Truth about Russ Ewell - Calvin Kwan's Lies, Slander, and Gossip
Grommitt 7
situation with Russ Ewell. And he is very lucky he did not go to prison.
Those who commit similar crimes these days are registered sex offenders.
I think you are being a little sensational with your subject title.
wyldsp...@geocities.com
Calvin Kwan <cal...@reveal.org> wrote:
> Rex Geissler wrote:
> (snip)
>
> Your true colors is finally showing. It has become very
> obvious to me and many others that you have become the
> hatchet man of the ICC. It is very obvious that
> you were sent here to come after me personally. You
> have personally attacked me instead of focusing on the
> issue. If you truly care about the issues that we
> discuss in this newsgroup, you would respond more
> often to our discussions.
>
> Instead, you have decided to disect every word I say,
> make sure I cross every (t) and dot every (i). You
> have made me the issue instead of addressing the
> problems of your organization.
That's what any discussion of issues with ICC members always seems to come
down to, Calvin. They can't defend their position based on the available
facts, yet the finger must not be pointed at the ICC -- not ever. It would
blow their One True Church[tm] theory to smithereens. Talk about abdication
of "Christian" leadership and "Christian" responsibility!
That's exactly what they did to Ed Powers, too. You're in stellar company
with the rest of us scapegoats and sons and daughters of... SAY-TAN!
Sarah M. ;-}
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
eng...@intessera.com
Calvin Kwan <cal...@reveal.org> wrote:
> Rex Geissler wrote:
> (snip)
>
> Your true colors is finally showing. It has become very obvious to me and
many
> others that you have become the hatchet man of the ICC. It is very obvious
that
> you were sent here to come after me personally. You have personally attacked
me
> instead of focusing on the issue. If you truly care about the issues that we
> discuss in this newsgroup, you would respond more often to our discussions.
>
Rex is a "hatchet man" because he finds out that a story you told isn't true
and then calls you on it?
Calvin, if you tell something here in a public forum that you do not know for
a FACT is true, you HAVE damaged your credibility. And you are not in a
position to know if the claim you made is a FACT. You became a false witness.
> Instead, you have decided to disect every word I say, make sure I cross every
> (t) and dot every (i). You have made me the issue instead of addressing the
> problems of your organization. <snip>
I am normally happy to discuss issues I have knowledge of, Calvin. I have
readily admitted a lot of things here in response to the claims of others on
this ng.
But when you present something that you have no first-hand knowledge of, you
are on dangerous ground. It is gossip (even if true) or slander (if false).
By making a claim you are not in a position to substantiate, you made
yourself and your credibility an issue.
I wish you would confine the scope of your remarks to things you have first
hand knowledge of. That's what everyone else on this ng does, true?
>
> If you truly care about the issues that we discuss, why do you insist on
> e-mailing me privately? You have made some statements to me privately that I
> know you are not willing to post in public. Your purpose in this newsgroup is
> to take the attention off of the issues and on to me personally.
>
> The issue at hand is whether the ICC takes abuses by their leaders seriously.
I
> have simply repeated the issues that many in this newsgroup before me have
> already addressed.
I realize I am fairly new to this newsgroup, but I haven't seen anything
about Russ Ewell on here for quite some time. Your reference to him came out
of left field. This matter does *not* appear to have recently been addressed,
as you now claim.
In making your claims, I assumed they were true. I even responded
accordingly. Then I find out that Russ has NOT made the public "confessions"
that you claimed he had made. I didn't think you (or anyone else here) would
have the audacity to claim something untrue. I accepted what you said at face
value. Now I realize I should not have.
I haven't made up any accusation nor have I distorted
> anything. I simply chooses to believe others first hand accounts of the
> issues. I also simply refuse to believe what the leaders of the ICC claims
> (especially Al Baird, Russ Ewell, and Kip McKean).
>
You're entitled to believe what you want to believe. You can trust who you
want to trust. But you cannot make their first-hand (if indeed it was)
testimony your own first-hand testimony.
You would have been much better off claiming that so-and-so (whoever that
might be) claimed such and such about Russ Ewell. Instead, you presented it
as fact, as though you were a first-hand witness. This is a clear
overstatement.
> Your attack on me personally is only going to backfire. This is nothing more
> than a classic case of a corrupt organization attempting to take out the
> character of its opponents.. Unfortunately for many former members, the ICC
has
> perfected this art.
>
> I have to admit, I am a little surprise at the source of the attack. You once
> claim to be my friend but have now become the ICC hatchet man to chop down any
> opponents it has. This doesn't sound like you but I guess nothing in the ICC
> surprises me anymore.
>
> This is the last response I will give regarding your allegations.
>
You *could* admit that you has no business making your attack upon Russ Ewell
as you did. It is odd that you expect the people in the ICC to admit mistakes
but you yourself are so reluctant to admit your own mistakes.
Calvin, you got caught making a big boast that you had no basis for making.
Just admit it. Like the rest of us on this newsgroup, stick to your own
first-hand experiences with the ICC, or at least those you have personal
knowledge of.
<snip>
--
~John Engler
reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
Catherine Hampton
: The fact it, Calvin has no basis for spreading this stuff. He is regurgitating
: what he has heard from somewhere, and presenting it as truth. And this does
: damage his credibility.
He has some basis -- he's spoken with people who were in Boston when
this was going on, who heard the stories going around, and who believed
them to be true. That isn't a basis on which I'd convict anyone, but
it is IMHO sufficient smoke to suspect there was a fire.
: He should stick to his own experiences on this newsgroup and not dredge up
: this stuff that is only gossip.
Actually, I largely agree with you on this. I don't at all mind him
discussing things he didn't experience personally -- we all do that.
This particular issue, though, is both explosive and at present
unproven. I've avoided public discussion of it because I felt that
there should be more real evidence (either for or against) before
it was profitable to discuss it publicly. If it had been me, I'd
have waited for the young women involved to come forward.
But this isn't just a matter of idle gossip either. These "unfounded
rumors", as Rex termed them, have been going around the movement for a
=long= time. I've spoken with perhaps a dozen people who were in
Boston when Russ was there and knew about these rumors. A couple of
them told me that they knew the young women involved and knew the rumors
to be true.
If Russ is innocent, this must be terrible for him. As much as I
despise the man for his behavior in San Francisco, I wouldn't wish
this on him or anyone. But if these rumors are to be laid to rest,
I suspect the only way now is to track them to their source and find
out why they started and what really happened. They started very
close to the source, and they've been awfully persistent. As far as
I know, no single person or group has been trying to keep them alive,
either.
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>
=====================================================================
REVEAL: Research * Examine * Verify * Educate * Assist * Liberate
Former members of the International Churches of Christ (ICC),
Boston Church of Christ"/Boston Movement, &
Crossroads Church of Christ/Crossroads Movement
Web Page: <http://www.reveal.org/> * Autoresponder: in...@reveal.org
Rex Geissler
>eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> In article <35C0B0A8...@reveal.org>,
>> Calvin Kwan <cal...@reveal.org> wrote:
>> > eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > No assumptions here. But indifference is a common trait in many
>> many
>> > > churches,
>> > > and it also has a destructive impact.
>> >
>> > Indifference is not a common trait in many many churches. Other
>> > churches just choose not the command and control its members the way
>> the
>> > ICC does. I have never seen a church that does nothing to help
>> people.
>> >
>>
>> You sound like Fonzie trying to admit he was w-w-w-w-w-r-r-r-o-n-g.
