The Potter’s House sign on Northern Avenue. Ken Haywood’s name is still barely visible on the bottom of the sign.
India Bombing, Ken Haywood, Campbell White, Door Ministries, Christian Fellowship Ministries
”The only problem is, Campbell White, the firm that Haywood works for, is not a multinational company at all. Or, if it is, it’s certainly a very strange one. What I’ve managed to find out is that Campbell White is effectively a front for a far right Christian cult, and is far from the image being spun by Haywood and the media. This will take a little explaining, but it’s well worth it.” – gnn
I have today come across a very good article from gnn website that does some good research re Campbell White shell company and those behind it whose Mumbai computer was used to send the supposed Islamic terrorist email from their Yahoo account.It appears that whether Kenneth Haywood has been U.S military or police in past or not their Campbell White is a fraud company with right wing Christian fundamentalists behind it who appear to be in favor of stirring up religious controversy and religious financial fraud whether in America, India or elsewhere. Appropriate that they (Campbell White and Heywood, et.al. )see Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and or its U.S. Republican Party spokesman Frank Luntz as their role models.
While I post the article in full it is recommended to read the original at link posted below that will have additional links to the Google caches and ‘Christian’ websites documenting the article and investigation of gnn itself.
”Last week’s blasts were no exception. When a note claiming responsiblity did emerge, it was sent to India’s largest television networks, written in English and originating from a standard Yahoo account. It was also signed by a group called the “Indian mujahadeen” – previously unknown to authorities – and it focused on massacres committed by Hindus against Muslims (such as the Gujarat pogroms of 2002). The subject line of the note was “Await 5 minutes for the revenge of Gujarat” while its contents thundered that “In the name of Allah the Indian Mujahideen strike again! Do whatever you can, within 5 minutes from now, feel the terror of Death.”……..
As I noticed in the Guardian yesterday, when police tracked down the wifi signal it turned out that the laptop from which it emanated belonged not to a wizened old sheik or a member of Mumbai’s mafia families, but to an “expat American” by the name of Kenneth Haywood…..
As Parambir Singh of India’s anti-terrorist squad put it, “We are not saying that they are suspects, but at the same time we cannot, at the moment, give them a clean chit.” And this was sensible, as Haywood’s computer remains in the lab being tested where, as the Hindu reports today, “it [will] take three or four days for completing the analysis of the hard disk.”
Meanwhile, Singh’s boss, Hemant Karkare told the Indian daily that “Experts are still on the job” and that Haywood, “is very much on the radar of suspicion.”………
It is possible that Haywood has been the victim of an horrendous example of identity theft. Certainly, it would be nice to give a respectable guy who “has more than 20 years of experience in hands-on corporate training and has held senior positions with Fortune 500 companies” the benefit of the doubt.
The only problem is, Campbell White, the firm that Haywood works for, is not a multinational company at all. Or, if it is, it’s certainly a very strange one. What I’ve managed to find out is that Campbell White is effectively a front for a far right Christian cult, and is far from the image being spun by Haywood and the media. This will take a little explaining, but it’s well worth it.
Fortunately for them, Campbell White erased key details of its staff from its website in early July 2008. Unfortunately for them, Google caches such things, so ferrets like me can have ready access. What you find is a list of American and Australian expats fulfilling the usual roles (India managing director, manager of human resources etc..) Superficially there is nothing odd about that at all. What you find at the current site, however, is a strange list of first names (no “Ken” you might notice)…
But what of Ken Haywood himself, our man on the spot with the troublesome wifi connection which spews out hate e-mails seeking to stir up trouble between Hindus and Muslims? Well, armed with the connection between Door Christian Church and Campbell White, I searched for Ken Haywood and Door Ministries. What I found was an extremely detailed website run by a chap named Steve Schoner and entitled “After Potter’s House..”
It turns out that Schoner was sued in 1994 by a member of Potter’s House (an alternative name for the Door Church). His offence was protesting against the church’s cult like activities in Flagstaff Arizona. As you might have guessed, the man pressing the complaint was the very public spirited, Kenneth Haywood. Perhaps not the same man, but certainly a gem of a coincidence I hope you’ll agree.
Apparently, Haywood sued Schoner et al for “[causing] emotional damages because he referred to them as a cult and that their reaction to that was that they had physical manifestations….including a heart attack” and it was devilish placards like this that brought on the angst:
The dirty heathens! Joking aside, it turns out that the Christian Fellowship Ministries have stirred up a great deal of controversy for their cult like activities. Some parents have gone on the record claiming that their sons and daughters have been “lost” to them for years due to the CFM’s separatist tenets…….
CFM also has a novel and deeply profitable structure. As the KPHO report put it, “Some people also criticize the church’s financial structure, which is a pyramid structure. If one parish is able to set up another church — that church must send 5% of its offerings back to the sponsor church — and send 5% to the Mother church in Prescott [Arizona].” [More info on the church here, courtesy of investigator Rick Ross]
Could it be the CFM has identified an unprecedented growth market for its business model in the teeming millions of India?
………….
Opening the Doors of hell in India
B28955 / Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:17:21 / “War on Terror”
Apologies for not posting in these parts for a while, but various reality-based necessities have intruded and limited my scope for wildcat investigation and general commentary. Never fear though, as I’ve got an intriguing tale up my sleeve to rouse the GNN crowd from its stupor. It involves hijacked wifi connections, mysterious car thefts, illegally rented apartments and the death of about 40 innocent people in the city of Ahmedenebad, India. It may also involve a whole lot more, and certainly more than the media is letting on (or willing to see).
Anyhow, let’s survey the facts of the matter as they stand. Last week 22 separate bomb blasts claimed between 42 and 45 lives in Ahmedabad, western India. This is nothing unusual, alas, in India at the moment, where bombings are becoming depressingly regular occurences. Authorities never seem to catch the culprits, and different groups continue to pop up to claim responsibility, although the police and the commentariat invariably use each atrocity as an opportunity to crack down on muslim student groups, or various factions in India’s criminal underworld.
Last week’s blasts were no exception. When a note claiming responsiblity did emerge, it was sent to India’s largest television networks, written in English and originating from a standard Yahoo account. It was also signed by a group called the “Indian mujahadeen” – previously unknown to authorities – and it focused on massacres committed by Hindus against Muslims (such as the Gujarat pogroms of 2002). The subject line of the note was “Await 5 minutes for the revenge of Gujarat” while its contents thundered that “In the name of Allah the Indian Mujahideen strike again! Do whatever you can, within 5 minutes from now, feel the terror of Death.”
When CNN-IBN received the note, it broadcast its contents and then sent the mail onto India’s police. Then, using some pretty elementary technical nous, the police managed to track the source of the mail to a wifi connection in the Navi Mumbai area of Mumbai, a newish development targeted decidedly at the upper range of Mumbai’s demographics. This was unusual – terrorists operating out of a yuppie suburb. Police also confirmed that the cars used in the Ahmedabad attacks were also stolen from Navi Mumbai.
It was surely then only a matter of time before the attackers were exposed and the kingpin behind the atrocities could be paraded before the cameras in a coup for justice against rampant islamist terror… But there was a snag. As I noticed in the Guardian yesterday, when police tracked down the wifi signal it turned out that the laptop from which it emanated belonged not to a wizened old sheik or a member of Mumbai’s mafia families, but to an “expat American” by the name of Kenneth Haywood.
What the hell had happened? Haywood claimed that his account had been hacked and that the terrorists had sneaked into his apartment block, used his connection and then scarpered, hiding their tracks as they went. Quite why they would then steal the cars from the same area, thereby alerting police to their activities (and providing an opportunity to track them down on CCTV etc..) was not explained.
Nevertheless, by and large the international and Indian media have accepted Haywood’s story. And who are we to disbelieve an account as reasonable as this (from the Guardian):
The Hindustan Times newspaper quoted Haywood, a business consultant, as saying the technician who set up the web connection had insisted he not change his default password…He told the paper he had already complained about excessively high browsing bills: “I found that my net usage had suddenly increased and I started getting inflated bills.”
As Parambir Singh of India’s anti-terrorist squad put it, “We are not saying that they are suspects, but at the same time we cannot, at the moment, give them a clean chit.” And this was sensible, as Haywood’s computer remains in the lab being tested where, as the Hindu reports today, “it [will] take three or four days for completing the analysis of the hard disk.”
Meanwhile, Singh’s boss, Hemant Karkare told the Indian daily that “Experts are still on the job” and that Haywood, “is very much on the radar of suspicion.”
Is it possible that an American working for what one paper describes as a “multi-national company” and another describes as an “executive training firm” could have been somehow involved in the massacre of 42 innocent people? Or, to add some more pertinent information, was he involved in the attempted massacre of hundreds more? Since the bombs exploded in Ahmedabad, police have found 19 devices in the town of Surat, some placed in packed marketplaces, and 7 explosions have hit Bangalore, with one fatality.
It is possible that Haywood has been the victim of an horrendous example of identity theft. Certainly, it would be nice to give a respectable guy who “has more than 20 years of experience in hands-on corporate training and has held senior positions with Fortune 500 companies” the benefit of the doubt.
The only problem is, Campbell White, the firm that Haywood works for, is not a multinational company at all. Or, if it is, it’s certainly a very strange one. What I’ve managed to find out is that Campbell White is effectively a front for a far right Christian cult, and is far from the image being spun by Haywood and the media. This will take a little explaining, but it’s well worth it.
Fortunately for them, Campbell White erased key details of its staff from its website in early July 2008. Unfortunately for them, Google caches such things, so ferrets like me can have ready access. What you find is a list of American and Australian expats fulfilling the usual roles (India managing director, manager of human resources etc..) Superficially there is nothing odd about that at all. What you find at the current site, however, is a strange list of first names (no “Ken” you might notice).
Anyhow, a little googling around with the actual names produces some very interesting results. I do hope the Indian police have been doing this, I really do. First port of call was to assess Campbell White’s corporate history, to provide a little meat to the investigation. What you find is a cached webpage describing how the very same firm provides(d) “chauffeur drive buses and taxis” in Bangalore, through its Bangalore Chauffeur Driven Buses and Taxis subsidiary. That taxi company was headed by the same David Curwen Walker (“an experienced chauffeur with over 25 years of professional driving in Australia and Africa”) who has since become “responsible for our Internal Legal Department, and integration of International Operations Training” according to the staff list deleted this month. Talented guy.
So searched for David’s web presence, figuring that a man with such experience would be all over the net. It turned out that he wasn’t really, but that a David Curwen Walker had posted a couple of items on a site called Churchfinder. At that site, Curwen Walker described himself as a “pastor” of the Door Christian Church in Kammanahalli dispensing “good, solid preaching of the Word of God.” Nice of him to balance driving, legal services and serving the Lord.
Anyhow, thinking that googling staff members had been a relative success so far, I picked another member with a distinctive name, Scott Grabowska. Astonishingly, a Scott Grabowska was listed as hosting a “special revival service” at the Door Church in Englewood Colorado, nightly services at the Potter’s House Christian Fellowship Church in Virginia Beach, VA and a service in Shreveport, Louisiana as well. This, while serving Campbell White, perhaps, as “International Protocol Trainer.”
Thinking that this could be a notable coincidence, I soldiered on, adding Jonathan Heimberg to the list. Heimberg is listed as Campbell White’s tech guy (“Senior Manager Information Services”) but could he be related to the Jonathan Heimberg who comments from Bangalore on the website worldcfm.com? Worldcfm, by the way, stands for “world Christian Fellowship Ministries.” Heimberg commented rapturously that “In the last week, we have seen a sovereign move of God. We have tapped a stream of converts from North East India, the state of Nagalin” adding that, “These bright, young people have come to Bangalore for Schooling and Hi-Tech careers, and a great many have begun coming to the church.”
So perhaps I was on a roll. Pushing my luck luxuriously, I moved onto Dan Rubianes, Campbell White’s managing director in Bangalore, no less. Well, google is not very forthcoming with details about Dan, but by sheer coincidence I’ve managed to track down the name at a forthcoming biblical spectacular – the 2008 Chandler International Bible Conference, being hosted by the Door Christian Center in Chandler, Arizona. There, a certain Dan Rubianes will be headlining alongside a certain Pastor Joe Campbell who, could quite easily be a distant relation of the Joe Campbell listed as the USA director of Campbell White.
