For the News Media robbing court cases stealing blackmailing etc

[miss_k (miss_k)]

Thought I make a nice copy of the riches of GGWO in a thread for the media.

[miss_k (miss_k)]

I am going to repost some of the more interesting things that have happened in GGWO's history.

The blackmail stories, the threats, the guns, the lies, and even some of the deaths.

I am going to post court cases so the media can quickly read them and find them on the web. They can scroll through here and understand the ministries long interesting history including things that people have posted on this site.

I am not doing this to hurt anybody. Not even the Stevens family but this sickness needs some medication and we need to at least expose what has happened. This blog is an important part of this.

Consider this beginings the best and worst of the past.

I do not easily bring up the names of those who are hurt. The Langs for instance. Nor do I desire to make anybody feel like this is getting even. But nothing to reconcile the ministry, no repentance inside the church has happened.

There are people who have. The likes of Paul Stevens who has moved on.
For a better day and more honest future before God.

But lets start with the most unreal:

[miss_k (miss_k)]

This case is a real rug burner:

Go do a search for these cases and see what the record shows.

Imagine how many times that people were told to lie. Threatened with there ministry and their families on this one.

Think of the Leonards. Think of the families who lost everything because of greed.

This is the opinion from the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court denied Cert., so this was the last word on the subject. Luckily, the facts were at issue, so the Court of Appeals recites the facts, though it admits that the facts are recited in the light most favorable to Dovydenas.

IN RE THE BIBLE SPEAKS, Debtor. ELIZABETH DOVYDENAS, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. THE BIBLE SPEAKS, Defendant, Appellant

No. 88-1254

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

869 F.2d 628

March 9, 1989

PRIOR HISTORY:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge.

COUNSEL: Norman Roy Grutman with whom Jewel H. Bjork, Grutman Miller Greenspoon & Hendler, Henry Paul Monaghan, Charles W. Morse, Jr., and Sullivan & Worcester were on brief for Appellant.

Marjorie Heins, Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and Cynthia Salten on brief for the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Amicus Curiae.

Lee Boothby, Julie B. Kaplan and Boothby, Ziprick & Yingst on brief for Council on Religious Freedom and The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., Amici Curiae.

Gordon T. Walker with whom Donald R. Frederico, Eric R. Dannenmaier, McDermott, Will & Emery, and Laurence H. Tribe were on brief Appellee.

JUDGES: Bownes, Breyer, Circuit Judges, and Brown,* Senior Circuit Judge.

* Of the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINIONBY: BOWNES

OPINION: BOWNES, Circuit Judge.

In this undue influence case, the defendant church, the Bible Speaks (TBS), appeals the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's finding of liability. See The Bible Speaks v. Dovydenas, 81 Bankr. 750 (D. Mass. 1988) (TBS II); In reThe Bible Speaks, 73 Bankr. 848 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1987) (TBS I). The unique procedural history of the case was detailed by the district court.


TBS brought suit in Berkshire Superior Court [Massachusetts] against Elizabeth Dovydenas on April 14, 1986 seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not owe her any debt or liability and that it did not have to return funds transferred by her. This suit was dismissed on June 13, 1986. The Massachusetts Appeals Court dismissal was affirmed on April 8, 1987.

Elizabeth Dovydenas then brought suit on June 19, 1986 in Berkshire Superior Court against TBS. She sought rescission of gifts made by her between December 1984 and December 1985 because of undue influence and fraud. After its motion to dismiss was denied on July 15, 1986, TBS sought protection of the bankruptcy court filing for Chapter 11 reorganization on July 29, 1986. Its petition, which stayed the state court action, stated that Elizabeth Dovydenas' claim against it was a core proceeding. Elizabeth Dovydenas then filed a proof of claim with the bankruptcy court on October 31, 1986. The three-week trial on the merits began on March 30, 1987 and ended on April 16, 1987. The bankruptcy court issued its final order on May 19, 1987. By assuming jurisdiction of TBS over the claimant's objection, the bankruptcy court entered into the process of administering TBS' estate while it reorganized under Chapter 11. 81 Bankr. at 753-54.

Plaintiff's claim in the bankruptcy court was for the return of gifts made to TBS, allegedly because of undue influence. The bankruptcy court found that the gifts were the result of undue influence and awarded her $6,581,356.25, which was the total of three large gifts and a number of smaller ones. After reviewing the record, the district court accepted and adopted in full the bankruptcy court's findings of facts. Both courts rejected the first amendment - free exercise claim of TBS.

We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW

The bankruptcy court made extensive findings of facts. See TBS I, 73 Bankr. at 849-57. Credibility was a key factor in determining the facts. Id. at 857. We review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. Bankr. R. 8013; FN1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN1 Bankruptcy Rule 8013 reads in full:

On an appeal the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel may affirm, modify, or reverse a bankruptcy judge's judgement, order, or decree or remand with instructions for further proceedings. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Briden v. Foley, 776 F.2d 379, 381 (1st Cir. 1985), we held, in a bankruptcy case, that the clearly erroneous standard was especially appropriate where credibility was at issue, stating: "Indeed, the clearly erroneous standard was designed to insulate just such findings -- ones that are based, inter alia, on weighing the credibility of witnesses." Id. at 382. See also In re Pearson Bros., 787 F.2d 1157, 1161 (7th Cir. 1986). The clearly erroneous standard has been explained by the Supreme Court as follows:

Although the meaning of the phrase "clearly erroneous" is not immediately apparent, certain general principles governing the exercise of the appellate court's power to overturn findings of a district court may be derived from our cases. The foremost of these principles, as the Fourth Circuit itself recognized, is that "[a] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 746, 68 S. Ct. 525 (1948). This standard plainly does not entitle a reviewing court to reverse the finding of the trier of fact simply because it is convinced that it would have decided the case differently. The reviewing court oversteps the bounds of its duty under Rule 52(a) if it undertakes to duplicate the role of the lower court. "In applying the clearly erroneous standard to the findings of a district court sitting without a jury, appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues de novo." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123, 23 L. Ed. 2d 129, 89 S. Ct. 1562 (1969). If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 94 L. Ed. 150, 70 S. Ct. 177 (1949); see also Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 72 L. Ed. 2d 606, 102 S. Ct. 2182 (1982).

* * *

When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52(a) demands even greater deference to the trial court's findings; for only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding of and belief in what is said. See Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 105 S. Ct. 844 (1985).

Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 575, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518, 105 S. Ct. 1504 (1985).

We have reviewed the entire record carefully and conclude that the bankruptcy court's findings, including its credibility determinations, are not clearly erroneous. The bankruptcy court found the testimony of plaintiff and her husband "forthright and credible" and the testimony of defendant's witnesses "evasive and lacking in credibility." TBS I, 73 Bankr. at 857. All credibility conflicts were resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

Because of our decision, infra, that the first amendment is not implicated in this case, we do not reach TBS' argument that its first amendment claim requires that we independently review the facts. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 80 L. Ed. 2d 502, 104 S. Ct. 1949 (1984) (free speech-libel case); Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 741 F.2d 538, 542 n3 (3d Cir. 1984) (free exercise case), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 534, 106 S. Ct. 1326, 89 L. Ed. 2d 501 (1986).

II. THE FACTS

At issue are three major gifts made by plaintiff to TBS in the amounts of $1,001,031.25, $5,000,325 FN2 and $500,000 and a number of smaller gifts totaling $80,000. Because of the importance of the facts on the issue of undue influence, we recite them in detail. Much of the testimony of the plaintiff was disputed, denied, or contradicted by Pastor Stevens, founder of TBS, and other members of TBS. Since the bankruptcy court found in favor of plaintiff, we state the facts in the light most favorable to her. Where there is a significant conflict between the plaintiff's testimony and those testifying on behalf of TBS, we have stated defendant's testimony in detail.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN2 These two gifts will be referred to as the $1,000,000 gift and the $5,000,000 gift, respectively.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Parties

Elizabeth Dayton Dovydenas, the plaintiff, was born in 1952 and grew up in Minnesota. She is an heir to the Dayton-Hudson fortune. Jonas Dovydenas is a freelance photographer. Plaintiff met him in 1977 when he taught a photography class in Minnesota in which she enrolled. In December of 1978, they were married. Because plaintiff was so much wealthier than Jonas, they decided that he need not work in order to support them, but rather, he should concentrate on his art and family projects. Plaintiff had a fortune of approximately $19,000,000, most of which was held by Okabena, the family-owned investment company based in Minnesota. Prior to her gifts to TBS, plaintiff's charitable contributions averaged about $ 10,000 per year, with a high of $127,000 in 1977 to an art center.

In the Spring of 1981, Jonas and plaintiff moved to Lenox, Massachusetts. The move was unrelated to TBS--neither plaintiff nor Jonas knew of TBS at this time. They hired Irene Colby as a housekeeper; she happened to be a member of TBS.

After moving to Lenox, plaintiff was interested in joining a church. In 1982, after visiting a few which she did not like, she and Jonas went to TBS. They liked what they saw and heard and left a $500 check in the collection plate.

TBS was founded in 1971 in Maine by Carl Stevens with 35 to 50 members. Stevens has no formal Bible study training but he has been a Fundamentalist preacher for 26 years. TBS is organized as a non-profit organization with Stevens as its head. It has a 12 person Board of Trustees which must approve Stevens' decisions. In case of a deadlock, a group of elders decides the outcome of an issue. In 1976, TBS moved to its current location in Lenox, Massachusetts, having grown to approximately 800 to 900 members. As of 1987, there were approximately 1,300 members. A large campus was purchased with member contributions; it contained a children's school for grades K-12, a nursery and the Stevens School of the Bible. Stevens taught at the Bible School and preached at the Church. TBS also ran radio and television ministries as well as operating a missionary boat, La Gracia, in the Caribbean. It has a network of voluntary affiliates across the globe. In 1982, there were between 18 and 20 such affiliated churches. By 1987, that number had grown to about 100 with a world-wide membership of about 17,000. There are also about 160 missions in 26 countries.

The Prelude

Plaintiff's Testimony

After the $500 check was left in the collection plate, Maureen Shea, plaintiff's new housekeeper and also a member of TBS (who was recommended by Colby when Colby left) FN3 brought to the house two TBS pastors, Thomas Schaller and John Lloyd, who set a date for Pastor Stevens to come for tea. Sometime in the Winter of 1982-83, Stevens and Barbara Baum, Stevens' lady friend at the time (he later married her), did go to plaintiff's house for tea. At this time, Stevens asked plaintiff and Jonas if they had "accepted Christ" and both answered no. At this first meeting, when Stevens was alone with plaintiff, he asked her for money for a counselling center. She gave him a check for $2,000. Baum and plaintiff were the same age, and they became friends.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN3 Each replacement or addition to plaintiff's staff was made by one TBS member recommending another.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jonas' stay with TBS was brief. At one point he and plaintiff loaned (and later turned the loan into a gift) $50,000 for La Gracia; Jonas also spent some time on La Gracia photographing the boat and its missionary operations. Jonas' activity in TBS decreased as plaintiff's activity increased.

In the summer of 1983, plaintiff's and Baum's friendship blossomed as plaintiff began attending TBS services. One day while Baum and plaintiff were talking on TBS campus, plaintiff asked Baum about tithing and being born again. Baum took plaintiff to see Stevens without a prior appointment, which was unusual. The three conferred; Baum took notes for plaintiff. Stevens was told that plaintiff was born again but that Jonas was not. To this, he responded that plaintiff was saved and in the light and that Jonas was not saved and was living in darkness. On the subject of tithing, Stevens directed plaintiff to some Bible passages on the subject of giving and not withholding from God. Baum typed up the notes she had taken and gave them to plaintiff.

In September 1983, plaintiff enrolled in two classes at the Stevens School of the Bible. Stevens taught these classes which met Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and had an enrollment of about two hundred students. From 9 a.m. to 10 a.m., plaintiff attended a rap session led by Stevens which was also well attended but not as large as the class. Plaintiff was occasionally alone with Stevens in 1983. Late in 1983, Baum introduced plaintiff to Kathleen Hill, a member and employee of TBS and Baum's best friend. Plaintiff and Hill became friends.

In 1984, plaintiff became more involved in TBS activities and saw much more of Hill and Baum. Early in the year, Hill encouraged her to take charge of a women's seminar which was held in March. Plaintiff saw Hill and Baum frequently at lunch or TBS sponsored brunches. Plaintiff continued attending classes and rap sessions. She and Stevens also began spending more time together. FN4 She began accompanying him on his weekly Friday evening trips to Framingham, Massachusetts, where he preached at an affiliated church. Plaintiff's relationships with her non-TBS friends deteriorated as she spent more and more time with Stevens, Baum, and Hill.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN4 There has never been any suggestion that Stevens' and plaintiff's relationship was anything but platonic.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the period from November 1984 to April 1985, plaintiff saw Stevens alone on a daily basis: driving with him from class to rap sessions; seeing him at 11 a.m. after he finished with Telephone Time (a radio ministry); meeting with him in his office without a prior appointment; and driving with him to and from Framingham. Plaintiff testified that in these private meetings, she was given advice on religious, financial, and personal matters. She was told that she had to obey Stevens because he was the highest authority on earth. She was also told to listen to tapes of Stevens' speeches over and over and to take notes of all Stevens told her and then study those notes. She was to inundate her mind with Stevens' words. She disclosed her net worth to him, and he told her that her mission in life was to give and that her gifts could cause great events. Many discussions with Stevens, Baum and Hill focused on plaintiff's money and her giving it to others. Stevens told her that Jonas should get a job and that the family only needed $ 1,000,000 to live on. She was told not to listen to evil reports and that Jonas, his parents and her family were evil and were controlled by Satan and demons.

Defendant's Testimony

TBS' witnesses presented the following version of the same events. At trial, neither Schaller nor Lloyd were asked whether they set up the first meeting between Stevens and plaintiff; Stevens denied having sent them as emissaries. He did dine at plaintiff's house once at her invitation (Baum remembered twice). At this time, he asked if plaintiff and Jonas had accepted Christ; Jonas said no and plaintiff's response is unknown. Baum testified that only Jonas was asked and she took his ambiguous response to mean "no." At this dinner, Stevens did not ask for or receive any money. He did not know that plaintiff was wealthy nor did he encourage the budding friendship between plaintiff and Baum because of her money. It was plaintiff who sought out Baum in the beginning of their friendship.

Stevens did not recall any meetings with plaintiff in 1983. Baum testified that the tithing and born-again conversation occurred in January 1984; Stevens also put the meeting at that time. FN5 During the January meetings, they discussed Bible passages on tithing and giving as well as how to relate to Jonas. Stevens did not say that Jonas was a non-believer or that he was unsaved.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN5 Stevens' calendar shows two meetings with plaintiff and Hill in January. Stevens testified that Hill was detained with TBS work and that Baum filled in for Hill.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Stevens denied seeing plaintiff in 1984 except for class, rap sessions, group lunches and by appointment. He did not recall driving with plaintiff to Framingham until 1985. The women's seminar was plaintiff's idea. Baum saw plaintiff at least once a week, mainly for prayer sessions.

Stevens testified that at no time could plaintiff see him without an appointment. His day was too busy for anyone to do so, except for TBS pastors and emergencies. He never said that he was especially anointed by God or that he spoke the literal truth or that he was the highest authority on earth or that he must be obeyed. Rather, he said that he was God's man just like all preachers are God's men, that he was a sinner like all men and that he was only to be followed when he followed God. He also denied telling plaintiff, or any of his congregation, to fill their minds with only his words. He denied ever telling her that non-believers including Jonas and her family were evil, not to be trusted and controlled by demons. Nor did he say that she had a special calling to give or that her gifts could cause great events on earth. He never told plaintiff that Jonas should get a job or that all they needed to live on was $1,000,000.

The $1,000,000 Gift

Plaintiff's Testimony

Baum and Stevens were engaged to be married in the Fall of 1984. Baum suffered from migraine headaches which regularly incapacitated her. Plaintiff was concerned about the headaches and their impact on the upcoming marriage. Stevens had been telling plaintiff that she was a special person who should give and to whom God could speak.

Plaintiff testified that in the Fall of 1984, before Stevens' wedding, while driving back from Framingham with him, she heard three things in her head, one of which was to give TBS $ 1,000,000. Shortly thereafter she had a discussion with Stevens; she told him that she was going to give TBS $ 1,000,000 and that she believed by doing so it would cure Baum's headaches. Stevens replied: "Great. I don't know which would be better, the million dollars or having her healed of her headaches." Plaintiff also told Hill and Baum of her intent to give the gift and her belief that it would cure Baum's headaches.

When plaintiff told Jonas about making the gift, he opposed it. Stevens told her to ignore contrary advice from Jonas or anyone else. Jonas contacted Okabena about the gift, and Okabena replied with a letter which detailed various options for giving TBS the money over longer periods of time and with more favorable tax consequences. On November 24, Baum and Stevens were married. The gift, in the form of a transfer of Dayton-Hudson stock worth $ 1,001,031.25, was completed in mid-December 1984.

On December 13, 1984, Jonas and plaintiff met with Stevens. At that meeting, Stevens said that he would not take any more money from plaintiff without Jonas' consent. After the $1,000,000 gift, Stevens, Baum, and Hill each told plaintiff that Baum's headaches were cured because of the gift. In fact, Baum continued to suffer from migraines but this was kept from plaintiff. Because she had been told by Hill, Stevens and Baum that Baum's headaches had been cured, plaintiff believed that large gifts by her to TBS could effect events on earth. In February and March 1985, Stevens emphasized to plaintiff the importance of obedience, the nearness of the end of the world and not listening to evil reports. In March and April, Stevens emphasized the ability of the holy spirit to control people.

