Category Archives: Episcopal Church of America

Protected: Some yucky stuff: images from forthcoming civil defamation lawsuit against the Episcopal Church and its LGBT allies

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Facebook data reveal complicity in campaign to smear patriot researcher as activist, leftist resister

Screenshot_20190305-033054_Hancom Office Editor

1 min 5 second intro by researcher:

 

[Following update excerpted from Digital Brief: Law and Images, with link to complete document below]

Section 2(f) of this overview of law and facts features examples of four general tools of personal and professional character murder. But in recent weeks, presumptive defendants and their minions in the coming civil defamation action against the Episcopal Church / LGBT Alliance appear to have grown more aggressive in their dealings with this researcher and the work that he produces and releases. In addition to apparently obliterating before they can ever reach their destinations electronic communications that are clearly marked as “Confidential Privileged Communications” under both Attorney-Client Privilege and the Attorney Work Product Doctrine – new social media content from this lawyer is ever more quickly killed in the womb. But if that doesn’t work and that content manages to breathe life for even a moment, it’s killed as it exits the birth canal.

Presumptive plaintiff has also been dispatched without cause from at least one Facebook group whose members regularly and significantly interacted with content intended for past and present U.S. Marines and those who support them. But data received from Facebook 14 Feb 2019 have been sanitized to remove all references to this lawyer ever having been in the group to begin with. Thank God for screenshots.

As images in part 2 of this digital memo reveal, presumptive defendants from, inter alia, as many as 750 Episcopal Churches that have formally committed themselves to “welcome and affirm” “ALL SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS, GENDER IDENTITIES, AND GENDER EXPRESSIONS,” have colluded through various means to murder, professionally and personally, the American lawyer who authored a 2004 article that advocated amending the U.S. Constitution to define “marriage” as a union only between one man and one woman. Recent data received from Facebook reveal that one of those methods is to flagrantly lie to lawyer’s national security/defense/veterans audience that plaintiff followed and has now stopped following pages that plaintiff never would have followed in the first place and which are inconsistent with everything lawyer has ever produced or participated in, These include pages such as “resist.bot” and pages dedicated to those whose interests include aggressively waging political war in pursuit of a socialist agenda.

Screenshot (3033)

article image with LG background

Screenshot_20190303-123358_Facebook.jpg

 

Screenshot (65)

https://combatresearchandprose.com/2019/02/06/law-and-images-american-law-as-explained-in-first-amendment-opinion-cited-57-times-by-courts-across-the-country-authorizes-defamation-lawsuit-against-the-episcopal-church-and-its-lgbt-allies/

Law and Images: American Law as Explained In First Amendment Opinion Cited 57 Times By Courts Across the Country Authorizes Civil Defamation Lawsuit Against The Episcopal Church and its LGBT allies

Update

Screenshot (3027)Section 2(f) of this overview of law and facts features examples of four general tools of personal and professional character murder. But in recent weeks, presumptive defendants and their minions in the coming civil defamation action against the Episcopal Church / LGBT Alliance appear to have grown more aggressive in their dealings with this researcher and the work that he produces and releases. In addition to apparently obliterating before they can ever reach their destinations electronic communications that are clearly marked as “Confidential Privileged Communications” under both Attorney-Client Privilege and the Attorney Work Product Doctrine – new social media content from this lawyer is ever more quickly killed in the womb. But if that doesn’t work and that content manages to breathe life for even a moment, it’s killed as it exits the birth canal. 

Presumptive plaintiff has also been dispatched without cause from at least one Facebook group whose members regularly and significantly interacted with content intended for past and present U.S. Marines and those who support them. But data received from Facebook 14 Feb 2019 have been sanitized to remove all references to this lawyer ever having been in the group to begin with. Thank God for screenshots.

As images in part 2 of this digital memo reveal, presumptive defendants from, inter alia, as many as 750 Episcopal Churches that have formally committed themselves to “welcome and affirm” “ALL SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS, GENDER IDENTITIES, AND GENDER EXPRESSIONS,” have colluded through various means to murder, professionally and personally, the American lawyer who authored a 2004 article that advocated amending the U.S. Constitution to define “marriage” as a union only between one man and one woman. Recent data received from Facebook reveal that one of those methods is to flagrantly lie to lawyer’s national security/defense/veterans audience that plaintiff followed and has now stopped following pages that plaintiff never would have followed in the first place and which are inconsistent with everything lawyer has ever produced or participated in, These include pages such as “resist.bot” and pages dedicated to those whose interests include aggressively waging political war in pursuit of a socialist agenda.  