If you want to get tickets it starts on August 10, so you’d better hurry. Incidentally, last year saw the appearance of a certain Scott Grabowska, so the connections really are rather deep I’d say. I hope you’ve stayed with me long enough to enjoy them.
But what of Ken Haywood himself, our man on the spot with the troublesome wifi connection which spews out hate e-mails seeking to stir up trouble between Hindus and Muslims? Well, armed with the connection between Door Christian Church and Campbell White, I searched for Ken Haywood and Door Ministries. What I found was an extremely detailed website run by a chap named Steve Schoner and entitled “After Potter’s House..”
It turns out that Schoner was sued in 1994 by a member of Potter’s House (an alternative name for the Door Church). His offence was protesting against the church’s cult like activities in Flagstaff Arizona. As you might have guessed, the man pressing the complaint was the very public spirited, Kenneth Haywood. Perhaps not the same man, but certainly a gem of a coincidence I hope you’ll agree.
Apparently, Haywood sued Schoner et al for “[causing] emotional damages because he referred to them as a cult and that their reaction to that was that they had physical manifestations….including a heart attack” and it was devilish placards like this that brought on the angst:
The dirty heathens! Joking aside, it turns out that the Christian Fellowship Ministries have stirred up a great deal of controversy for their cult like activities. Some parents have gone on the record claiming that their sons and daughters have been “lost” to them for years due to the CFM’s separatist tenets.
In one case, a 5 year old girl was subjected to the sight of a pastor dressing up as the devil and plunging her hands in a bucket of blood. The pastor in question, a man named Dan Mazon, “said the blood was fake, but admitted trying to scare the 5-year-old from sex and drugs” according to a 2004 news report by KPHO Phoenix. Mazon added chillingly that “That’s the problem with this generation that does not understand fear.”
CFM also has a novel and deeply profitable structure. As the KPHO report put it, “Some people also criticize the church’s financial structure, which is a pyramid structure. If one parish is able to set up another church — that church must send 5% of its offerings back to the sponsor church — and send 5% to the Mother church in Prescott [Arizona].” [More info on the church here, courtesy of investigator Rick Ross]
Could it be the CFM has identified an unprecedented growth market for its business model in the teeming millions of India?
CFM founder Wayman Mitchell has shown a passion for the spirit of the subcontinent in the past. As his website documents, in 1984 he and several disciples had an emotional experience on the site of the martyrdom of St. Thomas:
It is said that as he preached the gospel to a wild Indian tribe they pierced him through with a spear. As we stood overlooking that city I could not help but think how far this man had come. is so far that it staggers the mind. Remember, he had no airplanes, no modem [sic] means of transportation, none of the things we have…We think it is a great task when we climb on one of those monstrous 747’s to go around the world and land in twenty or thirty hours, but think of Thomas! He’d have to travel for several months at the very least and possibly years, to come to that wild place on the east India coast. This man had a world vision. God stir us as we read this that we may understand the seriousness of what we are talking about. When the Lord Jesus said, “I send you to the nations,” He was talking about a fundamental principle of world evangelism.
Later on, Mitchell related how “Not knowing what we were going to see Mike Maston, Larry Neville, Jack Harris and myself, were standing on the brink of destiny. God had placed within our hands the tools and the ability to affect that nation for eternity. He was opening the door. We are talking about a sovereign God, a king. This is a royal commission.”
Yes indeed, a “royal commission,” but what Indian police should be asking themselves is what, exactly has been committed?
'CIA FRONTS' IN INDIA
The Tehelka newspaper revealed that, in India,over 100 US Christian evangelical groups were fronts for the CIA. (1 – Tehelka – The People’s Paper)
It would appear that the CIA uses ‘Christian’ churches as fronts for its terrorist activities.
Tony Ryals, commenting on BREIVIK AND HEADLEY LINKED BY GOA, refers to spooky ‘Christians’ at work in India.
Bombs went off in India in 2008.
The Guardian reported:
“When Indian police investigating bomb blasts which killed 42 people traced an email claiming responsibility to a Mumbai apartment, they ordered an immediate raid.
“But at the address, rather than seizing militants from the Islamist group which said it carried out the attack, they found a group of puzzled American expats.”
One of the Americans was 48-year-old Kenneth Haywood.
“The IP address for the email claiming responsibility for an obscure group called the Indian Mujahideen was traced by police to Haywood’s laptop.”
Haywood escaped from India.
Haywood had worked for an IT training company called Campbell White.
Haywood had been associated with the Door Christian Centre.
The Bangalore and Mumbai police kept a watchful eye in the Karnataka capital on the premises of Campbell White as well as Door Christian Centre.
(Haywood under scanner in Bangalore – India – DNA)
“The fact that both Campbell and Door are located in the same four-storeyed building … in south Bangalore … strengthens the suspicion that the alleged IT company is a front for the radical Christian group…
“Haywood is wanted by the Mumbai police for continued questioning in the investigation of last month’s Ahmedabad blasts…
“He slipped away from India to the US … allegedly with some covert help from officials.”
Haywood’s IT company, Campbell White, has branches in Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Trichy.
The managing director of the company is Daniel Rubianes.
Rubianes is a pastor of Doors Christian Church in Bangalore. (Haywood under scanner in Bangalore – India – DNA)
“One member of the Campbell White, Jonathan Heimberg, prosyletizes in Bangalore for christian converts.”
W Bush Religion:India Bombing,Campbell White’s Jonathan … /
Yahoo!,Terror email,India Bombs, Campbell White: American Kenneth …
The CIA wants India to help in its attack on Pakistan.
The CIA wants Indians to think that Pakistan is behind various acts of terrorism in india.
In 2008, US national Ken Haywood, reportedly with the help of the US embassy, fled from India. (Cached)
He was being investigated for terrorism.
Ken Haywood’s computer was used to send a “terrorist” e-mail minutes before bomb blasts in Ahmedabad, in July 2008.
Reportedly, Haywood has links to Abdur Subhan Qureshi, alias Taufique Bilal and Tauqir, reportedly the top terrorist in India.
Haywood returned to India in September 2008. (Ahmedabad blasts: Ken Haywood arrives in India 11 Sep 2008, 0215 hrs IST, C Unnikrishnan,TNN)
In India, Haywood workede for a firm called Campbell White, suspected of being a front for the CIA.
Haywood doesn’t feature on its list of employees. (Cached)
The Indian Express reported on 14 August 2008 that the company’s Mumbai office ‘is located in two small adjoining rented rooms on the ground floor of Sanpada railway station complex’, and that ‘the two rooms also serve as prayer rooms for Potter’s House… part of the Christian Fellowship Ministries based in Arizona.’
A Post at ‘Consortium of Indian Defence Websites’ (Cached), 20 Aug 2008:
“Haywood’s fleeing immediately after the cracking of the Gujarat blasts and capture of the perpetrators is most suspicious.
“His escape resembles that of our ex-R&AW traitor,who also escaped with alleged US help.
“It also indicates that we may have in our intelligence services moles/informants working for foreign agencies tipping off agents within the country.
“However,the fact the Haywood was working for a bogus ‘missionary’ outfit is doubly alarming.
“The role of US so-called missionaries/evangelical groups in India is very controversial,for they are playing a dual role in agressive conversions as well as being part of the CIA destabilisation plan for India.
“Tehelka a few years ago revealed the fact that over 100 US so-called “Christian” evangelical groups/organisations were in fact bogus and part of Bush’s CIA network.
“The question that now looms large in the mind is what connection exits between the CIA and the SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) sponsored terrorists?
“Is SIMI actually a CIA operation?”
American expats caught up in Indian bomb blast inquiry
When Indian police investigating bomb blasts which killed 42 people traced an email claiming responsibility to a Mumbai apartment, they ordered an immediate raid.
But at the address, rather than seizing militants from the Islamist group which said it carried out the attack, they found a group of puzzled American expats.
In a cautionary tale for those still lax with their wireless internet security, police believe the email about the explosions on Saturday in the west Indian city of Ahmedabad was sent after someone hijacked the network belonging to one of the Americans, 48-year-old Kenneth Haywood.
The IP address for the email claiming responsibility for an obscure group called the Indian Mujahideen was traced by police to Haywood’s laptop. They then raided the plush 15th-floor apartment.
Officers believe the email could have been sent by anyone within two floors of Haywood’s flat.
“He has never been detained, but we have called on him and questioned him as part of the investigation,” said Parambir Singh, a senior officer in the anti-terrorism squad.
“He has said his email ID was hacked and evidence we have gathered shows that his network was used to forward the mail.”
The Hindustan Times newspaper quoted Haywood, a business consultant, as saying the technician who set up the web connection had insisted he not change his default password.
He told the paper he had already complained about excessively high browsing bills: “I found that my net usage had suddenly increased and I started getting inflated bills.”
Singh said Haywood and the other occupants of the flat — variously reported as being another man or his family — were still being questioned.
“We are not saying that they are suspects, but at the same time we cannot, at the moment, give them a clean chit,” he said.
The hunt for those behind the blasts is now centred on Mumbai. Police believe the plot was hatched in the suburb of Navi Mumbai, from where four cars used in the attack were stolen.
The death toll from the 22 separate bombs was initially put at 45, but later reduced to 42 after it emerged some fatalities had been reported twice amid the confusion. More than 180 people were injured.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS; JUNE 6, 1995; SUPERIOR COURT, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Excerpt:
CASE NO. CV-95-118 p 89-91; & p 136-141
PLAINTIFFS:
Kenneth Haywood, Anne Marie Haywood, Flagstaff Christian Fellowship et al vs:
DEFENDANTS:
Steven Schoner, David Diver, Lou Muccitelli, Mark Workman, David Otteman, Mark Freeman et. al
In open court. (Schoner’s out of court recollections, and comments are in blue)
David Palmer (attorney for Kenneth Haywood, and CFM in Prescott) in direct examination of Kenneth Haywood:
PALMER> Q. Does your church that you established here– is it part of any larger church?
HAYWOOD> A. No it is not, It’s solely independent.
THE COURT (Judge Flournoy): Were you ever a member of the Victory Chapel?
THE WITNESS (Kenneth Haywood): No, I wasn’t
Q. BY MR. PALMER: So you’d never seen any of the defendants prior to August the 27th?
HAYWOOD> A. I’d seen them picketing the bible conferences in Prescott.
PALMER> Q. You’d attend some bible conferences in Prescott?
HAYWOOD> A. Right.
PALMER> Q. Did you ever have any involvement whatsoever with any of the defendants’ churches in Flagstaff?
HAYWOOD> A. No, I did not.
PALMER> Have any of the defendants ever been a member of your congregation?
HAYWOOD> A. No they have not.
PALMER> Q. Have they ever attended– so they would have no way of knowing what your congregation is about?
HAYWOOD> A. No they would not.
PALMER> Q. Are you an incorporated entity?
HAYWOOD> A. We’re an unincorporated association.
PALMER> Q. Are you part of any unincorporated (sic incorporated) association?
HAYWOOD> A. No, we’re not. We have a separate tax ID number, and we are a separate entity from anyone else.
PALMER> Q. Are you strictly responsible for, you know what goes on at your church?
HAYWOOD> A. Absolutely.
PALMER> Q. There’s no one else that tells you what to do?
HAYWOOD> A. No, there’s not.
THE COURT (Flournoy): Are you connected with any other church?
THE WITNESS (Haywood): We have a fellowship that we share speakers with, go to bible conferences and that kind of thing. It’s Christian Fellowship Ministries, but no affiliation. (italics for emphasis)
(Haywood made this false statement, one of several denials of a relationship with Potters House, aka Victory Chapel, with the words “but no affiliation” completely poker faced
So there it is, under direct examination by his own attorney,(David Palmer, attorney for CFM in Prescott, AZ) and by the Court as well. Mr Haywood denied his affiliation to the Potters House in Prescott, and Wayman Mitchell, by saying with regards to his church “It’s solely independent” and “no affiliation.” And these statements would later prove problematic for him and his attorney.
