Dear [Episcopal Church Presiding] Bishop Curry:
For the good of those both the Church and I care deeply about, please do not ignore this matter, Sir. In my 20 October 2018 letter of formal withdrawal from the Episcopal Church in America, I explained to you that:
“As recently as 6 October, I’ve again put in writing to the local U.S. Attorney’s office and to FBI cybercrime agents that I have no interest in seeing prosecutions and lawsuits against my adversaries in a fight over a structurally defective homeless assessment tool or adversaries from the Justice and National Security communities whom I inherited from my late father. For your convenience, I’ve attached a PDF of that document.”
I also explained that:
“My promise not to seek prison or money from those two groups does not, of course, extend without limit to adversaries and enemies trying, for other reasons, to destroy me and my high-quality record as a published lawyer and researcher. . . .”
Because it appears that the Episcopal Church of America and its LGBT allies at St. Philips Tucson and in at least 750 other local Episcopal churches are daring me to sue for money damages, let me make this more concrete for you. But I encourage you, Bishop, not to mistake my repeated good faith efforts to avoid litigation as an unwillingness to sue. Having spent years defending my clients against teams of lawyers and legions of federal agents prosecuting criminal conspiracies that stretch across the country and, sometimes, overseas, this is the kind of fight that’s damned exciting and, to some extent, fun. That’s true even though it would be my trial lawyers and their investigators who would do all the work.
The actions of the Episcopal Church and its LGBT allies create multiple venues for such a lawsuit, but it’s hard to ignore the local story: the same nonprofit CEO who told me in her COO’s presence at the end of June 2017 that, “I’m not going to let you threaten a million-dollar grant” is also one of few felons who has documented experience masterminding (U.S. Court of Appeals word) and running a nationwide criminal conspiracy. Her COO joined Primavera Foundation after spending years working at the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation. And, as you well know, I’m the author of a 2004 article advocating for a federal constitutional amendment that would define “marriage” as being only a union between one man and one woman. And let’s not forget my late father, Bishop – an American military veteran who publicly resigned his post as the State of Arizona’s AIDS Health Program Manager after LGBT politics were strangling his efforts to get funding for infants born HIV-positive.
The reason, Sir, that I keep trying to avoid suing the Episcopal Church, its leadership, and its allies in the LGBT communities is that I think even a legal victory with large compensatory and perhaps huge punitive damage awards will produce more losers than winners. Here’s how I put it to the woman who saw me awarded Primavera volunteer-of-the-year, hired me for Primavera Foundation, served as my immediate supervisor there, and who put in writing that I “embody” Primavera Foundation’s “guiding principles”:
My former church and some of its allies are playing with fire, Kay. And it’s not so much because what I’ve learned about wounded warriors like my grandad, has so transformed me in 2018. It’s because a very public civil defamation lawsuit against the Episcopal Church in America, et al. will have few limits on where the trial lawyers and law firm investigators can go in the pursuit of evidence that might be admissible in a public trial.
There will, for example, be little to stand in the way of plaintiff’s attorney hauling in Fr. Mark Schultz, putting him under oath and then spending days, if necessary, interrogating him as to the specifics of who, what, when, where, and why. This would be a contingency fee case that some lawyers and funders would see as a chance for payback against those who’ve, to their way of thinking, shoved down their throats a political agenda they didn’t want.
As far as I’m concerned, Kay, the only real benefits of waging a very public case like this, in the current political and media environment, is that it will bring more attention to a lot of folks we thank for their service without being willing to listen to them; and significant money damages that a jury may award can be put into more methodologically sound research into the causes of suicide among past and present members of the Armed Forces, e.g., “Operation Deep Dive” at University of Alabama. There would be a lot more losers.
I didn’t start the fight with my former church and some of its allies. But I’ve been trying for months to get this damned thing resolved peaceably so that we can all get back to those we claim we care about.. . .
Complete text of dad’s remarks to Eagle Forum following his public resignation as the State of Arizona’s AIDS Health Program Manager:
Bishop Curry, you and the Episcopal Church’s leadership and lawyers have had ample time to observe, analyze and consider a number of the items that will likely be admitted into evidence if this damned thing has to go to a public lawsuit, an invasive and uncomfortable discovery process, and public trial. These items also provide you a pretty clear idea of what plaintiff’s lawyers and investigators will go after and who’ll get dragged in for deposition first.
That being said, Bishop, a confluence of factors has brought together some de facto allies for which the Episcopal Church should not be held responsible. So that you can have a better idea of who, exactly, is included in the following language, I’ve provided below three items from the relevant timeline. Because a lawsuit hasn’t been filed yet and because it’s unclear what all will be uncovered in the discovery process, all I can say for now is that it appears the greatest headaches for the Episcopal Church and its LGBT allies begin with acts on and after 23 January 2018.
