Introduction
I’ve been working on this article for seven years. I sent out an initial draft to national leaders in the Body of Christ in November 2019 because I was close to perishing. The sovereign Lord rescued me.
I sent the draft to national leaders only because I was working with an investigative journalist on a featured story about Sovereign Grace Churches, Inc. It was part of the evidence I provided the reporter. That story never came to fruition due to other critical stories like COVID-19, government corruption, racial unrest, etc.
I recently asked, “Are there any positive developments on your end? Any change with the editors? Or is the story still dead in the water?” I received this response. “Nothing new to pass along on my end.”
Therefore, I’ve decided to make the evidence public. It is overdue! Way overdue!
Since November 2019, the Lord has enabled me to refine and update my commentary. It is much better than before due to the kind providence of God.
C.J. Mahaney, the Covenant Life Church pastors, and Sovereign Grace Churches leaders have always argued they were vindicated by the Lars Liebeler “independent” investigation done for CLC but they have never quoted his reports or produced his reports. Why? In the case of Sovereign Grace, they never received the reports! Yet, it was major part of their defense in arguing innocence.
In the case of Covenant Life Church, they knew the reports would reveal Liebeler’s bias, corruption, and incompetence. He distorted evidence and withheld evidence in what he reported to CLC members. That is one reason the transcripts of his oral reports never saw the light of day until now.
Here’s the background.
Lars Liebeler was the chief investigator. He was a partner with the law firm Thaler-Liebeler LLP in Washington D.C. In July 2013, senior pastor Joshua Harris and the governing board of elders at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland retained Liebeler to do a supposed independent investigation of criminal activity. This was a corrupt arrangement by Harris, Mark Mitchell, Grant Layman Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, and Corby Megorden. By contract, Liebeler was prohibited from sharing any evidence that would incriminate his clients which were the pastors and church members.
Lars Liebeler
After the 17-month investigation of sexual abuse and its cover-up, Liebeler gave two oral reports to CLC members on October 12 & 26, 2014 in conjunction with Mark Mitchell the executive pastor. No transcripts of the oral reports were ever provided to the members.
Liebeler also produced written reports for the pastors but they refused to make them available to anyone including C.J. Mahaney’s lawyers. Sovereign Grace Churches has never been able to get their hands on them.
Though CLC members were told not to record the oral reports, a brave soul concerned for a cover-up recorded the meetings and sent them to me. I produced verbatim transcripts. I hoped to have finished commentary on the transcripts years ago in order to help members see through the deception propagated by Lars Liebeler, Mark Mitchell, Joshua Harris, and the other governing pastors. That was not possible. It was delayed in the wisdom of God.
Why is this so important? Because Liebeler’s supposed “independent investigation” and “findings” have been used by Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Churches to argue there is no need for a second investigation since they were exonerated by the first investigation.
For instance, here are the relevant excerpts from Al Mohler’s statement regarding Mahaney’s deceitful representation of the investigation to him. Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. The underlining is mine.
Statement from R. Albert Mohler Jr. on Sovereign Grace Churches
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Friday, February 15, 2019
In 2013 I was part of a statement supportive of CJ and dismissive of the allegations and concerns raised regarding SGC’s [Sovereign Grace Churches’] handling of sexual and domestic abuse claims. This was motivated by several factors. At the time the allegations surfaced, I did request that CJ and the ministry participate in an independent investigation, and I was pointed to the investigation that Covenant Life Church had commissioned. I did not realize until this past year that SGC and its leaders had not participated in that investigation, nor was I equipped to know the shortcomings of how that investigation was conducted. I wrongly believed that an investigation [of C.J. and SGC] had been done. …
When this issue resurfaced a year ago [Feb. 2018], I was made painfully aware of my serious mistakes. I immediately urged that an independent investigation be conducted and agreed that CJ needed to step down from public ministry until that took place. This resulted in a severing of all personal and ministry ties, and I have had no relationship with CJ or SGC since that time.