Screenshot (3033)

Image attribution: The Followers, TV series, FOX Television

Screenshot (25)

Screenshot (26)

Introduction

This document provides a summary overview of the law and facts that prompt and permit a lawsuit for civil damages against the Episcopal Church in the United States and certain of its gay-lesbian/LGBT allies and supporters. This action arises from defamatory conduct a/k/a “character assassination” executed in 2017 and 2018 against a lawyer who authored a 2004 article in which he advocated to fellow attorneys that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to define “marriage” as only a heterosexual union and whose late father, an honorably discharged U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force veteran who served as the State of Arizona’s AIDS Health Program manager, publicly decried politicization by LGBT operatives of the public health response to the AIDS epidemic: “The only thing this new alliance seems to support in the delivery of services are efforts to assure the social and moral legitimacy of their alternative lifestyles.”

Numerous unsuccessful attempts by presumptive plaintiff to secure a satisfactory resolution for the anticipated parties to the lawsuit – a resolution that furthers applied research activities fbo past and present military service members and their families but which doesn’t require him to sue his former church et al. are offered as proof that he never consented to tortious and otherwise wrongful acts against him by certain clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Church, either before or after his written withdrawal from the Episcopal Church on 20 October 2018. Perhaps one shouldn’t be surprised. 

Contents and organization:

This document begins with a brief introduction to the constitutional law that makes this lawsuit possible and which allows for the award of monetary and non-monetary damages from both church and church leaders. Remarks from two justices – one state, the other federal – on the exercise and responsibilities of asserting one’s First Amendment rights in the American democracy, follow. And after those, the reader will be introduced to five categories of images, separated by the following previously published graphic timeline. This chronology shows the uninterrupted path that Americans took toward denying legal recognition to same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or by amendments to state constitutions. And it also shows what happened to the will of the people then.

Screenshot (2661)

A. The first series of images reflects both the nature and the objectives of one or more formal or de facto alliances between the Episcopal Church (U.S.) and the LGBT community, including but not limited to formal relationships that have been entered into between my former parish church and Integrity USA, Inc., a 501(c)(3) coordinating a nationwide political campaign involving, at the least, more than 750 other Episcopal churches with which it has formal agreements;

B. Crushing those who express dissenting views of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc. has emerged as perhaps the predominant, or near predominant theme within the gay-lesbian/LGBT alliance, including among its members in more than 750 Episcopal churches in the United States – examples of these aggressive and, at times, unlawful activities comprise the second category of images presented here;

C. Presumptive plaintiff may indeed have been targeted for personal and professional destruction because he authored the “pro” side of a published debate among fellow lawyers as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended to define “marriage” as only a heterosexual union. But it was his late father, a military veteran who deployed his FBI training to fight syphilis and smallpox before agreeing to serve as the State of Arizona’s AIDS Health Program Manager, who went public about the intentional politicization of the public health response to the AIDS epidemic:

 

Screenshot (2699)

 

drag queen story hour image and ckb excerpt

 

article image with LG background

The images in this third category chronicle the sins of both father and son. 

D. The images that comprise the fourth category allow us to establish, at least to some degree, a baseline for examining social media interaction with presumptive plaintiff’s vet-focused research products following the 22 January 2018 pivot away from a research focus that, in researcher’s view, examined only one of several symptoms of a larger problem that affects public policy for veterans and their families.

E. Much of the actionable activity that will be unearthed during the litigation of this case has so far been fraudulently concealed. So, too, have the identities of most perpetrators, whether in or out of the State of Arizona and whether in or out of the Episcopal Diocese of Arizona. Even so, screen shot images such as those that comprise this fifth category can be reasonably interpreted as pointing to identifiable tortious conduct by both clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Church – LGBT alliance and their supporters.  For the reason just mentioned, most of this category’s images are from 23 January 2018 and later. They’ve been segregated into groups of images that reflect one of four general tools of personal and professional character killing.