>> What's so
>> hard about admitting that many churches are indifferent to their
>> people and
>> that this causes damage to them? Or are you so biased that only the
>> ICC
>> deserves criticism?
>
>Why should I admit to things that IMO just aren't true. At least not in
>my experience. My relationship with God is better than ever before.
>Since I have left the ICC, I know that I am following God and not men.
>I am extremely happy with my current church and have seen much action by
>many churches in my community. I just don't see these indifference in
>most churches. I am sure that there are some churches that are like
>that but I wouldn't say most or even many.
>
>You are starting to sound like someone who isn't winning an argument.
>You are resorting to the "I am right and you are wrong" type argument.
>
>>
>>
>> > > And the ICC also takes abusiveness in leaders seriously.
>> >
>> > Thats bogus!
>> >
>> > Al Baird said in 20/20 that the "sin list" could be grounds for
>> > dismissal but when it was pointed out that it was Gordon Ferguson
>> that
>> > was guilty, what did the church do about it? Why is it that "sin
>> lists"
>> > is still being passed around? That is still happening!
>>
>> Some "sin list-" gimme a break. This is about the most overplayed
>> criticism
>> I've heard of. Half the stuff on there isn't even close to being sin--
>> they
>> are just demographic type things.
>>
>> And how do you know Gordon wasn't reprimanded for this?
>
>Demographic? Have you seen the list? "Homosexual past" is
>demographics? "Been divorced" is demographics? "Prideful" is
>demographics? "Independent" is demographics? You mentioned "half of
>the stuff on there isn't even close to being sin". So, only half of the
>list is about sin. Then that makes it o.k. for Gordon Ferguson to pass
>it around?
>
>Confidentiality is still being broken by ministers in the ICC today. A
>few months before I left the church, I was in a room where the minister
>was talking to some of us about the "sin list" that was written by
>someone who had just done the "light and darkness" study. This person
>was not in the room at the time and I am sure that he did not know that
>we would all get a chance to know his sins. I can assure you that the
>list was not a demographic profile. :-) I had expressed difficulties
>with the situation but was brushed off by the minister.
>
>And how did I know Gordon Ferguson wasn't reprimanded for this? First
>of all, Al Baird said that the "sin list" is "grounds for dismissal".
>Then Al Baird later backed away from that statement when he found out it
>was Gordon Ferguson. Al Baird found out it was Gordon Ferguson only
>after Rick Bauer wrote a letter stating the fact (you can read the
>entire letter in Rick's book "Toxic Christianity"). Rick was actually
>delighted in finding out that the ICC is finally going to do something
>and change but once again he was disapointed. Gordon Ferguson has never
>publicly apologize for the "sin list". He is still an Elder in Boston
>and has never lost his position.
>
>Second of all, The point is not whether Gordon Ferguson was reprimanded
>or not. The point is that whatever the punishment was (if any), it was
>only a slap on the wrist. What Gordon Ferguson did is inconceivable in
>most churches. He broke the confidence of many people who had trusted
>him. Al Baird was right in 20/20 when he said that "this is grounds for
>dismissal". Unfortunately, Al Baird backed away from this statement a
>month later by defending the "sin list" in Inside Edition. He claimed
>that "The leaders must know his people". I say hooey!
>
>Most churches probably would have dismissed Gordon Ferguson right away
>and apologize for his actions but the leadership of the ICC decided to
>protect their own. Whatever punishment Gordon Ferguson received was
>simply a slap on the wrist and in.
>
> >
>
>> > How about the situation with Russ Ewell? What did the church do
>> about
>> > that? From what I understand, the victims families was paid off by
>> the
>> > church. Did the leaders of the ICC take that situation seriously?
>> In
>> > other churches, Russ Ewell would of been fired already. He
>> certainly
>> > would not be leading a church!
>> >
>>
>> I am not familiar with the latest gossip about Russ Ewell. And how do
>> you know
>> he wasn't reprimanded for this? Are you spying on him (oops, I mean,
>> "doing
>> research")?
>>
>
>There is no latest gossip about Russ Ewell. Just the same one that the
>ICC has tried to cover up for years.
>
>What Russ Ewell did was a crime. From what I understand, he had sexual
>relations with quite a few minors while he was a minister in Boston.
>That is statutory rape. He even admitted to it in front of a few house
>churches in Boston back in the eighties. In Sue Condons diary, the
>situation was discussed in more detail. You can read about it by
>obtaining one of Jerry Jones' books (What does the Boston Movement
>teach). I loaned my copy of all three volumns to a friend so I forgot
>which volumn contains the Sue Condon diary. It is not gossip John. It
>is fact, even Russ admitted to it. If you are really interested in the
>truth, you should try contacting Jerry Jones. He was an Elder in Boston
>at the time and should have much more knowledge about it than I do.
>
>Anyhow, once again it is not whether Russ Ewell was reprimanded or not.
>It is that he probably only got a slap on the wrist. From what I
>understand, even after the situation, he was put in charge of the Teen
>ministry in Boston. That is like putting Michael Milken in charge of
>the Federal Reserve! Does this happen in other churches?
>
>
>
>> > Do we need to talk about other examples?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> ~John Engler
>> reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
>>
>> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
>> ==-----
>> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member
>> Forum
>
Calvin,
Let's examine your accusations of Russ Ewell:
"How about the situation with Russ Ewell? What did the church do about
that? From what I understand, the victims families was paid off by the
church. Did the leaders of the ICC take that situation seriously? In other
churches, Russ Ewell would of been fired already. He certainly would not be
leading a church!"
and
"What Russ Ewell did was a crime. From what I understand, he had sexual
relations with quite a few minors while he was a minister in Boston.
That is statutory rape. He even admitted to it in front of a few house
churches in Boston back in the eighties. In Sue Condons diary, the
situation was discussed in more detail. You can read about it by
obtaining one of Jerry Jones' books (What does the Boston Movement
teach)."
First, let's begin with the Susan McGunnigle Condon diary in Jerry Jones
book, What Does the Boston Movement Teach, Volume III, Pages 79-99. I read
the entire section and only two paragraphs on Page 86 discuss Russ Ewell.
In those two paragraphs by Susan Condon, there is NO MENTION of:
1) Russ Ewell committing any crime;
2) Russ Ewell having sexual relations with any minor;
3) Russ Ewell committing statutory rape;
4) Russ Ewell admitting to sexual relations with any minor in front of a few
house churches;
5) the Boston Church of Christ paying off supposed victims' families.
Calvin, you have even misquoted your own source with these slanderous
accusations. There is no mention of this supposed incident whatsoever in
Susan Condon's diary. Don't you think that if your allegations really
occurred that Susan Condon, Jerry Jones or Rick Bauer would have made a huge
deal about it and named the individual? Yet, ten or more years later,
you begin spewing words without knowledge. Please reveal your source,
Calvin. Who or where is it? Who began this malicious gossip?
I also discussed this with another Boston church leader who knew about the
situation at the time. He verified that although Russ was corrected for
being harsh and did confess harshness, he never committed any of your
slanderous accusations. He also stated categorically that:
1) Russ Ewell NEVER committed any crime;
2) Russ Ewell NEVER had sexual relations with any minor;
3) Russ Ewell NEVER committed statutory rape;
4) Russ Ewell NEVER admitting to sexual relations with any minor in front of
a few house churches;
5) Russ Ewell was NEVER accused of sexual relations with a minor.
6) The Boston Church of Christ NEVER paid off supposed Russ Ewell sexual
relation victims' families.