As recently as 6 October, I’ve again put in writing to the local U.S. Attorney’s office and to FBI cybercrime agents that I have no interest in seeing prosecutions and lawsuits against my adversaries in a fight over a structurally defective homeless assessment tool or adversaries from the Justice and National Security communities whom I inherited from my late father. . . .
22 January 2018
Having concluded that U.S. acceptance of a fatally defective survey assessment tool was just one of several symptoms of a much bigger problem, i.e. the failure by the 93% of persons in the U.S. who’ve never served in the military to understand even the most elementary facts of life for those who’ve served and their families, this lawyer/researcher/ author pivots his complete research agenda toward addressing that bigger problem. I would later detail what changed on 23 January 2018 to former City of Philadelphia and current City of Tucson Deputy IT Director Howell Herring and his wife, Mary Hickert Herring (St. Philips Vestry) – fellow Sewanee alumni and 3-year EfM mentors at St. Philips in the Hills –
The two of you have the right mix of information and resources to allay people’s concerns that I will again use Facebook, LinkedIn, or G+ to share with private citizens and the public policy crowd direct links to: (a) the VI-SPDAT and its scoring instructions, (b) a May 2014 VI-SPDAT promotional video featuring its creator’s claims about the “power” of the “science” that produced his survey, (c) a July 26, 2014 OrgCode blogpost in which the same guy states that “the VI-SPDAT is why I’m going to the White House” today, and (d) the June 26, 2017 OrgCode company blogpost where that same foreign national makes damning admissions about how he really created the thing.
January 22 is the last day that I let folks on social media know that items a through d exist or gave them a way to see and judge them for themselves. My research agenda since then has been and will be for the foreseeable future, addressing for the national security / defense / veteran policy crowd a more entrenched problem that hurts many more people. I already have a past and present track record of turning out work these folks care about and with the quality that they expect. https://combatresearchandprose.com/about-this-researcher/
Six (6) months after I suggested – in a holiday food line – to a St. Philips Tucson clergy member that we meet – he finally followed up on my suggestion. I explained to him by email on this date that “January 22 of this year I shifted the focus of my work away from that survey instrument . . . Hence, my research agenda since January has wholly focused on trying to bridge that vet-civilian gap, at least in the minds of those who make and influence policy. . . .”
26 July 2018
Assistant U.S. Attorney Monte Cress Clausen (D-AZ – Tucson), who had honorably served as my opposing counsel in a late 1990s civil case that my late father brought against the U.S. Army for acts arising at Ft. Huachuca, learned by telephone call from the Arizona Bar’s lead lawyer that he had wrongly believed (for 18 years??) that I filed against him the only bar complaint of his career (per 26 July 2018 follow-up email to Charles Bloeser from Arizona Bar lead bar counsel Maret Vasella).
Both he and I learned on that same day that my late father who, during the last 20 years of his life pissed off a lot of folks in the national security and justice communities, filed a bar complaint against Monte in 2001. Both dad’s first name and mine begin with the letter “C.” Even though that matter had been decided in Monte’s favor and was subsequently expunged, the Justice Department lawyer’s likely well-intentioned but erroneous belief that I was the one who filed the bar complaint against him had, according to a fellow Rotarian who spoke with him at a Rotary event the evening of 7 July 2018, caused him sufficient distress that he didn’t want to meet with me toward resolving these matters.
Bishop Curry, I’ve previously suggested some actions that you, the Episcopal Church, and some of its allies can take that would suggest good faith and perhaps move us away from the need for me to sue. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I’ve not seen any evidence of these actions or other good faith actions being taken. In fact, in the same way that my electronic communication and social media access seemed to change significantly for the worse after I sought the help of my owned damned EfM mentor at St. Philips and his wife, now on Vestry there (both fellow Sewanee alumni), my ability to do, disseminate, and fund the work I do for past and present service members and their families gets harder each time I ask you to do the right thing. I’ve already sent you proof of new, brutally effective defamatory conduct taken against me at a late November “haven” meeting at St. Philips.
If you have not previously considered this matter to be as fraught with risk as it is, I encourage you do reevaluate.
Charles L.K. Bloeser, M.A., J.D.
Charles Bloeser is a lawyer and the researcher behind the creation of combatresearchandprose.com, a new open-source applied research initiative examining combat and those marked by it. His most recent publication, in August 2018, reports how a cancer-stricken, combat-haunted Vietnam veteran fell between the cracks in a modern jail. It’s an account that, from that warrior’s deathbed, he asked author to share with those best able to keep the same thing from happening to others. STRIFE, at the Department of War Studies, Kings College London, gave him a way to do that.