Mahaney told Mohler that Sovereign Grace Churches and its leaders participated in the investigation. That was an unmitigated lie. Moreover, Mohler didn’t know about “the shortcomings of how that investigation was conducted” by Liebeler. On both counts, this was due to Mohler’s obstinance. He refused to talk with me or read the evidence I was sending to him. He foolishly believed Mahaney like so many other leaders around the nation.
Nevertheless, the Lord providentially overcame his ignorance when Rachael Denhollander took the transcripts I provided her and gave them to Mohler. I also provided her a synopsis. This dates back to February 2018. That is when Mohler severed all ties with Mahaney.
In addition, I sent the transcripts and synopsis to Heather Thompson-Bryant who was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The subject line reads: “The Lars Liebeler “Independent” Investigation a Fraud.”
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:32 PM
To: Rachael Denhollander; Heather Thompson-Bryant
Subject: The Lars Liebeler “Independent” Investigation a Fraud
I am working on two posts that expose the scandalous investigation done by Lars Liebeler. I’ve attached the transcripts I made from the recordings for “members only” back in October 2014. SGC put a lot of stock in this fraudulent and despicable investigation as is clear in their “A Response to Allegations Against Sovereign Grace Churches” from yesterday.
By God’s grace, truth and justice will prevail in the hearts of those who love the Savior.
Brent
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:58 PM
To: Heather Thompson-Bryant; Rachael Denhollander
Subject: Information on Lars Liebeler and His “Independent” Investigation
In Lars Liebeler’s remarks to CLC on Oct 12, 2014, he said:
“And prior to this engagement, I had no prior knowledge or connection with Covenant Life Church or its members. I am a Christian. I am a member of an Anglican Church in Arlington, VA but my church has no affliation with Covenant Life or with its former parent organization, Sovereign Grace Ministries.” (Minutes 18:34-18:52)
This begs the question, who recommended him and on what basis? He claims to have no connection with any member in the church including longtime CLC lawyer, Chip Grange. If Liebeler had agreed to talk with me, I would have asked him about these matters. He refused.
No one ever explained how the pastors happened upon Liebeler. That information was concealed. Maybe insurance lawyers knew he was corruptible and recommended him to the CLC pastors. Here is a synopsis.
Lars Liebeler was retained by CLC as their lawyer and asked to do an “independent” investigation regarding the conspiracy to commit and cover-up the sexual abuse of children in CLC. The investigation took place from July 2013 to November 2014. It was anything but independent.
The post below doesn’t contain a lot of information because it was written before Liebeler concluded his investigation, but it outlines my concerns in advance.
Questions for the Law Firm Thaler Liebeler LLP Regarding Investigation of Covenant Life Church
Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 12:56PM
Liebeler gave two oral reports to CLC (but would not release his written report to CLC) on Oct 12 & 26, 2014. He withheld evidence from CLC and did the investigation, as anticipated, with great bias and prejudice. He vindicated alleged abusers Stephen Griney, Dave Mayo, and Mark Hoffman but didn’t even interview their victims. Nor did he deal with the evidence against Dave Adams (pertaining to the alleged abuse of John Roberts), Charlie Llewellyn, John Loftness or Gary Ricucci.
I wrote the CLC pastors about my concerns. …
I did not hear back from CLC. I also wrote Liebeler. He never answered my question about his qualifications and he never responded to my request to discuss the evidence he withheld. …
The Liebeler “independent” investigation cost 100k. Like a “good” defense lawyer, he singularly protected his clients - that is, the alleged conspirators and sex abusers. He showed no regard for the testimony of those abused. His report was biased, partial, prejudicial and unethical and left out vital evidence against his clients.
As a result, Rachael and her husband Jacob set up a meeting with Mohler who was a close friend and ally of Mahaney. He was appalled by what he heard. Mahaney had deceived him into believing the Liebeler investigation was independent and included himself and the whole of Sovereign Grace Churches. All were lies. Mohler severed his friendship with Mahaney and all ties with SGC because Mahaney refused to do a truly independent investigation and step down while investigated.
The information I provided about Liebeler also enabled Denhollander to forcefully respond to SGC about the corrupt investigation.
