The famous and the obscure comment on FBCJax/FBCJax Watchdog

[William Thornton]

[SLyons]

Just want to point out: The New BBC Open Forum is one of three blogs that the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office subpoened from Google during their investigation into the criminality of the FBC Jax Watchdog site.

Here are the subpoenas. .

Somehow New BBC Open Forum was dragged into this by subpoenas issued by JSO.

[Steve Wilcox]

No, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office was investigating due to possible criminal activity. Whether you agree with that or not is debatable, but that is their official stance. They also claim they regularly reveal unknown persons to those requesting the investigation and that Det. Hinson would have been seen in a negative light by his superiors if he had not.

And since when are churches prohibited on relying on the government for any assistance. I guess when someone steals the churches computers you better not call the police.

Again, the blogger posted the subpoenas, resulting in the newspaper article, and then proceeded to do interviews. Sorry I still blame the bloggers, not FBCJax or the JSO for his revealed identity.

The bloggers have been free to be OVERLY and OVERTLY critical of the church without any accountability, but demand and require it from those whom they criticize.

The issue is not privacy but unwillingness in resolving conflicts on both sides.

[JaneFordA]

Best reason I can think of to tax churches about 90%. Without so much time and other resources to empire-build, they'd have very little time for malicious foolishness.

[Michael]

So, William, are you/we famous or obscure?

[SLyons]

Steve - that is your version of events, and its your interpretation of those events.

More shall be told eventually, and then perhaps you'll have a chance to amend and revise your remarks.

[William Thornton]

[Annie2]

Steve Wilcox, you are still drinking the kool-aid. I can tell that you don't have a clue as to what went on at FBCJ but if the preacher says it's all OK and there's nothing to be concerned about, it's all hot air from negative people, then you feel you must accept that. I, however, do have a clue as to what went on and continues to happen in the current day.

The powers-that-be at FBCJ did not think there were "possible criminal overtones." That's simply the ruse that was employed to accomplish the goal of outing the blogger who was critical of the preacher. If you would stop and think for one minute you would know that's what happened. You have maintained that Mr. Rich was investigated on a solid-rock basis and the church has a right to go to the authorities if someone is being overly-critical of the preacher and staff. NO, Mr. Wilcox they don't have a right to employ the law just because the preacher was tired of being criticized! I am not in favor of lawsuits but in this case FBCJ really planted its big hairy toe on the wrong side of the line and therefore should have to go to court and explain what they did when and why.

BTW, if you're interested in keeping any facts straight, the reason the reporter contacted Mr.Rich is because the reporter was looking into the records at the courthouse -- which is something reporters regularly do if they are looking for a story, and he found the NO TRESPASS orders and subpoenas. Also, you might want to ask yourself the question: Why were there no police reports filed in the supposed photo-taking/stalking or stolen mail incidents? I'll answer it for you. It's because there were no such incidents that happened!

The preacher at FBCJ is personally responsible for all that has transpired since his arrival! Please don't bore me with a reply about how people should have gone directly to the preacher. Guess what, Steve? Some of us did. Can you say "Brick Wall?"

[Steve Wilcox]

Annie2, uh, welcome to the Baptistlife forums.

Regardless of what you think, I do have some insight into what is going at FBCJax. I do not however, claim to know all that has gone on.

As for how the reporter got the court records, I have sent him an email asking him what prompted him to search the court documents and I will let you know what he says. I tried to call but he is not answering his phone.

Don't bore you? Don't bore me! I asked if anyone had come to the pastor, finance committee or pulpit committee back in 2007. Answer? NO ONE sought out a meeting and there were NO signed emails, etc. I was told that anyone that wanted to know about pastor's compensation would not get a detailed breakdown. "Why?" I asked. Because that is how they have done it for decades at FBCJax. This is not just something that Dr. Brunson brought to the church. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with the late Dr. Lindsay Sr., the late Dr. Lindsay Jr. and Dr. Vines too and of course all the men that have served on the Finance committee over the past decades.