  • Images which reflect the wholesale removal of the audience(s) intended to benefit from presumptive plaintiff’s original or shared social media content, replaced by mongrel collections of professionals who time and again demonstrate neither the ability nor the inclination to use the content to improve and save lives; 
  • images reflecting formal and informal writings and digital communications as performed by those anticipated to be named as defendants or as witnesses; 
  • images which reveal the removal or non-placement on social media platforms [content alleged to be “abusive,” “unsafe,” and/or “against community standards”] of the identity and professional record of presumptive plaintiff; his original and shared social media content, and the vet-focused applied research initiative that needs to be funded and viable if he’s to retrieve and expand the thoughtful national security/military/veteran populations who are best able to use his research and publication activities to improve and save lives; and
  • images that reveal targeted attacks on original content authored by presumptive plaintiff’s now-deceased father and his mother, who has, after more than four years, completed a top-shelf historical memoir about our Cold War years spent in Africa.

This document ends with two items:

(a) images of four examples of presumptive plaintiff’s many attempts to secure a satisfactory and beneficial resolution to both real and phantom disputes with members of the Episcopal Church – LGBT alliance and which would have made this lawsuit unnecessary. I’ve had coffee or a meal with each of these persons.

(b) Images revealing the emasculation of the reasonably expected audience for an article that I wrote because an American combat veteran who’d simply been left to rot and die in a modern American jail asked me to tell his story in the hopes that others wouldn’t suffer his same fate. The editors at strifeblog.org, an internationally respected security blog from the Department of War Studies at Kings College London, wanted an international audience to know “Henry’s” story. Given pattern conduct, it’s more than reasonable to suspect members of the Episcopal Church – LGBT alliance as causing this injustice to a dead American soldier. My letter to DoD appears last.

 

I. American law, as it has developed over the last quarter-century, allows a plaintiff to sue a church and its leaders for damages from torts committed against him following the parishioner’s withdrawal of consent to church discipline.

amendment 1 in stone 200 x 300The leading court decision that explains why the U.S. Constitution allows such lawsuits is Guinn v. Collinsville Church of Christ, a 1989 opinion authored by a Polish law student turned World War II combat warrior and prisoner of war. 

Four paragraphs from the Guinn opinion have been excerpted, unedited, and they appear immediately below. A link to the entire Guinn v. Collinsville Church of Christ court opinion is also provided. The paragraphs that follow those have – like the four paragraphs from Guinn – been excerpted without edit from court decisions in Arizona, Illinois, New Jersey, and Tennessee. Other states in which state and/or federal courts have cited Guinn on or before 22 October 2018 include Hawaii, Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Texas, Massachusetts, Florida, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, and Alabama. Citations to fifty-seven (57) court opinions in which Guinn v. Collinsville Church of Christ is cited follow these excerpts.

Not all of these court decisions rely on Guinn for the same reasons as those relevant in the defamation lawsuit against the Episcopal Church, et al.. But most do. Some of these court decisions cite Guinn for the same points of law as those relevant here, but they conclude that the facts in the cases they must decide are materially different from the facts in the Guinn case.

 

Oklahoma state seal 175 x 176Marian GUINN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLEOklahoma, a non-profit corporation; Allen Cash, Ted Moody and Ron Witten, Defendants-Appellants, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla. Supreme Court 1989) (Opala, VCJ)(excerpts)

. . .
¶25 “In defense of their actions the Elders claim that the Church of Christ has no doctrinal provision for withdrawal of membership. According to their beliefs, a member remains a part of the congregation for life. Like those who are born into a family, they may leave but they can never really sever the familial bond. A court’s determination that Parishioner effectively withdrew her membership and thus her consent to submit to church doctrine would, according to the Elders, be a constitutionally impermissible state usurpation of religious discipline accomplished through judicial interference.

¶26 “The Elders had never been confronted with a member who chose to withdraw from the church. Because disciplinary proceedings against Parishioner had already commenced when she withdrew her membership, the Elders concluded their actions could not be hindered by her withdrawal and would be protected by the First Amendment. Parishioner relies on her September 24, 1981 handwritten letter to the Elders in which she unequivocally stated that she withdrew her membership and terminated her consent to being treated as a member of the Church of Christ communion. By common-law standards we find her communication was an effective withdrawal of her membership and of her consent to religious discipline.