Response to Sovereign Grace Churches
Rachael Denhollander
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Liebeler’s investigation was strictly confined to Covenant Life Church. It did not include Sovereign Grace Churches. Furthermore, his limited investigation of CLC didn’t include former CLC pastors Mahaney, John Loftness, and Gary Ricucci because they refused to participate. Yet Mahaney told Mohler, he and SGC participated and were vindicated. Read this article for more on Mahaney’s devious handling of Mohler.
The Inside Story: Al Mohler Severed All Personal Ties With C.J. Mahaney & Sovereign Grace Churches Because Mahaney Deceived Him Into Believing An “Independent Investigation” of Abuse Was Done
Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:54PM
Hundreds, if not thousands of leaders around the nation, have been told the same set of lies by Mahaney and his surrogates. So have all the members in all the Sovereign Grace Churches. It is so wicked. Sovereign Grace pastors claim Mahaney and the denomination participated and were vindicated. Neither is true.
For example, you will find nothing in the Liebeler report that addresses the allegations of fact in the lawsuit made by four plaintiffs from Virginia and one from Georgia. And there were additional victims in Virginia and Georgia who did not join the lawsuit. There was also compelling evidence Mahaney, John Loftness, Kenneth Maresco, and Larry Tomczak cover up some of these crimes. Liebeler investigated none of it contrary to claims by Mahaney, et al.
Here are the relevant quotes from SGC’s February 2018 response to Denhollander. They leaned heavily on the Lars Liebeler investigation and comments made by the executive pastor Mark Mitchell to vindicate themselves.
A Response to Allegations Against Sovereign Grace Churches
The Leadership Team
February 13, 2018
One of the two churches [CLC] that were accused of wrongdoing commissioned an independent investigation of its involvement in these matters. Because this church is no longer part of SGC, we have not been given access to this independent report, but one of the church’s pastors [Mark Mitchell] publicly disclosed certain conclusions from the investigation, and we will refer to some of these below.
In the civil suit discussed above, two pastors [John Loftness & Gary Ricucci from CLC] were included in allegations of abuse that had never been reported previously. These accusations were investigated by the church. [No, they were NOT investigated by Liebeler.]
As to the charge of conspiracy, the very thought is abhorrent. Moreover, in 2016 a pastor [Mitchell] of one of the churches [CLC] named in the civil suit, in response to accusations of conspiracy to cover up child abuse, stated publicly that: “We denied those charges and allegations from the beginning. Not only that, we hired an independent investigator to look into those allegations. The investigator concluded that there was not any evidence to support that conspiracy or obstruction had taken place.”
As noted above, one of the churches named in the lawsuit had an independent investigation performed, and we repeat here the public summary made by one of their pastors: “We denied those charges and allegations from the beginning. Not only that, we hired an independent investigator to look into those allegations. The investigator concluded that there was not any evidence to say that the conspiracy or obstruction of justice had taken place.”
The Sovereign Grace Churches Leadership Team
The SGC Leadership Team is dependent on a single comment by Mark Mitchell in 2016 to clear themselves of all “accusations of conspiracy to cover up child abuse.” That’s because they don’t have the written reports or audio recordings of the oral reports given by Liebeler and Mitchell to CLC back in October 2014. They are totally in the dark. Clueless. Ignorant. Grasping for straws. These are desperate men looking for anyway to justify themselves.
Therefore, they quote Mitchell, who has since been fired for engrained patterns of sin including outburst of anger. I was a recipient of that anger whenever I exposed him for his duplicity.
The Leadership Team who wrote this response to Denhollander in February 2018 was comprised of Mark Prater, Mickey Connolly, Tommy Hill, Bob Kauflin, Ian McConnell, Jeff Purswell, and Rich Richardson. McConnell has since left SGC and started a new denomination with other former SGC pastors.
A Split Off Denomination Forms with “Many Seasoned Pastors & Some Very Gifted Leaders” from Sovereign Grace Churches, Inc.
Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 6:36PM
Last year (Feb. 2020), I had occasion to confront Rich Richardson on numerous issues at a conference we both attended in Phoenix. I confronted him as a member of the Leadership Team for citing the Liebeler report as evidence. I asked him if had a copy of the audio transcripts. He said “no.” I told him I did and the investigation was corrupt.