Defendant's Testimony

TBS' witnesses presented a different version of these events. Baum's migraines were frequent and severe: she would either be bed-ridden or the pain on her face would be obvious. Stevens never told plaintiff that she had a special calling to give. In the Fall of 1984, Jonas told Stevens that plaintiff wished to give a large gift to TBS but did not tell him how much. On November 13, plaintiff told Stevens of the gift and its amount. At this time, she told him that after much prayer God had told her to give the money. Baum testified that plaintiff also told her that God had told plaintiff to make the gift. It was not until three weeks later that plaintiff told Baum that the gift might cure Baum's headaches; Baum told Stevens of plaintiff's statement. Hill was not informed of the link between the gift and the headaches until after the gift was completed. The ride from Framingham during which God spoke to plaintiff did not occur.

Stevens was not informed of Jonas' opposition to the gift until January 1985. The December 1984 meeting with Jonas was set up by Jonas to ask Stevens to contribute to a charity with which Jonas was involved. Stevens knew of the Okabena letter but never thought the gift was not freely made. Stevens denied telling plaintiff that she should ignore advice from Jonas or anyone else. He testified that what advice she got was up to her. In a January 2, 1985 meeting, Stevens learned of the marital friction developing between plaintiff and Jonas, but he did not tell her that Jonas should get a job or that she should give more money to TBS. Until this meeting, he thought that Jonas agreed to making the gift and that the marriage was harmonious. Stevens denied seeing plaintiff except at services from then until March 1985. In the Spring, he gave a series of sermons on giving but these were not directed at plaintiff and dealt with spiritual gifts such as mercy and helps. Stevens denied ever telling plaintiff not to listen to non-TBS members.

Stevens, Baum and Hill all denied telling plaintiff that Baum's headaches were cured. Immediately after the gift was made, Baum did feel better for about three weeks, and plaintiff was told this. But, at a January 2, 1985 lunch, at which plaintiff was present, Baum was stricken with another migraine; although nobody told plaintiff that it was a headache, this fact was obvious to all who were present. No one specifically told plaintiff that the headaches had returned, n6 but, no effort was made to conceal that fact from her.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN6 Baum offered contradictory testimony as to whether she ever actually told plaintiff that her headaches had returned: at first she said that she had not, but after a recess during which she talked to TBS' attorney, she said that she had.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The $5,000,000 Gift

Plaintiff's Testimony

In March 1985, plaintiff told Stevens that she had heard God tell her to give $5,000,000 to TBS in June. Stevens told her not to tell Jonas about this. In early April, she again discussed the gift with Stevens while Baum was present.

Plaintiff had planned a trip with Jonas and her children to Florida on April 18 for her mother's birthday. On the morning of the 18th, before she left for Florida, Baum called her. Baum told her that Ben Turkia, a TBS pastor, had been detained in Rumania and that "they're probably pulling his fingernails out right now." Baum requested that plaintiff pray for Turkia. Plaintiff proceeded to Florida as scheduled. Jonas left after a few days while plaintiff stayed for another week. Right after Jonas left, on the evening of Sunday April 21, plaintiff called Stevens. She told him that she wanted to give the $5,000,000 right away in order to effectuate Turkia's release, to which Stevens responded, "Great, get a jump on the devil." At this time, he did not tell her that Turkia had already been released. Stevens emphasized that she should not tell anyone, especially Jonas, about the gift. The next day, she wrote to Ron Gross at Okabena requesting that the gift be made as soon as possible. She did not discuss the gift with any outside advisors. Upon returning to Lenox, she met frequently with Hill and Stevens. Both cautioned her against telling anyone, including Turkia, that she had worked a miracle, though they assured her that she had.

There was a dispute as to who knew what and when about the events surrounding the Turkia incident. Prior to trial, an attorney for TBS stipulated that: 1. Turkia and a companion entered Rumania on April 16, 1985; 2. Turkia and his companion were detained at the border and interrogated; 3. they were released and returned to Austria via Budapest, Hungary on April 17; and 4. while in Budapest, Turkia called his wife in Baltimore and told her of both the detention and release--the call was made on April 17 late in the evening Budapest time (early in the evening Eastern time).

At trial, there was evidence that in April 1985, Mrs. Turkia was living on TBS campus. Turkia and his companion were detained on April 16, 1985 in Rumania. They were released on April 17, arriving in Budapest, Hungary that evening. His companion called a friend in Pennsylvania who was told to call Mrs. Turkia. The friend in Pennsylvania called Mrs. Turkia. Mrs. Turkia immediately called Pastor Schaller, who called Stevens and Baum. By April 18, Turkia was in Austria staying with friends. That evening, Mrs. Turkia called Austria twice. The first call was a short one to friends, but not to where Turkia was staying. The second was a twelve minute call to the house where Turkia was staying. Turkia returned to the United States on April 24.

The bankruptcy court refused to allow TBS to withdraw the stipulation. On a motion by plaintiff, it struck portions of Turkia's, Mrs. Turkia's and Schaller's testimony to the extent they conflicted with the stipulation. The court's finding does not rely exclusively on the stipulation, but is based also on portions of the testimony of the above witnesses. The court found:

Turkia had been detained by Romanian border guards for only 24 hours, and had been released on April 17th. He arrived in Budapest, Hungary on April 17th at 8:00 P.M. Budapest time, at which point his companion placed a call to a friend in Pennsylvania informing him of what had happened and requesting him to call Turkia's wife. Turkia's wife was immediately informed of the detention and release. She was then living in Lenox in the home of Edward Canino ("Canino"), an employee of the Church.

TBS I, 73 Bankr. at 852 (emphasis added). The court also found "that Stevens and Baum were aware of Turkia's release when they discussed the impending $ 5 million gift with the [plaintiff] over the telephone on the evening of April 21st." Id. at 863.

Upon her return to Lenox from Florida, plaintiff met with Stevens and Hill. At those meetings, strategy for making Okabena deliver the gift quickly and confidentially was discussed. Stevens and Hill told plaintiff what to say to Okabena; except for the first call, Hill was with plaintiff whenever she talked to Okabena. On April 27, 1985, plaintiff, Stevens, Baum, Hill and Hill's husband went to a restaurant. At that time, Stevens told her that her $ 5,000,000 gift would be particularly influential in shaping the world for the return of God. Stevens also told plaintiff to write a letter to him and told her what to put in the letter. The next day, Hill dictated this letter to plaintiff who wrote it as she was told. The letter was given to Hill who gave it to Stevens. The letter stated that God had spoken to her, which was why she was making the gift, that no one from TBS had asked her for the gift or knew about it and that Stevens was to administer the gift.

On April 30, plaintiff's father called her because he had learned from his brother, an official at Okabena, of the proposed gift. In addition to inquiring about the gift, her father told her that he was going to visit her. She told her father to call back later and immediately called Stevens who told her to come to his office. Once there, Stevens told her to tell her father that a much smaller amount was being given. She agreed to do so and told Stevens that Jonas would be there that evening and would overhear her talk with her father. Stevens called a TBS employee, Ed Canino, and told him to take Jonas out for a long dinner. That evening plaintiff disarmed her father and convinced him not to visit her. The gift was completed on May 13, 1985 by transferring shares of Dayton-Hudson stock worth $5,000,325 to TBS.

Stevens told plaintiff to get a post office box so that Jonas would not see any mail regarding the $5,000,000 gift or plaintiff's finances. She rented the box on April 30, 1985 and told Okabena to send all mail addressed to her there.

In late May 1985, after Jonas returned from a trip to Afghanistan, Hill, Stevens and plaintiff met. Hill suggested that Stevens write a letter to plaintiff and that plaintiff leave the letter for Jonas to find. Thereafter, Stevens wrote a letter to plaintiff stating that she should honor Jonas and seek his advice in major financial matters. Stevens also wrote that he thought Jonas loved his family and God. Plaintiff left the letter for Jonas to find. Despite what Stevens wrote, he told plaintiff not to trust or listen to Jonas because he was a non-believing husband.

Defendant's Testimony

TBS' version of these events was again strikingly dissimilar. On March 19, plaintiff told Stevens that she was planning another large gift but she did not say how large. This meeting mainly concerned putting her son in a big brother program run by the Church. During the meeting, plaintiff also raised concerns about Jonas and his spendthrift ways. Stevens realized that there were serious problems when plaintiff said that Jonas was going to die because of his demons. Stevens told her not to judge Jonas.

On April 11, Stevens met with plaintiff again. When she again stated that she wished to make a large gift, he asked her if the gift would harm her marriage, her family or her future security. She replied that it would not. Stevens was still not told how large a gift plaintiff was considering but gained some idea of the amount when plaintiff circled some items she wanted the gift to go toward. Because of TBS' policy against direct solicitation of gifts, Stevens asked plaintiff whether there had been a solicitation by any TBS member. Plaintiff responded that there had been no solicitation and that God had led her to give. She asked Stevens if he wanted this in writing and Stevens replied that he would.

Turkia is connected not only with TBS but also with other religious groups. The trip he made in April 1985 was for an organization unconnected with TBS. FN7 Turkia was acquainted with plaintiff and Jonas because he had worked on plaintiff's estate cutting wood. Pastor Schaller told Stevens of the detention on April 16 or 17. Schaller had learned this from Mrs. Turkia who thought the friend in Pennsylvania had said that Turkia was still in custody and was facing a long prison sentence. Mrs. Turkia contended that she was unable to reach Turkia when she called Austria on April 18. As of the evening of April 21, the people at TBS still believed Turkia to be under Rumanian detention. On that evening, after regular services, a special prayer service was held for him. Stevens did not learn of the actual chronology until after Turkia returned. Schaller learned of Turkia's release between April 21 and 24 when he called the friend in Pennsylvania and learned of the miscommunication between Mrs. Turkia and the friend. He then informed Mrs. Turkia, Baum and Stevens of Turkia's release.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN7 This claim of no connection with TBS is undercut by the fact that TBS wrote a $ 1,000 check to Turkia's travelling companion in June 1985.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On April 21, plaintiff spoke to Baum and not Stevens. In that conversation, plaintiff did not say that she wanted to give the gift earlier in order to save Turkia but rather, she wanted to give earlier as an inspiration from Turkia. Upon Turkia's return and at all times thereafter, nobody at TBS attempted to hide the actual chronology from plaintiff and no one ever told her that her gift had caused Turkia's release. Plaintiff was not prevented from discussing the events with Turkia when he was in Lenox.

As to when Stevens knew of the amount of the gift, he and other TBS pastors testified that it was not until after the Turkia incident was concluded. FN8 They said that several large gifts were being discussed during this time frame. Stevens learned of the amount when he received plaintiff's letter on April 28. Stevens did not request that letter except as noted above and he did not ask Hill to get plaintiff to write it. The meeting at which plaintiff said he requested the letter did not occur. Stevens contended that it could not have occurred since he stayed in Framingham on the night of April 26-27--TBS produced a hotel and a restaurant receipt to confirm this. On the 27th, he drove to Rhode Island and then to Connecticut to deliver a speech. Late that afternoon, he returned to Lenox and immediately went to a sports banquet.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN8 Contradictory deposition statements by Schaller were explained by Schaller and others as due to nervousness at the deposition and severe pain in April 1985 due to an automobile accident.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hill denied helping plaintiff with the letter except to provide a Bible citation when asked by plaintiff. Hill never told plaintiff how to get Okabena to deliver the stock faster. She knew that plaintiff made six calls to Okabena but was only present at plaintiff's request.

With respect to keeping the gift confidential, Stevens felt that he should honor plaintiff's wishes. He, therefore, did not tell her family about the gift. He arranged for Jonas to be out of the house because he could tell that plaintiff had not told Jonas of the gift and did not want to do so. Stevens felt that plaintiff should do as God told her and that his first responsibility was to his communicant. He did not advise her either way about seeking outside advice. Baum told him that the gift was not proceeding quickly but he did nothing. He did not see plaintiff from April 11 until the gift was completed. FN9 He did not know of the post office box until the litigation began.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN9 This testimony by Stevens is inconsistent with his other testimony that he met with plaintiff on April 30--when he arranged for Canino to take Jonas out to dinner, though he claims he played a much lesser role in those arrangements than plaintiff alleged.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The May 20 letter to plaintiff was a sincere letter which Stevens sent because of the continuing problems between Jonas and plaintiff. It was not a sham and neither Stevens nor Hill asked plaintiff to leave it where Jonas would find it. Stevens was not telling plaintiff in private anything that was contrary to what he said in the letter.

An Active Interlude

Plaintiff's Testimony

Because of Okabena's breach of confidentiality (in telling her father of the planned $5,000,000 gift) and because Stevens suggested it to her, plaintiff decided to retain a new attorney, a new stockbroker and a new accountant. In June 1985, Stevens and Hill introduced plaintiff to Andrew Campoli, TBS' attorney. Stevens also introduced her to James Freed, a broker with Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter) who had been recently retained by TBS to be its broker (mainly to handle the $5,000,000 gift). Finally, plaintiff chose Rick Burkhart, TBS' accountant, to be her accountant. She chose all three based on Stevens' recommendations without delving into their qualifications.

From July to November 1985, plaintiff met with Campoli many times, always with Hill in tow. Some meetings were taped by plaintiff at Hill's request. Hill reported to Stevens all that occurred at the meetings. The two reasons for seeing Campoli were the drafting of a new will and the drafting of an agreement between Jonas and plaintiff.

The will was discussed for five months before plaintiff executed it on December 13, 1985. In the will, she left the bare statutory minimum to Jonas, with Stevens as trustee for most of that. She left only her jewelry to her children. FN10 Everything else went to TBS.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN10 Plaintiff sold all of her jewelry in November 1985 while on a trip to New York City with Hill. The proceeds were donated to TBS. Prior to her connection with TBS, plaintiff had already created two trust funds for her children with over $1,000,000 in them; these trusts were not affected by the will.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Stevens wanted her to get Jonas to sign an agreement after some unflattering newspaper articles appeared in a local paper, the Berkshire Eagle. The articles were a three-part series which reported allegations of dissension among former TBS members and pastors, improper actions by Stevens and other TBS members to get people to give money to TBS and eavesdropping by TBS. Hill was a major force in the drafting of the agreement--several drafts are in her handwriting. In pertinent part, the agreement stated that plaintiff would give Jonas $1,600,000 to do with as he wished, plaintiff would not make gifts from the principal of her estate without Jonas' consent, and plaintiff was leaving Jonas "an incredible amount" in her will. FN11 Jonas in return was to stop harassing plaintiff about her gifts and her beliefs. Plaintiff signed the agreement on December 16; Jonas never did. Stevens told plaintiff that the part about not giving from principal was only to be for a short time.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN11 This last provision was in obvious conflict with the will which was being prepared by Campoli.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Freed, plaintiff's new broker, communicated his thoughts about investing plaintiff's money to Stevens, but not to plaintiff, at Stevens' request. No one told her that Freed was also TBS' broker. Plaintiff's fortune was transferred from Okabena to Dean Witter. FN12 Freed advised her to sell all of her Dayton-Hudson stock and invest in higher income-producing items. She discussed the tax implications with both Freed and Burkhart, TBS' accountant. She sold the stock and incurred a large tax liability. At trial, she did not remember writing a letter to Freed in which she stated that she understood the tax implications of the sale and still wanted to go through with it. Jonas was never informed of the change to a new attorney and broker.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN12 A portion was retained by Okabena in order for plaintiff to meet some limited partnership obligations that would come due in the future and that plaintiff could not avoid.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between July and November, 1985, plaintiff gave TBS an additional $80,000 in a series of checks: $14,000 in July; $50,000 in September; $10,000 in October; and two checks for $4,000 and $2,000 in November. No evidence was introduced as to the events surrounding these gifts. Plaintiff also gave Stevens $10,000 in cash in November. FN13

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN13 The bankruptcy court included the gifts to TBS in its judgment for plaintiff; it did not allow the $10,000 to Stevens because that was a personal gift to Stevens, not TBS. See TBS I, 73 Bankr. at 870. Plaintiff has not appealed this exclusion.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Defendant's Testimony

Witnesses for TBS gave the following account of the same events. Plaintiff asked Stevens for the names of Christian lawyers and brokers; she was very disturbed by Okabena's breach and wished to cut her ties with that organization. Stevens supplied her with the name of an attorney he got from a born-again organization, but plaintiff chose Campoli on her own after meeting with him. Campoli is not a born-again Christian. Stevens thought that plaintiff knew Freed before he introduced them; he thought they had initially been brought together by another TBS pastor. Plaintiff chose Freed as a broker only after extensively questioning him about his qualifications while in Stevens' office.

Stevens knew nothing about plaintiff's new will. Any input from Hill was at plaintiff's request; plaintiff was a headstrong lady who insisted on things being done as she wished. Any taping of meetings was done at plaintiff's request. Neither Hill nor Campoli reported to Stevens about their meetings. Plaintiff sold only a small portion of her jewelry while in New York, mainly items she no longer wore. Giving Jonas a large sum of money was an old idea pre-dating plaintiff's joining TBS. The idea was originally an estate planning mechanism. Stevens was in favor of an agreement between Jonas and plaintiff as a last effort to save their marriage.

Plaintiff's account at Dean Witter required her approval on all transactions before they were made and Freed obtained her approval before any transactions were made. Stevens contended that he had no active role in plaintiff's account even though he lost $10,000 in options trading through the account.