¶27 “Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one’s religious allegiance.

. . .

¶56 “On remand, the trial court may consider the postwithdrawal tortious acts as not immune from secular judicature. For the commission of acts which occurred after Parishioner withdrew her church membership, the Elders are to be treated as any other secular individual. Among potentially tortious postwithdrawal acts was the communication of Parishioner’s religious transgressions to both the Collinsville and to the other four area Church of Christ congregations. Parishioner’s theories of recovery include but are not necessarily limited to invasion of privacy by publication of private facts and intentional infliction of mental distress (tort of outrage).”

Complete Guinn v. Collinsville Church of Christ opinion accessible via this link. All of these other cases are or have been available online within the last 90 days.  https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1989/10494.html

 

AZ Seal 200 x 225ARIZONA

James BARNES and Rose Mary Martinez-Barnes, husband and wife; Naomi Martinez Outlaw, in her individual capacity; Isaac Martinez, in his individual capacity, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. James OUTLAW, Jr. and Cleopatra Outlaw, husband and wife; Andrew Outlaw, in his individual capacity; The Church Of Jesus, an Arizona non-profit corporation, Defendants/Appellants, 937 P.2d 323 (Arizona Court of Appeals, August 29, 1996; as amended on Denial of Reconsideration November 8, 1996; review denied and cross review granted May 20, 1997).

Ecclesiastical Abstention

“Appellants first contend that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention. They argue that Outlaw was motivated by a “biblical admonition” when he brought appellees’ conduct to the attention of the congregation during the “marking” and that the “essence” of the injuries appellees claimed was the termination of their relationship with the Church and its members. As a result, they contend, the trial court was barred from “addressing religious controversies which were beyond the jurisdiction of civil authority.”

“The doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention prohibits courts from determining issues of canon law. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976). It is not applicable here because this dispute can be resolved without inquiry into religious law and polity. We need not consider the “marking” ritual nor its origins in resolving these issues. Outlaw revealed confidences from his counseling sessions with Naomi to Rose and threatened to publicize Rose’s involvement with Kirkland. He divulged confidences of Naomi, Rose, and Isaac to his wife, mother, sister, and the Church administrator and also relayed false information to them. There was no evidence that this conduct was part of the observance of the Church’s religious practices or beliefs; thus, the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention has no bearing here. See Paul v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 819 F.2d 875, 878 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 926, 108 S.Ct. 289, 98 L.Ed.2d 249 (1987).

“Moreover, appellants misstate appellees’ injury claims. In their complaint, appellees alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, damage to their reputations, and exposure to public ridicule and disgrace. That the injuries occurred in a religious setting does not render them noncompensable, nor does it deprive the court of jurisdiction. See McNair v. Worldwide Church of God, 197 Cal.App.3d 363242 Cal.Rptr. 823 (1987) (free exercise clause did not bar defamation claim against minister for remarks made during meeting explaining church doctrine); Hester v. Barnett, 723 S.W.2d 544 (Mo. App. 1987) (defamation claim against minister for statements made in sermons compensable); Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1989) (intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims based on continued denunciation of former member during church services actionable).”

illinois 200 x 199ILLINOIS

Richard DUNCAN and Hope Church, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bervin PETERSON, Erwin Lutzer, and The Moody Church, Defendants-Appellees. 835 N.E.2d 411 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2005)

Both sides cite to Guinn v. Church of Christ, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla.1989), in support of their positions. In Guinn, a former member of the church brought action against church elders for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress for disciplinary action they took against her before and after she withdrew her membership from the church. Guinn, 775 P.2d at 769.

“The Oklahoma court found that this was not the sort of private ecclesiastical controversy that the United States Supreme Court has deemed immune from judicial scrutiny. Guinn, 775 P.2d at 772, citing Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 426 U.S. at 713, 96 S.Ct. at 2382, 49 L.Ed.2d at 165. The Oklahoma court further opined that because the controversy concerned the allegedly tortious nature of religiously motivated acts and not their orthodoxy in relation to established church doctrine, the justification for judicial abstention was nonexistent and it did not apply to the case. Guinn, 775 P.2d at 773.”