Rich Richardson of Sovereign Grace Leadership Team Spews Propaganda on Facebook Page & Calls Me an Untrustworthy Liar – It Never Ends!
Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 3:26PM
He also said SGC had been trying to get the Liebeler report but without success and that is why all they could do was quote Mitchell from 2016. How pathetic is that? Let me reiterate why this is so important.
The Leadership Team and all the pastors in Sovereign Grace Churches have been using the investigation of Lars Liebeler to convince their churches and leaders around the world over the past seven years that they were cleared of all wrong-doing. They assert the “independent investigator” found no evidence of a conspiracy or any attempt to obstruct justice. And more, Liebeler concluded the victims were liars. Yet, they had no idea what was in the report!
The two oral reports by Lars Liebeler are extremely hard to follow and understand since names, details, and coherence are absent. I think this approach was purposely intended to confuse and obscure. Therefore, I have filled in what was lacking to make it understandable.
I’ve also added underlining and subheadings so subjects can be identified more easily. I’ve included time markers after each paragraph. I tend to comment on what is underlined. It has taken years to finish this article (really a short book) due to so many other demands and challenges. I regret the delay but trust in God’s superintendence.
The statements by Mitchell, Liebeler, and CLC pastors are in bold italic print. My comments follow in regular print. Remember, the Leadership Team of Sovereign Grace Churches and the pastors of Covenant Life Church have used these reports to defend themselves, condemn victims, and vindicate sex abusers; but no one has had the transcripts to study in comparison to the truth.
I believe these fraudulent reports, now seen for the first time, reveal their guilt and deceitful scheming upon examination. You will be shocked by what you read. You will also learn how abusers operate and how corrupt leaders and lawyers cover up for them.
One last point by way of introduction. Joshua Harris, Mark Mitchell, Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, and Corby Megorden signed a contract with the law firm Thaler-Liebeler LLP ensuring their crimes and those of abusers in the church would be covered up. They were likely following the directives of their larger litigation team (i.e. the insurance lawyers.)
This investigation was never about the truth. It was a charade to make sure the truth never got out. It is no wonder the judgment of God fell on these men! Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Churches need to renounce the investigation and this report.
If your pastors, denomination, or organization ever retain a lawyer or law firm to do an unaccountable internal investigation, protest loudly! If they proceed, stop giving, leave, and tell the world. Then help the victims who will be labeled liars!
##
Covenant Life Church Members’ Meeting
October 12, 2014
Report by Lars Liebeler
Part 1
Opening Scripture & Prayer
Minutes 0:00-1:40
I did not transcribe the opening.
Mark Mitchell – Executive Pastor
Minutes 1:40-11:37
Grateful to Talk about the Details of the Lawsuit
We are grateful to the Lord to finally have this moment where we can talk with you about the details of the lawsuit. Before I get into that though, I want to begin with a few administrative items right off the bat. 1:54
Joshua Harris was the senior pastor but he was under “investigation” by Liebeler so Mitchell was in charge.
This oral report doesn’t begin to discuss the details of the lawsuit. That is readily apparent to anyone who actually compares the lawsuit to this oral report which was given to Covenant Life Church on October 12, 2014 and a second that followed on October 26, 2014.
The Original Complaint (i.e., lawsuit) was filed on October 12, 2012 with three plaintiffs. The First Amended Complaint was filed on January 11, 2013 with eight plaintiffs. The Seconded Amended Complaint was filed on May 14, 2013 with 11 plaintiffs. For two years, the Covenant Life pastors were largely silent about the allegations in the lawsuit on the counsel of their lawyers.
First, I expect that we arrive here tonight with many different viewpoints and perspectives. We are a diverse congregation with lots of different experiences and a wide variety of viewpoints. And no matter what your disposition we are glad that you are here and we sincerely hope you that you find tonight’s meeting helpful. 2:17
CLC was torn by “many different viewpoints and perspectives.” The meeting could have been helpful if the report had been unbiased, impartial, and in-depth.