Stevens was very concerned about plaintiff's marriage. In the Fall of 1985, he had meetings with plaintiff concerning her marriage and Jonas' family. On November 7, 1985, he suggested that she try to reach an agreement with Jonas in order to stabilize the marriage. He denied that the timing of this suggestion was related to the publication of the Berkshire Eagle Articles a few days earlier. It was at this time that Stevens and TBS adopted a policy of not accepting gifts without the consent of both spouses. The new policy was not a reaction to the Berkshire Eagle Articles, but rather, was a further attempt to salvage plaintiff's marriage. Plaintiff was informed of this policy. Baum and others told Stevens that plaintiff was headstrong and would continue giving no matter what she was told. Because of this new policy, Stevens rejected a gift of two vans by plaintiff in the late Fall 1985. On November 22, plaintiff met with Stevens and told him that she would go through with the agreement. On December 10, Stevens and plaintiff met again; this time to discuss threats made against TBS and its members.

The $500,000 Gift

Plaintiff's Testimony

In December 1985, plaintiff decided to give another $ 500,000 to TBS. The genesis of this gift occurred as follows:

Well, while Kathy Hill was living in my home, and Jonas was in Afghanistan, Kathy told me one day that she overheard a conversation while working in the business office between Bruce Dunbar and Jack Leonard. And Jack Leonard had been telling Bruce Dunbar that for the completion of phase two and for phase three to start, that the Bible Speaks needed $500,000 for T.V. equipment, and she told me that she overheard that, and he made me wait all day long to hear her tell me that.

And I was beside myself about my relationship with Jonas, and when she told me that, I thought that if I gave $500,000, that that would solve my marriage problems, and she -- Kathy Hill wept and cried and thought that it was -- that's why she had overheard the conversation, so that I could give that money.

Plaintiff wrote a check on her Dean Witter account in that amount and a note stating that she had been led by God to make the gift. But Hill had other ideas:
She [Hill] told me [plaintiff] that she thought that from now on whenever I gave money to the Bible Speaks that I must give it in a way so that Carl Stevens would never know about it. And so she investigated how I could give money so that there would be no record of it.

Hill and plaintiff then arranged for an anonymous $ 500,000 gift to TBS using a cashier's check. Plaintiff received no advice concerning this gift from anyone but Hill.

Defendant's Testimony

TBS' witnesses presented another version of the same events. Stevens knew nothing about the $500,000 gift until this litigation began. In December 1985, plaintiff and Hill approached Pastor Leonard and asked him how to make an anonymous gift. He suggested the use of a cashier's check. Plaintiff requested that Leonard tell Stevens to go on television but asked Leonard not to tell Stevens from where the funds for this were coming. Leonard honored her wishes and told Stevens as little as possible: he told Stevens that a gift would be coming but did not tell him the amount or who was making the gift. Leonard was the president of the Stevens Bible School but was not a trustee of the Church. He, therefore, did not know and had no reason to know of the new policy concerning spousal consent of gifts. Prior to the $ 500,000 gift, Leonard knew of TBS' policy of not accepting gifts from plaintiff's principal, and he knew that Stevens had rejected the gift of two vans by plaintiff. Leonard did not explain how two vans (worth approximately $40,000) would violate the policy against invading plaintiff's principal but a gift of $500,000 would not. The gift was not returned when Stevens learned of its source because litigation had begun and TBS needed the money as a defense fund.

The Denouement

Throughout the Summer and Fall of 1985, plaintiff's relationships with her friends and family continued to deteriorate. Her family was concerned about the changes in plaintiff. Her father saw her in Minnesota in the Summer and in Lenox in the Fall. Plaintiff's sister, a social worker, was very concerned after plaintiff and Hill visited her in New York in November 1985. FN14 At that time, Hill was present at and active in most of plaintiff's conversations with her sister. Plaintiff specifically denied to her sister having given TBS any money.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN14 This was the jewelry selling trip.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Berkshire Eagle Articles appeared in early November 1985. Jonas' father sent the articles to plaintiff's father who distributed them to other family members. At this point, the family, including Jonas after he returned from Afghanistan, decided that something had to be done. They arranged to have plaintiff examined by a psychiatrist without her knowledge while she was in New York in December. FN15 They also decided to have plaintiff come to Minnesota without any TBS members on hand through the pretense of a surprise birthday party for her father.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN15 This examination was accomplished as follows. Plaintiff's sister hosted a musical evening at her apartment in New York and invited plaintiff and the psychiatrist, Dr. Halperin. After being introduced, the plaintiff and Halperin talked together for about forty-five minutes. Plaintiff did not know that Dr. Halperin was in fact examining her. In January 1986, Halperin examined plaintiff again, this time with her knowledge and consent.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On December 26, 1985, plaintiff and Jonas met with Stevens in his office. At this time, Jonas asked Stevens whether he had received any gifts from plaintiff since the $1,000,000 gift. Stevens response was to "slap[] his table, he had the Bible there, he said, 'Jonas, I swear before Jesus Christ and on the Bible that I have never taken any money from Betsy without your knowledge.'" Although Stevens' statement was not true, plaintiff believed it to be true.

The family's ruse worked: plaintiff and Jonas went to Minnesota without any TBS members accompanying them. Once there, a surprise birthday party was duly held at a house other than her family's. After the party, the family told plaintiff that they wished to talk to her and to introduce her to two other people. This was the beginning of the exit counselling or deprogramming. FN16 After initial resistance, plaintiff began to accept the treatment, which consisted of talking to her family and the two exit counsellors and of viewing videotapes about cults and mind control groups. The turning point for plaintiff was when Jonas reminded her of the December 26, 1985 meeting with Stevens in which he swore he had taken no further gifts without Jonas' knowledge. When she realized that she had believed this patent lie, she decided that she needed help.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN16 Although there was some discussion on the difference between these two terms, the terms were used, for the most part, interchangeably at trial. For consistency, we will use the term used by the bankruptcy court--exit counselling.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No one threatened plaintiff with the loss of her children or an incompetency hearing if she refused the exit counselling. Nor did anyone force plaintiff to remain in Minnesota. Her family wanted plaintiff to be able to think for herself; they were not interested in changing her religious beliefs.

After a week with her family, plaintiff and Jonas went to Unbound, an Iowa program, for more exit counselling before returning to Lenox. During this time, plaintiff drafted a new will and consented to a temporary conservatorship.

III. MASSACHUSETTS LAW ON UNDUE INFLUENCE

In Massachusetts, "the elements necessary to prove undue influence [are] '(1) A person who can be influenced, (2) the fact of deception practiced or improper influence exerted, [and] (3) submission to the overmastering effect of such unlawful conduct.'" Miles v. Caples, 362 Mass. 107, 284 N.E.2d 231, 235 (1972) (quoting Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 126 N.E. 93, 94 (1920)). "The nature of the undue influence that will invalidate a will or a transfer inter vivos is explained in Neill v. Brackett, . . . . As to either sort of instrument, the nature and effect of undue influence is the same." O'Hearn v. O'Hearn, 327 Mass. 242, 97 N.E.2d 734, 735 (1951). "It generally takes less to establish undue influence" when a confidential relationship exists between the parties. Heinrich v. Silvernail, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 218, 500 N.E.2d 835, 841 [**42] (1986) (citing Doggett v. Morse, 299 Mass. 383, 12 N.E.2d 867 (1938)), further review denied, 399 Mass. 1101, 503 N.E.2d 665 (1987); see also Bruno v. Bruno, 384 Mass. 31, 422 N.E.2d 1369, 1372 (1981) ("unfair persuasion in the context of a confidential relationship constitutes undue influence in Massachusetts"); Neill, 126 N.E. at 94 ("careful scrutiny" must be given to transactions involving fiduciaries or intimate parties). It is important to point out that we have decided this case assuming that there is no presumption of undue influence in such circumstances. FN17 We have assumed no more than that one in a confidential position has a duty to disclose facts which should be disclosed in light of the confidential relationship. Markell v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 412, 402 N.E.2d 76, 95-96 (1980) (quoting Reed v. A.E. Little Co., 256 Mass. 442, 152 N.E. 918, 920 (1926)). This is a principle that would apply to religious and nonreligious circumstances alike. We also have strictly applied the legal rule that, the burden of showing undue influence is on the party seeking to avoid the transfers. See Tarricone v. Cummings, 340 Mass. 758, 166 N.E.2d 737, 740 (1960) (collecting cases).

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN17 The district court cited Barnum v. Fay, 320 Mass. 177, 69 N.E.2d 470 (1946), for the proposition that "there is a presumption of undue influence when a gift is made pursuant to a confidential relationship." TBS II, 81 Bankr. at 760. Barnum, however, dealt with the higher fiduciary relationship between an attorney and a client. See also Markell v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 412, 402 N.E.2d 76, 94 (1980) (transactions with fiduciaries are "presumptively improper"). To reach the level of a fiduciary relationship, however, it must "manifest the relinquishment of control over financial affairs, the conferral of wide authority to act on important matters and make discretionary judgments, or the degree of reliance that usually lie[s] at the core of recognized fiduciary relationships . . . ." Heinrich, 500 N.E.2d at 841 n.8. There has been no claim that Stevens or anyone else from TBS stood in a fiduciary relationship vis a vis plaintiff. The bankruptcy court refused to use a presumption because of the unsettled state of Massachusetts law in this area. TBS I, 73 Bankr. at 859 (collecting cases and discussing issue). We adopt that court's statement that "the parties have tried this case without reference to presumptions, and we decide it without relying on any presumption." Id.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Massachusetts has never directly addressed the question of whether a pastor-communicant relationship is per se a confidential one when undue influence is alleged. FN18 We need not decide whether Massachusetts would hold that the pastor-communicant is by itself a confidential relationship. Here, we have found such a relationship on the basis of other factors alone such as the close contact between the parties in the context of their relationship, Heinrich, 500 N.E.2d at 840-41, and knowledge by the recipient that the donor trusted or depended upon him, Eddy v. Eddy, 281 Mass. 156, 183 N.E. 268, 270 (1932), and requests by the donor for the recipient's advice or help, Doggett, 12 N.E.2d at 870.

Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FN18 The closest the Supreme Judicial Court has ever come is in New England Merchants Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Mahoney, 356 Mass. 654, 255 N.E.2d 592, 595 (1970), where the following is stated:

J. Harold Mahoney's contention that Right Reverend Monsignor Enright exerted undue influence on and abused his confidential relationship with Dr. Mahoney does not require extensive discussion. No evidence was introduced concerning the relationship, other than that the men were friends, and that Dr. Mahoney was one of Monsignor Enright's parishioners. In addition, we note that the appointments to Monsignor Enright were not personal gifts.

End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Undue influence, while sometimes susceptible of proof by direct testimony, may be exercised by indirect and secret ways, which are disclosed only in their result." Raposa v. Oliveira, 247 Mass. 188, 141 N.E. 870, 870 (1924). Because undue influence is often practiced in "veiled and secret ways," its existence may be inferred from such factors as disproportionate gifts made under unusual circumstances, the age and health of the donor, and the existence of a confidential relationship. Neill, 126 N.E. at 94; see also Eddy, 183 N.E. at 269 (inexperience with financial matters and disposition of funds needed to generate sufficient income are facts to be considered); Slater v. Munroe, 316 Mass. 129, 55 N.E.2d 15, 16 (1944) (comparing size of questioned bequests to size of entire estate).

Two other factors are also important under Massachusetts case law. One, attempts by the recipient to isolate the donor from her former friends and relatives can be considered in determining undue influence. See, e.g., Livermore v. Seward, 311 Mass. 389, 41 N.E.2d 290, 295 (1942); Smith v. Stratton, 302 Mass. 17, 18 N.E.2d 328, 330 (1938); Mirick v. Phelps, 297 Mass. 250, 8 N.E.2d 749, 751 (1937); [**46] Hoffman v. Hoffman, 192 Mass. 416, 78 N.E. 492, 493 (1906). Two, a court can "also consider that she [the donor] acted without independent and disinterested advice. . . ." Old Colony Trust Co. v. Yonge, 302 Mass. 49, 18 N.E.2d 335, 337 (1938); see also Tarricone, 166 N.E.2d at 741; Israel v. Sommer, 292 Mass. 113, 197 N.E. 442, 447 (1935); Raposa, 141 N.E. at 871. Thus, the continuation of former relationships and the availability of independent counsel may help in counteracting an inference that undue influence played a role in the transactions.

In sum, "any species of coercion, whether physical, mental or moral, which subverts the sound judgment and genuine desire of the individual, is enough to constitute undue influence. Its extent or degree is inconsequential so long as it is sufficient to substitute the dominating purpose of another for the free expression of the wishes of the person [who gives]." Neill, 126 N.E. at 94. Nonetheless, "there must be a solid foundation of established facts upon which to rest an inference of its existence." Neill, 126 N.E. at 94. And, "the mere opportunity to exercise undue influence and the mere existence of a confidential relationship do not establish undue influence . . . ." Eddy, 183 N.E. at 270.

At trial, TBS stipulated that plaintiff was "susceptible", i.e. a person who could be influenced, thus conceding the first prong of the Massachusetts undue influence test. Our discussion, therefore, will focus on the second and third prongs of the test: deception practiced or improper influence exerted and submission to the unlawful conduct.

The $1,000,000 Gift

With these principles in mind, we turn to the first large gift made by plaintiff to TBS. Plaintiff testified that the idea for the $ 1,000,000 gift came to her as follows:


Well, when we got back in the car, [on the way from Framingham to Lenox,] Carl Stevens said to me, "Betsy, it seems like you've really been hearing from the holy spirit." And when he said that, I got three thoughts in my head. One, two, three. And I said, "Yes, I really have been hearing the holy spirit." And in fact, I had my notebook out, and I turned on the little light in the backseat of his car, and I wrote down the three things that I heard in my head that I should do. And the first one was that I should get baptized. The second one was that my children should be dedicated in The Bible Speaks in a certain kind of ceremony that they do with children, and that I should give a million dollars to the Bible Speaks.

There is no evidence that making the gift was suggested by anyone at TBS or that anyone at TBS told plaintiff that she should give the money in order to cure Baum's headaches. That notion also originated with plaintiff. Stevens had told her that her mission was to give and that her gifts would affect great events; at this time, he did not, however, make any specific statements or suggestions.

There is no doubt that Stevens stood in a confidential relationship with respect to plaintiff. But, a confidential relationship even when combined with the opportunity to unduly influence a person does not prove undue influence. Eddy, 183 N.E. at 270. The actions of Stevens and others were not sufficient to give rise to an inference of undue influence. General statements by Stevens and others that plaintiff should give to TBS and that such gifts would do great works are too amorphous to show undue influence. When the plaintiff told Stevens about her belief that the gift would cure Baum's headaches, his "nondisclosure" about this belief was not about a fact. A statement (or non-statement when there is a duty to disclose) about "conditions to exist in the future" is not a misrepresentation. See Chedd-Angier Prod. Co. v. Omni Publications Int'l, Ltd., 756 F.2d 930, 939 (1st Cir. 1985) (collecting Massachusetts cases). Stevens was under no duty to tell plaintiff that her gift would not cure Baum. At trial, Stevens was not asked whether he believed that the gift could cure Baum's headaches. The failure to disclose the fact that Baum's headaches were not in fact cured occurred after the gift was made and could have in no way influenced the gift.

This is not a case, as with subsequent gifts, where the plaintiff had already been misled by prior statements, or where she was convinced to give earlier than she planned to, nor is this an instance where a direct solicitation was made under circumstances where the plaintiff was emotionally isolated from all outside advice and believed her gifts could affect temporal events.

Here, plaintiff received advice from both Jonas and Okabena and she chose to ignore the advice. Plaintiff was in her thirties, in good health, and a college graduate. Plaintiff has failed to establish a "solid foundation" upon which to infer that undue influence was applied to effectuate the $ 1,000,000 gift. We hold that the courts below erred in finding that this gift was the result of undue influence.

The $5,000,000 Gift

Although the thought of making this gift originated with plaintiff, her decision to make it earlier than had been planned was determined by four factors, all of which were fashioned by TBS' agents. The first was the deliberate fostering by Stevens, Baum and Hill of plaintiff's belief that her gift of $ 1,000,000 had cured Baum's headaches. The fact was that the headaches continued and all three knew it. Plaintiff testified that, because she believed Baum's headaches had been cured, "I felt that my money had great power and I felt that -- I even became to feel that my money -- that in giving money to The Bible Speaks that I could change the course of history. I could change human history." Stevens fostered these thoughts: "He said that my money -- he said that when I gave money to The Bible Speaks that, that released God's judgment and that that judgment would show itself in cataclysmic events."

The second factor was Stevens' influencing plaintiff not to tell her husband or family about the gift. Plaintiff testified that when she told Stevens that she was going to give TBS $ 5,000,000 in June, he replied:
Great. And then he said that he thought that Jonas should not know about this gift.

. . .

He thought that it was really important that Jonas not know, because -- because Satan was controlling Jonas, and he didn't believe that we should let the enemy know about this, because he thought that the enemy would try to stop this gift from happening. And he thought that Jonas would just be letting all the demons in hell loose if he were to know.

Plaintiff did not tell any member of her family of her intention to give TBS $ 5,000,000 because Stevens had told her that her family was evil and not to be trusted.

The third factor was the deliberate misrepresentation by Baum and Stevens that Turkia was being held in Rumania at great danger to his life. Plaintiff told Stevens in April that she wanted to give TBS the $5,000,000 immediately instead of in June as she had planned in order to effectuate Turkia's release. Stevens encouraged this and did not tell that Turkia had already been released and was in no danger.

The fourth factor was the letter Stevens prevailed upon plaintiff to write stating that the gift was prompted by God, and that no one from TBS asked her to make the gift or knew that she was going to make it. This last part was false. Stevens and Baum knew about the gift before it was made and accelerated its delivery.

