingenuous. I bet Chuck would tell her to not do that – would you also tell her that that is wrong?

So there she is in public again, railing on Bill. Demanding that we publish her complaints. She wanted a confrontation. And, if anyone deserved to get one, it was she. The Lord is the judge of all flesh, knows it all. But . . . I am surprised to forced me to say all of this, since I would gather you would have known it.

So then Larne quotes from the hearing. 

  Hide contents

Alfred, you can read the quotes from the hearing and the judges ruling below and it’s really simple to figure out why she became a Jane Doe III. I pray God has mercy on you and Bill for your viscous attacks on her and the other women. Having lived through the 1980 scandal and the subsequent 39 years of dealing with Bill I have no trouble believing the women’s stories!!!!!!!

“P35 of Hearing
BY MR. SOTOMAYOR:
Q. So then the — so then your affidavit to keep your identity secret, based upon the fact that you didn’t want anybody to know that your father had sexually abused you, was not the true reason for your pleadings requesting your identity be kept secret?
MR. MINCIELI: Objection to form.
THE COURT: You may answer.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. The affidavit gives two reasons, both my father and then also the second line lists the pro-Gothard community.
…..
P37-38
Q. So the truth is, you never feared any retaliation by your father or your pro-Gothard people?
A. Incorrect.
Q. What is incorrect about that?
A. The reason I came out with my name is because Gaffney called my father and told him I was involved in the lawsuit before it was dismissed.
MR. SOTOMAYOR: At this point, Judge, I am going to object to the non —
THE COURT: Overruled. You asked for it.
BY MR. SOTOMAYOR:
Q. Okay. So your father told you this or — A. My father called me.
Q. — or Mr. Gaffney told you this, which one was it?
A. My father called me immediately after Gaffney called him and wanted to talk.
Q. That is what your father told you; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So you never heard from Mr. Gaffney. This was something that you believed to be accurate solely based upon your father’s statement to you, right?
A. I have a voicemail from Gaffney left on my mother’s cell phone that said he called my father. I listened to it.
Q. When did this allegedly occur?
A. December of 2017.

…..
P42-45
BY MR. MINCIELI:
Q. Is this a copy of your affidavit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this the affidavit that you submitted with respect to the application for a fictitious name?
A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you to take a look at the allegations in the affidavit on the second page.
A. Yes.
Q. Starting with No. 12, can you read those out loud.
A. No. 12. My father does not know I am a part of this lawsuit. I am fearful that if my identity is revealed, my father will become aware of the claims I have made in this lawsuit.
Q. I will ask you to stop right there. Was that statement true at the time that you made it?
A. Yes.
Q. Next one, Paragraph 13.
A. If my identity is revealed, my father will find out that I publicly disclosed that he sexually abused me and that will place me in personal danger, as well as cause me psychological and emotional distress.
Q. Did you believe that to be true at the time you signed this affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Next.
A. If my identity is revealed, I risk being harassed by those who are affiliated with Mr. Gothard and/or IBLP.
Q. And when you say those who are affiliated with Mr. Gothard and/or IBLP, who are you speaking about in that statement?
A. My current community, my support systems at home.
Q. Is that the church community that you were referencing in the chat that Mr. Sotomayor brought up to you?
A. Yes.
Q. That was true at the time you signed this?
A. Yes.
Q. And you — did you learn at some point that during the pendency of this case, Mr. Gaffney, attorney for Bill Gothard, did, in fact, contact your father and reveal the fact that you are a plaintiff in this lawsuit?
A. Yes.
MR. SOTOMAYOR: Objection. Based upon — hearsay is what my objection is.
THE COURT: Overruled. You asked her that question in direct examination and elicited answers from her on how she knew about it and in what manner she knew about it and the voicemail that she heard that was left by Mr. Gaffney to her mother, so it’s a bizarre objection. Completely overruled. Continue on.
BY MR. MINCIELI:
Q. So at the time that it was disclosed to your father that the lawsuit — that you were a member of the lawsuit, you no longer needed — that reason for the protection was no longer present, correct?
A. Correct.
……
P48
BY MR. MINCIELI:
Q. Thank you. After the case was voluntarily nonsuited, why did you disclose your name?
A. Two reasons: My father had been told, so I had no reason to remain anonymous for that, and I am a completely different woman than I was three years ago when I filed this suit.
Q. Stronger?
A. Very much so. I have a new support community that is not affiliated with Gothard anymore and I have the strength and courage to be me.