I also asked Russ Ewell directly about these allegations. He said that he
has been very hurt over the years to hear this malicious gossip and slander
stated. He acknowledged being corrected for being harsh but vehemently
denied every one of your accusations. He wonders who began these fictitious
lies, why that person began the character assassination, and who continues
to propagate falsehood.
So, Calvin, this is the TRUTH about Russ Ewell from reading Sue Condon's
diary in Jerry Jones' book, from talking directly to a Boston church leader
at the time, and from asking Russ Ewell himself. To recap, as a member and
leader of the Boston church:
1) Russ Ewell was NEVER impure with a minor.
2) Russ Ewell NEVER had sexual relations with a minor.
3) Russ Ewell NEVER committed statutory rape;
4) Russ Ewell NEVER confessed sexual relations with a minor.
5) Russ Ewell was NEVER accused of sexual relations with a minor.
6) There was NO PAYOFF for sexual relations with a minor of any kind to
anyone for any reason.
It appears that you are fabricating this story from total hearsay and
groundless rumors. Calvin, be advised that your baseless accusations like
this will not and should not go unchecked. With claims as malicious as this,
you must substantiate them now and in the future. The burden of proof is on
you, Calvin. Jesus would never make these types of allegations without
knowing the truth and yet you freely make them.
If you are not able to substantiate your accusations, by definition, that
makes you a liar, gossip and slanderer. And a liar is a person who,
according to the dictionary, knowingly utters falsehood; one who lies. And a
lie is 1. A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an
intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to
deceive. 2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. 3. Anything which misleads or
disappoints.
Be advised that you stand accused that your accusations, allegations and
condemnations are absolutely false and baseless!
Proverbs 19:5
A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will not
go free.
(NIV)
It is pathetic that you do not even give a source for these allegations. And
it is even more pathetic that you misquoted the only source you did give,
yet you just keep doing damage to your own credibility and reputation. And
the "lie" just keeps getting propagated like the "Telephone" game. I
discussed earlier in a post how you and others keep exaggerating issues over
time which propagates the slander. This is a classic example of the
misinformation, speculation, half-truths, and malicious gossip that are
being spread.
1 Peter 2:1
Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy,
and slander of every kind.
(NIV)
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that
devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false
witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
(NIV)
Rex Geissler
http://greatcommission.com
Catherine Hampton
: Calvin, you have even misquoted your own source with these slanderous
: accusations. There is no mention of this supposed incident whatsoever in
: Susan Condon's diary. Don't you think that if your allegations really
: occurred that Susan Condon, Jerry Jones or Rick Bauer would have made a huge
: deal about it and named the individual? Yet, ten or more years later,
: you begin spewing words without knowledge. Please reveal your source,
: Calvin. Who or where is it? Who began this malicious gossip?
This "malicious gossip", as you call it, began in the mid-1980s, as
far as I can tell, in the cities of Boston and Washington D.C. Neither
Sue Condon's diary nor Jerry Jones' books on the Boston Movement name
names because the teenage girls involved were not willing to speak
out publicly about what happened. Victims of sexual abuse often are
not.
Your arguments are ridiculous. Calvin didn't misquote anything.
He simply accepted the commonly-accepted identifications for some
unnamed people in Jerry Jones' account. I'll have to review Sue's
diary to comment on that. Because of the emotional blackmail of
her children, she was forced to withdraw it from publication, so
I don't have a copy to point people to on the WWW, unfortunately,
or I would. :(
: I also discussed this with another Boston church leader who knew about the
: situation at the time. He verified that although Russ was corrected for
: being harsh and did confess harshness, he never committed any of your
: slanderous accusations. He also stated categorically that:
: 1) Russ Ewell NEVER committed any crime;
: 2) Russ Ewell NEVER had sexual relations with any minor;
: 3) Russ Ewell NEVER committed statutory rape;
: 4) Russ Ewell NEVER admitting to sexual relations with any minor in front of
: a few house churches;
: 5) Russ Ewell was NEVER accused of sexual relations with a minor.
: 6) The Boston Church of Christ NEVER paid off supposed Russ Ewell sexual
: relation victims' families.
Ok. He stated this. If these accusations were true, do you think he
would have told you the truth? I don't. These statements no more
constitute proof than the assertions Jerry Jones and others have made
constituted proof. :/
: I also asked Russ Ewell directly about these allegations. He said that he
: has been very hurt over the years to hear this malicious gossip and slander
: stated. He acknowledged being corrected for being harsh but vehemently
: denied every one of your accusations. He wonders who began these fictitious
: lies, why that person began the character assassination, and who continues
: to propagate falsehood.
Again, if the accusations were true, what do you expect he would say? :/
Where Russ is concerned, I doubt my opinion of him could be much lower
in any event. The man isn't harsh -- he's an abusive user of other human
beings. I thank God that there aren't many in the ICC like him. :( I'm
not talking about what he did in Boston or Washington D.C. here. I'm
talking about what he did to people I know who were in the San Francisco
Church of Christ.
Frankly, I consider him useless as a reliable source of testimony.
: So, Calvin, this is the TRUTH about Russ Ewell from reading Sue Condon's
: diary in Jerry Jones' book, from talking directly to a Boston church leader
: at the time, and from asking Russ Ewell himself. To recap, as a member and
: leader of the Boston church:
No, Rex. It is not "The Truth". It is what Russ Ewell and a leader in
the Boston Church whom you know said about the events. You have no
more way of knowing whether they are telling the truth or lying than
you do anyone else. :/
: 1) Russ Ewell was NEVER impure with a minor.
He says. This isn't proof.
: 2) Russ Ewell NEVER had sexual relations with a minor.
He says. This isn't proof.
: 3) Russ Ewell NEVER committed statutory rape;
He says. This isn't proof.
: 4) Russ Ewell NEVER confessed sexual relations with a minor.
He and a leader in the Boston CofC say. This isn't proof.
: 5) Russ Ewell was NEVER accused of sexual relations with a minor.
Incorrect. He's been accused of this repeatedly.
: 6) There was NO PAYOFF for sexual relations with a minor of any kind to
: anyone for any reason.
According to your sources, none of which are unbiased.
: It appears that you are fabricating this story from total hearsay and
: groundless rumors. Calvin, be advised that your baseless accusations like
: this will not and should not go unchecked. With claims as malicious as this,
: you must substantiate them now and in the future. The burden of proof is on
: you, Calvin. Jesus would never make these types of allegations without
: knowing the truth and yet you freely make them.
Rex, think carefully. Do you really want people digging these things
up? I've avoided comment on this issue because I have no specific
knowledge which I can discuss publicly, and I have no direct proof
about Russ's alleged involvement with teenage women in his former
ministries. I have spoken with people who claim to have had first-hand
information about this, though. I haven't repeated any of this because
I didn't know whether they were telling the truth or not. But I suspect
there is a significant truth is out there to be found, and I doubt very
much it is as innocent as you are asserting here.
: If you are not able to substantiate your accusations, by definition, that
: makes you a liar, gossip and slanderer.
Rex, come off it. A liar is one who intentionally tells an untruth.
Any woman who was raped or molested and who can't bring outside proof
of that fact would be a liar, gossip and slanderer by your definition.
:( Actually, it is you who are guilty now -- guilty of an ugly
personal attack against someone whom you once claimed to me was your
friend.
Right now, I'm wondering if this was your doing, or if you're speaking
for someone inside your church, quite frankly. This is a frontal
assault based on some laughably false reasoning, made not against
the sources of any accusations, but against someone who believed the
sources.