Restrain Feelings, No Recording or Transmitting, Posting Comments & Questions
I would like to make a request. And I would like to respectfully ask each of us to exercise restraint as you listen to what we share tonight and as we express our perspective. I am asking for restraint in expressing our feelings. Applause or emotional outbursts can at times have the effect of making those who may have a different perspective feel awkward or perhaps wonder how they should respond in that moment. And our heart tonight is really for everyone to intelligently and prayerfully process the information they hear without distraction and without discomfort. And that is going to take time. You are going to hear a lot of information tonight and we don’t expect that you are going to be able to process it all in one evening. So again, I just want to ask all of us to exercise restraint in expressing ourselves. Thank you for considering this. 3:16
If the pastors really wanted “everyone to intelligently and prayerfully process the information” then everything in the oral report, and so much more, would have been made available to the church in a written report.
Second, I want to ask that no one record, in attendance record, this meeting either in part or in full. And this is at least for a couple of reasons. First, it is in keeping with the sensitive nature of the information that we are sharing. We are sharing this with you as members of our church family and it is also to protect the privacy of any victims and families that may be referenced in the things that we share. Our production team is recording the meeting and we will make arrangements for members to have access to it later. We want all of our members, including those who could not be here with us tonight, to hear the updates that we are going to be sharing. 3:57
Mark Mitchell says he doesn’t want any information getting out to the public because of its “sensitive nature” and “to protect the privacy of any victims and families that may be referenced.” Let’s be clear, Mitchell has no interest in protecting the victims and families referenced in the lawsuit against Covenant Life Church (i.e., Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Dara Sutherland, Renee Palmer-Gamby, James Roberts, and Olivia Llewellyn-Graham).
Furthermore, all of these persons went public and used their full names in the lawsuit with one exception. Olivia Llewellyn-Graham went by Grace Goe but later asked me to write an article on her behalf and reveal her identity. In this oral report, Mitchell will soon claim the lawsuit is full of their lies. That’s being “sensitive.”
In addition, three victims of convicted felon Nathaniel (Nate) Morales testified openly in court. They are Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan, and Jeremy Cook. Their testimony is available to the public on court recordings and in court transcripts because it is important for the public to have access. That testimony is far more detailed than anything shared by Mitchell or Liebeler.
Mitchell and Liebeler should have used the victim’s names. By not using names, they confused people. They should also have quoted the victim’s testimony and that of witnesses in the Morales trial. They did not and it was thereby distorted. Furthermore, they should have told everyone in Covenant Life Church how to get the court audio or transcripts and encouraged them to do so.
Mitchell and the pastors claim they didn’t want the CLC audio or video getting out because it contained sensitive information and in order to protect the privacy of victims and families. I don’t think those are legitimate reasons given it was all public information; nor do I think they are the real reasons.
At the end of the meeting, Mitchell gives a third reason. I think that is the compelling reason. He doesn’t want the audio/video getting out so it could be used against them.
“We want to communicate that this information is for your personal use as a member of Covenant Life and not for distribution or publication in any form. Our legal counsel has advised us that future civil litigation is possible. And therefore, we don’t want to carelessly hand out information that could be twisted and used against the church and others.”
I find this reason bordering on the absurd. If all you are saying is truthful and provable, then you don’t have to fear it will “be twisted and used against the church and others” in “future civil litigation.” Just the opposite is true. You want to release your proof as widely as possible. You don’t want to contain it. You want to reveal it.
Joshua Harris said the same thing as Mitchell six weeks later at a small Members’ Only “Coffee & Conversation” meeting on November 23, 2014.
“The reason that we asked just members to get CDs and DVDs at those meetings is that we are still dealing with the realities of legal issues.”
There you have it. The real reason and the only reason provided by Harris.
Harris and Mitchell don’t have to fear the oral reports will be twisted. They have to fear the oral reports will be tested for the truth. It can only be “used against the church and others” if they are found to be biased, partial, misleading, and untruthful. I don’t fear anyone reading my materials. The CLC pastors do.
If you wanted a recording you had to go to the CLC office, fill out a confidentially form, and pick up a recording. Few people took advantage of this arrangement. Here’s what Harris had to say about that.