These facts lead inexorably to a finding of undue influence. If plaintiff had been told that Baum's headaches had not been cured by her first gift of $1,000,000, she may not have made the second gift at all. If she had not been influenced to keep the gift a secret from husband and family, she may not have gone through with it. If she had been told that Turkia was in no danger, she probably would not have accelerated the gift. And the letter composed by Stevens, dictated by Hill and written by plaintiff is damning evidence that Stevens and Hill knew they were engaging in improper conduct.

There was a solid foundation of evidentiary facts from which undue influence was properly found.

The $500,000 Gift

While plaintiff's husband was abroad and Hill was staying at plaintiff's home, Hill told plaintiff that she overheard a conversation between two TBS officials that $500,000 was needed for television equipment. Plaintiff was greatly concerned about her marriage and decided to give the money in an attempt to resolve her marital problems--having already been convinced that her gifts could effectuate such wishes. Rather than make the gift directly and openly, Hill prevailed upon plaintiff to make it anonymously and without other advice.

We agree with the lower courts that this gift was the result of undue influence. There was a not so subtle appeal for a large gift when plaintiff was concerned about her marriage, and Hill knew that plaintiff believed that large gifts could affect temporal events. The circumstances surrounding the gift were suspicious. At the time, TBS had pervasive control over plaintiff's business and legal affairs. The gift was made without outside advice at a time when the plaintiff was isolated from her non-TBS friends and relatives and when her husband was away.

The Small Gifts Totalling $80,000

Plaintiff introduced no evidence at trial with respect to the circumstances surrounding the $ 80,000 in checks she gave TBS in the Summer and Fall of 1985. TBS did not waive the need for separate proof as to each gift. While TBS' attorney admitted that, as a practical matter, these gifts did not make much of a difference, he nonetheless stated that "it's all an issue and they have to make proof to any and all of it." Because of the dearth of evidence, plaintiff has failed to present a solid foundation of facts from which to find undue influence was the cause of these gifts. Neither court below offered an analysis or discussion of these gifts beyond noting their occurrence, TBS II, 81 Bankr. at 753; TBS I, 73 Bankr. at 856, and a conclusionary statement "that all of the [plaintiff's] gifts were the product of undue influence exercised upon her by the Church through Stevens," id. at 863-64. The rescission of these gifts must be reversed.

IV. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE

TBS makes two arguments for invoking the protection of the first amendment. The first is that the statements and/or actions of Stevens and others that influenced the plaintiff to make the gifts are protected by the free exercise clause. Or to put it more broadly, the free exercise clause shields the solicitation of funds by a religious organization from attack; the gifts are sacrosanct. This argument invokes the protection of the free exercise clause for TBS.

The second argument, by contrast, seeks the protection of the free exercise clause for the plaintiff, the donor of the gifts. TBS argues that at the time the gifts were made, the only influence plaintiff was under was that of God and her religious beliefs or that even if the gifts were in part caused by improper influence by TBS agents, they were also the result of plaintiff's own sincerely held religious beliefs. In either case, the courts are precluded from inquiring into plaintiff's reasons for making the gifts.

We first determine whether the first amendment shields the acts of TBS agents from inquiry and attack. The free exercise clause reads: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] . . . ." The extent and limits of this constitutional guarantee have been delineated. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 60 S. Ct. 900 (1940), the Court set aside a conviction for breach of the peace because it violated the petitioner's constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and freedom of speech. During the course of the opinion, the Court stated: "Nothing we have said is intended even remotely to imply that, under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity, commit frauds upon the public." Id. at 306. The Court has made it clear that "only beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, which, by its terms, gives special protection to the exercise of religion." Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 713, 67 L. Ed. 2d 624, 101 S. Ct. 1425 (1981). The clause does not allow purely secular statements of fact to be shielded from legal action merely because they are made by officials of a religious organization.

Non constat that we accept the breadth of defendants' deductions from the First Amendment cases, leading to their repeated assertions that their religious freedoms are being interfered with. Their case of United States v. Ballard, [322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944)], merely holds that there can be no claim that a professed religious tenet was not honestly advanced. It does not hold that a religious organization may make such secular statements as it chooses in seeking contributions, so long as they serve a charitable purpose.

SEC v. World Radio Mission, Inc., 544 F.2d 535, 537 n.3 (1st Cir. 1976); see also Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of California, Inc., 535 F. Supp. 1125, 1141 (D. Mass. 1982) ("The First Amendment protects utterances which relate to religion but does not confer the same license for representations based on other sources of belief or verification."); id. at 1140; Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World Christianity, 46 Cal. 3d 1092, 762 P.2d 46, 64-65, 252 Cal. Rptr. 122 (rescission of gift on undue influence grounds can be based on secular fraudulent statements concerning the nature of the organization one is joining, reh'g denied & opinion modified, 47 Cal. 3d 470a (1988).

Neither our decision in this case nor the proceedings below implicates the religious tenets of TBS or the beliefs of its adherents. The findings and rulings rest solely on secular statements and actions. The facts relied upon have not been derived from an inquiry into the religious principles of TBS or the truth and sincerity of its adherents' beliefs. There has been no inquiry as to whether Stevens and the other TBS adherents were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commands of their faith. See Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. at 716. Those who run TBS may freely exercise their religion, but they cannot use the cloak of religion to exert undue influence of a non-religious nature with impunity. The five million dollar gift and the half million dollar gift might have had their seeds in the religious beliefs of plaintiff but they were both nurtured and brought to fruition by misstatements and distortions of facts that had no basis either in the religious tenets of TBS or the plaintiff's religious beliefs.

The second argument, which seeks to shield plaintiff's reasons for making the gifts from judicial examination, fails for two reasons. First, as already discussed, the court was not prevented by the first amendment from determining whether the secular reasons for making and accelerating the gifts was the result of undue influence. Second, the plaintiff has not claimed the protection of the first amendment. TBS may raise only its free exercise claims, not those of the plaintiff. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 406 U.S. 205, 230-31, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1972) ("It is the parents who are subject to prosecution here for failing to cause their children to attend school, and it is their right to free exercise, not that of their children, that must determine Wisconsin's power to impose criminal penalties on the parent."). TBS cannot use plaintiff's former religious beliefs as a shield against plaintiff's claim of undue influence.

We find, as did the courts below, that the free exercise clause to the first amendment is not implicated.

The other issues raised by defendant have been considered but do not merit discussion.

SUMMARY

The rescission of the gift of one million dollars is reversed.

The rescission of the gifts totalling $ 80,000 is reversed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

No costs to either party on appeal.

The motion of April 12, 1988 by plaintiff to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that TBS has no standing to appeal is denied.

[miss_k (miss_k)]

This interview is incredibly interesting because I believe things have become much worse:

60 Minutes interview with Diane Sawyer - May 31, 1987



DIANE SAWYER: While everybody is talking about the scandal surrounding Jim and Tammy Baker and the PTL ministry, there's another fundamentalist church also trying to fight off a sea of trouble. It's called The Bible Speaks. It claims a worldwide membership in the thousands. Its founder is Carl Stevens. But just last week, a federal judge accused Stevens of "clerical deceit, avarice and subjugation." We first told you about Stevens earlier this year, in a report that began with Stevens' warning those who dare to question God's man, meaning himself.



CARL STEVENS: Don't you say a sentence, not a sentence, not a line. Don't presume or you'll die.



BARBARA BROWN: He intimidates you from the pulpit. He says that if you leave The Bible Speaks and you speak anything about The Bible Speaks, meaning speak*ing anything negative about The Bible Speaks, you'll get cancer of the throat, can*cer of the larynx, you will die.



SAWYER: And in another sermon on those who speak against The Bible Speaks.



Mr. STEVENS: I have no right to say they're not spiritual, but if they run down The Bible Speaks and tell lies, I have a right to say they're spiritual bastards. How do you like that one? [Laughter]




SAWYER [voice-over]: We can only show you photographs of Stevens, 1ike this one from his marriage to his second wife, and home movies, because he refused our request for an interview. When we tried to talk to some of his followers at the head*quarters in Lenox, Massachusetts, they told us they were instructed not to talk to CBS. And the lawyer for The Bible Speaks told us we wouldn't be allowed on the grounds in Lenox, a serene campus where some people come to live and some to train as missionaries. Home of the Stevens School of the Bible and a church where Stevens preaches.



PAT MANCHESTER: He comes across so spontaneously that you think it's right from the throne of God.



BRUCE BROWN: Someone that sincerely wants to follow God, a man like Carl Stevens can suck 'em up in his tailwind so fast they can't see the - the danger for the dust. And by the time the dust settles, they're trapped, they've sold their home, they've changed their position, they've given up their job, they've done all these things, their children are in a school, all their friends are no longer from - from back home, they're here. And you're going to make them rip away from that? You're going to cut loose? I'll tell you, it is a frightening experience.



SAWYER [voice-over]: Bruce Brown and his wife Barbara and Pat Manchester are just three of the dozens of ex-members of The Bible Speaks with whom we talked. Many of them told us stories of intimidation and manipulation by Stevens. At one point, we showed up at a service off-campus to try to ask Stevens about the things his former followers were saying. He saw our cameras and raced into the auditorium. We weren't allowed to film the sermon, but we listened to it. When Stevens spoke, almost everyone took out a notebook and wrote down what he said.



JAMES BJORNSTAD: In the early days, be used to tell them, mark it down, mark it down. But today you still have that.



SAWYER: We saw that at a service. Everyone took out notebooks and started writing down -



Mr. BJORNSTAD: Yes.



SAWYER: That's because they think they're writing* -



Mr. BJORNSTAD: Something that comes directly from heaven through Pastor Stevens.



SAWYER: James Bjornstad, the academic dean at Northeastern Bible College, who has been studying The Bible Speaks for years and believes that it operates much like a cult, gaining control of people because they believe what Stevens says comes from God, something, according to Bjornstad, Stevens encourages.



Mr. BJORNSTAD: First of all, you're taught that Stevens is the man of God, and you're told that this is a very unique organization blessed by God. God anoints all the messages of Pastor Stevens.



Mr. STEVENS: I was guaranteed that angels would come every time I preach, and that's the truth.



SAWYER: Stevens, who was once a bakery truck driver, uses the title "Dr. Stevens" and he's written to people that he graduated from Moody Bible Institute in Illinois. But after the Moody Institute said he is not a graduate, Stevens claimed his letters were a mistake.



Mr. BJORNSTAD: When I brought that up to Pastor Stevens, he dismissed those let*ters by saying it was a secretarial error.



SAWYER: As for those doctorates, Bjornstad says those are honorary degrees from an unaccredited school. Whatever the story on Stevens' credentials, several former followers said they were taught it's all right to lie for The Bible Speaks, and some said that wasn't the only surprise from Pastor Stevens.



Ms. MANCHESTER: He was very seductive in my life.



SAWYER: You're saying what, he made a pass at you?



Ms. MANCHESTER: Well, he's very affectionate. He hugs and kisses all the girls, and when he takes them in the office he doesn't limit his hugs and kisses, and I mean I don't know how far he goes with every woman, I guess every woman would have to say that to you personally. I'm not proud of it. I felt* -



SAWYER: Pat Manchester and her husband were such strong believers in Stevens that they say they gave close to $35,000 to The Bible Speaks. Some of it came from the sale of their home. Bruce Brown says he almost sold his home and gave the money to The Bible Speaks because Stevens urged him to do so.



Mr. BROWN: He looked at me and he said, "Bruce, you still own your house up in Maine, don't you?" I says, yeah. He said, "How much do you think that's worth?" I said, "Well, it's not finished, $25,000." "Sell it" Just like that. "Sell it."



SAWYER: How much do you think he cared about the money?



Ms. MANCHESTER: I think the worship, the adoration, was more than anything. I really believe it's even more than the money. But I can't absolutely say that. I mean, I know money certainly played a big role, because he certainly knew how to get it. This couple that we knew said that right from the beginning Carl Stevens used to say to them all the time, "If only I can just find one millionaire."



SAWYER: And apparently he did.

How much did you give?



BETSY DAYTON DOVYDENAS: Oh, about $7 million.



SAWYER [voice-over]: Betsy Dayton Dovydenas, here with her husband Jonas, is one of the heirs to the Dayton department store fortune. She joined The Bible Speaks in 1982, and now she's suing to get her money back. She says she was manipulated through flattery and fear.



Ms. DOVYDENAS: I was told that God could trust me with so much money, be*cause He knew that I wouldn't keep it, that I would give it to The Bible Speaks.



SAWYER: How could they do that? How could you not know what you were doing?



Ms. DOVYDENAS: I think that my desire to find a church made me vulnerable. I had no way of knowing that every little thing they were saying was a lie, was just lie after lie. And I think there is just no way to - to say strongly enough that they are so good at what they do.



SAWYER [voice-over]: The Bible Speaks says Betsy's donations were all voluntary and that she's been brainwashed against The Bible Speaks by her husband and her family. As proof that she gave of her own free will, they produced a letter, a let*ter in which Betsy said, "No one from the ministry has ever asked me to give a gift...I have never been pressured into giving money in any way."



Ms. DOVYDENAS: Stevens asked me to write that letter. And in fact he told me what to put in the letter. And the next day, Kathy Hill dictated that letter and I just wrote down what she told me to write.



$AWYER: So they dictated letters to you in which you said you weren't pressured.



Ms. DOVYDENAS: Yes.



SAWYER [voice-over]: Kathy Hill, a loyal follower of Stevens, became Betsy's closest friend.

[Interviewing] You think she was assigned to watch you?



Ms. DOVYDENAS: Yes. More than just to watch, to influence me.



SAWYER: And report back to him?



Ms. DOVYDENAS: Yes. Mm-hmm.



SAWYER: You believe they tried to break up your marriage?



Ms. DOVYDENAS: Absolutely.



SAWYER: They come close?



JONAS DOVYDENAS: They came very close. [Betsy laughing]



SAWYER: Jonas Dovydenas objected to his wife's increasing involvement with The Bible Speaks. He says Carl Stevens, in a letter, tried to buy him off in the hope that he would stop interfering. "Please don't repeat to her," meaning Betsy, "this next suggestion which I gave to her two weeks ago. I suggested that she give you $1 mil*lion to invest in any way you saw fit with her hands off."



Mr. DOVYDENAS: I look it as a kind of payoff. "Well, you know, I've got a mil*lion. You - you can have a million too. I'll talk to Betsy about it."



SAWYER: By December 1985, Betsy's last month in The Bible Speaks, she says her fortune was managed by the same lawyer, accountant and financial advisor who worked for The Bible Speaks. She even wrote a new will, leaving most of her remaining estate to The Bible Speaks, with Kathy Hill as executor. And since the law required that some money go to Jonas, Carl Stevens was put in charge of that money in the new will.



Ms. DOVYDENAS: It was dictated by Kathy Hill, and even some of the ideas were made by the Bible Speaks' lawyer.



SAWYER: What about your children? Did you leave anything to your children?



Ms. DOVYDENAS: They were totally left out



SAWYER: Betsy says she might never have left The Bible Speaks without the help of her family. And what would Carl Stevens say about all these allegations and his critics? He might dismiss them as he has in the past.



Mr. STEVENS: They're trying to divide us from each other, but they're not going to do it as long as I'm pastor, because I know how to handle them, because I'm God's man.



SAWYER: Well, Stevens may say he's God's man but the judge who heard the case of Betsy Dovydenas certainly thought otherwise. He ordered the church to return nearly all of Betsy's $7-million donation, saying that Stevens "abused the trust of Betsy as well as the trust of many good and devout members of the church."

[miss_k (miss_k)]

This is one of the sadder stories we can deal with. I should mention I believe Paul Stevens has done what few ever did in history. Make things right as best he knew how.

My understanding this resulted in multiple hundreds of dollars being paid off.

Originally posted on 6/14/04 at 10:39 am by Louise Connolly on thread The Full Alan Lang Story -

My name is Alan Lang. This is my account of the destructive abuse my family encountered with an organization we trusted. The "Bible Speaks" church and ministry was founded in the early 1970's by Pastor Carl H. Stevens along with "Stevens School of the Bible". The bible school was a non-credited college, which later moved and became Maryland Bible College and seminary after a 1987 bankruptcy, court-case and scandal. "The Bible Speaks" was also renamed "Greater Grace World Outreach" or sometimes referred to as GGWO. I began attending the Bible Speaks branch church in Pittsburgh, Pa in 1983. I attended its headquarters bible school in Lenox, Massachusetts, named "Stevens School of the Bible" from 1984 to 1987, when I graduated, then married my wife, Margaret, who was also a student at the time. From the time I came to this church, I was an active participant in many of its functions, such as bible studies, evangelistic outreaches, bus ministry, voluntarily working as ministry security on occasion, plus volunteering to assist working in the ministry school bookstore and snack-bar, in addition to attending church services three times a week. My participation took place in addition to holding down a full-time job and attending the bible school classes. During the church's scandal in 1987, we moved with the church and its bible school to Baltimore MD. We lived there and continued participating in the church life while attending church services three times a week till 1992. Things didn't really change too much after I moved with my wife & daughter to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We attended a Greater Grace branch ministry church in Pittsburgh for about ten months until a split took place among the local membership. We eventually left its branch church as the fallout of personality clashes, side-taking and accusations of certain members and pastors not being loyal to Pastor Stevens became a distraction from our intention to worship, serve God in winning the lost to Christ, hear His word expressed from the pulpit, and to maintain and make friends within the local church.