If Calvin is guilty of anything in that, he's guilty of nothing you are
not equally guilty of yourself.
eng...@intessera.com
Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> Grommitt 7 <grom...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> : Those of us in the Boston Church of Christ at that time certainly heard of
> and attempting to destroy the credibility of an opponent. I've been
> expecting something like this. But I didn't expect it from this source.
>
> --
> Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>
The fact it, Calvin has no basis for spreading this stuff. He is regurgitating
what he has heard from somewhere, and presenting it as truth. And this does
damage his credibility.
He should stick to his own experiences on this newsgroup and not dredge up
this stuff that is only gossip.
--
Catherine Hampton
: Those of us in the Boston Church of Christ at that time certainly heard of this
: situation with Russ Ewell. And he is very lucky he did not go to prison.
: Those who commit similar crimes these days are registered sex offenders.
: I think you are being a little sensational with your subject title.
Not "a little sensational". This is a classic case of ICC slandering
and attempting to destroy the credibility of an opponent. I've been
expecting something like this. But I didn't expect it from this source.
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>
Rex Geissler
>Rex Geissler <r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
>
>: Calvin, you have even misquoted your own source with these slanderous
>: accusations. There is no mention of this supposed incident whatsoever in
>: Susan Condon's diary. Don't you think that if your allegations really
>: occurred that Susan Condon, Jerry Jones or Rick Bauer would have made a
huge
>: deal about it and named the individual? Yet, ten or more years later,
>: you begin spewing words without knowledge. Please reveal your source,
>: Calvin. Who or where is it? Who began this malicious gossip?
>
>This "malicious gossip", as you call it, began in the mid-1980s, as
>far as I can tell, in the cities of Boston and Washington D.C. Neither
>Sue Condon's diary nor Jerry Jones' books on the Boston Movement name
>names because the teenage girls involved were not willing to speak
>out publicly about what happened. Victims of sexual abuse often are
>not.
Those "teenage girls" should now be about 23-30 years old. Where are they?
Even if "all of them" were silent, where are their families? Families are
usually much more vocal than the actual "victims" as they want to defend and
protect their children. For instance, I'm very protective (love always
protects) of my children and would definitely say something if they were
sexually abused. Even after the "payoffs" were spent, entire "families"
would come forward. And where is the "hush-money" trail? I don't hear see
any credible evidence.
>
>Your arguments are ridiculous. Calvin didn't misquote anything.
>He simply accepted the commonly-accepted identifications for some
>unnamed people in Jerry Jones' account. I'll have to review Sue's
>diary to comment on that. Because of the emotional blackmail of
>her children, she was forced to withdraw it from publication, so
>I don't have a copy to point people to on the WWW, unfortunately,
>or I would. :(
Calvin did claim that these allegations came from Susan Condon's account and
those details are not in the account.
>
>: I also discussed this with another Boston church leader who knew about
the
>: situation at the time. He verified that although Russ was corrected for
>: being harsh and did confess harshness, he never committed any of your
>: slanderous accusations. He also stated categorically that:
>
>: 1) Russ Ewell NEVER committed any crime;
>: 2) Russ Ewell NEVER had sexual relations with any minor;
>: 3) Russ Ewell NEVER committed statutory rape;
>: 4) Russ Ewell NEVER admitting to sexual relations with any minor in front
of
>: a few house churches;
>: 5) Russ Ewell was NEVER accused of sexual relations with a minor.
>: 6) The Boston Church of Christ NEVER paid off supposed Russ Ewell sexual
>: relation victims' families.
>
>Ok. He stated this. If these accusations were true, do you think he
>would have told you the truth? I don't. These statements no more
>constitute proof than the assertions Jerry Jones and others have made
>constituted proof. :/
At least in the American justice system, isn't a man innocent until proven
guilty? Again, I don't see any evidence. I personally wouldn't want
any lies told about me to my family, friends or children. Think about Russ'
children and wife for a moment. Don't they deserve some respect and dignity
against these baseless allegations?
>
>: I also asked Russ Ewell directly about these allegations. He said that he
>: has been very hurt over the years to hear this malicious gossip and
slander
>: stated. He acknowledged being corrected for being harsh but vehemently
>: denied every one of your accusations. He wonders who began these
fictitious
>: lies, why that person began the character assassination, and who
continues
>: to propagate falsehood.
>
>Again, if the accusations were true, what do you expect he would say? :/
>
>Where Russ is concerned, I doubt my opinion of him could be much lower
>in any event. The man isn't harsh -- he's an abusive user of other human
>beings. I thank God that there aren't many in the ICC like him. :( I'm
>not talking about what he did in Boston or Washington D.C. here. I'm
>talking about what he did to people I know who were in the San Francisco
>Church of Christ.
You might have noted that I went to the source Calvin stated and a leader in
the Boston church before I ever talked to Russ Ewell about it.
>
>Frankly, I consider him useless as a reliable source of testimony.
>
>: So, Calvin, this is the TRUTH about Russ Ewell from reading Sue Condon's
>: diary in Jerry Jones' book, from talking directly to a Boston church
leader
>: at the time, and from asking Russ Ewell himself. To recap, as a member
and
>: leader of the Boston church:
>
>No, Rex. It is not "The Truth". It is what Russ Ewell and a leader in
>the Boston Church whom you know said about the events. You have no
>more way of knowing whether they are telling the truth or lying than
>you do anyone else. :/
Again, Russ is innocent until proven guilty. And there is no evidence, no
witnesses, no admissions, no cover-ups. This situation is completely
different from what is going on in the DC.
>
>: 1) Russ Ewell was NEVER impure with a minor.
>
>He says. This isn't proof.
>
>: 2) Russ Ewell NEVER had sexual relations with a minor.
>
>He says. This isn't proof.
>
>: 3) Russ Ewell NEVER committed statutory rape;
>
>He says. This isn't proof.
>
>: 4) Russ Ewell NEVER confessed sexual relations with a minor.
>
>He and a leader in the Boston CofC say. This isn't proof.
>
>: 5) Russ Ewell was NEVER accused of sexual relations with a minor.
>
>Incorrect. He's been accused of this repeatedly.
OK, to clarify, "Russ Ewell was NEVER accused of sexual relations with a
minor
by any member of the Boston church to the leadership of the Boston church
in the 1980s."
>
>: 6) There was NO PAYOFF for sexual relations with a minor of any kind to
>: anyone for any reason.
>
>According to your sources, none of which are unbiased.
>
>: It appears that you are fabricating this story from total hearsay and
>: groundless rumors. Calvin, be advised that your baseless accusations like
>: this will not and should not go unchecked. With claims as malicious as
this,
>: you must substantiate them now and in the future. The burden of proof is
on
>: you, Calvin. Jesus would never make these types of allegations without
>: knowing the truth and yet you freely make them.
>
>Rex, think carefully. Do you really want people digging these things
>up? I've avoided comment on this issue because I have no specific
>knowledge which I can discuss publicly, and I have no direct proof
>about Russ's alleged involvement with teenage women in his former
>ministries. I have spoken with people who claim to have had first-hand
>information about this, though. I haven't repeated any of this because
>I didn't know whether they were telling the truth or not. But I suspect
>there is a significant truth is out there to be found, and I doubt very
>much it is as innocent as you are asserting here.
I have nothing to hide as I'm just trying to set the facts straight. Again,
you admit that you "have no direct proof." It's not simply Rex defending the
ICC leaders. I'm just trying to present the truth. Don't we all want that?