“I think one of the things that I am learning in all of this is it’s just like our government. It is an amazing to have a democracy where everybody can vote. But what is the percentage of Americans that show up, especially on non-Presidential years, to vote. There is just a certain reality that we are coming to grips with. … But then we are also dealing with the fact that even when you make it [the CDs & DVDs] available, even when you make announcement, and put it in the weekly [announcements] for three Sundays, and you do all these different type of things, people are just busy and then there are just people who don’t care. So that is part of the reason that we are not a totally congregational church.” (Coffee & Conversation, Nov. 23, 2014)
In the same vein, I also want to ask that no one in attendance use their cell phones during any portion of the meeting to transmit audio or video to those who are not in attendance. We do not give permission for anyone to do this for the same reasons that I just mentioned. 4:14
The phrase “we do not give permission” is the language of lawyers normally communicating legal action if violated.
Finally, as I just mentioned, there will be a lot of information to take in tonight. We have provided index cards for you. I believe they were on the table as you walked in this evening. And those are there so you can jot down comments or questions, thoughts that come to your mind as you are listening to the various things that we are going to be sharing. Tomorrow via email, we will provide a way for you to submit those comments and questions to us. We’ll plan to post them to the member area of our website so that you can see as well what others have submitted. We will then take time as a team to collate those questions and make plans to answer as many of them as possible when we gather again for another Members Meeting two weeks from tonight. 4:58
Initially they posted the questions being asked but it was short lived. They quickly ended it.
Now Eager to Share Many Things
We know that the last few years have been extraordinarily difficult for many of you. It’s been frustrating and we understand that. The civil lawsuit has been a significant burden for our entire congregation. The decision by the pastors to not disclose details while the suit was on-going tested the patience of many. In the absence of hearing directly from the pastors about details that were being made public in the media caused many to question, “Well what was true and what wasn’t?” And this was a very difficult test for our church community where openness and love and humility and trust are values that form the foundation of our relationships together. Thank you for being patient with us. We are grateful the civil suit has come to an end because we are now eager to share many things with you. 5:54
Covenant Life Church was first named a Defendant in the lawsuit on January 11, 2013. As Mitchell points out, “The decision by the pastors to not disclose details while the suit was on-going tested the patience of many.” For nearly two years, the pastors refused to answer any questions from church members regarding the allegations of fact found in the lawsuit. Now, subsequent to the report, they are blaming their decision to be silent on the bad counsel they received from their insurance lawyer(s) but they have no one to blame but themselves. I repeatedly warned them not to follow the counsel of lawyers but they persisted and scorned God’s word.
Psalm 1:1-2 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night.
Furthermore, the oral report by Liebeler and Mitchell does not begin to address, “What was true and what wasn’t [true]” with “openness and love and humility and trust.” Mitchell claims the pastors “are now eager to share many things with you” but compared to the whole, they share very little and, in fact, withhold many vital details. It is not a transparent report.
The Reality of Sexual Abuse
It is important to say, however, that while we are grateful that we are no longer under the shadow of a lawsuit, we are acutely aware that the backdrop for the civil lawsuit is the reality of sexual abuse. A devastating evil that is growing in its prevalence in our society. And given our size this evening, there are no doubt many people here who have suffered from being sexually abused themselves personally, or because someone you know and love have experienced the horrific effects of this sin. For those of you who have suffered in this way, we want you to know that we are deeply sorry. We are deeply sorry for what you have experienced. And we have prayed, and we certainly hope, that nothing that is shared this evening will add any difficulty to your pain, the pain you have already suffered. We pray that the Lord will have mercy on you and bring you relief and healing and peace to all. 7:06
The top court in Maryland closed the case in September 2014 on legal technicalities but not due on its merits.
These are empty words for the victims of sexual abuse that occurred in the context of Covenant Life Church. In fact, they are exceedingly hurtful words because the pastors did not involve law enforcement and they did not care for the victims. Later, Joshua Harris, Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, and Corby Megorden will apologize because they “failed to love the victims of abuse by not pressing to care for them.”
Mitchell refers to “the reality of sexual abuse” as “a devastating evil that is growing in its prevalence in our society.” He should say, “The reality of sexual abuse” is “a devastating evil that is growing in its prevalence in the church because pastors like us did not report suspected abusers to law enforcement or warn families in harm’s way.”