Now for more, with my recollection of his demeanor in bold between the lines:
Pages 136-141, from the aforementioned TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, on June 6th, 1995 in open court.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION of Mr. Haywood by Jim Ledbetter, attorney for the defendants.
LEDBETTER>: Q. What was the name of the church in California?
HAYWOOD>. A. The Potters House
LEDBETTER> Q. It was a Potters House in California?
HAYWOOD>: A. YES.
LEDBETTER> Q. Isn’t it true that you were asked [by] Wayman Mitchell, the man you mentioned a moment a go, to leave California and come to Flagstaff?
(Mr. Haywood, turned beet red, realizing that he had been caught in a lie in previous testimony. He waffles and the court intervenes.)
HAYWOOD> A. I transferred here with my job.
THE COURT (Flournoy) Just answer the question. Are you willing to repeat the question? Just answer the question the best you can.
HAYWOOD> Q. Okay. The question was: Wasn’t it true that I was asked to come here?
LEDBETTER> A. Correct.
HAYWOOD> A. Not initially.
(Squirming, and upset, Mr. Haywood was evasive. His perjury was being exposed, for how could there be “no affiliation” if Mitchell had asked him to go to Flagstaff?)
LEDBETTER> Q. In fact, Wayman Mitchell asked you to be the pastor of this church, hasn’t he?
HAYWOOD> A. After I came here he asked me if I’d be interested.
LEDBETTER> Q. Correct. And when would that– when was that?
HAYWOOD> A. July of last year.
LEDBETTER> Q. July of 1994?
HAYWOOD> A. Right.
LEDBETTER> Q. Wayman Mitchell is the gentleman that heads The Potters House movement in Prescott, Arizona; isn’t that also true?
(Haywood was red, sweating and even more upset. Having said previously that there was “no affilition” he had lied and knew it. David Palmer, his and Mitchell’s attorney intervened to interrupt the proceedings)
MR. PALMER> Your Honor, I’m gong to object to this line of questioning. I don’t have a problem with questions relating to the parties and what, you know– you know, what churches they belong to, but if this is going to devolve into a long attack–
THE COURT (Flournoy) I don’t know where it’s going, but I’m going to overrule your objection to get on with it. Next question.
MR. LEDBETTER> Thank you.
LEDBETTER> Q. So, you began a Potters House church here in Flagstaff, didn’t you?
HAYWOOD> A. No, I did not. I began a Door here.
(This answer is a blatant evasion of Ledbetter’s question, for Potters House and The Door are the same.)
LEDBETTER> Q. A Door, which is— many Potter’s House churches are currently going by the name Door, aren’t they?
HAYWOOD> A. There is no affiliation involved.
(Again Haywood lies saying that there is “no affiliation” and the Court seeing that he is waffling intervenes)
THE COURT (Flournoy) Just answer his question. Are they going by The Door?
Q. BY LEDBETTER> Isn’t that true?
HAYWOOD> A. Many churches of the Door, yes (Reluctantly, Haywood stuttered, coughing it out)
LEDBETTER> With respect to a parent church, isn’t it true that your congregation has a parent church?
THE COURT (Flournoy) A parent”?
MR LEDBETTER>: Yes, sir. A parent. P-a-r-e-n-t (Ledbetter spelling it out)
HAYWOOD> A. Explain your question, please (Waffling)
THE COURT: (Flournoy) Hang on. You’re not questioning the attorney. The attorney’s questions you.
THE WITNESS (HAYWOOD)> Oh, I’m sorry.
A. Yeah. We— I was once a member of the Prescott congregation.
Q. BY MR. LEDBETTER: The Prescott church is your parent church, isn’t it?
HAYWOOD> A. Yes, it is.
LEDBETTER> And part of a component of Potterism, if you will, is that 10 percent of a churches income goes back to its parent church: isn’t that true?
MR PALMER Object your honor, there’s no issue of church finance before the court. This is clearly protected by the First Amendment. I would direct your attention to the memo submitted to—
(This is an amazing objection– as our picket signs focused on “church finance” and had done so from the very start. Also the line of questioning would further reveal the affiliation that Haywood denied)
THE COURT (Flournoy) I’ve read your memo. Overruled. You may answer.
HAYWOOD> A.. No. It’s strictly voluntary, sir.
Q. BY MR. LEDBETTER: That’s what the church asks for, isn’t it?
HAYWOOD> A.. Well, itÆs a biblical principle. It’s not what the church asks for.
LEDBETTER> Q> And the biblical principle that you’re talking about now is a planted church sends 10 percent of its income back up to the parent church, fair?
HAYWOOD> A. May I explain?
LEDBETTER> Q. Isn’t that true, sir?
(Realizing that he is snared by his previous false testimony, Haywood is becoming unresponsive. The issue of 10% to the top was argued hotly during the pickets and further demonstrates affiliation.)
THE COURT (Flournoy) Just answer his question.
HAYWOOD> A. Yes, it is.
Q. BY MR. LEDBETTER> Thank you. Where were you ordained, sir”?
HAYWOOD> A. Prescott, Arizona.
LEDBETTER> Q. By Wayman Mitchell?
HAYWOOD> A. Yes.
LEDBETTER> Q. You have no ordination in any other church organization or affiliation; isn’t that true?
(Notice that Ledbetter uses the word “affiliation.”– He emphasized this term strongly in the question)
HAYWOOD> A. That is true.
(Haywood is now facing a contradiction to what he had previously said twice with the words “no affiliation” He realizes that his affiliation is clearly implied in his ordination.)
LEDBETTER> Q> You are ordained as a Potters’s House minister, correct?
HAYWOOD> A. No. I’m ordained as a pastor in the Christian Fellowship Ministries.
(Sensing the trap of affiliation by ordination, Haywood evades the question.)
LEDBETTER> Q. Which is a name coming from Prescott, fair?
HAYWOOD> A. Fair. (Reluctant reply)
LEDBETTER> Q. Now. I’ve seen the logo on your church before. That same logo of the earth with flames coming out of it, that’s on the Prescott church, isn’t it?
(Visibly upset, Haywood senses where this question is leading him.)
HAYWOOD> A. Yes, it is.
LEDBETTER> Q. And it’s on this church here, too? Your one here in Flagstaff on Rose?
HAYWOOD> A. Right
—– END—–
COMMENTARY:
.
Having got what he wanted, Ledbetter then went off into a different line of questioning. But in this first court hearing, and there would be many more to follow, Mr. Haywood committed perjury and our attorneys repeatedly exposed it. Haywood lied throughout his testamony, and we would have exposed it in deposition of him and his wife– But they refused to be deposed. The above stated example dealing with his denial of “affiliation” with the Prescott Church sheds serious doubt about his credibility regarding his slanderous, and libelous claims against me and my friends in what was, and always has been — peaceful picketing. And none– not a single one of the police reports that he filed that led up to this court action supports any of his charges– and I have them all in my files
At this early stage in the case, June of ’95, no one was sure which way Judge Flournoy would go. And we all expected it to go to trial. But then things began to happen, mysterious things, such as a tape of Municipal Court proceedings that was vital to my defense and in the hands of the court being ERASED— AFTER, and over OUR objections, the court having given it to the Haywoods. This tape was essential to our defense, and for that reason should not have been given to the Haywoods.
And around the time of the start of our case very serious allegations regarding Judge J. Michael Flournoy’s competency as a Judge began to surface. He was later charged with court record tampering, agreements outside of court, and other violations. And this led to an 18 month suspension from the bench. He should have been canned– but this I am sure would have created a legal nightmare for Coconino County– thousands of cases could have been challenged.
I have compiled a site dealing with charges against him. Be sure to use your “BACK” button to return to this page. IT IS A MUST SEE at:
http://recall-flournoy.tripod.com/
This site was established for information purposes for those interested in Coconino Co. judicial elections, for we must take greater responisibiliy for those we put on a judicial bench.
A general internet search on Judge J. Michael Flournoy will produce the same results.
It is too bad that we were trapped in this corrupt Judge’s court. For had we known this man’s temperament and changed judges at an early stage, things I am sure would have come out differently.
But as it was, it was a nightmare for me, and my friends. Slandered and libeled in a court of law, by a mobster organization bent on destroying us with their virtually unlimited legal resources, we were on the ropes.
And though the ACLU might have defended us, the fact was that they could not because they had represented the Potters House in a case that they leveled against the Prescott School district a year or so before. (Legal conflict of interest) And the reason that the Haywood’s suit wound up in court at all was because Flagstaff has a archaic anti-sedition law relic from the WWII era that outlaws picketing {Flagstaff City Ord 6-1-19}. And this Potters House used as a basis to get their case started. The ACLU had in 1989 threatened to sue the City of Flagstaff on my behalf when the Potters House tried to use Ord. 6-1-19 against me. ACLU’s Louis Rhodes said as was reported in the AZ Daily Sun that this city ord “was the most draconian un-constitutional anti-picketing law that he had ever encountered.” This law is still on the books in Flagstaff, and is problematic for anyone that dares to picket for any reason, and is challenged by the target of the picket. (The ordinance definition of “intimidation and harassment” is too broad, and all inclusive)
The fact is that later in the case, in the discovery process, in June of ’96, the Haywoods refused to be deposed, and their case stalled. Flournoy forced us into a settlement, threatening that he would throw the case out if the Haywoods did not depose, giving us the impression that he might act fairly. Over the next six months our attorneys argued with Palmer over the terms of settlement. We admitted no guilt, and left the issue of attorney fees to the Judge, with the expectation that he would rule fairly, but instead he slapped us with a harsh judgement, without basis of fact, and Haywood’s attorney fees as if we were guilty. It went to appeal, but because we “settled” the higher court affirmed Judge Flournoy’s ruling. Before this, Mr. Haywood, on his own authority, as a title officer put a ONE MILLION DOLLAR lien against me, and my property. He did this without any authority from the court or his attorney. When he realized that this was a mistake, he took the action off my record. But the fact that it was done is still there on my record.
Judge Flournoy, after having gotten our depositions to the plaintiffs (putting us through 2 days of deposition– and getting nothing to incriminate us) should have thrown the case out the very instant that the plaintiffs refused to be deposed, especially after their perjury shown in the abore stated hearing, and many times later. And when it was our turn to depose them, using their previous perjury, they refused?
Had this case gone to trial, and we should have insisted on it, the jury would have seen the perjury of the plaintiffs and ruled against them, perhaps even sanctioning them with some jail time– of this I am certain.
My advice to anyone sued by Potter House over First Amendment issues– Go to trial, and DO NOT SETTLE UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY ON YOUR TERMS.
Steve Schoner, Life After Potters House.
See: Haywood’s Deposition 06/28/1995
EXCERPTS FROM Superior Court No. CV-95-118
EXCERPTS FROM
Superior Court No. CV-95-118
————————————————————————————-
DEPOSITION OF KENNETH HAYWOOD June 28, 1995
————————————————————————————-
KENNETH HAYWOOD; ANNE MARIE HAYWOOD, and the
FLAGSTAFF DOOR CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH,
An unincorporated association.
Plaintiffs,
Vs.
STEVEN RONALD SCHONER; DAVID CHARLES DIVER;
MARK FREEMAN;J DAVE OTTEMAN; MARK WORKMAN;
LOUIS P. MUCCITELLI; and JOHN and MARY DOES 1-X
Defendants.
———————————————————————————–
APPEARANCES:
DAVID PALMER, Attorney at Law (For plaintiffs)
MURPHY, LUTEY, SCHMIDT & BECK
By Thelton D. BECK, Attorney at Law (For defendant Schoner)
ASPEY, WATKINS & Diesel, P.L.L.C.