Alfred's defense is that she is a liar since Gothard's lawyer didn't call the father, he called her mother and the father heard the message. Either way Gothard figured out who she was, read she was remaining anonymous because she feared for the impact it would have on her life and then called her parents to tell them. 

  Hide contents

As to the rest, it really comes down to one salient point. Glenn did NOT call her father, no matter what she said. Glenn declared that in his response to the plaintiff comments. He left a message for the mother, which Dad heard. That negates at least half of the narrative there.

 

Lauren Bell was interviewed October 2018 in an article called 'Bill Gothard's Fundamentalist Trap':

Quote

Several people interviewed for this article described how their health was permanently ruined by their time at IBLP. At the age of 24, Lauren found herself on the leadership team for EXCEL, an eight-week program for teenage girls that focused on intensive spiritual training. Lauren routinely worked 80 hours a week, and sometimes as many as 100, believing that she would be held accountable to God for those who didn’t hear Gothard’s message and went to hell as a result. As Lauren’s endocrine system slowly collapsed from exhaustion, she began having intense suicidal thoughts to the point where she wouldn’t drive alone, for fear of what she might do. When she finally was taken to a doctor Lauren was told her body might never recover from the damage. She suspects this trauma is the cause of her infertility now.

https://newrepublic.com/article/151787/bill-gothardfundamentalisttrapfbclid=IwAR2F8X7DRVAOjCNT0SQpL1nGU6S9SNjlQnxFr1zUamTsgGKmXvePgIfgs-k

Lauren Bell confirmed she is the 'Lauren' interviewed:

 

Spoiler

1764530066_ScreenShot2019-02-02at15_21_04.thumb.png.dadef2166e14e163209f2784807b8c60.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waffle Time
Palimpsest
On 2/2/2019 at 9:42 AM, formergothardite said:

Alfred's defense is that she is a liar since Gothard's lawyer didn't call the father, he called her mother and the father heard the message. Either way Gothard figured out who she was, read she was remaining anonymous because she feared for the impact it would have on her life and then called her parents to tell them. 

The thing about Alfred is that he doesn't understand his ineffectual and pathetic attempts to defend Gothard actually dig Bill's hole even deeper.

And I have to give Larne huge credit.  He is incredibly dedicated to not letting any of Alfred's idiotic claims go unchallenged.  And he provides the evidence.

I liked this bit from the hearing:

Quote

P37-38
Q. So the truth is, you never feared any retaliation by your father or your pro-Gothard people?
A. Incorrect.
Q. What is incorrect about that?
A. The reason I came out with my name is because Gaffney called my father and told him I was involved in the lawsuit before it was dismissed.
MR. SOTOMAYOR: At this point, Judge, I am going to object to the non —
THE COURT: Overruled. You asked for it.

So Gothard attorney Gaffney made an enormous and unethical error in calling the parents, and Gothard attorney Sotomeyer asked a question that put that error into evidence.   Sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite
On 2/2/2019 at 10:22 AM, Laura2730 said:

Lauren Bell was interviewed October 2018 in an article called 'Bill Gothard's Fundamentalist Trap':

I'm glad she has appeared to find happiness. Even back in the 90's it was clear she was under a lot of stress. Her parents got all the praise for running EXCEL, each group would raise money to buy the Bells a thank you gift, but she was working herself to death to keep things going. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.