A Brief Timeline over the Past Two Years
In just a few minutes, I am going to invite Mr. Lars Liebeler, the independent investigator, to come up and share his report; but before he does I want to take a few moments to back up and help us all get oriented by walking through a brief timeline of what we have experienced as a church over the past two years. 7:26
This is Mitchell’s first reference to Lars Liebeler as “the independent investigator.” He was neither! I’ll explain later.
In December of 2012, we ended our affiliation with Sovereign Grace Ministries, the family of churches with whom we’ve had a 30-year relationship, and in the year and a half leading up to that moment and since, we have seen many dear friends leave our fellowship. 7:41
Approximately 2,000 people left CLC between July 2011 and October 2014 – the time of this oral report.
In January of 2013, Covenant Life Church was added as a Defendant to a civil lawsuit that was initially filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries. The suit was subsequently amended in May of 2013 to include allegations that some current long-time members had committed abuse. The details of these allegations were grievous and heart wrenching to read. This began a very long process of court hearings, decisions and subsequent appeals that involved Maryland’s two highest courts. And then in May of this year in a separate matter, Nathaniel Morales, a former member of Covenant Life Church from more than two decades ago, was tried and convicted of several accounts of child sexual abuse. 8:30
Mitchell refers to allegations of sexual abuse in the Second Amended Complaint committed by “some current long-time members.” He is referring to members Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, and Dave Mayo. He intentionally leaves out the allegations of fact against former pastors John Loftness and Gary Ricucci who left CLC.
This is a glaring omission in the Liebeler-Mitchell report for which there is no excuse. You can’t promise to answer questions and provide details and then not even reference the sexual sadism of John Loftness and the aiding and abetting of Gary Ricucci that was carried out in conjunction with CLC schoolteacher, Steve Griney.
Everyone should read the following posts regarding Loftness and Ricucci. They are extremely important for the information they contain.
John Loftness in Focus – Former Chairman of the SGM Board & Alleged Sexual Sadist
Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 5:32PM
Gary Ricucci & the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David Adams
Friday, August 2, 2013 at 8:11PM
When Mitchell says, “We are grateful the civil suit has come to an end because we are now eager to share many things with you,” – he does not have in mind the “grievous and heart wrenching” allegations that two pastors were involved in a conspiracy to commit and cover up child sex abuse. That is utterly unacceptable.
Focus on Two Issues – Allegations in Civil Lawsuit & Issues Raised in Criminal Trial of Nathaniel Morales
Tonight, we are going to focus on two issues. The allegations of the civil lawsuit against the church and issues raised by the criminal trial of Nathaniel Morales. They are easy to confuse but it is important to understand that they are two distinct events. Again, the civil lawsuit was first filed against Sovereign Grace in October of 2012. Then it was amended in January of 2013 to add Covenant Life as a Defendant. It was amended a second time in May of 2013 to add the allegations against several Covenant Life members [i.e., Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo]. And it was dismissed by the Maryland Court of Appeals last month [Sep. 2014]. That’s the civil lawsuit. 9:13
Covenant Life Church was added as an institutional Defendant in the First Amended Complaint, but Mitchell doesn’t tell the members that CLC pastors C.J. Mahaney, Gary Ricucci, John Loftness and Grant Layman were individual Defendants in the Original Complaint in October of 2012.
The vast majority of “the allegations of the civil lawsuit against the church” are never addressed in the Liebeler-Mitchell report. Nor are some of the most critical “issues raised by the criminal trial of Nathaniel Morales.”
Once again, Mitchell references “several Covenant Life members” but leaves out the two former Covenant Life pastors – Loftness and Ricucci. It is highly probable the lawyers for Loftness and Ricucci were threatening a lawsuit against CLC if their names were mentioned in the oral reports.
Mitchell doesn’t tell CLC why the lawsuit was dismissed. He should have made clear it was solely dismissed on legal technicalities and then added the merits of the lawsuit were never argued or refuted in court.