By James E. Ledbetter, Attorney at Law (For defendant Otteman)
RICHARD GRIMSRUD, Attorney at Law. (For defendant David C. Diver)
LOUIS P. MUCCITELLI (Appearing pro-per)
Also present:
Brent Haviland
Steve Schoner
Lou Muccitelli
Dave Otteman
Holly Karris
Mike Denius
Kim Miles
Pursuant to Notice and the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, and the deposition of KENNETH L. Haywood, called by Defendant David Otteman, was taken on Wednesday, June 28th, 1995, commencing at 904 a.m. at 123 North San Francisco Street, Suite 300, Flagstaff, Arizona, before Naola C Timesch, as Registered Professional Reporter, Superior Court Certified Reporter in Arizona, Certified Shorthand Reporter in California, Nevada, and Kansas, and a Notary Public in and for the State of Arizona.
INDEX
DEPOSITION OF KENNETH L. HAYWOOD:
EXAMINED BY:
Mr. Ledbetter p 4
Mr. BECK p.88
EXHIBITS (none)
——————————————————————————————————-
PROCEEDINGS
KENNETH L. HAYWOOD
Being first duly sworn by the Notary in the above cause, was examined and testified as follows.
EXAMINATION
( This file is very long, and you are welcome to download it so as to view it offline. As stated on pages 1 through 9 Mr. Ledbetter asks general work related questions regarding how Mr. Haywood came to Prescott and then to Flagstaff. Mr Haywood stated that before coming to Flagstaff in July of 1994 he worked in animal control, then as a title officer for several title companies. On page 9 of the transcript, Mr Haywood is questioned about his involvement with Wayman Mitchell, head of CFM, with regards to the “Door Church in Flagstaff)
If you have not read it, see: Haywood’s perjury of 06/06/1995
(ALL OF SCHONER’S OUT OF COURT COMMENTS AND RECOLLECTIONS WILL BE IN BLUE)
PAGE 9
LEDBETTER, Q: What was your tilte when you transferred back to Transamerican Title?
HAYWOOD A:. Commercial industrial title officer.
LEDBETTER Q: Up, down, or sideways in terms of career enhancement at First American Title?
HAYWOOD A: Upwards in position, downwards in salary.
LEDBETTER Q: So you took a pay cut to come back to Coconino County?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, I did.
LEDBETTER Q: I believe you previously testified it was in January of 1994 that you indicated to Wayman Mitchell that you would start a church in Flagstaff?
( This question leads from the previous Haywood court perjury on June 6th, 1995 where he states “no affiliation” to Wayman Mitchell and his Potters House in Prescott, AZ.)
HAYWOOD A: That is true.
LEDBETTER Q: And that direction or conversation occurred in Los Angeles; fair?
HAYWOOD A: After I accepted the position here.
LEDBETTER Q: When did you accept the position here?
HAYWOOD A: It was June of 1994.
LEDBETTER Q: Did Wayman Mitchell contact you or did you contact him?
HAYWOOD A: Contacted him.
LEDBETTER Q In Prescott?
HAYWOOD A, In Prescott.
LEDBETTER Q,. When did you first begin attending a Pottersã House Church?
(Mr. Palmer and the deponent (Haywood) conferred off the record.)
HAYWOOD A: WhenÓ
PALMER [Attorney for Haywood interrupts]: Iãm going to– we need to get something straight real quick, Jim. [Ledbetter]. You know, Iãve previously filed a motion for protective order about my clientãs religious beliefs, and practices. Those are not an issue in this case. We have a previously granted protective order. You know, my client is not going to answer question of that nature.
(Judge Flournoy, granted Haywood protection from “written interogatories” earlier, but not from the deposition process of discovery which was underway on June 28th, 1995. Mr. Palmer has erroneously assumed that that previous court order was for this deposition, and he had been previously warned by Judge Flournoy that the order was not to be construed to render protection from discovery processes. Palmer also sensed that this line of questioning would further demonstrate Mr. Haywoodãs previous perjury in the June 6th, 1995 Status Hearing.)
LEDBETTER: [In response] So it is your position that I canãt inquire as to the doctrine status of your client and compare it to any doctrinal status of any Potters House establishment or movement?
PALMER: Absolutely
LEDBETTER; And it is also your position that the defendants are picketing the wrong organization?
(Mr. Denius entered the room)
PALMER: What you can inquire into is the fact that my client has a church in Flagstaff, whether that is a legally independent church and his affiliation with that church and his status. His– any spiritual or religious affiliations or connections of any spiritual or religious nature are not going to be addressed at this deposition.
BECK [interjects]: No. We can inquire into anything that we believe to be relevant, material, or likely to be– lead to discoverable evidence. You can instruct him not to answer, and do that under the rules.
PALMER: Thatãs fine. Thatãs what I intend to do. Just so thereãs no misunderstand at this point.
LEDBETTER: Well— and I want to be clear. Your position is to affiliation, for example, includes any doctrinal consistencies; fair?
PALMER: I donãt understand your question.
LEDBETTER: Let me ask it— let me phrase it this way: It seems to be your position is that if these defendants wanted to protest Catholicism that they need to fly to Rome. Now, if they want— youãve heard yesterday all this testimony about matters of conscience. If they want to protest the Pottersãs House movement, what I at least hear coming form you is that they shouldnãt be protesting Ken Haywood, true?
PALMER: I still donãt understand your question (Palmer is being purposely dense here, perhaps hoping that the issue that he raised will go away)
LEDBETTER: Well, I think youãre trying to curtail the First Amendment activities of these defendants, quite candidly.
PALMER: No, Weãre not trying to curtail anything other than their abusive activity in abusing this church.
BECK : We donãt accomplish anything by putting the blabberings of counsel on record. Letãs proceed.
LEDBETTER: My inclination at this time is to go ahead and see if Flournoy has any time today for the judge to hear this issue and then resolve it. And that is where Iãd like to go with this. You donãt have any objection to that, do you Ted [Thelton Beck, attorney for Schoner]
BECK: None at all. During our —
LEDBETTER: Letãs take a five-minute break. I am going to call his [Flournoyãs] secretary and see if he has 10 minutes or so during the day, and there’s certainly other matters we can probe during that interim time so we donãt waste time.
PALMER: Fine.
(Recessed from 9:17 a.m. to 9:22 a.m.)
(Ledbetter makes the call and everyone returns to continue with Haywoodãs deposition)
LEDBETTER: Heãs going to call back in a few minutes with the time, or his secretary is. Thatãs who I spoke to, and theyãll buzz her through right in here.
Q: By LEDBETTER (to Haywood): Does your church have any sort of doctrinal statement?
PALMER: [interjects]: I would object. Instruct my client not to answer on the grounds that this is privileged confidential information, protected by the First Amendment, and that the court has no jurisdiction over my clientãs spiritual status, and my client does not intend to put his spiritual status before you at this time.
LEDBETTER Q: What theological training do you have?
PALMER [interjects]: I µm going to state the same objection as the previous question and instruct my client not answer.
LEDBETTER Q: [to Haywood]: Youãre ordained by Wayman Mitchell?
HAYWOOD A. Yes, I was.
PALMER [interjects]: Iãm going to instruct my client not to answer on the basis of the same objection as previously stated.
LEDBETTER [to Palmer]: Heãs already testified to this at the order to show cause hearing, Counsel. But it is your contention itãs not waived
(This question was brought up in prior testimony, on June 6th, 1995, Haywood admitted, after saying that there was no affiliation to Potters House, that he was ordained by Wayman Mitchell. And as you will see, Ledbetter focuses on this to further show Haywoodãs perjury)
PALMER [to Ledbetter] I objected at that time and I will continue to object. [Palmer turns to Haywood] Donãt answer until Iãve had a chance to state my objection.
LEDBETTER Q: Itãs your testimony that your church is not affiliated with the Pottersãs House movement, true?
PALMER: Object to the form of the question. My client has not stated any such thing, and if you wish to inquire as to any legal connection between my client and the Pottersãs House, please feel free to do so.
LEDBETTER [to Palmer]: So, youãre clear, Counsel. Iãm using his actual testimony form the hearing (June 6th, 1995, where Haywood committed perjury from the witness stand in court)
Q by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: Itãs your testimony that your church is solely independent of the Pottersãs House; is that true?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Do you mean legally independent?
Q by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: You can answer.
HAYWOOD A: Do you mean legally independent or–
LEDBETTER Q: Would it be your testimony the church is solely independent of the Potterãs House?
PALMER [interjects] Object to the form of the question. Itãs ambiguous. My client has stated that he wished to have the question clarified for him.
Q: by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: Is your church a part of any larger church?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Itãs ambiguous. Iãll state again, if you want to inquire as to— if youãre referring to some sort of legal connection, my client will answer.
LEDBETTER [to Palmer]: I need your client– your own question from page 6, line 17, of the transcript from the last hearing— (June 6th, 1995 hearing)
PALMER: Mr. Ledbetter, youãre going to waste everybodyãs time here. You know, my client is not going to answer questions of a spiritual nature.
LEDBETTER: Well, I just want to make it clear, and weãll create a record on this.
PALMER: Your question has spiritual connotations. Iãll restate my objection for the record and continue to do so.
Q: by LEDBETTER [to Haywood]: Do you have any legal affiliation with any other church or entity?
HAYWOOD A: N, I do not.
LEDBETTER Q: What is the current legal affiliation of your church?
HAYWOOD A: There is no current legal affiliation. It is solely independent (Haywood lies again, restating the lie that he initially said in the first hearing. Barring the fact that everyone there on the opening night, Aug 27th, 1994 were in the “impact team” from Wayman Mithcell’s church, in Prescott, there is “no affiliation” as Haywood said?)
:LEDBETTER: Q: What is the legal status of your church?
HAYWOOD: A: An unincorporated association.
LEDBETTER Q: Does it have any officer, directors, et cetera?
HAYWOOD A: It would have. Itãs only governing body, if the defendants here didnãt have a conspiracy to stop it from going–
BECK [interjects]: I move to strike that answer as being non-responsive and would let the record reflect that the answer was given before I had any opportunity to object to the unresponsive nature of the answer
.LEDBETTER: And I join.
Q: by LEDBETTER: What is the governing body of your legal affiliation?
HAYWOOD A: generally speaking, my past experience, when a church gets to a certain size, you— the church elects a treasurer and a secretary. This church as never been allowed to get to that size.
LEDBETTER A: You have a church membership of five?
HAYWOOD A: Thatãs correct.
LEDBETTER Q: And those five again, are you, your wife, Ken Pomorene and who else?
HAYWOOD A: Mike Sepeta and Randall Begay.
LEDBETTER Q: No others?
HAYWOOD A: No other formal members
LEDBETTER Q: .How many regular attenders are there?
HAYWOOD A: I had 19 Sunday morning.
LEDBETTER Q: is it your contention that the actions of the defendants have in any way impeded the growth of your church?
HAYWOOD A: Absolutely.
(At this point I will present all of the areas of Haywoods testimony interrupted by Palmer that would later be brought up by our attorneys in the hearing called for by Ledbetter regarding Palmer’s objections)
PAGE 22 of official transcript:
LEDBETTER Q: Other than with your counsel, did you discuss this matter with others before you brought suit?
HAYWOOD A: With others as in?
LEDBETTER Q: People other than you and your wife.
HAYWOOD A: No.
LEDBETTER Q: There was no collective meeting of your church body to discern if this suit should be brought?
HAYWOOD A: No.
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the previous question. Ask that the answer be stricken on the basis that it’s seeking privileged, confidential information, some of which is attorney-client privilege.
(This objection betrays the hidden events behind it. The lawsuit that Haywood launched in 1994 was discussed with Wayman Mitchell, and possibly David Palmer before hand. I have an inside source that overheard a conversation with Wayman Mitchell and one of those at the Flagstaff Potters House, where Mitchell said “Win or lose, in this lawsuit we will destroy the Flagstaff gang, [picketers] with legal fees.” This is the reason for Palmer’s objection, because we were exposing this in this deposition, or would have if we could have continued. Attorney-client privilege will be revisited in Judge Flournoy’s hearing regarding Palmer’s stonewalling later that day.)
Q: by LEDBETTER: The question to retain counsel for this suit was entirely yours and your wife’s, correct?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Instruct my client not to answer as the inquiry on the basis of attorney-client privilege.
Q: by LEDBETTER: What’s an impact team?