As in other Greater Grace World Outreach splits among some of its branch affiliates, the issue often become one of who is most loyal to Pastor Stevens and his teaching or in the coded language of the church: "who was really one with Baltimore".

While we began attending another church that was not affiliated with GGWO we still considered ourselves a part of Greater Grace ("GGWO") since we had a few close friends within "the ministry" as it's often referred to. We also had the connection of my wife's three brothers serving in some capacity within GGWO, plus my wife's sister Catherine who was also an active member. In addition we had many friendly acquaintances whom we cultivated as I often assisted my wife in her part-time position of managing the bible school snack-bar, under Paul Stevens as her boss. We left quietly, since it was not our intention to bum bridges. It had been often strongly implied by Pastor Stevens that anyone who removed themselves from connection with GGWO were losing fulfillment of Gods greater plan for their lives. My wife in particular stayed in closer touch by phone with occasional visits to Baltimore headquarters during the next six years, accompanied by myself on two occasions. Paul Stevens also had GGWO cassette taped messages of the three weekly services sent to my wife, beginning in 1994, though she never displayed any interest in listening to them. On infrequent occasion I would listen to one of these tapes, hoping to gain spiritual edification.

One of her brothers (John Hadley) is Dean of Students of the bible school, now known as Maryland Bible College & Seminary (or MBC&S in short). On the surface, things there have always appeared just right, from the doctrinal tatement on the weekly church bulletin, to the buzz of activity taking place. Behind the scenes things were different. Pastor Steven's son -Paul maintained contact with my wife by phone, a few times during the year, and in between my wife's visits to GGWO headquarters in Baltimore, in addition to sending her birthday cards. In 1998 we went online. Paul continued contacting my wife now by e-mail. My wife and I were friendly with Paul. He was more so friendlier with her. I made the mistake of overlooking this, since he was a pastor and Pastor Steven's son. Also, Paul and my wife had known each other previous to our marriage, and Paul was already married to a quiet, attractive Christian woman named Barbara.

Years before, Margaret and I engaged in many casual conversations with Paul during our work at the school snack bar. Back then I began to observe his unsolicited mention of behind the scenes church gossip in detail. Included were items such as who was getting married, splitting up and why, plus who had an affair and also who was an "enemy of the ministry". Paul tended to portray former members as fornicators, Alcoholics, gay, or "just arrogant to walk away from the geographical call (meaning GGWO in Baltimore) of God on their lives."

He was privy to all this since his Dad appointed him as church marriage counselor. On occasion I questioned his matter of fact style of preaching the personal confidence of several church members, former members, and even more personal gossip about his sister in law Marcy, his brothers Steve, Bruce, and his Brother in law Shawn Redgate. Paul seemed to find amusement in letting the personal details of others slip from his tongue. I told Paul that I'm not sure my wife and I need to know others personal business and marital problems. He became defensive replying "Pastors are human too and need someone to vent with" as if that explained his smugness, while pondering out loud what other people would say if they knew what he knew about several ministry members. He appeared to take pride in this small measure of power to influence the lives of church members.

On occasion my wife relayed to me careless remarks and observations that Paul made about me. She did not readily challenge these occasional comments since he was her boss, but she felt obligated to mention them to me. I ignored these comments as insignificant, and since I did not want to confront our pastor's son, and my wife's boss and friend.

After we moved to Pennsylvania and when I was aware of Paul's communication with my wife I would casually ask her what he had to say. Occasionally my wife would mention the suggestion by Paul that we belonged back in Baltimore at "home base" as it was sometimes referred to. Margaret diplomatically indicated to him that where we live was where God called us to for this time.

After such phone calls, Margaret would often say how glad she was to live where we lived. She indicated that the thought of going back there made her sick, and that she was certain that we were where God had led us as a married couple. Paul's reply often contained a carefully worded suggestion "as a Pastor I never tell anyone what to do" but would add in an undertone "but I know what I would do if it were me".

In my later review of Paul's e-mail communications to Margaret I noticed he began to question my loyalty to" the ministry".

As a marriage counselor and pastor, Paul took advantage of at least 5 factors; (1) Margaret's emotional vulnerability and unresolved guilt for a separate incident with her martial art's instructor, (2) their past friendship, (3) my questioning of Pastor Steven's twisting of the scripture's, (4) Paul's own mid-life crisis along with his stated his need for a "true friend", and (5) his bizarre anticipation of his own wife's demise as she struggled with radiation treatments.

In September '98 Paul told my wife that she belonged back in Baltimore and invited her to come for a few days by herself just before her thirty-second birthday. Birthdays were always difficult for Margaret emotionally. Paul told Margaret that she "needed to get to Baltimore" referring to the church there and that he "wanted to help you get your life back". In this context, Paul's counsel was in direct conflict with what Jesus told his disciples that "whoever attempts to save their life in such a manner shall lose it... " Luke 17:33 Paul told her of an upcoming Woman's Seminar within a few weeks at GGWO. Paul mentioned that he would be speaking at the seminar. Paul also mentioned he could arrange a free motel room for her four-day stay at the Suisse Chalet off the Baltimore Beltway at exit 34. This motel arrangement proved later to be an occasion for sin among many which I discovered later. He also posed the question to my wife as to whether I as her husband really loved and cared for her spiritual welfare. Margaret sounded out his question to me at this time. In frustration, I responded that I considered his questions strange, unfounded and of insincere motive. She suggested that we seek marriage counseling from him.

I suggested looking elsewhere more locally for counseling and expressed my doubts of Paul's ability to remain objective and hold anything we said in confidence. She thought this to be crazy, since he was Pastor Steven's son. I told her that while I respected Pastor Stevens, I did not consider "every word" he preached as infallible since he occasionally interjected his ppersonal opinion as God's word, along with his veiled attacks on anyone who left GGWO during the messages he preached. I also objected because of his questionable use of the biblical text of Hebrews 13:17 in which he used this verse to uphold his teaching that we as "believers are given from God one pastor/teacher for life" on earth directly implying himself in our case. I objected to his teachings which heavily implied that the Pastor/Teacher has absolute authority in a Christians life.

My belief was that while we as Christians are given pastors and teachers for our perfecting and edification (Ephesians 4:11) It may not always be the same Pastor/Teacher as God brings us as Christians and Pastors into new seasons and phases in life. I believe this to be a matter of personal discernment and prayer between a Christian and God.

As my further study of the scriptures did not support his particular teaching, I thought out loud that Pastor Stevens was taking personal license with the text. Not only this but much less did I consider Paul's opinion credible when it came to our marriage, since he had no professional counseling certifications or credentials, but was placed in that position by his dad when the position was vacated years before by someone who parted with the church. It wasn't until months later when I discovered copies of about 100 plus e- mail letters between Paul and my wife, that I saw how Paul took this as a personal "attack against the ministry". Being considered now as an "enemy of the ministry" whenever I would later visit my wife and kids at Greater Grace World Outreach, I was to be viewed as a "spy in the camp" according to Paul's twist of a biblical term.

On Monday morning November 2" d, 1998, I experienced this treatment as I arrived at GGWO headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.

As I will explain briefly later, my wife left our house with Paul Stevens shortly after midnight on Halloween, Oct. 31, 1998. I was not aware that he had come for her. My two daughters explained to me what they saw happen. They both describe being awakened that night to find Paul Stevens helping their mother load her car. One daughter also described the "laughing and joking" between Paul & my wife during the ride to Baltimore as they thought she was sleeping. I stopped by our house that morning Sunday Nov. 1st to find a brief goodbye note from her saying she was moving to Baltimore. I was shocked, but had to maintain composure in order to return to work for the next two shifts. I left for Baltimore at 2:30 am immediately after getting home from work Nov. 2nd. I arrived at GGWO at 10:00 am after driving through the night stopping to rest when I could no longer hold my eyes open after twenty-five hours without sleep the previous day. As I drove onto the GGWO property I looked to see if my wife's car was in view. It was parked near Paul Steven's car at the rear of the building. My wife later admitted to me at this point that I was being observed on the security camera which scanned the rear of property where I parked. I then noticed some children playing on a small bare asphalt patch of property, enclosed by a ten-foot high chain-link fence which gave it a distinct compound look of the Waco, Texas, David Koresh type. My youngest daughter, Alex, yelled "Hi Dad!" and waved at me, as she pressed up against the fence from the other side. As I approached the fence to meet her a woman worker saw me and immediately took her by the hand inside the building closing the door as I stood speechless. I rang the buzzer at the rear entrance of the former shopping plaza type building which now housed GGWO. In a plain looking hallway I was greeted by Paul Stevens. He was smiling appearing to act friendly and concerned. He said my wife "was around somewhere" and excused himself to "try to find her". The moment he left, my oldest daughter Rachel told me "Mom's in Pastor Paul's office" as she came to greet me from another direction.

Paul returned in ten minutes saying "she's a little upset right now, I'll see if she will come out to talk with you." Fifteen more minutes elapsed before Paul re-appeared saying we could meet in his office. I followed him to a door around the corner about fifteen feet away. There she was seated in a chair across from Paul's desk where he sat, with reddened eyes as if she had been crying a lot. I said nothing. I walked up to her and kissed her on the forehead as she didn't move or look at me.

She then glared at me and said defiantly "Al, I am never moving back to Pittsburgh with you, I'm living here and have never been happier in my life!" I sat down silent for a few seconds taking it all in. She maintained a stiff posture of arms folded and legs crossed in her chair. I started to weep. I said "I tried to be a good husband, a good dad, a good provider and worker but don't understand what you want" "I'm sorry your hurt but this is where I belong and I am never moving back!" she replied in an angry tone.

Ten days previous to this Paul called me in late October and offered to drive the five hours to Pittsburgh to take us to lunch and offer his counseling for our marriage. I considered it a strange offer but not wanting to offend my wife, I went along in order to make her happy and since I wasn't aware of their blossoming affair. Paul Stevens came to Pittsburgh on Thursday Oct. 29th, 1998, and brought two pastors with him (Scott Robinson & David Duff). Paul acted warm, friendly, and concerned to help us. Months later as I read an e-mail letter dated Oct. 23rd, I read that he came with the intention to question me about my differences with the ministry and to attempt to get me to react for his own amusement in front of my wife, and to "plant a kiss on your lips in front of Al" as he wrote teasingly to Margaret much different from what he so nicely told me by phone previous to his visit when he sounded as just an old friend who had been asked to help us work things out. While the two pastors Scott, Dave and I chatted in my home, my wife offered to show Paul around. While in another room, Paul initiated an intimate kiss on the lips, including embrace of my wife to which she submitted. This was later bragged about on one of the e-mail letters dated Oct.30, 1998, by Paul.

The e-mails exchanged between my wife and Paul revealed an ongoing questioning of my wife's purpose in Gods plan for her life. Among those things questioned by Paul was whether or not I as her husband was "fully one with the ministry". He told her I was "off' which according to the coded language of Greater Grace World Outreach implied I was deceived by differing with some of Pastor Stevens teachings. The previous 6 years I was working as a manager for 3-group homes for mentally retarded adults and the staff who supported them. It was not his concern of whether I was an involved Father to our two young daughters (ages 10 & 6) though we both home schooled them in addition to my jobs as Group-homes manager. As Paul offered his opinion, it was never mentioned whether I valued her as my wife except in the negative. More than once Paul questioned Margaret as to whether I as her husband really loved her. I treasured her and sought to express this by fording time to spend with her daily amidst our busy lives, to tell her I loved her daily, to ask how she was doing, to inchange kisses and intimacy, to surprise her with flowers, to cook her a meal two and three times a week to give her a break, to support her by changing my work schedule so she could go to school to become a court-reporter, to baby-sit our youngest while she practiced for her profession, and to challenge her when she seemed to be hiding what she wanted to say at times when we could amicably disagree. On the contrary Paul implied to my wife of 11 years that she had good cause to leave me. While I always knew I was far from perfect, and that marriage itself is a full time occupation I felt ambushed. Because I may have been "a great father, and a great provider", I was considered to be "a poor husband" she told me Halloween Day before I left for work. Margaret told me this in a very cold distant tone with glazed eyes. Her personality was completely different from the one I had known for the past 12 years. I wept while saying "I'm so sorry". That was the last time we ever sat together in that house as husband and wife. In past years, I frequently attempted to persuade my wife to open up with me if she appeared to keep things in and to herself. This sudden Definition of me as a poor husband was then and only then defined to me in terms that I discovered Paul Stevens coaching my wife in her vulnerability to articulate in their e-mail communications. At the time, not aware of the Deception taking place I assumed ownership for what happened.

Just after midnight on Halloween, Oct 31, 1998, Paul Stevens had Driven five hours from Baltimore MD., with her sister Catherine, & her husband (Pastor) Ed Morneault to our home in Pittsburgh, Pa, to "rescue" my wife because she "threatened to kill herself' if they did not come. I was at work this night, and not home. There had never been physical, mental or verbal abuse exchanged between Margaret and I, but as she was caught in the emotional mindset of this burgeoning affair all they both needed was a reason to steal away. They had two reasons; she was "suicidal" according to their agreed plan and I was "a poor husband" with no chance to openly Deal with or challenge this unless of course Paul Stevens himself could act as our marriage counselor. She and Paul had known each other prior to our marriage and often acted chummy in the past reducing any objectivity he might have. Secondly but not least, Paul had no formal training or professional certification as a counselor of any type. He was put in position by his dad who founded and directed the church they represented. But then I had expressed these reservations to Margaret previously. We discussed seeking marriage counseling that summer. She wanted Paul to counsel us. I suggested seeking someone who knew neither of us as friends, who may offer some objectivity. I was told take it or leave it. So, not yet knowing about the already ongoing affair between them, I began to take all the blame for our sudden failed marriage, not knowing I was being set-up. I began to visit my wife and two children in Baltimore once a week. With the intention of moving to Baltimore, I gave immediate notice to my employers that I was quitting my job within two weeks. I put our house up for sale, and my brother bought it two months later.

At the end of November 1998 I was visiting my wife and daughters for 3 & 4 days at a time, still unaware of the affair between Paul and Margaret. At first I had no permanent place to stay until I temporarily moved in with my wife and her brother Jim & his family. Others appeared to think we were working through a separation in our marriage and treated us kindly. She let me know that Paul Stevens was covering the tuition of our kids at the Greater Grace Academy elementary school. My wife Margaret had become uncharacteristically hostile in her language & manner toward me. In my 12 years of knowing her, I had never seen a hint of this distinct personality change. She displayed a major personality overhaul towards me, saying things she appeared scripted to say such as " this is the Church God has called me to & if you don't like it you can f--- off' and "take our two girls and leave, this is where God has called me". Saddened by it all, I refused to split up our family and leave, I continued to go to church services with her and even accept "counsel" from Paul Stevens and his Dad -Pastor Stevens. I found out later, when I discovered the e-mail copies that Paul Stevens would tell my wife everything I said though he assured me it was confidential between He & I as counselor & counselee.

Late at night on Jan 90' 1999 I finally asked Margaret if she was having an affair or had one. She was waiting for me to ask she said, & confessed to having a one-time fling with her former martial arts instructor back in Pittsburgh, on July 10th, 1998. I thought back to what may have led up to that time. 1997 was full of life's changing events. Margaret had marked her 30th birthday months before and found it difficult emotionally. We were about to celebrate 10 years of seemingly happy marriage. My Dad passed away in July 1997 after Margaret and I became closer to him attending to his personal care on a daily basis his last 6 months. In August 1997 Margaret suddenly announced she was quitting her job as a court reporter after 4 years of training and 6 months of internship. Margaret joined my daughter who was already taking Tae Kwon Do lessons and threw herself into learning all she could. I learned later that the instructor had a habit of "hitting on" women and it took him 10 solid months to continuously work on Margaret. During that time she attempted to see what my reaction would be if I found out. She asked me in a subtle manner one day in July 1998; "What would you do if he ever tried to hit on me?" I told her that I would confront him in a not too friendly manner. I probed her as to whether I needed to be check this matter out.

"No" she insisted and "if it did happen I could handle him." "Are you sure?" I probed further. "Yes" she insisted in an annoyed manner. As I asked her if she wanted to take lessons elsewhere she insisted no it was more convenient where she was. I also was working a lot during this time, as our lives ran non-stop.

She also said she told Pastor Stevens and Paul about this one day affair with her instructor 2 months later in September 1998. She said they both suggested not telling me. I wept as she spoke. A burden seemed lifted from her shoulders having confessed. She assured me this was the one & only time. I told her I wanted to be her husband as if this never happened. I also told her that I realized I could have been more attentive and generous to her by noticing the warning signs as our lives became busier during that time. We both wept. She appeared very relieved. We talked late into the night before falling asleep. Everything seemed much better between us the next day - a Sunday as we went to the regular morning service at Greater Grace World Outreach. I noticed Paul Stevens seemed anxious to speak with her privately after service & they did for 20 minutes, concluding with a long embrace as I watched them from a short distance. That day & next Margaret's disposition changed back to a very quiet & despondent manner, weeping a lot but refusing to say much as to what was truly bothering her. The next day my curiosity got the better of me as never before, as I opened up her e-mail past and present. There it was in over 120 e-mail letters between her & Paul Stevens between August 1998 and Jan 1999, including dates, motels, and an illicit encounter in Paul's motel room on Nov.7th,' 98 during a fundraising trip to Dover Plains, New York, where Paul preached and she volunteered as secretary for the group of church singers they brought along. I learned that in May of 1998 Paul invited Margaret to a fundraising banquet in Baltimore for the church radio broadcast. When she accepted that's when he told her he loved her and needed her back in his life as he just had marked his 41St birthday and wasn't handling it too well.

