The famous and the obscure comment on FBCJax/FBCJax Watchdog

[SLyons]

Yes, one of the very important questions that needs to be answered through this lawsuit: how did the Times Union reporter Jeff Brumley become aware that the police were involved in investigating a blogger. Was it Rich? Did Rich call him and let him know? Or did someone put an anonymous tip in that there were subpoenas? Maybe it was Rich who called anonymously. WE MUST FIND OUT!

We must get to the bottom of that, right Steve? Come on, guy. That is completely irrelevant.

Steve, could you agree with Mark Woods of your own local paper: http://jacksonville.com/news/columnists ... in_judges_

that it is a good thing this is going to court? This case raises very legitimate issues about our law enforcement and state attorney offices and their involvement in what might be nothing more than a church squabble. Yes, if Hinson was conducting a legitimate criminal investigation, he has a right to subpoena Google. But what if, what IF, it can be shown that he was NOT conducting a legitimate investigation, by using his own documents, his own actions, and testimony of leaders in the church who were aware of facts you and I don't know...that there was no legitimate criminal investigation being conducted, then we could all agree he did wrong and should not have subpoened Google. There is enough we know now to at least call into question whether it was a legitimate criminal investigation. Thus, more light needs to be shone, not less.

What if he was conducting a legitimate investigation, found no criminal activity, but then released the name of the blogger anyway, thereby putting the blogger at risk from crazies at the church who were expressing "vitriol" against Rich for his blogging. What role in this scenario would JSO have to play in showing deference towards the safety of Brunson verses the safety of Rich, when Rich had been found to commit no wrong doing? Legitimate questions that require an answer based on facts we don't completely know yet.

What if the Comcast subpoena used to identify Rich, which still has not been released by JSO or the SAO even though multiple FL statute 119 records requests have been made...was obtained in a different manner than the Google subpoenas, for the purpose of leaving no paper trail in the SAO that it ever existed? Good question requiring an answer, given the Comcast subpoena has not appeared, and given the church waited exactly 91 days to announce to the deacons that Rich was being kicked out of the church - and it just so happens SAO has a policy where subpoena records are destroyed 90 days after they are issued. All circumstantial evidence, but those are troubling assertions - requiring more light, not less.

My point: whoever it is that tipped off Brumley that there were subpoena involved - GOOD FOR THEM and we should be very happy. And we should thank Jeff Brumley and the Florida Times Union and Mark Woods for having the guts to go with this story and not let it die.

This issue needed to be brought into the light, where it can be discussed, analyzed, and rightly decided by a judge or jury as to whether there was any wrong-doing by the JSO, SAO, or FBCJ. The answers to these questions are much larger than just some angry blogger, Mac Brunson, and First Baptist Church.

Can you agree with this Steve? Randy?

Or is just: if Tom Rich had only gone and talked to the pastor, all of this could have been avoided. Shame on Tom Rich, because it was his blog that caused all of this. Can we be glad that this IS now in the open?

[Steve Wilcox]

It is not irrelevant when some people are blaming the church for releasing his name.

Some have correctly blamed Det. Hinson for getting the subpoenas and telling FBCJax who it was, but some are still acting as if FBCJax got the subpoenas, wrote the articles and broadcast his name in a church service.

Mark Woods in his column even seems to think the church told the members who the bloggers were with this statement "And, finally, if there is no link found between the threats and the Web postings, should private information about the person behind the postings be passed along to the team?" You would think he would at least check with the guy writing for the same newspaper.

I contended that Mr. Rich is the one that put the subpoenas on this site and that was the reason for the article.

All I did with my prior post was get it straight. The reporter was tipped off on the subpoenas and wrote the article.

I do not have a problem with checking to see if there was any wrong doing. I have stated that to you already.

You ask some interesting questions.

What if Tom and others had gone to the pastor from the beginning? I think they would have gotten some of their questions answered and a few not answered to their satisfaction.

What if Dr. Brunson had personally gone to Tom after the subpoenas revealed who he was? I think Tom would have still been upset but at least they could have had a meeting to start working this out.

To try an act as if one side is all honest and one side is all dishonest, is simply dishonest. Both have behaved against scripture, which everyone claims the other side has violated and both have been stubborn in their refusal to work this out. Tom even admitted in the blog today that it is probably past apologies.

Am I glad about this, no, I am sad. Why? Because of the lost opportunity both sides had in reconciling long ago, setting an example to the church and the world that we can Christians work out a conflict with love.

And yet, I still hold out hope and faith that God will bring these two sides together where they will reconcile, forgive and even do so publically.

[SLyons]

Steve - they didn't have the nerve to give his name in a church service. They were afraid of a lawsuit, since giving his name to the congregation at large would be seen as church discipline after he had already left the church, and courts have not taken kindly to church members who leave, and then churches exercise discipline to embarrass the non-member.

But they did the next best thing. They released his name to 50 to 100 deacons two nights before the business meeting reprimanding the blogger. And that quickly got out of the deacons to people in the church, in fact one leader of the church, NOT in the deacon meeting immediately placed a call to a minister at Rich's new church to let them know the watchdog was at their church. So Rich's identity as the blogger was released to the church, but just not in a public display.

And they also lied about Rich in the business meeting saying he left only after he was told the deacons were going to discipline him. The complete opposite was true. Rich left after they gave him the trespass warning in November, took his family to join a new church, and then they decided to take it to the deacons AFTER they found out he joined another church.

[Steve Wilcox]

[SLyons]

Steve - trespass paper is part of the discipline process? Trespass papers issued as STEP ONE of the discipline process, prior to even speaking to the man one on one or two on one? Come on, Steve.

Trespass paper issuance - is that in the church bylaws?

Is it in scripture as part of church discipline? If so, where?

Answer: no and no.

Brunson after he created his discipline committee in the bylaw changes in 2007, preached on biblical church discipline many times during 2008. And when it got down to where the rubber hits the road, they decided to do un-scriptural discipline, and to purposely hurt a woman in the church who had done nothing but serve and serve and serve in the church.

Mrs. Rich received a trespass paper for "associating with a church member committing misconduct".

And they call Rich the coward. They are the cowards, issuing trespass papers against a woman in their church for doing the very thing they have preached for decades in that church: submitting to the leadership of her husband.

And you Steve come here and try to sell it as "church discipline". You're smarter than that Steve.

Scirptural? In accordance with bylaws?

Of course not. It shows their motives. They were not interested in reconcilation or restoration. And they certainly weren't worried about anyone's safety down at the church. They wanted the guy's name so they could do what they did - go after him, kick him out, and have Soud read an edict condemning him and threatening others - but of course waiting for 90 days to pass to make sure subpoena records were destroyed. Masterful. But also shameful.

[Steve Wilcox]

I did not claim it was scriptural, in the by-laws or even correct.

I only inferred that it may have been what FBCJax considered part of discipline because they did it to prevent him and his wife from coming onto the property, so yeah that seems like discipline to me.

You were the one that stated "discipline" not church discipline by writing, "And they also lied about Rich in the business meeting saying he left only after he was told the deacons were going to discipline him."

To me, not being allowed in the church property is discipline.

And BTW, would you please stop with the patronizing phrases like "you are smarter than that"?

[Chris]

[Haruo]

Yeah, almost looks like Rich should add "alienation of affections" to the items he's suing over.

Or at least "attempted alienation..."