PALMER [interjects]: Object to the form of the question. Instruct my client not to answer as to the inquiry had now gone into the area of spiritual matters and practices.
LEDBETTER [interjects} And so the record’s clear, I’m just not going to make comment on them until the time we review them with the judge later today.
PALMER [interjects]: Jim, if I might, I might make some suggestion that might save some time. As a way of resolving the issue, I suggest what might be appropriate–
(Briref interruption. Judge Flournoy’s office called. Session recessed from 9:36 a.m. to 9:39 a.m)
LEDBETTER [interjects after the call} He [Flournoy] can see us aft 11.45. I’m sorry (to Palmer) you said maybe there was a suggestion to resolve this?
PALMER: Well, our position is going to be before Judge Flournoy that, you know, each of these questions you’re asking about spiritual beliefs and spiritual practices is different. You know, it’s our position that some may be relevant, such as the status of his church here in Flagstaff. It’s when you get afield in what goes on in a particular church.. So, you know, we can’t say that we’re going to object to every question you ask because our research has indicated that if it’s in a particular reference, you know, there are situations where it may be relevant, you know, if it’s relevant with t respect to a particular secular issue. It’s very difficult for us to know where you’re going in this. You know, our position is going to be that if you want to ask these types of questions, we’re probably going to object to every one, and it might save time to doi, instead of by deposition, by written questions because some of them we may not object to. The one’s we can, you know, we can object to those.
(The statement that Palmer has just made is bogus, because on June 6th, 1995, Flournoy had granted Palmer his motion prohibiting “written interogatories” in other words, a written deposition. And that, written questions, is what Palmer wants now? He cannot have it both ways, and Flournoy will bring that up in the hearing later that morning, chiding Palmer harshly. On June 6th when the motion against written interogatories was granted Flournoy advised that he would grant it, but that the motion could not protect Haywood from the process of discovery, of which the deposition was part of that process.)
You know, we’re not going to object to what– you know, he’s going to go ahead and all the— you know, and answer all of your questions in terms of what happened at the church, but everything having to do or most everything having to do with the Potter’s House is going to be a problem.
BECK [interrupts]: With all due respect for your attempt to save us time, David, you didn’t save us any time. Without regard for Mr. Ledbetter, that’s totally unacceptable to me. I’m not prepared to take your deposition. I want to take the deposition of Mr. and Mrs. Haywood, so we are going to do it orally. Whatever time it takes.
(BECK has in this disputed Palmer’s demand for written questions rather than oral ones. Judge Flournoy already gave Palmer a motion against written questions, and now Palmer insists that oral question are not allowed.)
LEDBETTER: And I am in agreement. I’m going to proceed with the deposition.
PALMER: Well, our position is going to be, when we go over there, I going to tell him [Flournoy] we can’t anticipate, you know our objections to every question you’re going to ask because we don’t know every question you’re going to ask. And just because you make a ruling in general, you know, that’s not going to solve the problem.
BECK: Well, you’ve told us you’re going to fight us every step of the way. It now sounds like you’re going to make us get a court order every question, every step of the way.
PALMER: Every question that clearly gets into inadmissible evidence If you’ve read my brief, you know, the courts have no jurisdiction over religious or spiritual matters. You are inquiring into an area that is clearly improper and we’re not going to give on that issue.
LEDBETTER: We, you’ve read my brief on this issue, and we just respectively disagree.
PALMER: Yes. You’ve lost on this once and we want the opportunity to be fully heard and fully brief on each question if you’re going to continue to press this issue.
Q: by LEDBETTER: Let’s move on.
(On pages 27 Ledbetter asks Haywood if the term “cult” is offensive, Haywood responds “yes” and that the term has hurt his church which according to his personal experience should be for the length of time spent in Flagstaff about 35 to 50 people.)
On page 27
LEDBETTER Q: And what do you base that notion of 35 to 50 upon?
HAYWOOD A: Past experience.
LEDBETTER: Q: Where?
HAYWOOD: A: Lancaster, California. Yarnell, Arizona
LEDBETTER Q: In Lancaster, California, were you involved with some church organization there?
HAYWOOD A: It was an independent church. (He lies again, with this blatant evasion of the question)
LEDBETTER Q: What was the name of it?
HAYWOOD A: The Potters House
LEDBETTER Q: The church that you’ve referenced in Glendale, California, what was the name of it?
HAYWOOD: A: The Potter’s House
LEDBETTER: Q: And the church in Yarnell, Arizona, what was the name of it?
HAYWOOD A: The Potters House
LEDBETTER Q: And so the experience that you’ve— strike that. You’re analysis that there should be 35 to 50 members currently within your Flagstaff church is based upon your experience in those other three churches, true?
HAYWOOD A: That’s true.
LEDBETTER Q: Any other basis for determining that you should be at 35 to 50 members?
HAYWOOD A: I have several friends who are pastors, and that’s been their experience as well.
(Take note of the namesÓ All CFM pastors, and solely affiliated to Wayman Mitchell.)
LEDBETTER Q: Who are they?
HAYWOOD A: A list? Eric Kramer.
LEDBETTER Q: Who else?
HAYWOOD A: Crea Copeland.
(skip a few lines regarding questions of the spelling)
LEDBETTER Q: Who else, if any?
HAYWOOD A: Richard Cox. Gordon Porter. I could go on. How far do you want me to go?
LEDBETTER Q: Well, are these all persons that have helped you reach your conclusion that you should have a larger church at this juncture?
HAYWOOD A: These are all persons that have pastored churches, and their churches are at this juncture that are at the same stages that I’m saying.
LEDBETTER Q: If there are more, please tell me.
HAYWOOD A: I’m drawing a mental blank here. Give me just a second. Mark Tozer, Mark Olson, Peter Olson, Mark Hurlow, Dan Atherton, Roger Fisher. I can produce a lot better list for you. I just at this particular juncture in time that’sÓ
LEDBETTER Q: These individuals are the ones you can think of at this time?
HAYWOOD A: Right.
LEDBETTER Q: Eric Kramer, what’s the name of his church, if you know?
HAYWOOD A: The Potter’s House
LEDBETTER Q: Crea Copeland, what’s the name of his church?
HAYWOOD A: He’s not pastoring at this time.
LEDBETTER Q: The experience that you’re drawing upon, what type– what was the name of the church that he was pastor of? (Notice that Ledbetter uses the word “experience” in the phrase as in “you’re drawing upon. ” This word will come up again at which point Palmer will render an objection as Ledbetter attempts to further pin down Haywood in his perjury)
HAYWOOD A: The Potter’s House.
LEDBETTER Q: Richard Cox, same question?
HAYWOOD A; The Potters House
LEDBETTER Q: Gordon Porter, same question?
HAYWOOD A: The Potters House
LEDBETTER A: Mark Tozer, same question?
HAYWOOD A: The Door.
LEDBETTER Q Mark Olsen, same question?
HAYWOOD A: Victory Chapel
LEDBETTER Q: Peter Olson?.
HAYWOOD A: The Door.
LEDBETTER Q: Mark Hurley
HAYWOOD A: The Door.
LEDBETTER Q: Roger Fisher
HAYWOOD A: The Potter’s House.
LEDBETTER Q: Dan Atherton.
HAYWOOD A: He’s not pastoring at this time.
LEDBETTER Q: Based upon the experience that you’re drawing upon, what was the name of the church that he was pastoring?
HAYWOOD A: Victory Chapel. (sensing a problem of affiliation in all of his answers thus far he adds) All independent churches.
LEDBETTER Q: Does your church keep records of people who do visit?
HAYWOOD A: Sometimes if they fill out a visitor card.
LEDBETTER Q: Visitor cards are available somewhere in the church?
HAYWOOD A: Yes they are.
LEDBETTER Q: Is it encouraged from the pulpit for people to sign or complete a visitor’s card?
PALMER [interjects] Again, I’m going to object on the basis of you’re now intruding into religious practices and instruct my client not to answer.
Q: by LEDBETTER: Is there any– strike that. Is there any documentary evidence or written materials which would help us to contact people who have visited who for some reason or another have not subsequently returned to your church?
HAYWOOD A: Not a very complete thing because it’s not something that I even ask anybody to do soÓ
LEDBETTER Q: Well, tell me of what the incomplete record is of a visitor’s attendance, if any.
HAYWOOD A: I would have to go through the records. I couldn’t tell you that.
LEDBETTER Q: And the best source of this information would be these visitor’s cards that you described?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, it would.
(The reason that Mr. Ledbetter focused on membership cards and names was that he intended to subpoena these people as impartial witnesses as to our conduct as picketers and contrast what they observed and what Mr Haywood alleged in his lawsuit)
LEDBETTER then turns to Palmer. Q: So I’m clear, Counsel, you’re instructing him not to answer any questions on ordination or training?
PALMER: I’ll read to you from the Am. Jur. That covers my objection.
LEDBETTER: (sharply) I don’t what you to read to me. I’m just want you to tell me, if I probe ordination and training, you’re not going to instruct him not to answer, right?
PALMER: Yes.
(The issue of ordination by Wayman Mitchell was asked in the June 6th, hearing. And for whatever reason that Palmer sees fit, it cannot be probed in this deposition under “spiritual practices” as defined by Palmer)
The record continues for several pages, After questions and answers from Haywood regarding his role as Potter’s House pastor in Glendale, California and Yarnell Arizona, and his relationship to Coney Orasco, a Potters House pastor, Ledbetter on page 38 continues:
LEDBETTER Q: Are thee any other contexts in which you’ve met or discussed anything with Conrad Orosco?
HAYWOOD A: He was the pastor of the Flagstaff church when I met him. I met on two separate occasions. I was introduced to him. That’s about the extent of it.
LEDBETTER Q: Where were you when you met him?
HAYWOOD A: At the Prescott International Bible Conference.
(skip two lines)
LEDBETTER Q: I don’t know what— I don’t want to know the nature of your training, but have you received training at the International Bible Conference? (Notice that Ledbetter was clear in stating that he did not want to know the nature of the training, but only wanted to know if such training was provided at the Prescott Conference. An affirmation would affirm affiliation, which Haywood has repeatedly denied.)
PALMER: Again, I’m going to object on the basis that you’re now inquiring into religious beliefs and practices, and so I’m instructing him not to answer on the basis of First Amendment religious privilege.
(Over the next six pages Ledbetter asks questions regarding State record requirements, Mark Workman and Rick Ross, and a CFM dossier of “crimes” on both. Haywood was asked how he came to know of that, and he stated that he came to know about it as a member of the Prescott Church Potters House church, pastored by Wayman Mitchell, further establishing affiliation that Haywood denied.)
On page 47:
LEDBETTER Q: I don’t want to know the substance of it, but does your church practice in something called the shepherding doctrine?
PALMER [interjects] Again, I object. My question again addresses my client’s religious beliefs and practices, and instruct him not to answer on the basis of First Amendment religious privilege and confidentiality.
Q: by LEDBETTER: Same question with respect o the headship doctrine.
PALMER: Same objection as stated to the last question.
(These two subjects were on our picket signs, they were also issues in our protest of all CFM churches. Whenever these subjects are brought up in questioning Palmer purposely objects. And this will be addressed in the meeting slated later that day
Over the next 9 pages Ledbetter asks specific medical questions that Haywood raised regarding a “heart attack” that he said was the result of “stress” he endured from our picketing. He stated that he had the medical records to prove it. So do I, as they were subpoenaed in by our lawyers in the course of this litigation. They reveal that Haywood, aged 30 at the time DID NOT have a heart attack. Yet he included that alleged heart attack in his lawsuit. Ledbetter then focuses on Ron Berell [sic Berl]. )
Continued on page 56
LEDBETTER Q: Berl. [sic Ron Berell]
HAYWOOD A: I have– I’ve never even met the man. I have no idea.
LEDBETTER Q: At least according to the testimony yesterday, a potential pastor for the Potter’s House Church, Ron Berl?
HAYWOOD A: I think he was removed for moral indiscretion several years ago before I was ever on the scene.
LEDBETTER Q: By whom; do you know?
HAYWOOD: A: I wouldn’t have any idea.