During summer 1998 they went on-line together exchanging phone calls late on Friday nights, and engaged in flirtatious banter and teasing while critiquing their spouses. At the time Paul's wife Barbara was undergoing a series of radiation treatments for a thyroid problem which left her feeling sick, and Paul suggested that she (his wife) may not live anyway, and that "God has a way of bringing people together" alluding to he and Margaret. Of course Paul's wife and I remained as an obstacle to their perceived fulfillment of "Gods plan". Paul also suggested that after his 40th birthday the year before, he began to realize how difficult it was to stay married to the same person for 20 years as he had. Months later it was revealed that they discussed the strategy of having a Protection From Abuse order (PFA) filed against me if they could bait me into hitting my wife or threatening her in some manner. They tried hard, Margaret reverted back to her uncharacteristic cursing at me and attempting to berate me. Much of what she said did not sound like the person I had known for 12 years. Instead it was coming from the premise that she had to "resist Satan even when he is influencing your husband" as she would later rebuke me. I kept this information to myself as I felt deeply betrayed and hurt by the person I love the most and by two people who stood in a place of spiritual authority and seemed willing accomplices in separating Margaret and I further apart. Pastor Stevens even looked at me and said a week before that "every marriage which God hasn't' planted will be plucked up", paraphrasing but misusing a well- known scripture verse but ignoring the biblical injunction: " What God has joined together let no on tear apart" Mark 10:9. When Pastor Stevens and his son Paul would offer me counsel separately they seemed to say the same thing as if they quietly conferred with each other between sessions. Never once did either of them inquire how my two small daughters were doing, though I brought this to their attention as one of my concerns. My six-year old daughter Alexandra developed the nervous habit of pulling on her hair gradually opening up a balding spot on top of her head of three inches. She was quiet and clinging towards me a lot during this time, climbing in bed beside me at night since my wife slept alone during these months. My wife refused sexual intimacy with me for the most part during this time and ignored our children for most of the time we spent as a family. My oldest, our 10 year old daughter, and firstborn- Rachel was torn in her emotional response towards both Margaret and I as parents since in some way she seemed to feel responsible for our arguments, but desperately wanted to keep us together as a family. A friend of mine who had seen his parent's split up when he was a child told me this was a typical response especially for a first-born child as Rachel. Rachel was emotionally bottled up, on occasion in private moments sobbing to herself uncontrollably but not wanting me see her or make this an issue which would embarrass her. At times I could only hold her, as she sobbed not wanting anyone to know. I watched the woman I love change from an emotionally stable, loving, caring, nurturing person, who treasured her family and loved God by every expression to someone who was caustic, angry, short tempered and depressed most of her day. She could put on a cool pleasant face in front of others but not the children and I.

My prayers became more specific as I became more desperate. I prayed that God would show me someone whom I could trust to talk to within the church about this mess we were in. That day (Jan.20th, 1999), while picking my kids up at school, I saw a long time friend of Margaret and I, named Barbara Evans. Barbara and her husband Dave were also friends and financial supporter of Pastor Stevens. Barbara employed Margaret parttime in her Court Reporting firm. Sensing that we were having problems she mentioned that if Margaret & I ever needed to have someone to talk with she and her husband Dave were available.

I hesitated at first but then took her up on the offer only if they could meet with me alone that evening as I told her what I wanted to discuss was rather serious. They invited me to dinner at their home that night a Wednesday before church service.

I left sensing our meeting was more than chance, but an answer to my prayer. I found hope in recalling the scriptural text of Matthew 18:16,17 about church members who constantly commit the same offense: " if he will not listen to you, take one or two witnesses along. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would an unbeliever". As I had found Paul to be this untruthful, I knew it was time to find the I or 2 witnesses that Jesus suggested.

I stopped at our apartment briefly, saw Margaret, who by this time was sensing I knew something, was very defensive, threatened to leave me and the kids and kill herself if I didn't tell her what I was up to. Not trusting her at this point,
and without telling her after arguing back & forth on this for about 45 minutes, I attempted to talk her out of her suicidal intentions, but she left in her car. I dropped the kids off with my sister-in law at church and told her Margaret left in a very upset state of mind. I went to the Evan's home. They knew what I wanted to tell them was of a serious nature but were shocked as I told them everything I could remember. I then produced copies of the 100 plus e-mail letters between Paul & Margaret. They sat quietly for then another 45 minutes reading each letter, shaking their heads in disbelief at times. The letters mentioned dates, motels, his car or office for "coffee". The letters also contained descriptive reminiscing of the previous nights affair, in addition to a critique of both their spouses, among other banter. As Barbara and Dave finished reading they both said that something must be done. Barbara sped down to the church were service was already going on and approached Pastor Stevens as soon as he finished preaching, told him their was a serious problem he had to deal with about Alan & Margaret Lang at her house, & that he should bring his son -Paul. They showed up about 9:30 PM, about a half-hour after service ended and about as long as the drive from the church.

Pastor Stevens appeared nervous when I told him briefly what I knew and pointed to the copies of the e-mail letters on the table. Paul broke down weeping, falling to his knees before us while admitting to his dad this was true, saying he was "so sorry" to me, & then to his dad. Pastor Stevens asked me if I wanted his son Paul to step down as a Pastor. Sidestepping the question I said all I wanted was my wife back, and for Paul to cooperate by honoring our marriage, and staying away from my wife completely. As much as I wanted to trust Pastor Steven's apparent good will, I quietly doubted that he had the fortitude to have his son step down as a pastor and marriage counselor. Though he insisted he wanted to advise me "as your pastor", my instincts suggested that he was Paul's dad first. He asked me if we could keep this from being known, from Paul's wife, and causing scandal in his church. I restated that Paul & Margaret should cease all contact with each other for the sake of my marriage and family. Pastor Stevens agreed, while complementing me profusely for what he considered the biblical and private manner in which I handled this. Pastor Stevens suggested that we would make a covenant before God for this to be. David & Barbara, Pastor Stevens, Paul and I Stood together and briefly prayed such before leaving. I took Paul with me to help find my wife, we made phone calls, drove around familiar places, then received a call from Paul's wife on his cell phone, saying that Margaret had called for him. We found her at a gas station near Paul's house in Bel Air, MD. about a half hour away. She refused to see me, and would only talk to Paul. They talked for about 10 minutes before she would come over & to my car. She refused to look at me. The three of us sat in his car as Paul talked. Paul admitted to Margaret in my presence that he was wrong, but was now glad that his dad knew so that he could get on with his life. Paul also expressed that he often wondered if the message he heard from the church pulpit was real and now he believed it was. I had read in two previous e-mails of Paul voicing the same question about the validity of what he heard from the pulpit at times. This admission surprised me that he could occasionally say things from the pulpit that he didn't truly believe but act as if he did when given the chance to preach by his dad. My wife refused to come home with me as she was silent but sullen. Paul left to go home. She left, I later learned to a motel room at the Ramada Inn in Towson, MD., a half- hour away. The next morning, Jan 21St, Pastor Stevens & Paul left for a three-Day church conference in Las Vegas, where they both preached.

Margaret came back to our apartment at 5:00 pm the next Day. When I didn't hear from her earlier, I called her parents in Florida. Her dad said Margaret had just called him. He was unaware of what was going on except that his Daughter was upset.

That being a fathers concern for his child's immediate safety he didn't ask questions and I didn't explain. He said he was paying to have her fly & visit them in Florida for three weeks. I was relieved that she was safe and left it between them as a father-Daughter matter if they chose to Discuss it. Margaret left for Florida after three Days of barely talking to me.

On Sunday morning January 24',1999 at 1:00 am, I was awakened by a phone call from Pastor Stevens in Las Vegas. He apologized for calling late, explaining that he just finished preaching and wanted to see how I was. I briefly replied that I now had more hope for my wife and family after our meeting at the Evan's home a few nights before. He interrupted to tell me "God does speak to you", and " you handled this matter as a gentleman and so biblically" and "I want you to consider being a pastor", and "your like a son to me", and "you can trust me as your pastor, because I refuse to be sentimental with him (Paul). I'll pull his ordination papers in a second if I ever hear he's done this again." finally "let's both agree to quietly keep an eye out for how they (his son & my wife) conduct themselves and let each other know so you have the peace to know this is over". I agreed, thanked him for the call, checked my notes as I had written down his verbatim comments in my notebook next to the phone, during our conversation.

Much later that same Sunday, after evening church service at 9:30 pm, Pastor Stevens called from Las Vegas to speak with Margaret. Margaret answered and spoke with him. She said to me after hanging up "Pastor said that since this (the affair) is over, in God's eyes it's as if it never happened. Your husband should have never involved the Evans in this. Your husband violated bible doctrine by uncovering you and Paul, like Ham uncovered Noah after the flood. We both know that Barbara Evans is a talker. If she (Barbara) ever tells anyone about this, we can agree before God, by telling others that she's a liar!

Because in Gods eyes this never happened, since God doesn't even see our sins once he's forgiven us." Margaret repeated this to me immediately after hanging up with Pastor Stevens. This appeared to me to be Pastor Stevens taking license with the scriptures to say what he wanted them to mean. I hid my disappointment with what appeared to be a questionable approach to my wife on the matter by Pastor Stevens. At 6:00 am the next morning, I drove my wife to the airport to catch her plane.

I wondered why Pastor Stevens would give such instructions to my wife but say nothing like that to me. Strangely though, it was not the last time he gave us each conflicting advice, as I'll illustrate in a moment. It did appear after a few more incidents of giving conflicting advice that Pastor Stevens was attempting to keep us both second guessing and doubting each other, while pretending and insisting "I'm your pastor, you can trust me, I refuse to be sentimental with my son". Clearly his mode of operating was to confuse by dividing a married couple's already wounded affections for each other.

There was a phone conversation of Monday February 15th. Pastor Stevens called me after Margaret went to work as he arranged. After the usual "hi how are you?" he said "I want to ask you a question. Don't be mad!" "OK go ahead" I told him. He said "Didn't you think that the gown your wife wore to the banquet the other night was rather revealing with that slit up the side?" I said "No Pastor, I didn't even think of that". He went on to imply that she was asking for trouble by wearing a black nylon gown that came down to her ankles yet had a slit on one side that came up just past her knee. He also said it looked "too Hollywood". I replied, that since he is our pastor, that she would consider this pastoral observation more readily coming from him, due to our strained relations, and that he should feel free to suggest this to her attention when he calls her in the next day. He appeared not to hear this and changed the subject. Days later, I asked Margaret if Pastor Stevens said anything to her about this, she said "No not at all" offended by his failing to mention this to her personally, but more so because she considered her style of dress modest and formal for a church Valentines night banquet. On at least two occasions, when I suggested to Pastor Stevens that "blood is thicker than water" and that even with his years of experience it may be difficult for him to remain objective as a counselor involving the issues of adultery between his son and my wife, he dismissed this thought as being "from Satan" and that "I'll be the intermediary in your marriage". As the weeks went on it became apparent that the more frequently I gave him power to act as liaison between my wife and I, the more frequently I sensed we were being manipulated and betrayed.

Also during many of our private conversations Pastor Stevens said he was aware that Margaret had been molested as a young teenager during a baby-sitting job. He said to me that "her problems began way before she moved away to Pittsburgh, or even Bible School. Her habit is a result of operating with damaged goods in her emotions, that's what I think" Pastor Stevens often used the term "damaged goods" to refer to confused and sick emotions. His veiled attempt to place the blame primarily on Margaret led me to realize he was willing to discredit her to protect Paul's reputation within the church.

There was a face to face conversation I had with Pastor Stevens on Tuesday March 9,1999 before his lunch time address to church members at the ministry dining area known as "The lunch rap". I remember this date also as I recorded it on my calendar after returning from a job interview. I approached Pastor Stevens with my concerns about catching Paul with my wife behind the school the previous week while he was away. Pastor Stevens turned the subject immediately to my wife's responsibility for this. I told him as our pastor he should talk to both Paul and Margaret. I related that when I attempted to discuss this with her she became sullen, threatening to kill herself storming off refusing to heed any thing concerning this. He reacted "Let her kill herself! She's a great manipulator. I doubt she's even saved. I'm going to ask her if she's ever been saved? She won't give me any of her mouth!" He told me again that he would take care of the matter and talk to her.

He also insisted as far as he knew his son was no longer meeting with her and believed Paul when he insisted his "heart is pure on the matter". He ignored the subject of their being caught a few days before by me behind the school. According to a later conversation with my wife, he never brought this up, again she was offended and upset at him for this but hesitated to confront him for fear of offending Paul, by questioning his dad. During that three weeks Margaret was in Florida, from Jan 26th to Feb 13th 1999, I worked part time so to care for our daughters as I had been accustomed to while we lived in Baltimore the last few months. Our children Rachel & Alex seemed quiet. They were very concerned about why their mom left us, but accepted my assurances that we would all be back together in three weeks.

One morning in the second week of February I received a phone call from Pastor Stevens. After the usual reassurance that he is my pastor calling to see how I was he asked the question. "You haven't told anyone else about things now have you?" After I assured him that I didn't. I told him I was still grieving over the matter. He attempted to solicit a heroic response from me by suggesting that "if others find out, thousands of lives associated with this ministry will be affected, souls that could be saved will go to hell. It's vital that you tell no-one, not a soul! " I didn't say much except that "I understand".

During this time I was keeping a journal of thoughts, feelings, names and dates of the events surrounding my life. I wrote down our conversation soon after we hung up.

Margaret returned from Florida on Feb.13h. During that time I later discovered that she and Paul began to communicate on e-mail once again. Trusting Paul at his word once again I believed him to be ceasing all communication with Margaret. That was not the case as they talked daily, often for an hour at a time, while she was on her parent's computer in Florida. I learned that she had signed on-line by another name on her dad's AOL membership, which she much later confessed and showed me when I proved to her I knew. When I suspected this may be going on I asked Paul openly three times if he was still communicating, he looked me in the eye and denied it, reassuring me that its natural for me to suspect him after all he admitted to doing, but it just wasn't the case. I brought my suspicions to his dad Pastor Stevens who asked me if I had proof & wanted to know why I had such suspicions anymore. I did not feel safe revealing to him what I knew as I felt Paul and my wife were both becoming only sneakier, and Pastor Stevens was covering for them with or without knowing of which I wasn't sure.

I approached Pastor Stevens with my suspicions at least 10 times in the next month. He assured me he would check into it. On 4 occasions he even said he would insist that Paul step down as a pastor if he found out any of this was true. Often he would just hear me out then say "I'll take care of it" as if to humor me in a fatherly manner. He insisted that he is my pastor and would act objectively on my behalf, but also interrupting our conversations each time to ask if I had spoken to anyone of this matter, stressing that we had a covenant before God to not let this be known. He would neglect to mention each time his own son's part in the covenant of agreeing cut of his relationship with my wife -Margaret. Yes, she was a consenting adult but within the boundaries of their persuasion and influence. It was obvious they were coaching her with some scripted but twisted bible verses that she, Pastor Stevens, and Paul Stevens used on a number of occasions in our conversations as follows; "Jesus never followed the woman caught in adultery around to check on her" forgetting to mention that Jesus told her to go and sin no more, but even more so neither was Jesus a party to her further temptation as the gospel story shows. Or a favorite response: " David fell into adultery in the Bible, but he was Gods man" failing to mention the process of repentance and accountability David owned up to in the same passage of scripture. For someone who was comparing himself to David, Paul ran to his dad often for intervention, unlike the character of King David.

Or from Genesis: "Ham uncovered Noah in the Bible & was cursed, so be careful that you don't uncover anyone" failing to mention the context in which Ham did this in order to mock Noah, while Pastor Stevens and Paul continued to avoid using any concrete process of accountability letting the affair continue in a more deceptive manner.

In late February 1999 Pastor Stevens called me and chewed me out for not forgiving and forgetting, being much more concerned about my inability to process the hurt & betrayal immediately and "forget it ever happened", as a mature believer apparently would according to his reasoning. Pastor Stevens would dismiss my concerns with something like "God forgets what we did and doesn't even look at our sins once we repent" failing to see that his son Paul may have apologized but he did not yet repent.

Paul did not repent to the extent that he forsook any involvement with my wife as agreed but became more adept at undermining our marriage. Jesus stated in such matters "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you... " Matthew 5:30. Christ gave no room for error saying such things. It can be clearly understood that for the sake of the sacred covenant of marriage such a "friendly" relationship has no place and should be cut off. Whenever I reminded them of these obvious commands from the scriptures they represented Paul would rationalize them away citing the strong bonds of "friendship", while Pastor Steven's would appear a little slighted that I was quoting the bible to him in his position as pastor. Earlier in the sequence of events I empathized with Pastor Stevens. I reminded him that even though he insists that he wants to work through this with me, that I know that blood is thicker than water. I suggested that for me to ask of him to advocate on my behalf as a church member in regards to his son was not something I was totally comfortable with. He dismissed this saying "that's from Satan!" assuring me that I could trust him on this whole matter and tell him anything, all the while reminding me " you haven't discussed this with anyone have you?" During this time I had an ambivalent sense of my relation to Pastor Stevens. I was torn emotionally by my love for Margaret, and valued his attentiveness and concern as a pastor but wrestled with denied the possibility that his primary motive was to protect his own interests and Paul's since he himself denied this suggesting such thinking was "from Satan".