Now I'm not perfect, but Catherine, come on, be honest. Are you saying that
Reveal does not try to find out stuff on leaders in the ICC including Russ
Ewell? Videotaping ICC services in secret, taping ICC sermons in secret,
visiting ministers' homes and counting the number of times the leader says
"Jesus," "God," and the "Holy Spirit," etc. Will the next thing be that the
Reveal Board Member, who ironically lives down the street from me, will end
up going through my trash? What is this, the Cold War all over again?
>
>: If you are not able to substantiate your accusations, by definition, that
>: makes you a liar, gossip and slanderer.
>
>Rex, come off it. A liar is one who intentionally tells an untruth.
>Any woman who was raped or molested and who can't bring outside proof
>of that fact would be a liar, gossip and slanderer by your definition.
>:( Actually, it is you who are guilty now -- guilty of an ugly
>personal attack against someone whom you once claimed to me was your
>friend.
Calvin was my friend and we had some great times together and I still
cherish those memories. But it would not have mattered if it was you, John
Engler, or anyone else who made that post. The issue was the slander of Russ
Ewell and not simply Calvin's poor judgement. You can attack the messenger
but the issue still stands. Russ Ewell is innocent in this matter.
>
>Right now, I'm wondering if this was your doing, or if you're speaking
>for someone inside your church, quite frankly. This is a frontal
>assault based on some laughably false reasoning, made not against
>the sources of any accusations, but against someone who believed the
>sources.
I chose to address this issue because there is no credible source. If I tell
you that the Earth is flat, you believe me, and tell someone else, then
who's belief is wrong? Me, being the original source who was wrong, or you
who believed the lie you were told? Both are wrong. Again, I'm not perfect
but I'm just trying to correct the lie and tell the truth.
>
>If Calvin is guilty of anything in that, he's guilty of nothing you are
>not equally guilty of yourself.
I spoke directly from all the first-hand sources I could find. Calvin spoke
second-hand and should acknowledge that. He should also stick to first-hand
sources rather than hearsay.
Regards, Rex
http://www.greatcommission.com
Calvin Kwan
(snip)
Your true colors is finally showing. It has become very obvious to me and many
others that you have become the hatchet man of the ICC. It is very obvious that
you were sent here to come after me personally. You have personally attacked me
instead of focusing on the issue. If you truly care about the issues that we
discuss in this newsgroup, you would respond more often to our discussions.
Instead, you have decided to disect every word I say, make sure I cross every
(t) and dot every (i). You have made me the issue instead of addressing the
problems of your organization. Your purpose in lurking around in this newsgroup
is simply to find any loopholes to get your leaders off the hook. You have made
no attempts to respond to any of my posts in public but instead watched me with
your snake eyes, getting ready to strike at any given time.
If you truly care about the issues that we discuss, why do you insist on
e-mailing me privately? You have made some statements to me privately that I
know you are not willing to post in public. Your purpose in this newsgroup is
to take the attention off of the issues and on to me personally.
The issue at hand is whether the ICC takes abuses by their leaders seriously. I
have simply repeated the issues that many in this newsgroup before me have
already addressed. I haven't made up any accusation nor have I distorted
anything. I simply chooses to believe others first hand accounts of the
issues. I also simply refuse to believe what the leaders of the ICC claims
(especially Al Baird, Russ Ewell, and Kip McKean).
Your attack on me personally is only going to backfire. This is nothing more
than a classic case of a corrupt organization attempting to take out the
character of its opponents.. Unfortunately for many former members, the ICC has
perfected this art.
I have to admit, I am a little surprise at the source of the attack. You once
claim to be my friend but have now become the ICC hatchet man to chop down any
opponents it has. This doesn't sound like you but I guess nothing in the ICC
surprises me anymore.
This is the last response I will give regarding your allegations.
I have tried in the past to overlook any personal attack coming my way and in
the future I will make it a policy not to respond to personal attack by
anybody. My purpose in this newsgroup is to speak of the unbiblical, unethical,
and abusive practices of the ICC. If you or any current member want to have a
logical discussion of the issues, I will be happy to have a dialogue. Otherwise
consider yourself ignored.
Calvin Kwan
REVEAL Los Angeles Hotline (562) 496-2691 or voicemail (310) 990-9517
Rex Geissler
<35c7ea9a...@news.concentric.net>...
>On Tue, 4 Aug 1998 18:51:20 -0700, "Rex Geissler"
><r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
>
>>I have nothing to hide as I'm just trying to set the facts straight.
Again,
>>you admit that you "have no direct proof." It's not simply Rex defending
the
>>ICC leaders. I'm just trying to present the truth. Don't we all want that?
>
>members that I am a lesbian. I document it everytime. Over the years
>the story has changed. Sadly, the story has been so-o-o distorted it
>convinced a member to leave the group because she knew her boyfriend
>was lying and had no clue who I was. Even after I approached a leader
>last year at the Pac Rim Conference ( going to her in the spirit of
>Matthew 18) to ask these false accusations cease and desist, yet they
>continue on.
>
>>Now I'm not perfect, but Catherine, come on, be honest. Are you saying
that
>>Reveal does not try to find out stuff on leaders in the ICC including Russ
>>Ewell? Videotaping ICC services in secret, taping ICC sermons in secret,
>>visiting ministers' homes and counting the number of times the leader says
>>"Jesus," "God," and the "Holy Spirit," etc.
>
>don't find him to be a pleasant person to know or associate with.
>Therefore, I would not waste my time. Also, your black and white
>attitude is seeping out. What's wrong in video taping a Sunday
>service openly? No hidden cameras or tape recorders. Is it okay for
>current members to do, but not former ones?
>
>Who from REVEAL has visited a minister' home?
How about hidden microphones to tape sermons in secret? Or was that not done
by REVEAL's consent? The guy down the street told me he was going to visit
Kip's house, etc.
>
> Will the next thing be that the
>>Reveal Board Member, who ironically lives down the street from me, will
end
>>up going through my trash? What is this, the Cold War all over again?
>
>What REVEAL Board member lives down the street from you? If you are
>referring to Calvin, he not a board member.
Really, I thought he told me that privately but perhaps I am mistaken.
>>
>>>
>>>: If you are not able to substantiate your accusations, by definition,
that
>>>: makes you a liar, gossip and slanderer.
>
>Likewise, you better start substantiating your accusations about the
>activities of staff members of REVEAL.
>
>>>
>>Calvin was my friend and we had some great times together and I still
>>cherish those memories. But it would not have mattered if it was you, John
>>Engler, or anyone else who made that post. The issue was the slander of
Russ
>>Ewell and not simply Calvin's poor judgement. You can attack the messenger
>>but the issue still stands. Russ Ewell is innocent in this matter.
>
>How do know Calvin's motive? You are so-o unbelievably arrogant. He
>is not the originator of the information. He used poor judgment in
>conveying it on the NG. You are just as guilty of attacking the
>messenger.
>
>Instead of taking this offline with Calvin you chose to publically
>rake him over the coals. This is similar to what you did a month or
>two ago when you barked about copyright infringement. As far as I am
>concerned I see this as nothing more as an attempt to hurt Calvin and
>nail him to the wall. Hope you feel good about it.
Calvin brought up the gossip and misquotes in the public arena. I did not.
I'm just trying to get to the truth, and if Calvin can learn from this
issue, then that's even better.
Regards, Rex
http://greatcommission.com
>>
>
>>
>>I chose to address this issue because there is no credible source. If I
tell
>>you that the Earth is flat, you believe me, and tell someone else, then
>>who's belief is wrong? Me, being the original source who was wrong, or you
>>who believed the lie you were told? Both are wrong. Again, I'm not perfect
>>but I'm just trying to correct the lie and tell the truth.