LEDBETTER Q: Are you subject in any way to removal for–
HAYWOOD A: I could lose my ordination.
PALMER [interjects]: Again, I’m going to object to the question as probing into the area of religious practices and organization, and assert the First Amendment religious privilege and confidentiality and instruct my client not to answer.
LEDBETTER: And you’ll instruct him not answer any further question regarding removal or ordination?
PALMER: Yes.
(This is crucial point in the deposition. The subjects of ordination, and who it was that ordained Haywood, (Wayman Mitchell) is a point that the plaintiffs brought up, all the while saying that there is “no affiliation” Simply stated: Ordination establishes affiliation to the head body of the churchÓ any church. And Palmer is doing his best to avoid having Haywood answer that question.)
Q: by LEDBETTER: Have you spoken to Wayman Mitchell regarding this litigation?
{Haywood pauses, turns to Palmer)
PALMER: You can go ahead and answer.
HAYWOOD A: Yes I have.
LEDBETTER Q: What did you and he discuss about this?
HAYWOOD A: Generalities. Hoping that the litigation would end and we’ve been going through and we’re able to build a church.
LEDBETTER Q: Did you discuss this with Mr. Mitchell before you brought the suit?
HAYWOOD A: I don’t believe I did, but I may have.
( A very evasive answerÓ From my inside source, I was told that Haywood in the weeks before did discuss this with Mitchell, and both agreed to launch the lawsuit. As it was reported to me, by an inside source that Mitchell said, “Win or lose, we will destroy the Flagstaff Gang with legal fees”)
LEDBETTER Q: Just average, how often do you speak with Wayman Mitchell?
HAYWOOD A: Every other month or so. Maybe— Maybe once a month.
LEDBETTER Q:. And are there regular meeting set with him?
HAYWOOD A: No, there is not.
LEDBETTER Q: Do you report to him in any manner with respect to the running of your church?
PALMER [interjects] Again, I am going to object that the questions now obviously are directed to a religious organization, to a religious organizational focus which is protected by the First Amendment, and I’ll instruct my client not to answer.
(And that question that Palmer is objecting to is instrumental in proving affiliation that Haywood has denied. He has tried to separate himself from Mitchell, but this question regarding whether Mitchell has any input into how Haywood’s church is run is telling. The fact that Palmer does not want him to answer is very revealing and a move to avert perjury. For it is widely known that Mitchell has complete control of each and every one of his subsidiary churches and their pastors.)
Q: By LEDBETTER: Regarding this litigation, have you discussed any particular picketing incidents with Mr. Mitchell?
HAYWOOD A: I don’t— I can’t recall any specific time. I’m not sure.
(Mr. Palmer and the deponent conferred of the record) (They whispered to each other, for this was a sensitive question)
LEDBETTER: In fact, let’s go ahead and take care of this. You don’t mind, have any objection to marking this as an exhibit. We’ll make that collectively 1. (Ledbetter took from Palmer, and presented to the court, Dr. Howley’s report of Haywood’s alleged “heart attack.”)
LEDBETTER Q: So that I’m clear with respect to your medical history, other than the records that you’ve produced today, you don’t know of any other physician involvement with regard to your heart?
HAYWOOD A: No.
LEDBETTER Q: And that was a bad question. Let me ask it this way: There is no other physician other than Dr. Howley, right?
HAYWOOD A: Right.
LEDBETTER Q: And to your knowledge there are no other records other than what you’ve produced today?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
(Ledbetter over the next two pages questioned Haywood regarding the pickets at the Prescott conferences)
On Page 60 Ledbetter asks about the signs:
LEDBETTER Q: You’ve seen the word “sucks” on these signs?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, I have.
LEDBETTER Q: And I believe it’s your testimony that that’s offensive to you?
HAYWOOD A: Highly.
LEDBETTER Q: Highly offensive? (Ledbetter said this with a great deal of skepticism)
HAYWOOD A: Yes.
LEDBETTER Q: What does the term mean to you?
HAYWOOD A: It has definite sexual connotations.
LEDBETTER Q: Even in the context it’s used in your opinion, it’s highly offensive?
(the sign referred to said ” THIS CULT $UCK$” with the S in dollar signs)
HAYWOOD A: I don’t think you can change the word.
LEDBETTER Q: So, to you it would be highly offensive regardless of the context it’s used?
HAYWOOD A: Absolutely.
LEDBETTER Q: So, if you’re driving home today hypothetically and you see a sign that says, “Racism sucks,” you would find that offensive?
HAYWOOD A: I would find the word offensive in any context it’s used.
LEDBETTER Q: If you see a sign that says, “KKK sucks,” you would find that highly offensive?
HAYWOOD A: I wouldn’t find what they stand for offensive but I would find the word offensive no matter what context it’s use in.
LEDBETTER Q: And you have brought this litigation with respect to the word “sucks” to prevent it being used in front of your congregation?
HAYWOOD A: Among man, many other things.
LEDBETTER Q: Fair? I want to focus on the word sucks for just a moment. Regardless of the context it’s used, it would be inappropriate to be used in front of your congregation?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
LEDBETTER Q: And that is one of the aspects for which you brought this suit?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
LEDBETTER Q: On the times you’ve seen this word “sucks” on the plaque cards or signs carried in front of your church, the S’s have all been dollar signs, correct?
HAYWOOD A: I believe that is true.
LEDBETTER Q: So if someone were carrying the sign that says, “Jim and Tammy Baker sucks” and the S being a dollar sign, that would be offensive to you?
HAYWOOD A: Yes, it would.
LEDBETTER Q: If someone carried a sign that said, “The PTL sucks” and the S being a dollar sign, that would be offensive to you?
HAYWOOD A: Regardless of the truth of their message, it would be an offensive slogan.
LEDBETTER Q: One you think the government should prevent?
HAYWOOD A: In a certain context.
LEDBETTER Q: In the PTL context?
HAYWOOD A: If they’re around children, absolutely.
LEDBETTER Q: IN the Jim and Tammy Baker example?
HAYWOOD A: I have no respect for them, but, yeah, because of the word, yes.
(The above I find very interesting, as did our attorney’s, for in the local paper on the front page was an article that said in bold “Smoking Sucks” Haywood’s argument against us using it with dollar signs instead of an S they would find offensive because they got the intent, which was money)
Ledbetter asks specific questions in the deposition regarding David Otteman, Mark Workman and Lou Muccitelli, and there alleged actions in picking Haywood’s church. Haywood, as usual, states that they were shouting and blocking the entrances to the chruch on Murdock and at Rose Street. Rick Ross is also mentioned by Haywood as a “convicted child molester.” The fact is that Rick Ross WAS NOT convicted of that crime. Rick Ross was, however convicted of a jewel robbery when in his twenties. He did his time, and did extensive community service afterwards. But he as never a “convicted child molester” as Haywood states. For the rest of the Haywood deposition, Palmer does not lob any objections until Page 84.
On page 84
LEDBETTER Q: What is a discipleship meeting?
HAYWOOD A: It’s a–
PALMER [interjects] Object to the form of the question, and I’m going to instruct my client not to answer if it refers to his church. If you want to ask him anything that was said about this— if he has anything that was said about this– if he has any information about this incident that was discussed yesterday with respect to Mr. Diver and Mr. Muccitelli, I don’t have a problem with that. But with respect to Ken’s church I am going to instruct him not to answer and invoke the First Amendment privilege.
LEDBETTER [retorts angrily] We’ll I’ll be asking both.
Q: LEDBETTER: Let’s start first with do you have any knowledge with a discipleship meeting as testified to yesterday by Mr. Diver or Mr. Schoner or Mr. Muccitelli?
HAYWOOD A: If it involved discipleship meeting that transpired in Prescott when I was a member of that church, I probably would have been present, but I can’t tell you which one it would have been. I have no knowledge of it.
LEDBETTER Q: Do you recall these defendants ever being mentioned in any discipleship meeting?
HAYWOOD A: Never. That’s unheard of to mention somebody’s mane over the pulpit. That’s a horrible violation.
(A “horrible violation” ? How about Wayman calling Rick Ross by name over the pulpit when he said “And that faggot, Rick Ross” I have it on video tape, as Wayman struts behind the pulpit hummÓ and we were not mentioned at any time over the pulpit either”? By the strength of Haywood’s denial, I think otherwise . Ledbetter caught the strength of Haywood’s “horrible violation” answer)
LEDBETTER Q: A horrible violation of what?
PALMER [interjects] I’m going to object to the form of the question. You’re now into religious practice.
LEDBETTER (angry) Your client brought it up, Counsel.
PALMER: I’m instruction him that he has the right to assert his First Amendment privilege and that he is not require dot answer.
LEDBETTER Q: Does your church encourage street preaching?
PALMER [interjects] Object to the question on the grounds of First Amendment privilege and confidentiality and advise my client that he’s not required to answer.
LEDBETTER Q: Do you have any belief as to whether the defendants are Christian?
HAYWOOD A: I have no opinion
LEDBETTER Q: Do you have reason to believe that defendants are not Christian?
HAYWOOD A: I have no opinion. I don’t know any of them to make that kind of judgement.
(Would have been nice to have had a tape recorder to record what he said to us when we were picketing from Aug 27th, 1994 and on. Haywood’s “opinion” then, before this deposition was “Devils” “Children of Satan” “backsliders” “Rick Ross’s faggots” and I certainly wish I had my recorder when he asked me on Aug 27th, “You are a faggot, arenãt you” and also other not very Christian names)
LEDBETTER Q Do you as a Christian feel there’s any prohibition to one Christian suing another?
HAYWOOD A: Do I feel–
PALMER [interjects] Again, I’m going to object to the question in that it calls for a religious belief and advise my client that he’s not required to express his religious beliefs or practice because there is a First Amendment privilege.
(1 Cor. Ch. 6. V. 1-7Ó Paul’s exhortation regarding Christians sewing Christians sheds light on this topic)
LEDBETTER Q: Assume for a moment that somebody within the congregation felt that a church was ripping somebody off. Do you think that the congregation al member should speak out on that?
HAYWOOD A; I believe they should probably approach their pastor or their council member s and mat that request– make that known to them.
LEDBETTER Q: Assume that the persons they approached in the local congregation took no action. What should they do then?
HAYWOOD A: This is hypothetical?
LEDBETTER Q: Sure.
PALMER [interjects] Are you asking in a religious sense or in a secular sense? Because if you’re asking in a religious sense, I’m going to instruct my client not to answer. He may answer with respect to any secular action that he might take.
Q by LEDBETTER: Answer it in the a secular sense.
HAYWOOD A: I suppose you’d get an attorney and work it through in the legal system.
LEDBETTER Q: And that would be the secular approach?
HAYWOOD A: Correct.
LEDBETTER Q: I think you answered this question a little earlier. You believe it’s appropriate to call the police any time these picketers come, solely because the police told you to do so? That’s your testimony?
HAYWOOD A: Not solely because the police told me to do so, Because I certainly feel threatened.
LEDBETTER Q: Have you ever told these defendants that you would have them arrested?
HAYWOOD A: Have I personally ever told them that?
LEDBETTER Q: Yes.
HAYWOOD A: Not to my recollection. (This is a blatant lie. He did threaten to have us arrested from day one, Aug 27th, 1994 and on. Each time we picketed he called the police to make his wish to have us arrested known to them and to us)
LEDBETTER Q: Have you ever heard anyone in your church tell them that?
HAYWOOD A: Not to my recollection.
LEDBETTER: Let me review my notes for a few minutes. Mr. BECK, you want to proceed?
BECK” I will.
END of EXCERPTS
COMMENTARY
BECK proceeded the deposition of Haywood with no further interruptions from Palmer, and continued for several more pages before Judge Flournoy called for the deposition hearings regarding Palmer’s objections.
What is noteworthy in this is that Palmer uses not the Fifth Amendment, but the First Amendment, which he invokes at least 35 times, and construes to impart to him in this lawsuit that Potters House launched, special privileges and religious protection.