New jersey seal 200 x 204NEW JERSEY

 F.G. v. MacDonnell, et al., 696 A.2d 697 (New Jersey Supreme Court 1997)

Courts in other jurisdictions have found that when purely secular conduct is at issue, they may hold churches and clerics liable for the effect of their conduct on third fiduciary duty, when the claims did not arise from ecclesiastical matters. Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310, 323 (Colo. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1137, 114 S.Ct. 2153, 128 L.Ed.2d 880 (1994). Similarly, an Oregon Court has concluded that claims for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress did not violate the First Amendment. Erickson v. Christenson, 99 Or.App. 104781 P.2d 383, 386 (1989).

“Likewise, courts have recognized claims for intentional torts against clergymen. Thus, clergymen have been held liable for obtaining gifts and donations of money by fraud, Ballard, supra, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148; sexual assault, Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co. v. Puhl,354 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984); unlawful imprisonment, Whittaker v. Sandford, 110 Me. 77, 85 A. 399 (1912); alienation of affections, Hester v. Barnett, 723 S.W.2d 544, 555 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987); and for sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation, Guinn v. Church of Christ, 775 P.2d 766, 785-86 (Okla. 1989).”

TN seal 200 x 200TENNESSEE

The Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Tennessee, et al. v. The Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen of St. Andrew’s Parish, a Tennessee corporation, M2010-01474-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. Appeals, Nashville, April 25, 2012)(affirming lower court’s decision in property dispute)

Although the United States Supreme Court’s statements regarding ecclesiastical abstention speak in terms of hierarchical church organizations, there is no reason to refuse to apply the First Amendment analysis to congregational churches or those religious organizations not hierarchical in structure. See Callahan v. First Congregational Church of Haverhill, 808 N.E.2d 301, 308 (Mass. 2004); Heard v. Johnson, 810 A.2d 871, 879 n.4 (D.C. Circ. 2002); Burgess v. Rock Creek Baptist Church, 734 F.Supp. at 31 n. 2; Guinn v. The Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766, 771 n.18 (Okla. 1989). Where, as in the case before us, the religious body has adopted a hierarchical polity, it is not necessary to examine the application of the doctrine in other types of organizations.”

us consti 200 x 400On 22 October 2018, Leagle.com reported that Guinn v. Collinsville Church of Christ has been cited by the following 57 cases:

784 P.2d 1053 – VANNERSON v. BD. OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF OKL., Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

794 P.2d 412 – BLANTON v. HOUSING AUTHORITY, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

808 P.2d 640 – MATTER OF ESTATE OF POPE, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

791 P.2d 84 – DEFFENBAUGH v. HUDSON, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

820 P.2d 445 – REED v. SCOTT, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

813 P.2d 508 – OHIO CAS. INS. CO. v. TODD, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

766 F.Supp. 1018 – MARSHALL v. NELSON ELEC., United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.

954 F.2d 610 – IN RE SWEET, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

826 P.2d 978 – HADNOT v. SHAW, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

844 P.2d 141 – FOWLER v. BAILEY, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

857 P.2d 789 – BLADEN v. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

863 P.2d 1189 – STATE EX REL. OKL. BAR ASS’N v. GASAWAY, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

878 P.2d 360 – GILMORE v. ENOGEX, INC., Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

885 P.2d 361 – O’CONNOR v. DIOCESE OF HONOLULU, Supreme Court of Hawai`i.

75 Wn. App. 833 – KOREAN CHURCH v. LEE, The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.

188 Ariz. 401 – BARNES v. OUTLAW, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B.

19 F.Supp.2d 1249 – ZERAN v. DIAMOND BROADCASTING, INC., United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

150 N.J. 550 – F.G. v. MacDONELL, The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

592 N.W.2d 713 – SMITH v. CALVARY CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Court of Appeals of Michigan.

978 P.2d 520 – MOE v. WISE, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

998 P.2d 592 – N.H. v. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.), Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

989 P.2d 1148 – MOE v. WISE, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

987 P.2d 1185 – PATEL v. OMH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

988 P.2d 1282 – ROWLAND v. CITY OF TULSA, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

614 N.W.2d 590 – SMITH v. CALVARY CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Supreme Court of Michigan.

121 F.Supp.2d 1327 – BRYCE v. EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN DIOCESE OF COLORADO, United States District Court, D. Colorado.