>
>
>Then go and correct your leaders in their numerous lies about me. Or
>because you haven't personally heard you can't speak to it??
>
>
>>I spoke directly from all the first-hand sources I could find. Calvin
spoke
>>second-hand and should acknowledge that. He should also stick to
first-hand
>>sources rather than hearsay.
>
>What makes you think we have not heard from first hand sources who
>would prove you wrong?
>
>
>
>Michelle Campbell--(mich...@reveal.org)
>REVEAL:Former Members of the International Churches of Christ
>http://www.reveal.org
>(510)834-5497
>
John & Deborah Proctor
"Rex Geissler" <r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
What is going on in Washington, D.C.?
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
Jaz
>>If there was any consent agreement between Russ and the victims, the
>consent
>>agreement may forbid the victims from legally speaking out about it.
>>I am not here to say that I have any information as to the guilt or
>>innocence of Russ Ewell. All I am saying is that there may or may
>>not have been a consent agreement.
>
>I have never heard of a teenager signing any type of consent agreement in
>the ICC.
>
I bet there are a lot of things that happen in the ICC that you never heard of
before.
Gintas
Kurtz
Catherine Hampton wrote in message <6qa1tm$gc5$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>Jaz <gin...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>: In article <6q7f92$f50$4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton
>: <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
>
>:>Not "a little sensational". This is a classic case of ICC slandering
>:>and attempting to destroy the credibility of an opponent. I've been
>:>expecting something like this. But I didn't expect it from this source.
>
>: position.
>
>Well.... I wouldn't put it that strongly. It is obvious to me that
>someone is =very= concerned about Calvin's open discussion of an issue
>which has usually (before this) not been discussed openly even here.
I gathered that the leader of the Super True Church was saying
what we've heard before, with tongue firmly in cheek - harsh
opposition validates the truth of your position (a ridiculous premise
but that many - ICC or not - actually believe). That if you're being
persecuted for your stance, it could ONLY mean you're right.
Edi...@hotmail.com
eng...@intessera.com wrote:
> But when you present something that you have no first-hand knowledge of, you
> are on dangerous ground. It is gossip (even if true) or slander (if false).
> By making a claim you are not in a position to substantiate, you made
> yourself and your credibility an issue.
>
I was just wondering, if a newspaper reports a crime, is it gossip?
Reporters rarely have first hand knowledge of the things they report on.
They usually interview the people who do. How do you define gossip? It
seems like your definition is so broad it might even cover discussion of an
actual crime. (not that I'm saying the person in this case is guilty-my
knowledge of the situation is more like third or fourth hand) I mean, if
Calvin is reporting what he heard from a witness to the situation, is it
gossip?
Edie
Calvin Kwan
(snip)
> >For one, I don't really care to find out more about Russ Ewell. I
> >don't find him to be a pleasant person to know or associate with.
> >Therefore, I would not waste my time. Also, your black and white
> >attitude is seeping out. What's wrong in video taping a Sunday
> >service openly? No hidden cameras or tape recorders. Is it okay for
> >current members to do, but not former ones?
> >
> >Who from REVEAL has visited a minister' home?
>
> How about hidden microphones to tape sermons in secret? Or was that not done
> by REVEAL's consent? The guy down the street told me he was going to visit
> Kip's house, etc.
I drove by Kip's house about a week after I left the ICC in May. I wasn't even
a member of REVEAL at the time! I went there to see for myself the luxurious
lifestyle that I helped support for over 4 years. Guess what? I wasn't
disapointed!
(snip)
> >What REVEAL Board member lives down the street from you? If you are
> >referring to Calvin, he not a board member.
>
> Really, I thought he told me that privately but perhaps I am mistaken.
I believe I told you that I was going to be on staff with REVEAL and take over
the LA hotline. I never said I was on the REVEAL board. And YES Rex, you are
mistaken. About a lot of things too.
Jani Heinonen
<r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
>"Jesus," "God," and the "Holy Spirit," etc. Will the next thing be that the
>Reveal Board Member, who ironically lives down the street from me, will end
>up going through my trash? What is this, the Cold War all over again?
Hey! We're already up to the trash-digging part. Now you need to start
whining about critics showing up at services with AK-47's, critics hacking
ICC computers and stealing credit card numbers and the eroding of your civil
rights based on your religious affiliation! You are certainly picking up
Roger's traits well!
>Russ Ewell is innocent in this matter.
Of course Russ is innocent in everything. He is one of God's Leaders[tm].
--
Jani Heinonen
*** For heaven's sake, don't reply to the address in the header ***
Rex Geissler
>Rex Geissler wrote:
>(snip)
>
>Your true colors is finally showing. It has become very obvious to me and
many
>others that you have become the hatchet man of the ICC. It is very obvious
that
>you were sent here to come after me personally. You have personally
attacked me
>instead of focusing on the issue. If you truly care about the issues that
we
>discuss in this newsgroup, you would respond more often to our discussions.
Calvin, it's not about you personally. It's just that you state things
sometimes that others would not state. The issue truly is Russ Ewell's
innocence in this matter, not Calvin Kwan.
>
>Instead, you have decided to disect every word I say, make sure I cross
every
>(t) and dot every (i). You have made me the issue instead of addressing
the
>problems of your organization. Your purpose in lurking around in this
newsgroup
>is simply to find any loopholes to get your leaders off the hook. You have
made
>no attempts to respond to any of my posts in public but instead watched me
with
>your snake eyes, getting ready to strike at any given time.
Sorry, but I told you earlier I only have so much time and I'm just trying
to hit the big issues that I have some knowledge of. Are you in school now?
If so, then I'm sure you'll appreciate the time-crunch issue :)
>
>If you truly care about the issues that we discuss, why do you insist on
>e-mailing me privately? You have made some statements to me privately that
I
>know you are not willing to post in public. Your purpose in this newsgroup
is
>to take the attention off of the issues and on to me personally.
We discussed this before. I was originally attempting to post to the forum.
But alas, I made a mistake and pressed Reply to Author instead and we had a
good little chat.
>
>The issue at hand is whether the ICC takes abuses by their leaders
seriously. I
>have simply repeated the issues that many in this newsgroup before me have
>already addressed. I haven't made up any accusation nor have I distorted
>anything. I simply chooses to believe others first hand accounts of the
>issues. I also simply refuse to believe what the leaders of the ICC claims
>(especially Al Baird, Russ Ewell, and Kip McKean).
The ICC does take abuse seriously. I just don't see any evidence of your
allegations about Russ Ewell, that's all.
>
>Your attack on me personally is only going to backfire. This is nothing
more
>than a classic case of a corrupt organization attempting to take out the
>character of its opponents.. Unfortunately for many former members, the
ICC has
>perfected this art.
It was not meant to be an attack on you. However, I will not stand around
while you or anyone else slanders an man when it is discovered that he is
innocent in this matter. Again, it didn't matter if it was you, Catherine,
Michelle, or John Engler who wrote those misquotes, it was begging to have
the truth set forth.
>
>I have to admit, I am a little surprise at the source of the attack. You
once
>claim to be my friend but have now become the ICC hatchet man to chop down
any
>opponents it has. This doesn't sound like you but I guess nothing in the
ICC
>surprises me anymore.
>
>This is the last response I will give regarding your allegations.
Could this be your last response because you have no evidence in support of
your allegations? That was the issue not anything personally.
>
>I have tried in the past to overlook any personal attack coming my way and
in
>the future I will make it a policy not to respond to personal attack by
>anybody. My purpose in this newsgroup is to speak of the unbiblical,
unethical,
>and abusive practices of the ICC. If you or any current member want to
have a
>logical discussion of the issues, I will be happy to have a dialogue.