What is telling in his objections is the direction of the questions that promoted Palmer’s objections. Ledbetter hammered key points of affiliation, ordination, church practice, and the fact that all the names of those “solely independent” churches were by Christian Fellowship pastors, all ordained and answerable only to Wayman Mitchell in Prescott, AZ. The fact that Palmer did not want questions into those areas was not for his, or even Judge Flournoy’s notion of “religious protection” but to protect his client, Ken Haywood from further perjury. And Palmer will be “dressed down” by Judge Flournoy for stymieing our deposition of his client in the next hearing.
According to Lou Muccitelli, who was there in that hearing as pro-per, Flournoy shouted his final statement out at Palmer. The words recorded were not as pallid as the transcript reads. I was outside the courtroom for Flournoy wanted no defendants other than their attorney’s present. Lou Muccitelli was allowed in that hearing, for Flournoy had no other choice but to allow him in as he was representing himself in the action. And though I did not see what was transpiring, I heard it outside the courtroom as Flournoy shouted at Palmer.
When it was over, Lou came out of the courtroom with a big smile, and gave me a thumbs up. As we were returning to the Aspy building to continue the deposition, he and our attorneys said that Palmer got a real dressing down, and that we should be open to settling the case, rather than seeing it go to trial.
And that is what Palmer wanted to do, rather than get back into the deposition room. Our lawyers thought we were on the top, and the fact that Flournoy hammered Palmer, to settle, and from this they construed that Flournoy was siding with us.
Wrong!
After six months of further hearings over a settlement, we all finally agreed that we would adhere to Flournoy’s injunction that allowed our picketing out at a distance of no closer than 130 yards, and that we admitted to none of the charges that Haywood leveled at us in his lawsuit, and Haywood retracted the charges.
Flournoy then unjustly slapped us with all of Palmer’s attorney fees, $27,500, after wards— as if we were guilty, which was not the case, nor had it ever been proven in a court of law before a jury.
Flournoy did the unexpected, and we reacted based on his terrible record:
See:
http://recall-flournoy.tripod.com/
He is no longer a Judge.
The entire document of the short hearing:
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Hearing re Request for Protective Order
Re Deposition Questions
June, 28th, 1995
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCONINO
In these proceedings on June 28th, 1995, Judge J. Michael Flournoy was called during the depositions of the Haywoods. Repeatedly, Mr. Palmer interrupted with objections rendering our deposition of Mr. Haywood a sham. Our lawyers decided after nearly a dozen Palmer objections that enough was enough. They called Judge Flournoy for a hearing on the matter. Judge Flournoy was very annoyed, and according to Lou Muccitelli, who was representing himself in that hearing, Flournoy entered the courtroom without his Judge garb. Defendants with representation were barred from the hearing. The following is a transcript of that hearing. All of my remarks between the official Court record will be in blue
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF COCONINO
KENNETH HAYWOOD, ANNE MARIE HAYWOOD,..)
and the FLAGSTAFF DOOR CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP..)
CHURCH, an unincorporated association..)
Plaintiffs,..)
.) No. CV- 95-0118
STEVEN R. SCHONER, DAVID CHARLES DIVER,.)
MARK DOUGLAS FREEMAN, DAVE OTTEMAN,..)
MARK WORKMAN, LOUIS P. MUCCITELLI, and)
JOHN and MARY DOES, I — X…)
Defendants,.)
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Hearing re Request for Protective Order
Re Deposition Questions
June 28, 1995
HON. J. MICHAEL FLOURNOY, Judge Division 1
APPEARANCES
DAVID PALMER, ESQ
On behalf of Plaintiffs
RICHARD GRIMSRUD, ESQ
On behalf of Defendant DIVER
THELTON BECK, ESQ
On behalf of Defendant Schoner
JAMES E. LEDBETTER, ESQ.
On behalf of Defendant Otteman
LOUIS P. MUCCITELLI,
In Propria Persona
KATHRYN S. ANDERSON, RPR
Official Court Reporter.
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: Give me a number, this case number.
MR. LEDBETTER: 95-118.
THE COURT: This is case number. 95-118. This is — its various plaintiffs. Give them the names. Someone read the names for the record.
MR. PALMER: Steven Schoner, David diver, Mark Freeman who is going to be dismissed.
THE COURT: Et al. versus the Flagstaff Christian door fellowship; is that right?
MR. PALMER: I’m sorry, Your Honor. It’s Ken Haywood and Marie Haywood in the Flagstaff door Christian Fellowship Church, plaintiffs, versus Steven Ronald Schoner , David Diver, Mark Freeman, Dave Otteman, Mark Freeman, Lewis Muccitelli.
THE COURT: OK. In any event, for the record a court was contacted by someone from Aspey, Watkins and Diesels office, of which Mr. Ledbetter is a member, asking if this court would hear a motion or would discuss — would discuss the matter with the attorneys. The court was aware — I don’t know how I was aware this is apparently the date for the depositions. And I don’t know how I was aware but I guess someone told me today was the day. Anyway, I said I would have no objection, and were in court today. And why don’t you go ahead for the record state who you represent, Mr. Palmer.
MR. PALMER: Your Honor, I represent the plaintiffs.
THE COURT: OK. And Mr. Beck.
MR. BECK: I’m Ted Beck. I’m a lawyer from Prescott. I represent Steve Schoner.
THE COURT: And Mr. Ledbetter.
MR. LEDBETTER: Jim Ledbetter representing defendant David Otteman; excuse me, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Grimsrud?
MR. GRIMSRUD: time and during an appearance for David Diver, Your Honor.
MR. MUCCITELLI: I’m appearing representing myself.
THE COURT: And apparently after discussing the matter with the attorneys there is a request for protective order by Mr. Palmer in regards to questions being asked at the deposition. So, Mr. Palmer, you have the floor to give your reason why you need a protective order.
MR. PALMER: Your Honor, I’m going to ask the court to issue a protective order consistent with the protective order that this court has already granted with respect to Mr. Otteman’s Interrogatories. I can — want me to read that to you or show you?
THE COURT: Whatever you want to do.
MR. PALMER: Let me read the ones that I’m particularly concerned about at this point.
No. 1, which you previously granted was, state and specify In detail all church tenets, doctrines, theological statements, missions, goals and philosophies.
2. Describe in detail all church practices, celebrations, rituals, conditions of membership and ceremonies.
Describe in detail all sources of church revenue, subsistence and income.
Describe in detail all charitable organizations which benefit from church revenue or income.
I would ask that the court reaffirm that protective order with respect to issues that came up in depositions and that it be extended to cover any spiritual matters existing between plaintiffs and any other person or church. I’ve no objection to them inquiring into any connections or if they can show there some secular matter that some secular relevance of what they’re trying to get to, I have no objection to that.
THE COURT: Mr. Ledbetter, Mr. Beck, whatever.
MR. BECK: Well, Ted Beck Your Honor. What we’re hearing from Mr. Palmer and what has been transpiring this morning during our attempts to depose his client really don’t ring the same way. And I frankly believe the less the court could see the questions and the objections are made to have actually — where the record has already been made this morning, the court really is being asked to rule kind of in the dark.
THE COURT: I agree.
MR. BECK: I don’t think this is a proper proceeding. Each question would be a different ruling. He’s told us he’s going to find us on every question I’ve asked him. You mean we have to go to the judge on each particular question —
(And this is a crucial point that Mr. Beck has brought up, insofar as Mr. Palmer has objected to just about anything that was asked of his client, Mr. Haywood in the deposition.)
THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Beck, what do you want to find out? I understand depositions — I’ve always been able to ask almost any question available at the time of deposition but I don’t think religious practice under these people have — the people that testified — you can correct me if I’m wrong — but there’s large sums donated to the predecessor of this church. There is an allegation that this church is associated with the Prescott church and that this church, I think there is in the admission by the reverend, they gave 10% or something to the Prescott church, or words to that effect. Now what you want to go into? I think that I would grant in regard to the practices because I think the testimony was that they’d like to, you know, do away with this church. But I’m not going to let you go into the practices. What information do you want?
MR. BECK: Let me make a prefatory statement if I may, Your Honor. I really don’t believe that the religious practices of the plaintiff Church or any of the churches it might be affiliated with have a relevance and are frankly no concern to me in my preparation to me in my preparation to me to present my defendants case. However, there is a relationship that exists between this preacher and previous members of that religion.
THE COURT: In Prescott?
MR. BECK: Prescott, Glendale, Lancaster, Yardale.
THE COURT: What’s Lancaster? California.
MR. BECK: Lancaster, California to which he has testified this morning. Let me give you two examples as to why I think you’re being asked to rule in the dark. I frankly suggest you not rule at all today. The two examples are at one point in a deposition proceedings this morning Mr. Haywood mentioned that either someone had been or should have been — seems to me a pastor of one of the door churches had been removed from his ordination, which is not the term he uses, had been revoked. And —
THE COURT: Where was that minister, in Prescott or here?
MR. BECK: I don’t know they even identified the person. If he did, I don’t remember. But Mr. Ledbetter attempted to ask him, is there anyone who has similar authority over you? And the objection was made that that invades the protective religious privilege and we got an instruction not to answer. A different example is you may recall there was testimony here are the night of the order to show cause hearing about impact teams and that there was an impact team present to assist in the opening night, August 27. The question today was asked, something to the effect, what is an impact team? Response, object, and instruction not to answer. That invades their religious privileges.
A COURT: I understand where you’re coming from. Let Jim argue. Mr. Ledbetter.
MR. LEDBETTER: Thank you, Your Honor. I’ll be very brief.
The allegations against my client is that he caused emotional damages because he referred to them as a cult and that their reaction to that was that they had physical manifestations. It, including a heart attack, because my client called him a cult, or some heart palpitations or something that’s in the complaint.
(The “heart attack” that Mr. Haywood claimed was not founded or supported in any medical records from his physician. I have those records that were subpoenaed for the Court record– no heart attack, mild or otherwise was indicated for a 30 year old man, which Mr. Haywood was at the time.)
I should be inclined to discover information as to the religious practices if the term cult is inappropriate. And, in fact, in the Jerry Falwell case versus Hustler Magazine, our U.S. Supreme Court said that if there is truth in the statements said, you can’t have emotional harm from the statement being said because of my clients first amendment privileges.
Your Honor, if there is any allegation that the signs are inappropriate, that they have threatening, that the content is wrong, we should be able to know what, in fact, is happening. That’s one issue.
The second issue, Your Honor, you can’t get emotional damages if your reaction to a statement is unreasonable. That’s Arizona law. You have to have a reasonable reaction to what was said. It can’t be a severe outrage or distress if, in fact, it’s truthful or that there is a reasonable basis for that. We’re being prevented from understanding what, in fact, is going on in terms of these church practices.
And finally, they opened the door by in this hearing saying, were solely independent, we have no relationship to Prescott, except to their credit they said there is a spiritual affiliation. Your Honor, they opened the door on that issue and we should be able to —
THE COURT: Mr. Grimsrud.
MR. GRIMSRUD: Your Honor, I’m new to this case.
THE COURT: Welcome aboard.
MR. GRIMSRUD: I have — perhaps a different viewpoint after the last testimony as per this court’s order per page three. The connection between Prescott and this church is of great practical importance to the determinations in this case thus far. Quote, these defendants went against plaintiffs Haywood without even knowing them or their teachings, end quote. That’s from the order.
Now the defendant also made this a significant issue in at least one of the pleadings as I have a copy of, and legal memorandum regarding competing First Amendment rights; says the defendant didn’t — they were picketing against his predecessor church, had absolutely nothing you do with Mr. Heywood’s church.
THE COURT: So what are you saying?
MR. GRIMSRUD: Well, here’s what I saw. Mr. Beck cited two examples. Here’s what I saw in the deposition I sat in on this morning. There was a blanket objection to many questions relating to religious beliefs and practices. In one of those objections was, I believe, that who gave Mr. Haywood, Ken Haywood his ministry training, then there was an objection, similar objection made by plaintiffs as to who ordained him until it was revealed that I guess —
(A crucial point regarding Mr. Haywood’s perjury in the first hearing where he stated that there was “no affiliation” or relationship between him and Mitchell’s church in Prescott)
THE COURT: I understand that but what’s your —
MR. GRIMSRUD: Well, finally, I think you can see where these objections are coming from. I believe that the question was asked, did Mr. Haywood talk with Pastor Mitchell of Prescott about this matter before deciding to commence his lawsuit? And the objection was made.