26 S.W.3d 54 – WILLIAMS v. GLEASON, Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

40 P.3d 481 – FRANCIS v. ROGERS, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

34 P.3d 955 – SANDS v. LIVING WORD FELLOWSHIP, Supreme Court of Alaska.

55 P.3d 1012 – DANIELS v. UNION BAPTIST ASS’N, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

60 P.3d 1072 – CINOCCA v. ORCRIST, INC., Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3.

66 P.3d 364 – HEDGES v. HEDGES, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

289 F.3d 648 – BRYCE v. EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN DIOCESE OF COLORADO, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

441 Mass. 699 – CALLAHAN v. FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF HAVERHILL, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Su_olk.

835 N.E.2d 411 – DUNCAN v. PETERSON, Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

109 P.3d 326 – STATE, EX REL. OKLAHOMA BAR v. ANDERSON, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

137 P.3d 1253 – TRICE v. BURRESS, Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

945 So.2d 526 – MALICHI v. ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

238 S.W.3d 58 – CALVARY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL v. HUFFSTUTTLER, Supreme Court of Arkansas.

933 A.2d 92 – CONNOR v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

533 F.Supp.2d 567 – SNYDER v. PHELPS, United States District Court, D. Maryland.

177 P.3d 565 – GENS v. CASADY SCHOOL, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

994 A.2d 212 – THIBODEAU v. AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES, Appellate Court of Connecticut.

103 So.3d 40 – EX PARTE BOLE, Supreme Court of Alabama.

994 A.2d 212 – THIBODEAU v. AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES, Appellate Court of Connecticut.

ZENERGY, INC. v. COLEMAN, United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.

897 F.Supp.2d 1109 – SCHLANGER INS. TRUST v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INS., United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma.

PARK v. TRICAN WELL SERVICE, L.P., United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.

287 P.3d 397 – WRT REALTY, INC. v. BOSTON INV. GROUP II, Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 2.

2014 OK 100 – IN RE AMENDMENTS TO OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

368 P.3d 771 – IN RE M.K.T., Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

390 P.3d 238 – MATTER OF ESTATE OF VOSE, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

2017 OK 15 – DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA, Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

2017 OK 106 – DOE v. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A., Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

975 A.2d 1084 – CONNOR v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

CONVENTION OF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN DIOCESE OF TENNESSEE v. RECTOR, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.

264 S.W.3d 1 – PLEASANT GLADE ASSEMBLY OF GOD v. SCHUBERT, Supreme Court of Texas.

 

*** American democracy imposes responsibilities on those who dissent: two quotes from the courts and jurists

Screenshot (2364).png

 

Screenshot (2370).png

[Image appears to be that of Ranger Weaver’s daughter, Savannah, who was 13 months old when her father’s Black Hawk was shot down, killing 8. More info: Rich McKay. FAMILY STUNNED OVER DEATH OF SOLDIER WHO DIDN’T HAVE TO BE IN IRAQ. South Florida Orlando Sun-Sentinel. 10 January 2004.]  https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2004-01-10-0401100202-story.html

II. Images that point to, among other facts, the vapor trail of tortious and other unlawful activities against presumptive plaintiff. 

A. Nature and political goals of the Episcopal Church – LGBT alliance: “The will of the people? F*ck that. I want my lawyer.”

screenshot (2012)

screenshot28226729

Screenshot (2411)

 

screenshot (2023)

 

Screenshot (2320).png

 

Screenshot (31).png

screenshot (2014)

 

screenshot28223929

“Discernment’? Well, it’s sort of like ‘integrity.’ It doesn’t quite mean what it used to. The Episcopal Church-LGBT discernment process ‘WILL RESULT in your parish adopting an LGBT-specific welcoming statement and . . .'” 

screenshot (1970)

screenshot28230729

 

Screenshot (2509).png

Screenshot (2493).png

Screenshot (2494).png

Screenshot (2495).png

Screenshot (2496)

Screenshot (2497)

Screenshot (2498)

Screenshot (2499)

Screenshot (2500).png

Screenshot (2501)

Screenshot (2502)

Screenshot (2503)

Screenshot (2505)

Screenshot (2637).png

 

Screenshot (2303).png

 

Screenshot (2661)

B. Images reflecting efforts to crush those who dissent from the political goals of LGBT operatives, including those persons in and associated with the Episcopal Church

no not one 1215 x 652.png

 

Screenshot (2515).png

Burning the pastoral letter of your Bishop isn’t enough to satisfy angry members of the Episcopal Church – LGBT alliance”: Bishop Love’s dissent in favor of traditional Christian values must be declared “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy.”