By March 1999 I was feeling manipulated, managed and avoided by Pastor Stevens on this whole matter. A friend of Margaret and I, by the name of Tony Selph who is also head of the Greater Grace Ministry Security, approached me and confided that he knew what was going on. We sounded each other out for what the other knew, and was willing to tell. Tony stated some observations he made as head of GGWO security, and by the instincts he developed after 25 years in security work. Tony felt betrayed himself by Paul Stevens for the manner in which Paul had sabotaged Tony's position as head of Security on a particular occasion in the past, when former V.P. Dan Quayle came to speak at the church. Paul apparently attempted to steal the spotlight as head of security escorting Mr. Quayle around during his visit while dismissing Tony to a lesser position. Tony felt slighted. During our conversations in November and December 1998, Paul frequently attempted to portray Tony in an unfavorable light, referring to him as " that bastard who keeps hitting on your wife when your not around" After Paul sanctimoniously asked me on one occasion if I wanted him to "fire him (Tony)" or "at least tell his wife" I reminded Paul that I already confronted Tony privately on Nov. 8th. I also reminded Paul that I felt Tony was now acting honorably towards my wife as she confirmed this. Paul insisted that he had enough he could say to Tony's wife about Tony's past indiscretions "to bring him down". In short, Paul was using Tony as a decoy to cover his own actions.

The day after Tony & I talked, Tony told, me he approached Paul with some of his long held in concerns. Paul must have called his dad to say we were talking about him, since Pastor Stevens called me that afternoon to chew me out, telling me I was "violating several biblical doctrines" by talking with Tony and instructing me to call Tony and "say everything I said was a lie, I was just not thinking right, forget everything I said". Before hanging up, Pastor Stevens said "I have 5 pages of notes in my file on that guy (Tony) and can bring him down in a second if he ever spreads any of this" Pastor Stevens called me back the next morning to make sure I called and said this to Tony. I did, though Tony saw right through it.

Also on or about Thursday March 4th, 1999 Pastor Stevens went on vacation for a few days. My wife offered to take the kids to school indicating she would be back to say by to me before leaving for work. When she didn't come back within the usual time frame, I decided to look for her and came upon Paul and her talking alone behind the Greater Grace Academy school as if they did not want an audience. As soon as they both saw my car, they stopped talking immediately, as if caught. Margaret began to ask me what I doing following her. She said she felt as if I had hired a detective to monitor her every move. I did not respond to that. Instead I asked Paul, who was looking rather sheepish, if his wife had any male friends whom she confided with regularly, and if he minded. Paul mumbled "no" but his wife " had women friends that she talks to". Paul started to claim " my hearts pure - we're just talking - we're just friends". I told him that his own Bible tells him to " abstain from all appearance of evil" quoting first Thessalonians 5:22. Then I asked " if this is not wrong why are you hiding behind the school?" Also," didn't we have some kind of "Covenant" we both agreed to?" He said nothing and left. My wife began to curse at me for embarrassing them and for not trusting her. I left shaking my head in disbelief. I waited till Pastor Stevens came back from his weekend to tell him about this incident, He assured me he would "take care it".

At some point around this time, Paul must have complained to his Dad that he felt as if I was picking on him. He felt as if he was still on trial, and that his heart was pure, and that he would leave the ministry (which was a veiled threat to his Dad) if this didn't stop. This began to spill out in an emotional conversation Pastor Stevens had with me in his car on or about Tuesday March 9t' after lunch. The next month contained four other such incidents. Paul was directly observed by me initiating conversation with my wife when we weren't together in the crowded church gatherings, before and after service, and among the crowd of parents picking up their kids after school.

During church services, which were held three times a week, Margaret insisted that we sit in the front row of seats directly in front of the platform where several of the pastors, including Paul Stevens sat while Pastor Stevens preached. As I sat beside my wife I often noticed Paul Stevens making direct eye contact with her often grinning. When I brought this to his and her attention, I was met with responses such s "your paranoid, we're just friends, our hearts are pure before God". When I brought this up to Pastor Stevens on those each of those occasions, he would humor me again with "I'll handle it". I told my wife we need to sit somewhere other than in direct contact with Paul Stevens on the preaching platform if our true intention was to hear God's word preached in an undistracted fashion. She vehemently opposed this insisting I was paranoid repeating the same script of their "hearts are pure and that we are just friends". She began to add to her scripted replies that as a husband I was just "insecure".

As we frequently argued about such things, I would notice the same line of reasoning in her arguments as voiced by Paul Stevens. Paul would state similar types of examples of "insecure spouses" in his teaching when I would sit in on some of his Monday evening marriage classes. Pastor Stevens also found opportunity to call me and ask me what I thought of the previous days sermon/message. He did this in a very deliberate manner after speaking on such topics like `leaving skeletons locked in the closet and throwing away the key' during a Wednesday night service in early February 1999 and " true forgiveness is forgetting and never bringing it up again".

The first two weeks in April 1999 were stormier than before between my wife and I. My futile attempts to persuade her to let go of this relationship, its unhealthy attachment from her end, and consider moving back to Pittsburgh with me were met with angry and hostile comments along with her very cold disposition. While claiming all along that this was Gods will for her life, she told me she felt she was "brainwashed" by me, and that if she could do it over "I wouldn't have married or had kids until I was 28". She also accused me saying "you tricked me into leaving the ministry by moving to Pittsburgh" On at least five occasions during this time she told me " take the girls if you want, and go back to Pittsburgh, this is where Gods called me, I could use the time alone". While the sexual part of the affair continued in a much sneakier and careful manner since first confronted on Jan. 20h,1999 what pushed me to give up my desire to keep us together as a family was my discovery by a friend of Margaret's that Paul and Margaret had one last sexual fling of many since our so caed "Covenant" in January.

This last known fling took place in Oregon State Park north of Baltimore on the Thursday aternoon April 8th, 1999. Whether any occurred after I'm not sure.

I stopped my personal surveillance that I employed and began to ponder with deep sorrow what I would tell my kids. How could they make sense of all they heard and learned the past few months I attempted to downplay it and explain it in palatable terms that children could handle though they indicated that they knew more and were very confused. I was angry that two innocent children of mine were tormented with their own questions to me, that I attempted to answer about the conduct of a pastor and their mom. Both children told me they observed Paul Stevens and my wife speaking together quietly on those days in which my wife would pick them up after school. They didn't understand why they were so friendly with each other while my wife and I often argued about him. My wife confessed to me later about something called a "P.F.A.". Adding insult to injury, on April 13th, before his final scheme to arrange a PFA (Protection From Abuse) order against me, Paul Stevens told me he didn't like feeling guilty every time he saw me and that his `heart was pure" and that "souls are being saved in this church" and that he didn't feel right encouraging my wife to leave his church and "her calling". I nterrupted what came across as a defensive tirade from him, reminding him that marriage is considered a high & sacred calling, and not second to membership in his particular church. I then reminded him that my two small daughters also have a "calling of God" on their lives which was no less important than the all the members of his church, citing the passage from Luke 15 in which the shepherd considered one lost sheep as valuable as the other ninety-nine. He went to his car mumbling "I don't know what you want me to do".

When I awoke the next morning on Wednesday April 14th, my wife said in a very cold tone that she needed time by herself She said she wanted a separation. She told me to "take our two daughters and go back to Pittsburgh" if I wanted, and that she was staying with Greater Grace Church "because this is where God wanted her". She then left for work about 7:30 A.M., saying "I'll see you guys off when I get home from work". I lost no time in packing my car, awoke my children, made phone calls to two of her brothers associated with the church, and her sister Patricia in New Hampshire, to tell them what has been going on the last five months. I had called her mom in Florida the day before as I anticipated what may happen. Her mother is a devout Catholic Christian who raised 11 children and was always charitable in her manner towards me. I told her mother what was really going on named names. Margaret's mother was grieved, and stated that "they"(Pastor Stevens and Paul) "are wolves in sheep's clothing". Margaret's family appeared stunned in their own way. Patricia is not affiliated with GGWO but previously knew some of the details of our marital problems to now understand the whole account. She was incensed with Pastor Stevens and Paul for using her sister. She let this be known by calling another sister within the ministry, Catherine in Baltimore, and telling her so. Because of her commitment to Pastor Stevens, Catherine refused to listen at first until Patricia made it clear that she knew what happened and would not cover it up. Patricia on one hand could be a very gracious person. On the other hand she was not swayed by blind loyalty to Pastor Stevens and would not keep quiet if they continued to use her little sister. One brother suggested I was paranoid and had "a root of bitterness" which was unfounded by saying such things. His defensiveness toned down a notch when he began to come to terms with what I could prove to him. The two brothers suggested we meet with Paul that night at church to see if what I claimed was true.

That night, April 14th, the two brothers and Paul were waiting for me as we met at 8:15 pm in Pastor Steven’s office. What they discussed previous to my arrival I don't know. Pastor Stevens was in the chapel preaching. Paul appeared scared and nervous beneath a cool facade he was attempting to wear with the two brothers who are also pastors of some degree within GGWO, and myself. At first, Paul admitted to the two brothers in front of me of his involvement with Margaret. He appeared very meek as he apologized to me. I told Paul that his attempt to portray our moving to Pittsburgh as being from Satan was wrong. With the two brothers though, Paul attempted to back-peddle and downplay his real intentions for the whole affair.

Paul suggested that he became involved in helping Margaret while she was threatening to kill herself on Halloween night 1998 failing to mention his previous pattern of solicitation with e-mail correspondence & phone calls. He attempted to portray himself to her brothers as a fallen friend who was just trying to help another friend who was suicidal and then fell into sin twice, instead admitting his previous contacts with phone calls and e-mails which began months before, plus the forty plus times I discovered during my investigation. I stood momentarily speechless, as Paul apologized again to me and then quickly dismissed himself to join the church service already in progress. I again sensed there was a difference here between a dramatic apology and true biblical repentance.

I told Margaret's Brother John Hadley, that this was another attempt to deny responsibility on Paul's Part as he changed his story from his original confession back in January. The two brothers, John and Jim, appeared embarrassed by the whole matter, since they were friends of Paul for seventeen plus years. The oldest brother John acting as liaison between Paul and I, seemed reluctant to push the matter much with Paul, since Paul in effect had authority to fire John. John assured me that Paul promised he would stop any attempts whether secret or open, in communicating with Margaret. This appeared to be believable enough for John but not for me as I told John. John suggested that I may be just paranoid at this point but assured me he would keep an eye on Paul. I asked John how he would know if Paul attempted to call Margaret or e-mail her.

John dismissed my reservations as being "from Satan". I witnessed this as a blatant attempt by Paul to use his Dad' complicity in hiding the matter from any further form of accountability. Paul displayed a habit of lying by downplaying his actions if he could not effectively deny them outright. This was obvious in one particular e-mail communication dated November 1998 to Margaret in which he joked about losing his qualifications to marriage-counsel "if' they kept up their affair. It wasn't clear to him that he had disqualified himself when first initiating the affair months earlier.

Another instance of his ongoing deception was plain to see through during January 1999, when I discovered the e-mail evidence, but had yet not told anyone due to my shock and disbelief. I knew that he was having an affair with my wife, but had not yet decided on a way to confront the matter, as I witnessed the following:
At 10:30 each morning, Paul would join his dad, Pastor Stevens on the church's radio broadcast. When the subject of President Clinton's impeachment came up, Paul spoke up emphatically that "Clinton should resign, he's a hypocrite". I sat in disbelief as I watched & listened from the small audience of people who viewed the live broadcast how easy for both Pastor Stevens and Paul to sit in judgement of the obvious ways of the President but fail to examine their own ministry. Paul's duplicity was obvious once again a few days later still not knowing that I had found out. Paul approached me in a rather chummy manner saying he had a plan to help me expose the Martial Arts instructor who "misused his authority and crossed the line with your wife". Paul suggested calling the mans wife and "tell her everything and watch their marriage fall apart"

Among my many personal self-examinations, feelings and questions during this time, I asked Almighty God for strength I did not possess. During one such moment the face of my late father, bless his memory, flashed into my mind. He loved my mother for fifty-two years before his death in 1997. My mother a devout Catholic Christian will be the first to say he never abused her in any manner though men got away with it a lot easier years ago. He was an imperfect man who along with my mother raised thirteen children. He mirrored for me Solomon's proverb: "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, one who controls his own spirit than one who controls a city." Proverbs 16:32

My daughters and I stopped to say a prayer on the porch of our apartment before we left. They sobbed out loud for several minutes as we huddled each other. Along the way my daughters speculated out loud how to keep Pastor Stevens or Paul from contacting us again. They said things such as make sure and tell everyone to not let them know where we live or our phone number, they also speculated as to how we could persuade their mom to come home. Into my thoughts flashed a scripture verse from Matthew 18: "Whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea....offenses such as this will happen, but woe to that man by whom the offenses come!" My wife phoned the next day very distraught. She sounded as if she had been coached to suggest the following comments: "What were you doing telling other people what happened?" "If others find out about this, thousands of people will be affected, many souls will die and go to hell because of you" " I perceived in this further coaching and manipulation of the scriptural text as I encountered before with Pastor Stevens and Paul. I wasn't buying it.

She called again an hour later, now more composed, saying she wanted to come home. I asked her if she needed Pastor Stevens ermission to do so. She said the decision was hers, but admitted he told it was better for her to leave, as if he was thinking of her welfare first, and of course not his own reputation or possible scandal. Three words summarized his technique with Margaret: Use, confuse and dismiss. In a parting shot from Pastor Stevens, Margaret told me he said he "didn't believe we were called by God to Pittsburgh because the sentimental attachments of your husband with his family will keep you from God's call." Two weeks before, (on March 30th) in a phone call with Pastor Stevens, he told me he agreed with me that we should move back to Pittsburgh and separate ourselves from the ongoing situation, and would suggest this to my wife when he counseled her. We began the difficult task of reconciliation and rebuilding our marriage. Considering her state of mind and emotions Margaret refused to accept any form of professional counseling with a Christian association, or from a Christian counselor. It was too obvious even to her that this fierce struggle within her wouldn't go away. She could not openly admit this for fear of offending God by acknowledging that she was taken advantage of by 2 pastors. To openly express this to anyone would be to "uncover God's man" according to the inbred twisted teaching of Pastor Steven's. On April 28`,1999, during a very despondent episode and through suppressed sobs she added "I know I'm not supposed to, but sometimes I really hate them for what they did". She wondered out loud whether or not she was "saved". From our conversation it was apparent that Pastor Steven's made God's salvation to appear conditioned upon her compliance with his intentions. From the days I had met Margaret years before, I had known her to be a confident person assured of relationship with God. Six weeks later Margaret began Psychiatric counseling for her marked depression at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Anxiety & Depressive disorder. In my curiosity, I began to research for other cases of abuse associated with GGWO. Most poignant was the phone conversation I had with Mrs. Ruth Fisher of Waltham, Massachusetts. I identified myself, stated the reason for my call, and briefly related part of my own experience. She then willingly related her own account of grief. Her son Bobby was an active member of "The Bible Speaks" from 1984 to his death in 1987. Mrs. Fisher told me that her son put his heart and soul into serving "The Bible Speaks" while they encouraged him to exclude his natural family and friends from his sphere of influence. Mrs. Fisher's family witnessed a drastic personality change in Bobby during those few years, from a loving, popular, giving person into a scared, nervous withdrawn shell of his former self. He committed suicide on Feb. 17th, 1987, leaving a pregnant wife Joanne who later remarried within "the ministry" and a son Kyle. Mrs. Fisher loves her former daughter in law, and cherishes her grandchildren. Yet Mrs. Fisher to this day considers Carl Steven's "an evil man", largely responsible for the influence which pushed her son over the edge. ( see related news article)

I also spoke by phone with Jack Leonard of Boston, Massachusetts. Jack was the former president of "Stevens School of the Bible". The school closed its doors in 1987, and was renamed Maryland Bible College & Seminary during a publicized scandal involving Pastor Stevens. Jack and his wife along with twenty plus other administrators left their association with the church in 1987. Wanting to believe the best, Jack indicated that he hoped that the years since then would prove that Pastor Stevens had stopped "his usual shenanigans and dodging accountability by covering things up". He said that Pastor Stevens learned long ago to appoint only family and close friends in administrative positions. Jack related some of his own experience. He told of Pastor Stevens trafficking in church gossip in order to always have the goods on "anyone who may go against the ministry". Jack described this method of discrediting others by Pastor Stevens who would invoke but misuse the biblical text of Romans 16:17 which read " mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine you have learned and avoid them". Jack mentioned that Pastor Stevens often employed this phrase to "mark and avoid certain people" when advising his staff of those on Pastor Steven's enemy list. Jack grew disappointed with the practice of having an enemies list, the use of church gossip for retaliation, and "marking and avoiding" people he was not sure were wrong, but were viewed as a threat by Pastor Stevens.

A related incident I witnessed with Pastor Stevens is as follows; I was seated in his office one morning as he wanted to speak with me. Just as we were beginning to talk, the phone rang. I got up to leave & let him speak privately. He signaled for me to stay. After several moments of letting the caller speak, he said "this is not gossip, I'm your pastor, you can tell me anything". Before and after this he would occasionally preach against this method of redefining gossip or calling it by another name, unless it was something he considered detrimental to GGWO.

This next incident was then consistent with his thinking. On March 23rd,1999 Pastor Stevens called me and gently chided me for not informing him as our Pastor that Margaret and I went away the weekend that just passed. After not hearing from me for a few days he asked how things were going. I mentioned that I was job searching which included applying to the local Zurich Insurance branch office. He warned me that a certain man worked at Zurich whose name I recognized as a former member and pastor at GGWO. He immediately began to tell me that this man had an alcohol problem with a promiscuous wife who left him for an ex criminal. On top of this he added they left the ministry. He said he just wanted me to be aware of that "in case that guy says anything against the ministry".