THE COURT: So you think there he should be able to — use should be able to ask any question; right?
MR. GRIMSRUD: No, I don’t think they should be able to ask any question about their religious beliefs and practices but should be able to ask questions about the connection between the two.
THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.
MR. MUCCITELLI: To me I just want to go on record that the whole purpose of this lawsuit is to silence my first amendment objections. My religious belief is in opposition to Mr. Haywood’s religious beliefs. Only mine are on a picket sign, not inside a building. These are my religious beliefs as a former member of their parent organization.
We both know the same man. The man he received his ordination from is a man I’ve followed for 11 years. The connection is a very serious because I do know what I believe, therefore, I can stand in opposition to that under my First Amendment right. That’s the whole purpose of this lawsuit is to shut me and my friends up.
MR. PALMER: Your Honor, can I suggest– I suggested under the deposition that it’s very hard to frame my objections to the countless questions that can be asked, you know, spiritual matters and issues in this lawsuit. We may not have a problem with answering some of them, others that we don’t see any connection to whatsoever, and we understand that it puts the court in a very difficult position to try —
THE COURT: It doesn’t put me out all. I just think whole action is ridiculous; both sides. (Flournoy was now shouting)
MR. PALMER: Okay. What —
THE COURT: I think it is a waste of time, but go-ahead.
MR. PALMER : What I suggested to Mr. Beck, if they want to ask questions about spiritual beliefs, practices —
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. (shouting) You got your injunction, in fact, I extended it 30 yards. I marked It off myself. I was going to go just to a dentist’s office at Rose and Fourth, but the dentist’s office — he’s not listed so I looked them up in the book. I didn’t write the name down. I extended 30 yds to the corner of Rose and Fourth, so you’ve got that. These people do have a right to picket somewhere. Maybe that’s too far. Maybe it isn’t. That’s what I thought was fair and reasonable
. But you have this lawsuit to you have filed against them. And so what you’ve done, if you want to dismiss your lawsuit with the exception of the injunctive relief sought, you can do that. You don’t have to go through all this. But I think that they have the right, even know I personally believe that this is an action that people should get together and they should settle it. If there’s been money paid and it’s been improperly used, that should be accounted for.
The evidence is that this went into a predecessor church. Might be the same, the victory Chapel or Potters House, I wasn’t really clear which. I state by doing this you’ve opened the door and I think it will really probably — you know, if you asked some appeal court they’d say, you could ask almost any question in deposition — sometimes in personal injury action you could ask ridiculous questions about people that have no relevance whatsoever to the lawsuit. That’s allowed. I think I’ve got to allow them to almost — they can ask any question they want.
(And this is what we wanted, “we can ask any question we want” of Mr. Haywood in our deposition of him)
Mr. Beck has implied he doesn’t want to go into the practices. It’s Mr. Muccitelli, you know, he undoubtedly wants to go into the practices. But he says he knows what the practices are.
So, what I’m asking to do, I’m going to allow them to ask any questions that are relevant to the lawsuit, with the exception of any questions relating to religious practices and beliefs. As to religion and beliefs, if there is any question in regard to that, I’ll be here all afternoon, you can come over and I’ll answer that question individually. You can call me. We’ll have a– get the court reporter and you can ask me that question. That may — if you’re going into this and Mr. Ledbetter brings up the word cult, I don’t know what the word — I don’t know what any legal terminology for cult, you know. I don’t know whether this is a church, we can get into that. But I think your going into this, I think they can ask anything.
I’ll limit it to everything except religious practices and beliefs. If they feel they want to ask a question, they can call the court. I’ll be here, take time, get this court reporter and asked the question. I think that’s fair.
I would say I think it’s in the interests of everyone to minimize what’s gone on. It’s been nine months or so of agony. I’m sure that if the three times a week or whatever the picketing, its agony again getting ready to go into action each time. I do think that it’s to the interests of everyone to try to settle this thing. I think by, you know, allowing these questions just causes more problems, more anger. And I think what you’ve got to do if you what to go through this lawsuit, you got to give them a shot to answer the questions. You’re going to have to tell your client to answer the questions. Again, if you think it’s just religious practices or belief, then limit it.
But those may be applicable because if you’re asking — they get the signs, that money cult or whatever it is, they may be applicable. What upsets me is that I really think that this is something that does not need to be in court. It’s in court and we’ll handle it.
But in depositions I think you can ask almost anything. You can ask about any hair on his head if you want to; may not have any relevance. I think that’s the way depositions are framed. When you go into all this, it costs each party more and more money, court reporter time and transcripts, et cetera.
I told Mr. Ledbetter the other day if you have a camera, come take pictures of the signs and I’d like a stipulation of all parties those pictures can be entered into evidence. And then you can have a sign so they can use the signs if they want to.
(In the above Flournoy gave us the right to “ask anything” for “that is the way deposition s are framed.” But he said without specific examples that if religious practice came up then he would decide. Our questions did not go to that, but were honest and straightforward. What they did was further expose Mr. Haywood’s perjury, and his lawyer, Mr Palmer thought such had to be stopped.)
MR. PALMER Your Honor, I believe my secretary called back and we said that if they took — we didn’t think he really had sufficient detail. We suggested — (Palmer was flustered by Flournoy’s outburst, and statements that flew in the face of his objections)
TO COURT: Just get a camera, take a picture. I don’t want the signs and the clerk doesn’t want the signs. (Flournoy was shouting loudly at this point. I was outside the courtroom and heard it clearly. Lou Muccitelli who was in court pro-per confirmed what I heard) I think there — you more importantly they have the right to picket within the injunction. If they want to use those signs, they can certainly use them. I don’t want to be accused of holding the signs.
MR. PALMER: We agree that they use the five so that they could blow up the photographs. That would be fine.
THE COURT: Get something.
I’ll be here all afternoon if you want to ask any questions but I think it you got to tell your client they’re in the middle of a lawsuit. But it would appear to me you certainly could get together on this deal. I mean — I think the defendants have a right to find out where the money went. I don’t know whether your client can answer that.
MR. PALMER: Your Honor, one thing you said, my clients church is not a successor church to their church. The Grace Fellowship here in Flagstaff is a successor church. It’s my understanding that those are the people that have the books that they seek.
THE COURT: maybe I have the wrong — hang on..
At the hearing I don’t think we really went into that. I know generally it was Victory Chapel, then it was Potters House and then it was Grace Fellowship , or whatever. I further realize there is a church down in Prescott which I don’t really know what the name of it is and the allegation was that this church was connected with the Prescott Church. And the testimony of the minister was he gave 10% of whatever is donated to the Prescott Church. Further, that he — a fellow in Prescott, minister, whatever his name is — I think there was testimony that he ordained him or he studied under or what ever. So, in any event, I think with a lawsuit you can — you’ve got to answer those questions.
(Again, Flournoy loudly instructs Palmer that his client must answer our deposition questions.)
MR. PALMER: Well, the ordained — the reason I objected, I don’t want to waive my objection to the religious beliefs or practices because.
THE COURT: Yeah, but I really — that’s one reason — sometimes you get all enthused about a case. It’s kind of fun as lawyer. What I’m saying is I don’t think — I really don’t think the courts are the places to play games. And I really think the attorneys can get together and ethically we can have the obligation to do what’s right in a given case. You know, undoubtedly people have the right to file lawsuits in regard to the constitutional rights and the freedom of speech or the freedom to listen. I think we all have an obligation to do what’s right in a case. It appears to me that there — you can get together and settle this thing. You don’t have to keep going but that’s up to you. If you keep going, we’ll keep having hearings. And is just a little frustrating, a case like this because I don’t think it needs to be here. You’re the one that filed the suit. You’re the one that made the allegations, and you’re the one that’s going to have to answer the questions. (Flournoy shouted this demand that Palmer’s client answer our questions, and possibly settle the case.)
MR. PALMER: We really haven’t a chance to talk to them since you handed down the rulings about where we go. We didn’t get our rulings until yesterday morning when the depositions rescheduled so (Palmer was flustered by Flournoy’s outburst.)
THE COURT: How long has a deposition been going, two days?
MR. PALMER: Yeah. I mean I just — our client is always, you know, if this court wants to have a settlement conference — (By now, Palmer realizes that his Potters House lawsuit is in jeopardy of being tossed out, and he gets the “idea” that the Court wants a settlement. Unfortunately, so did we.)
THE COURT: I don’t think I can settle it. I think the amount or what this court says, it’s not going to make any difference. It’s going to be up to the attorneys. And the attorneys have to convince their clients to call off the jam, not the defendants, the plaintiffs. They started — whatever started it I won’t go into, but really the picketing comes and the objection to the picketing and now we end up in court. It has its roots a long time ago. But I would really appreciate it If the attorneys would get together and saying their clients, how can we settle this? And then settle the thing. You need to settle this thing. On the other hand, you know, some cases aren’t always settled. They keep going on and there is a real interesting point on the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. I’ve read all those cases and I think my order is in compliance with the cases. But you’ve got your injunction. It may be time to sit down and say, hey, look, we want to get rid of this case. What can we do? And let them proceed what ever they want to go. Maybe this is going to end up joining other parties, the Prescott church. I don’t know where they’re going. I think when you file a lawsuit you’ve got to answer all those questions. But I’ll be here. I’ll limit every question that’s applicable with the exception of religious practice in belief. If you want to go into that, you can call me and ask the question and I’ll — I may be right or wrong. I’ll be right here tonight, too, so let me know. With that, that’s it. Anything else?
MR. BECK: Not at this time.
THE COURT: See what you can do to settle it. I really serious about that. Anyway, but I understand. So long.
(whereupon, the hearing was concluded.)
(Thus this tumultuous hearing came to an end. Flournoy was very annoyed by the proceedings, of Palmer’s objections to our questions, and it was amazing what transpired afterwards. Lou Muccitelli, pro-per defendant came out smiling with a thumbs up signal, and the looks on the faces of our lawyers showed hope. Palmer and his clients came out very badly in this hearing. The settlement came after nearly 6 more months of negotiation. Back and forth, with the Court hounding for a settlement all the way, we debated the terms. At first Potters House wanted us to accept Flournoy’s injunction and their demand that we admit to guilt for all of the charges in the initial complaint.
We refused, we would not accept any admission of guilt.
We would, however, agree to the terms of the injunction and no more. 130 yards distance from their “church” and 1/4th mile from the pastor’s residence. And one term that was still up in the air was “award of attorney fees.”
The issue of award of fees was to be left to Flournoy. Our attorneys were certain that this would be a wash. In other words they felt that Flournoy would not award any attorney fees other than what each party had already expended.
Six months later The settlement was rendered, neither party admitted to any guilt, and it was signed, sealed and delivered to the Court.
Flournoy then did the unthinkable. HE HIT US WITH ALL OF HAYWOOD’S ATTORNEY FEES as if we were GUILTY OF ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CHARGES!
Is this an out of court agreement? Similar to the ones that Flournoy was suspended from the bench for? And this was also at the same time that Flournoy was battling to hold his position on the bench.
Did Flournoy, in an “out of court agreement” (one of the things that he was dismissed from the bench for) tell Palmer something like this:
“You settle, Palmer, and leave the rest to me.”
What do you think?
NEVER, IF YOU ARE SUED BY POTTERS HOUSE SETTLE WITH THEM!
If you are innocent of the charges, stay the course; have at it, for it is better to go through the Courts and have an impartial jury to decide, than to be railroaded by a gangster organization built upon lies and deceit who have a not so impartial judge in their hip pocket.
Steve Schoner
Source: Kdminer.com
Source: la.indymedia.org
Source: aangirfan.blogspot.com
Source: TheGuardian.com
Source: life-after-potters-house.tripod.com
Source: life-after-potters-house.tripod.com
Source: life-after-potters-house.tripod.com
Source: Commons.wikimedia.org