Screenshot (1956).png

 

Following two quotes are excerpted from Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (“PECUSA”) Michael C. Curry’s decision to punish an American military veteran – a single bishop who dared to challenge the Episcopal church and its LGBT political goals 

screenshot28224429

 Screenshot (2282).png

 

Screenshot (2623).png

Screenshot (2324).png

 

Just one hour’s Google search: nearly two dozen public apologies:

 

Screenshot (2338)

 

Screenshot (2346).png

 

Screenshot (2354).png

 

Screenshot (2360).png

 

Screenshot (2309).png

 

Screenshot (2434).png

 

Screenshot (2661)

C. Images reflecting Sins of the Father and Sins of the Son committed against the political goals of the gay-lesbian/LGBT community

Father: Carl H. Bloeser, M.A.P.A., M.P.H. (3 January 1939 – 8 February 2014), U.S. Army and U.S.A.F. veteran and former State of Arizona AIDS Health Program Manager

Screenshot (2131)

2 chb images 1066 x 700

alw 1054 x 659

screenshot (938)

aids incidence az

Screenshot (2699)

 

 

dad speech at ef image 1 1000 x 606

dad speech at ef image 2   1000 x 600.png

dad speech at ef image 3   1000 x 604.png

dad speech at ef image 4   1000 x 610.png

dad speech at ef image 5   1000  x 617.png

Screenshot (2476).png

 

graphic re audit and dads ef speech 1100 x 700 12 Feb 2019

 

audit report 600ish

 

Son: Charles L.K. Bloeser, M.A., J.D., member, Bar of the State of Tennessee. Author of article advocating for a federal constitutional amendment that would define “marriage” as being only a heterosexual union.

TULaw 2004 alumni mag article 1400 x 800

Charles Bloeser. The Right of the People to Protect Marriage as a Heterosexual Union. I Do. No, You Don’t: does gay marriage warrant amending the U.S. Constitution? Tulsa Law Magazine 15 (Fall 2004) (excerpt):

Screenshot (2398)

 

Screenshot (2411)

 

Screenshot (2429).png

apache. sanitized. full. 900 x 725

Screenshot (2657)

Screenshot (2432)

Following paragraph is excerpted from presumptive plaintiff’s 20 October 2018 (revised) formal withdrawal from the Episcopal Church, delivered by email to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church Michael C. Curry, the Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Arizona, and the Rector and Associate Rector of St. Philips in the Hills Episcopal Church in Tucson, Arizona. 

“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. [] 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.

This paragraph is excerpted from the above-referenced 6 October 2018 IC3 update.

Screenshot (2443)

 

Screenshot (2661)

D. Images that permit establishment of a baseline for examining social media interaction with presumptive plaintiff’s vet-focused research products following the 22 January 2018

Baseline: the warriors

screenshot (995)

Screenshot (2613)

 

screenshot (1467)

Baseline: the analytics

Screenshot (2583)

 

Screenshot (2584).png

 

Screenshot (2611).png

Screenshot (2670)

 

Screenshot (2661)

E.  Screen shot images which can be reasonably interpreted to point to and identify tortious acts executed against presumptive plaintiff, personally and professionally.

  • Wholesale removal of audience intended to benefit from shared information. Replaced by sordid collection of professionals who time and again reveal themselves to lack ability or inclination to use and share content with those who might be able to save a veteran’s life.  

Screenshot (2618).png

 

Screenshot (2590).png

Screenshot (2672).png

Screenshot (2674)

Screenshot (2595).png

Screenshot (2599).png

Screenshot (2597).png

  • Writings, including digital communications, by presumptive defendants and witnesses, e.g., troll strike by Mr. Warren Pielak MBA, against my personal and professional integrity in LinkedIn group with nearly 10,000 members

Screenshot (27)

Screenshot (2384).png

Screenshot (10)

 

report to fr robt re poss pedophile onlinie 1080 x 602

Screenshot (1458).png

screenshot (1689)

screenshot (1710)

 