Prior to this a stranger incident during this time took place on March 13',1999. I received a long distance phone call from Pastor Stevens secretary, Chantal Zeitler. They were in the country of Hungary at a GGWO conference. His secretary asked me to call Pastor Stevens immediately. She said they would pay for my phone bill. He said it was 1:00 am in the morning there and he couldn't sleep. He said he had been wondering how Margaret & I were doing. I told him I was thankful for his concern.

He said that he had to take sleeping pills to help him sleep because of the time-zone change when I mentioned that he sounded tired and his voice was a little slurred. What took me by surprise were his next questions. He asked if we have had sexual relations recently. Then what sounded like a strange attempt to sound clinical Pastor Stevens asked me "Is she having orgasms when you have sex?". I was speechless for several moments and said with a hint of surprise "Pastor, I'm not really comfortable talking about this". He changed the subject, saying he wanted to meet with me when he came back to the states in a few days. This brief long distance phone call had me wondering about his state of mind as he once again called me the next day long distance to say "forget what we talked about last night" as he "didn't know what (he) was saying".

Sometime in late May 1999 after Margaret and I were beginning to put our lives back together I received a phone call from Pastor John Hadley, Margaret's brother in Baltimore. At first I took the phone call for what appeared to be a sincere interest on her brothers part to see how we were doing. By Johns probative questions, I began to suspect that there may be another motive for his phone call. I asked John if anyone put him up to calling us and asking personal questions as he was.

John denied it. Twenty minutes later into the conversation I probed John further about his motive for calling with such questions. John finally admitted sheepishly that "Pastor (Stevens) did want me to call to see how you both were doing". The nature of the conversation suggested strongly to me that Pastor Stevens was using John to see if we had talked to anyone about what happened and to discourage this in any manner, including counseling. Before I hung up, I told John I didn't appreciate his lack of honesty, and fronting for Pastor Stevens in a dubious manner.

A different scheme consistent with the usual style of behavior took place before and during my family's move to Baltimore as follows. Paul suggested to Margaret that he wanted to replace his current secretary Jennifer Lynch with Margaret. This way she would have a job "safe within the ministry". Paul was unhappy that his dad had a say in picking his current secretary and appeared to resent his lack of choice. Paul led Margaret along implying he was going to act on this. Part of the rationale was that Jennifer was pregnant at the time and wasn't up to the demands, and that her personality was a little too subdued for someone to represent what he wanted to project. As I read a little of this on e-mail, I heard it also discussed in my presence during "counseling sessions" with Paul.During these months while I lived in Baltimore attempting to win my family back another scheme was at play. Pastor Stevens and Paul knowing I had sold our house in Pittsburgh often asked me how the house hunting was coming along. Paul urged me on two occasions acting as a counselor "just buy her a house first then say lets talk about our relationship". I told Paul that I believed he had things in the wrong order. First, I didn't have a full time job yet to support this, and I quoted the scripture that it was better to "establish your business before building your house" from Proverbs 24:27. More important I believed our relationship was something we needed as a married couple to reconcile before making a major decision like buying a house. Paul dismissed this with "there is a balance. You can't be too legalistic in interpreting the bible when you have the chance to do something like this". Paul even arranged to have real estate agent and church member Jim Turner call me to help us start looking. With the manner in which Paul showed interest in my buying a house for my wife along with her mood and personality swings I considered his motive suspect. He suggested I use our whole savings and equity to buy a house free and clear without a mortgage.

My experience with GGWO began 16 years earlier, like hundreds of others seeking Christian spiritual direction for our lives.

It has concluded in a very strange manner. I set out enthusiastically wanting to align myself with God's work of reaching others with the message of my savior Jesus Christ. Part of my reluctance to come to terms with my own experience has been my desire of wanting to believe the best of other Christians and give others the benefit of the doubt in accordance with the biblical teachings from Philippians 4:8. Only later did I did I remember that the scripture says to "... believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God" 1 John 4:1. 1 recalled that Christ received much opposition for challenging the accepted spiritual authorities of his day.

Christ saw through much of what they taught though some of it was good, to point out their error, and the evil effect it had on others. The words from the psalmist came back to me again "not a word from their mouth can be trusted, their heart is filled with destruction, their throat is an open grave, with their tongue they speak deceit" Psalm 5:9. If the end justified the means then Christ would have never gone to the cross. He could have taken advantage of people to establish his kingdom.

Instead He chose the cross. If my salvation depended upon my relationship with Carl and Paul Stevens I would have none since they have treated me as an enemy though I was a willing friend despite our initial differences. Thank GOD it does not. To a certain measure I recognize that my wife was a consenting adult. In a much larger measure she was their victim. She was seduced and taken advantage of at an extremely vulnerable time in her life and our marriage by Paul Stevens with his dads attempts to cover up if not weakly intervene for nothing else than to protect his own interests. It was done in an insidious evil manner, under the guise of spiritual authority. Christ reserved his severest criticism for such spiritual leaders: "Whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea... offenses such as this will happen, but woe to that man by whom the offenses come" (Mt.18). They both frequently and slightly misquoted the scriptures to support their own persuasions. This is strictly pointed out as evil in the old as well as the new testament (Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 21:18,19). Jesus rebuked the one who attempted to misuse the scriptures while tempting Him in Matthew 4:6,7.

After we returned to Pittsburgh in April 1999, as I mentioned earlier I continued to wonder how people fell prey to such deceit, and how widespread this was. I began to ask questions of people. In the past we were admonished by Pastor Stevens to consider any newspaper reports about him as an "an evil report from the pit of hell". We were warned that to read such reports was "to give place to Satan". We were also warned against reading the 62 page report on his ministry by the Christian Research Institute (or CRI.) in Santa Margarita, California. When CBS-60 Minutes did an expose on the ministry on Feb. 8th. 1987 we were also admonished from the pulpit that "it was full of lies" and to ignore it as such. It was then after reading these news clippings and the CRI report that it no longer surprised me that there was an ongoing pattern going back almost 30 years of covering things up instead of admitting wrongdoing. Pastor Stevens would often interpret such matters to his congregation as "persecution". He is as skilled as any political hack who spins the news to discredit others to make himself look better. Carl Stevens made himself accountable to no one except for appearance sake, the friends which he chose and appointed to his board. Those board members rarely had the sway to influence him or his son to be accountable on anything.

I came to realize that my family was by far not the first to see another side of what on the surface appears to be a healthy evangelical church that is supported by sincere, well intentioned Christians who are not aware of these things. Some choose not to know, or refuse to think such things happen. Many were my associates and even friends. Carl Steven's has used the scriptures to instruct them otherwise. Paul has learned to mimic his dad's loose play with the scriptures when convenient.

Like the well known televangelists caught in the compromising scandals of the the late 1980's, Carl Stevens and Paul displayed a public charm and a personal warmth to their own audience while covering a much sleazier side. I believe they have forfeited the sacred trust of Christ's people. Contrary to what they espouse, the scriptures prove God's work will continue without them.

Alan Lang
Pittsburgh, PA.
1999

[miss_k (miss_k)]

Now I must tell you that suicide and death are not by any means my favorite subject. Nor is sexual abuse.

I will post some of the more uglier posts from this site. But I have no clue about why people decided to kill themself. I wasn't that close to them.

However this should be known that part of this story of many of the families involved has resulted in divorce or worse such tragedies.

So here are some of the post:

[miss_k (miss_k)]

I almost copied Marcy Stevens post. I will do it latter because I want to gather as much about the details of the suicide as I can. It went back and forth on the board.

It does imply via her comments that Carl Stevens did have an affair with her brothers wife.

I will come back to it latter. Much of it is here if you want to study via search. I will be read as much as I can and put the piece together.

[miss_k (miss_k)]

The death of a Pastors Nephew at a GGWO Youth Funtion:

Now this is nothing major. There was something of a settlement paid off.

I however want to quote a few people.

Sheldon Monroe's Nephew (I may be wrong, it might have been a niece), drowned in a pool during a GGWO event.

Pastor encouraged his staff at a meeting to go to the Funeral at a Catholic Church. He seemed rather upset that the family wasn't happy with what the church had done after the accident. In fact he was ****ed off.

Pastor Monroe smiled and said not much.

I will never forget this quote coming out of the side of Dr. Stevns mouth about the grief of the parents of a young child.

"The Lord giveth, The Lord Taketh away" He then shrugged his shoulders and looked at Pastor Monroe who was smiling.

If this doesn't border on sick what does?

[ariel (ariel)]

Miss K,

Regarding the tragic death of this little girl,
I have an observation and a few questions for you or the readers;

I am quite sure that this tragedy took place in the mid 90's at the former home of Joe and JoAnne Holehouse.
They lived in the Rosedale,section of Baltimore, on the edge of the city.
The little girls family sued. Rightfully so in my opinion, since there were no appointed lifeguards on duty for what was at least 40 people.
Yet I am not sure what the Holehouses response was. Where they advised by Carl or Mike Marr?
Are the Holehouses still part of this charade known as GGWO?
Anyone?



(Message edited by ariel on April 19, 2005)

[bruder5 (bruder5)]

There are places where angels fear to tread. Miss_K you walk there carelessly. FN should never be seen as a forum for "open season" on a families grief. Attempting to expose others is often an attempt at controling ourselves. Your reference to the suicide of a dear friend appears to be a selfish need on your part to be heard. Leave it alone please. Let's not be careless where brokeness resides. People have a right to the confidentiality and the dignity of their own stories. They don't belong to you and have no place on fn.

[miss_k (miss_k)]

ariel,

Can't say for sure on all details. My understanding is the ministry was the party sued.

Mike Marr I don't know.

It really ****ed me off. I saw Pastor for three days act like he cared in public, and then behind people's back act like it was no big deal.

I can remember it was the same week that Pastor Hadley agreed to here a certain well known Black Minister.

It was bizarre. It was sad, and frankly it shows the heart of the ministry.

[miss_k (miss_k)]

bruder5,

The only reason I bring it up is because if I don't it may just a number of the other suicides that have taken place because of these actions by this ministry.

Let's not bring it up. Let others die for the sake of the grief of a family. That is no just justice for those who lost a loved one.

[mercyreigns (mercyreigns)]

Miss K It was a Bible club child that died in Joe Holehouse's pool. She was a niece of Pr. Monroe but was there for a church function.

There was a lawsuit and everyone was told to be quiet about the matter. I know because at that time I was very close to the Holehouses.

It was after that that I remember we had to sign new papers for working with youth. My understanding at the time that I signed mine was that they were authorized by the city police or state or something to that effect.

The family did sue and there was some sort of settlement. Because it was a church function, Bible club, the church was responsible to provide protection for each child.

It was more than a tragedy because GG was more concerned with her reputation than with the child's death. The mother was devastated.

I believe Michael Marr handled the matter and the HOlehouses were advised not to speak of the matter.

It was disgusting the way it was handled although and the Monroe's still stayed in GG after all that. He remained loyal to Stevens and was on staff and of course allowed to preach now and again, but very rared.

I really loved the Monroe's. I couldn't understand how they could stand by GG and Stevens and just say it was God's will when it was a completely avoidable situation.

This is how cheap lives are to them, dead or alive.

A little child killed because of negligence and they remained loyal to Stevens. It sickened me.

Nancy Curra

[jim_kennedy (jim_kennedy)]

Thinking of you Nancy,

Jim

[mercyreigns (mercyreigns)]

Thank you Jim. I truly appreciate it.

[miss_k (miss_k)]

Nancy,

It seems you recall the story much better than me. I remember the whole going to the Catholic church thing and how it upset Pastor he had to put on a good face.

He acted like God was actiung him for something and that he was going to just move on.

[timeless (timeless)]

I heard that the Holehouses gave almost all they had (Money) to a relative so that they wouldn't loose it all in the suit. He owned a big part of a newspaper route at the time.

[bobbie (bobbie)]

I understand they sold their house and purchased a house in Harford County in someone elses name.

[ericlaw (ericlaw)]

I heard that the Holehouses you see today are actually clones and the real family has been in hiding since this incident...

Come on people lets have facts and not hearsay. This was a tragedy, lets not make it worse by posting potential falsities that impugn someone character and integrity. If the people involved are low life’s let it be because of the facts.

Sorry for ranting.

[bobbie (bobbie)]

I believe my info is correct or I wouldn't have posted it.

[anova (anova)]

This thread has gotten really creepy.

Miss_K, your postings are creepy.


Anovus

(Message edited by anova on April 20, 2005)

[anova (anova)]

creep·y
adj. Informal creep·i·er, creep·i·est
Of or producing a sensation of uneasiness or fear, as of things crawling on one's skin: a creepy feeling; a creepy story.
Annoyingly unpleasant; repulsive: the creepy kids next door.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rumors (rumors)]

Miss K has not shown anyone here any proof at all that she can be trusted...TROLL

[miss_k (miss_k)]

The newsreporter at the Sun I will be glad to give to anybody who wants it and wants to write me.

I be glad to give the FBI agents name as well.

I have an IRS agents name on Monday/Tuesday if you really want to give them a call with something.

I will have some other names in the next 24 hours. People with telephone numbers and names.

How would that be?

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

How about your name?

[mercyreigns (mercyreigns)]

Joe and JoAnne are wonderful people and I love them very much. I lived in Lion Head at the time of the incident and knew they were suffering emotionally very much about what happened.

Because it was a church activity i.e. a Noah's Ark Bible club activity, the Holehouse's were not directly responsible. But because it happened on their property and in their pool it did effect them financially.

GG was ultimately responsible for all damages but remember Joannes's sisters are married to Hadley's and the loyalty to GG was very relevant as far as the Hadley's go.

The Holehouse's are independent thinkers and a wonderful Christian family. The damage was not just the tragedy of this precious child's life and family's broken heart, but the Holehouse's suffered tremendously too.

They were not allowed to speak about anything because of the lawsuit against them and GG. Joe is an honest hard working businessman but he never gave up his business.

He continued to work for the Sun and God took care of his family. The only mistake the Holehouse's made, a tragic one that effected them also, was to allow the Bible club to use their home and pool.

The Monroe's suffered greatly as did I believe it was Pr. Monroe's wife's sister whose child died. There was a lot of anger but of course GG always has a way to call everything God's perfect will and that there was a reason for it.

Yes there was a reason for it. It was called negligence on the part of GG of never having enough protection and covering for children they take responsibility for in their Bible clubs.

You just can't ask families to sign a paper to allow their children to be involved in Bible clubs if you don't have enough trained staff to care for these precious souls the parents entrust to GG.

It is just another program to make GG look as if they are contributing to the community and doing God's will. And perhaps many really feel they are doing what is God's heart, but if you can't completely protect, provide and follow up, don't say you are doing God's will.

[timeless (timeless)]

To ericlaw
It is true I have a friend who worked at the same paper route company where Mr. Holehouse owned some routes. He got rid of all he had because he was informed to do so or he would have lost everything in the law suit. The Holehouses still attend Greater Grace and the family had a very hard time with the incident, yes it should have been covered when you have that many children attending. But you know, don't want to use money for the important things.

[miss_k (miss_k)]

Yogi,

I am not Neil. I think if most people knew where Neil went last night they would be very sad. But then again it seems want to make up stuff.

I am not trying to infer he killed himself mind you but something is going on with him and it is not depression.

Last I heard he had lost close 35 pounds in 3 weeks, and was very sick. My understanding he has now been in the hospital 3 times in Myrtle Beach related to his spine and what has made him sick. Last week he was in the hospital 5 days. Two of which he was in critical condition.

A friend told me he looks pretty bad and has not heard but from 3-4 people. And not at all from his wife or children except 2 calls from his kids and not at all from his wife including when he was in the hospital.

I think Pastor Wells may have even spoken to him about this. Neil told me he spoke to Jeannie before the bad news hit him last night.

In case this is difficult to follow Neil went to the hospital again over his spine.

One of the folks he knows in Myrtle Beach email me a picture of him in the hospital and what his arm looks like. It is almost completly blood red from hand to shoulder.

You were saying?

Miss K

[whatsup (whatsup)]

Miss K / Neil.....is is so glaringly obvious that you are the same person. I find it both amusing and frustrating that everyone cannot see that. You truly do have issues, stop playing games with people

[carlota (carlota)]

Miss K,

<font color="ff0000">I am not trying to infer he killed himself mind you but something is going on with him and it is not depression.

</font>The comments in your post seem purposely misleading. Say what you mean and be done with it. Many people here attempted to help Neil through a very tough time, when in fact he was suicidal. Don't play with words. If you have something to say, well say it already. If you have no real further information to offer than please don't rehash what is already known.

<font color="ff0000">One of the folks he knows in Myrtle Beach email me a picture of him in the hospital and what his arm looks like. It is almost completly blood red from hand to shoulder.

</font>Everything you say in your post here has been said by Neil, himself. The pictures you say you saw, are posted here on Factnet on a different thread. From what I understand (from Neil's post), Neil has Shingles, which is an outbreak of the dormant "chicken pox" or herpes simplex virus, that manifests along a spinal nerve. It results in a bright red rash that is painful, but treatable, and extremely common.

We do not need more drama and misinformation. Neil is able to speak for himself and does so.

[ncarrick (ncarrick)]

I am not Miss K!

Miss K is many states from me. I know who she is, and where she is generally.

9 hours + from my house.

I am not suicidal, but admit I suffer from depression and have been suicidal in the past. I have treated almost everyday since it got bad, and frankly my doctor wrote a very clear letter today saying what emotional state I was in, and its not bad.

Depression is treatable and people who prey on those who have it are evil as far as I am concerned. People who stop people from seeing there children because they suffer from it, or people who think that people are spiritually less because of it, are just plain mean.

Neil Carrick