Otherwise
>consider yourself ignored.
I tried to be logical and objective. Sorry if my post wasn't
straightforward.
Regards, Rex
http://greatcommission.com
>
>Calvin Kwan
>REVEAL Los Angeles Hotline (562) 496-2691 or voicemail (310) 990-9517
>
Jani Heinonen
>Not "a little sensational". This is a classic case of ICC slandering
>and attempting to destroy the credibility of an opponent. I've been
>expecting something like this. But I didn't expect it from this source.
Seems like we have Kip's lapdogs barking in chorus on this one. Sad, I would
have expected something better from these individuals.
John & Deborah Proctor
"Rex Geissler" <r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
If there was any consent agreement between Russ and the victims, the consent
agreement may forbid the victims from legally speaking out about it.
I am not here to say that I have any information as to the guilt or
innocence of Russ Ewell. All I am saying is that there may or may
not have been a consent agreement.
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
Phoenix, AZ
Jaz
>
>: Those of us in the Boston Church of Christ at that time certainly heard of
> this
>: situation with Russ Ewell. And he is very lucky he did not go to prison.
>: Those who commit similar crimes these days are registered sex offenders.
>
>: I think you are being a little sensational with your subject title.
>
>and attempting to destroy the credibility of an opponent. I've been
>expecting something like this. But I didn't expect it from this source.
>
>
It's obvious that the persecution the Calvin is suffering validates his
position.
Gintas
Deanna
> >Catherine Hampton wrote in message <6q7f5p$f50$3...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> >Rex Geissler <r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
> >
> >: Calvin, you have even misquoted your own source with these slanderous
> >: accusations. There is no mention of this supposed incident whatsoever in
> >: Susan Condon's diary. Don't you think that if your allegations really
> >: occurred that Susan Condon, Jerry Jones or Rick Bauer would have made a
> huge
> >: deal about it and named the individual? Yet, ten or more years later,
> >: you begin spewing words without knowledge. Please reveal your source,
> >: Calvin. Who or where is it? Who began this malicious gossip?
> >
> >This "malicious gossip", as you call it, began in the mid-1980s, as
> >far as I can tell, in the cities of Boston and Washington D.C. Neither
> >Sue Condon's diary nor Jerry Jones' books on the Boston Movement name
> >names because the teenage girls involved were not willing to speak
> >out publicly about what happened. Victims of sexual abuse often are
> >not.
>
> Those "teenage girls" should now be about 23-30 years old. Where are they?
Speaking as a state-certified sexual assault counselor/advocate, I can
tell you that many, many rapes/assaults are NOT reported. Unfortunately,
many victims take far too much responsibility for what happened to them
and walk around burdened with not only the trauma of the event, but
needless guilt. Oftimes, the perpetrator can verabally instill a sense
of fear if they tell - with threats, shame, etc. Did you read Kim
Krecek's post re: this? Gives the victims perspective very clearly.
Don't take the victims' public silence as "proof" that this did not
happen.
> Even if "all of them" were silent, where are their families? Families are
> usually much more vocal than the actual "victims" as they want to defend and
> protect their children. For instance, I'm very protective (love always
> protects) of my children and would definitely say something if they were
> sexually abused.
The court system for rape victims can be often be traumatic in and of
itself - perhaps the parents wanted to protect the children from this,
in a misguided attempt to reduce the trauma. Is this not *possible*??
Even after the "payoffs" were spent, entire "families"
> would come forward. And where is the "hush-money" trail? I don't hear see
> any credible evidence.
>
How hard have you looked? Did you pour through the financial books from
that period to check for unsubstantiated payments? Seems to be you just
took your leaders' word as the hard-and-fast truth on the matter, and
LOUDLY proclaimed the case closed.
Consider the following:
If there really is a cover-up do you think the leaders would admit that?
If there is a cover-up doesn't that make all of your neatly delineated
points null and void?
If you asked OJ if he killed his wife, what do you think he would say?
You are very quick and vehement in defending you leaders without doing a
very thorough investigation. Despite your use of capitalization, and
blind-adherence to the "truth" of your leaders, your investigation has
not convinced me in the slightest that this might not have happened.
An ICC leaders' "word" does not relay as Ultimate Truth - Case Closed
for me, and probably not for many other former members.
Is your intention to advocate for alleged victims of a pedophile or to
clear the name of an "upstanding citizen of our fine community"?
WWJD?
Deanna
Calvin Kwan
> Calvin, it's not about you personally. It's just that you state things
> sometimes that others would not state. The issue truly is Russ Ewell's
> innocence in this matter, not Calvin Kwan.
Read my response to your tremendous hypocrisy!(snip)
> Sorry, but I told you earlier I only have so much time and I'm just trying
> to hit the big issues that I have some knowledge of. Are you in school now?
> If so, then I'm sure you'll appreciate the time-crunch issue :)
No, I am not in school now but will be in about 3 weeks. And you don't have any
knowledge. All you have is what you have been told.(snip)
> We discussed this before. I was originally attempting to post to the forum.
> But alas, I made a mistake and pressed Reply to Author instead and we had a
> good little chat.
That was the original post but why when I asked you in private to take our
conversation to the newsgroup, YOU REFUSED? I have your statements saved in my
file, do you want to stop lying? Instead you insisted on e-mailing me privately
almost everyday for A WHOLE WEEK, even after I asked you to take it to the
newsgroup.
> The ICC does take abuse seriously. I just don't see any evidence of your
> allegations about Russ Ewell, that's all.
Funny, most of us in this newsgroup would laugh at the notion that the ICC takes
abuses by leaders seriously.
> It was not meant to be an attack on you. However, I will not stand around
> while you or anyone else slanders an man when it is discovered that he is
> innocent in this matter. Again, it didn't matter if it was you, Catherine,
> Michelle, or John Engler who wrote those misquotes, it was begging to have
> the truth set forth.
Rex, once again read my post on your HYPOCRISY!
> Could this be your last response because you have no evidence in support of
> your allegations? That was the issue not anything personally.
ONCE again this is NOT my allegations but the allegations of many who have had
first hand accounts of the situation since the mid eighties. I just chose to
believe them before I would believe anything Russ Ewell says. If you really
care about the truth (which I don't believe you do) maybe you should contact
Jerry Jones and ask him about it. He certainly knows a lot more about this than
I do.(snip)
> I tried to be logical and objective. Sorry if my post wasn't
> straightforward.
Objective? Logical? Again, you are a hypocrite!
Michelle Campbell
<r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
>I have nothing to hide as I'm just trying to set the facts straight. Again,
>you admit that you "have no direct proof." It's not simply Rex defending the
>ICC leaders. I'm just trying to present the truth. Don't we all want that?
Then do me a favor and talk to the leaders in SFCoC who keep telling
members that I am a lesbian. I document it everytime. Over the years
the story has changed. Sadly, the story has been so-o-o distorted it
convinced a member to leave the group because she knew her boyfriend
was lying and had no clue who I was. Even after I approached a leader
last year at the Pac Rim Conference ( going to her in the spirit of
Matthew 18) to ask these false accusations cease and desist, yet they
continue on.
>Now I'm not perfect, but Catherine, come on, be honest. Are you saying that
>Reveal does not try to find out stuff on leaders in the ICC including Russ
>Ewell? Videotaping ICC services in secret, taping ICC sermons in secret,
>visiting ministers' homes and counting the number of times the leader says
>"Jesus," "God," and the "Holy Spirit," etc.