Screenshot (1675).png

Screenshot (1673).png

Screenshot (2602)

 

Screenshot (11)

Screenshot (1698).png

Screenshot (1641).png

screenshot (2006)

Screenshot (2629).png

 

  •  JUST A FEW EXAMPLES: Presumptive plaintiff; his digital record of professional training, positions, and publications; and his original and shared social media content removed from public and group posts because such content is “abusive,” “unsafe,” and/or “against community standards”

Screenshot (1474).png

 

screenshot (1440)

indian warrior post against comm standards 633 x 600

 

Screenshot (1532).png

Screenshot (1536).png

screenshot (1540)

screenshot (1538)

 

screenshot (1410)

Screenshot (1392).png

screenshot (1393)

screenshot (1394)

screenshot (1395)

screenshot (1396)

screenshot (1397)

screenshot (1398)

 

abusive career image 1 800 x 441

abusive career image 2 600 x 361

screenshot (1701)

screenshot (1649)

  • Images reasonably identifying targeted attacks on content created by presumptive plaintiff’s late father and by his mother.

verdun sarcasm

screenshot (1689)

 

This document ends with two items:

(a) images of four examples of presumptive plaintiff’s many attempts to secure a satisfactory and beneficial resolution to both real and phantom disputes with members of the Episcopal Church – LGBT alliance and which would have made this lawsuit unnecessary. I’ve had coffee or a meal with each of these persons.

(b) Images revealing the emasculation of the reasonably expected audience for an article that I wrote because an American combat veteran who’d simply been left to rot and die in a modern American jail asked me to tell his story in the hopes that others wouldn’t suffer his same fate. The editors at strifeblog.org, an internationally respected security blog from the Department of War Studies at Kings College London, wanted an international audience to know “Henry’s” story. Given pattern conduct, it’s more than reasonable to suspect members of the Episcopal Church – LGBT alliance as causing this injustice to a dead American soldier. My letter to DoD appears last.

 

 

 

Screenshot (2639).png

*Fellow Sewanee alumni and my EfM mentors at St. Philips in the Hills, Tucson, for three years. Mr. Howell Herring is City of Tucson Deputy IT Director after having served in the same position for the City of Philadelphia.. Howell’s wife, Dr. Mary Hickert Herring, possesses a divinity degree from Virginia Theological Seminary and serves on the Vestry at St. Philips:

Screenshot (1444).png

*Mr. Clyde Kunz, consultant to non-profits whose past and present Tucson clients include the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation, which is the former employer of the COO at Primavera Foundation in Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Kunz is an Episcopalian and, like Mr. Howell Herring, a mentor in Education for Ministry (EfM), a 4-year theological studies program operated out of the School of Theology at the University of the South (Sewanee)) and serving – with mentor message board and other resources – EfM groups in more than 800 churches. Like Primavera Foundation’s COO, Mr. Kunz is a member of the LGBT community. 

Screenshot (2654).png

*7 October 2018 email to Episcopal Church Deacon Leah Sandwell-Weiss, who serves at St. Philips in the Hills Episcopal Church, Tucson, AZ.

Screenshot (2002).png

Here’s a quote from a 14 November 2018 email in which I sought assistance resolving these matters from “Punch” Woods, a former Methodist missionary and retired head of the Southern Arizona Food Bank who’s been a long-time personal friend of two particularly recalcitrant adversaries: one of them who’s already demonstrated her experience “masterminding” and running a nationwide criminal conspiracy (United States v. Aguilar, []Margaret Jean HUTCHISON a/k/a Peggy Hutchison, et. al. 883 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1989)) and the other, a Divinity school graduate and former executive at Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation in Tucson, AZ.

Screenshot (13).png

Screenshot (2315)

 

 

Screenshot (2687).png

screenshot (1006)

screenshot (1007)

sign-on-gate-of-kings-college-london 265About Strife

What is Strife?
“Strife is a dual format publication comprised of Strife academic blog, as well as the peer-reviewed academic journal, Strife Journal, which is published biannually. Strife is led by doctoral and graduate researchers based in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. Our contributors come from a wide range of backgrounds including graduate and doctoral researchers, staff and faculty at King’s, and leading experts from around the world.”

 

Screenshot (2679)

Screenshot (2684)

Screenshot (2685)

Screenshot (2686).png