If this is such an issue for you why haven't you and others sought to have it changed years ago? My suspicion is some wanted it changed, but dare not challenge either Dr. Lindsays or Dr. Vines. You waited until there was a new guy, then pinned it all on him and the evil "MEGA-CHURCHES"! Then the best part was you guys did it anonymously on the WWW and demanded "transparency" from the church.

There may have been attempts after you and others had bashed the pastor for a few months but somehow I doubt they were sincere and more lame than real attempts. That way you can claim "We tried to go directly to the pastor; brick wall."

BTW, SLyons and I are having a rather civil discussion off-line about the issues. Maybe he can inject something into your post and my response.

[William Thornton]

[Randy]

I think it would be good for everyone to go and read the post on Tiffany Croft's blog. She has done some legitimate and honest research and found out details that noone has shared. She also found out that there was a complaint filed with the police department and that is why they investigated Tom Rich (which also is their duty.)

I agree with the assessments of the way things are done at FBC, Jax and the fact that Tom Rich never sought a meeting with Mac Brunson and/or anyone on the Finance/Budget Committees. That would have let all the hot air out of his blog and he wouldn't be getting all of the attention he is getting today.

Ya'll be sure and read Tiffany's blog. It might open some blind eyes.

[SLyons]

Randy - sorry, but you are the one who needs to open your eyes.

No one ever said FBC Jax didn't file a complaint. Tiffany is NOT breaking the news that they in fact filed a complaint. That was known, and in fact it was discovered by Tom Rich himself and posted on his blog.

John Blount did file a complaint, and it was on September 29, 2008. Immediately after the complaint was filed (which was the day after the church's big budget committment day on September 28) the detective issued subpoenas to Google on the WD blog, despite there not being anything connecting the blog to any supposed allegations.

The question is that the allegations of stalking/taking pictures/stealing mail that happened in the past, prior to the Sept 29 complaint...that caused them to open the September 29th investigation, there were never any complaints filed for THOSE, if they ever indeed occured.

[Randy]

SLyons,

Sorry to disappoint you but numerous blog writers and posters continue to say that FBC, Jax never filed a complaint and keep harping on that point. Tiffany at least is the only blogger I have read that seems to have any sense of what is actually happening.

I still think there is a whole lot we don't know (on both sides of the issue) and need to stop jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted. It would be nice if someone in authority could actually speak with Mac Brunson but then that's his choice (and I respect it). Tom Rich caused this whole uproar by not going in and meeting with the proper people in authority in the beginning.

[Chris]

[David A. Johnson]

[David A. Johnson]

[SLyons]

If anyone wants to know the chain of events, complete with hyperlinked documents of police reports, emails, subpoenas - that have led this fiasco to escalating to the point now of a pending first amendment rights lawsuit, please take about 20 minutes and read this blog entry:

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009 ... ng-to.html

UPDATE:

At the time that blog entry was written, the subpoenas were not obtained and thus not hyperlinked.

So here are the subpoenas:

http://www.newbbc.accura.net/FBCSubpoenas.pdf

The date printed on the subpoenas is March 09, but that is merely the date they were printed out by the government officials when the Watchdog requested them under a Florida Statute 119 public records request. The significant date is in the middle paragraph, which is the date by which Google must comply. Subtract 10 days from that date, and that is the approx date the subpoenas were issued by the detective.

[William Thornton]

[Chris]

[Steve Wilcox]

A newspaper article on Tiffany Croft was in the local paper over the weekend.

Click

It is interesting in her blog how the WD supporter, in some of their comments, have turned on Tiffany.

[William Thornton]

[SLyons]

Steve Wilcox:

You should also have directed readers to read this blog entry by Tiffany that she posted in response to the Times Union article:

http://tiffanycroft.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... -this.html

since she clarifies her complete position on the matter, since the Times Union article left off many of her concerns.

And WD supporters are not "turning" on Tiffany Croft, far from it.

[Steve Wilcox]

[Haruo]

Well, I disagree with Tiffany where she says "We all are infallible", but otherwise she seems a very careful thinker and writer, and she has marshalled a host of texts to her criticism of the pastor, which it would behoove the church leaders to consider prayerfully.

[Steve Wilcox]