For one, I don't really care to find out more about Russ Ewell. I
don't find him to be a pleasant person to know or associate with.
Therefore, I would not waste my time. Also, your black and white
attitude is seeping out. What's wrong in video taping a Sunday
service openly? No hidden cameras or tape recorders. Is it okay for
current members to do, but not former ones?
Who from REVEAL has visited a minister' home?
Will the next thing be that the
>Reveal Board Member, who ironically lives down the street from me, will end
>up going through my trash? What is this, the Cold War all over again?
What REVEAL Board member lives down the street from you? If you are
referring to Calvin, he not a board member.
>
>>
>>: If you are not able to substantiate your accusations, by definition, that
>>: makes you a liar, gossip and slanderer.
Likewise, you better start substantiating your accusations about the
activities of staff members of REVEAL.
>>
>Calvin was my friend and we had some great times together and I still
>cherish those memories. But it would not have mattered if it was you, John
>Engler, or anyone else who made that post. The issue was the slander of Russ
>Ewell and not simply Calvin's poor judgement. You can attack the messenger
>but the issue still stands. Russ Ewell is innocent in this matter.
How do know Calvin's motive? You are so-o unbelievably arrogant. He
is not the originator of the information. He used poor judgment in
conveying it on the NG. You are just as guilty of attacking the
messenger.
Instead of taking this offline with Calvin you chose to publically
rake him over the coals. This is similar to what you did a month or
two ago when you barked about copyright infringement. As far as I am
concerned I see this as nothing more as an attempt to hurt Calvin and
nail him to the wall. Hope you feel good about it.
>
>
>I chose to address this issue because there is no credible source. If I tell
>you that the Earth is flat, you believe me, and tell someone else, then
>who's belief is wrong? Me, being the original source who was wrong, or you
>who believed the lie you were told? Both are wrong. Again, I'm not perfect
>but I'm just trying to correct the lie and tell the truth.
Then go and correct your leaders in their numerous lies about me. Or
because you haven't personally heard you can't speak to it??
>I spoke directly from all the first-hand sources I could find. Calvin spoke
>second-hand and should acknowledge that. He should also stick to first-hand
>sources rather than hearsay.
What makes you think we have not heard from first hand sources who
would prove you wrong?
Michelle Campbell--(mich...@reveal.org)
REVEAL:Former Members of the International Churches of Christ
http://www.reveal.org
(510)834-5497
Rex Geissler
<6q8i2e$l...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
I have never heard of a teenager signing any type of consent agreement in
the ICC.
Regards, Rex
http://greatcommission.com
Rex Geissler
>Rex Geissler wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> >For one, I don't really care to find out more about Russ Ewell. I
>> >don't find him to be a pleasant person to know or associate with.
>> >Therefore, I would not waste my time. Also, your black and white
>> >attitude is seeping out. What's wrong in video taping a Sunday
>> >service openly? No hidden cameras or tape recorders. Is it okay for
>> >current members to do, but not former ones?
>> >
>> >Who from REVEAL has visited a minister' home?
>>
done
>> by REVEAL's consent? The guy down the street told me he was going to
visit
>> Kip's house, etc.
>
>I drove by Kip's house about a week after I left the ICC in May. I wasn't
even
>a member of REVEAL at the time! I went there to see for myself the
luxurious
>lifestyle that I helped support for over 4 years. Guess what? I wasn't
>disapointed!
>
>(snip)
>
>> >referring to Calvin, he not a board member.
>>
>
>I believe I told you that I was going to be on staff with REVEAL and take
over
>the LA hotline. I never said I was on the REVEAL board. And YES Rex, you
are
>mistaken. About a lot of things too.
Sorry Calvin. Thought you had told me that since I never knew REVEAL had a
board but oh well.
Catherine Hampton
: In article <6q7f92$f50$4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton
: <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:>Not "a little sensational". This is a classic case of ICC slandering
:>and attempting to destroy the credibility of an opponent. I've been
:>expecting something like this. But I didn't expect it from this source.
: It's obvious that the persecution the Calvin is suffering validates his
: position.
Well.... I wouldn't put it that strongly. It is obvious to me that
someone is =very= concerned about Calvin's open discussion of an issue
which has usually (before this) not been discussed openly even here.
That someone (or those people) either include Rex Geissler, or have
convinced him to launch an ugly personal attack against someone who was
a friend three months ago. :/
That doesn't prove Calvin is right in his assertions. But Calvin never
claimed to know more than he learned from the allegations that have
been circulating, and talking with people who were in Boston and
Washington D.C. when these things were happening.
What is clear is that someone or some people in the ICC will go after
their opponents and accuse them of crimes in order to avoid facing
the issues. That, in itself, is reprehensible. :/
Catherine Hampton
Rex Geissler <r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
: Those "teenage girls" should now be about 23-30 years old. Where are they?
Rex, they are terrified to speak up. Their parents are prominent members
of the ICC. :( And that is all I am going to say about this, because I
am not free to discuss the sources of my information.
You need to learn something about sexual abuse. I learned the hard way --
I was a victim. In my case, the culprit wasn't anyone in the ICC -- it
was probably my father. (I remember the abuse but not the face of the
person involved.) I didn't admit this to anyone until about five years
ago, and I'm in my late thirties now. :/
You engaged in an ugly personal attack on someone you supposedly viewed
as a friend simply because he repeated allegations which you believe to
be false. You believed the alleged perpetrator.
Someone who was in the least impartial in this case would simply have
stated that there is no solid proof publicly available, and therefore
we should presume Russ's innocence. I would have left you alone if
you'd said that.
But you didn't. You launched a full, frontal smear attack against someone
that was supposedly your friend. :/ Shame on you.
John & Deborah Proctor
"Rex Geissler" <r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
Rex,
Usually, when a minor is a victim, the parents of the minor are also
considered victims. The reason you might not have heard about it might
of been because it was negotiated in the consent agreement. Get it?
Depends on the judge hearing the suit.
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
John & Deborah Proctor
gin...@concentric.net (Jaz) wrote:
>In article <6q9ili$mc9$1...@supernews.com>, "Rex Geissler" <r...@greatcommission.com> wrote:
>
>>>If there was any consent agreement between Russ and the victims, the
>>consent
>>>agreement may forbid the victims from legally speaking out about it.
>>>I am not here to say that I have any information as to the guilt or
>>>innocence of Russ Ewell. All I am saying is that there may or may
>>>not have been a consent agreement.
>>
>>I have never heard of a teenager signing any type of consent agreement in
>>the ICC.
>>
>
>I bet there are a lot of things that happen in the ICC that you never heard of
>before.
>
>Gintas
Gintas,
I'm glad someone understood what I was trying to say. Thanks.
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
Jessica L Roberts
J
Kurtz wrote:
>
> Catherine Hampton wrote in message <6qa1tm$gc5$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
> >Jaz <gin...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> >: In article <6q7f92$f50$4...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton
> >: <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> >
> >:>Not "a little sensational". This is a classic case of ICC slandering
> >:>and attempting to destroy the credibility of an opponent. I've been
> >:>expecting something like this. But I didn't expect it from this source.
> >
> >: It's obvious that the persecution the Calvin is suffering validates his
> >: position.
> >
> >Well.... I wouldn't put it that strongly. It is obvious to me that
> >someone is =very= concerned about Calvin's open discussion of an issue
> >which has usually (before this) not been discussed openly even here.
>
Rex Geissler
What suit? What court? What judge? Again, there is no evidence.
Regards, Rex
http://greatcommission.com