Number two, the criminal trial of Nathaniel Morales took place in May of this year [2014]. He was tried and convicted in Montgomery County Circuit Court of multiple counts of sex abuse against minors. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. He is also mentioned by name in the civil lawsuit. 9:33
Morales is “mentioned by name” 12 times in Paragraphs 36-39 and 55. Mitchell, like Liebeler, passes over these allegations of fact in the lawsuit as though they amount to nothing when that is not at all the case.
The State’s Attorney Office for Montgomery County, Maryland indicted Morales on July 18, 2013 for the allegations found in Paragraph 36 and charged him with sex offense third degree. This charge was scheduled for trial on May 21-22, 2014 but was cancelled when Morales was found guilty on seven counts in the two preceding trials on May 12-15, 2014 and May 19-20, 2014 for which he was sentenced to 40 years. All of this should have been explained by Mitchell and Liebeler.
Here are the allegations of fact found in Paragraph 36 related to Morales that Mitchell and Liebeler totally disregard.
Victim: James Roberts
Paragraph: 36
Location: Covenant Life Church (Magruder High School) - Dressing Room off Stage
Timeframe: 1986/1989
Age: 12/15
Alleged Abuser: Nathanial Morales
36. During 1986/1989 timeframe, during Plaintiff Roberts’ middle school years, Plaintiff Roberts was molested again on church premises, this time by a man named Nathanial Morales who was involved in youth ministries. At that time, the CLC church services occurred at Magruder High School. Morales pulled Plaintiff Roberts into one of the dressing rooms off the side of the stage, and began to profess his love for Plaintiff Roberts. Morales began hugging Plaintiff Roberts and manually manipulating his penis. Plaintiff Roberts escaped but did not initially report the molestation because he feared being forced to sit and “reconcile” and “forgive” Morales for the molestation.
Allegations in Lawsuit Regarding Conspiracy Are Completely False – Period!
Now the civil lawsuit alleged, that number one, Covenant Life Church participated for decades in a conspiracy to allow sexual molestation of children; and number two, that Covenant Life sought to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past sexual abuse of children. We want you to know that these allegations are completely false. Period! 10:01
This angers me. Mitchell offers no proof for his universal condemnation of the lawsuit. He does not refute specific allegations like the one above by James Roberts. He has talked to none of the victims in the lawsuit. He did not attend either of the Morales trials. He has not engaged law enforcement on their findings. This is pure demagoguery.
We must understand the all-encompassing scope of Mitchell’s condemnation. The lawsuit alleges two basic things. A conspiracy to commit child sexual abuse and a conspiracy to cover up child sexual abuse. Here are just two examples of the former – there are many more in the lawsuit.
Victims: Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Heather Thompson-Bryant, Suzanne Truesdale
Paragraph: 90
Location: Covenant Life School (Aspen Hill) – Empty Room
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Ages: Jessica – age 7, Heather – age 5, Suzanne – age 8
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Stephen Griney, Gary Ricucci
90. During the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness, Griney and Defendant Ricucci brought Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas into an empty room with two other girls. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas recognized the girls, one of whom was Plaintiff Thompson. (The other is not being named here to protect her privacy.) Defendants directed the girls to strip off their underwear, and lay across desks. Defendant Loftness beat Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas on her bare buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas heard the unnamed girl [Suzanne Truesdale] crying, and saw Griney hitting her on her bare buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas turned over her shoulder to look for Plaintiff Thompson, and realized Defendant Ricucci had taken her out of the room. Defendant Loftness continued to beat Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas’ bare buttocks, and then he inserted his fingers into her vagina.
Victims: Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Suzanne Truesdale
Paragraph: 59
Location: Covenant Life School (Aspen Hill) – Room in School
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Age: Heather – 4/5, Jessica – 7/8, Suzanne – 8
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Steve Griney, Gary Ricucci
59. On one occasion during the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness, Griney and a third person [Gary Ricucci] isolated Plaintiff Thompson along with two other girls [Jessica and Suzanne] attending the school. Defendants took the children to a room within the school, and directed them to take off their underwear. Defendant Loftness pulled a plastic rod along Plaintiff Thompson’s left leg and through her vagina. He then began to hit her bottom.
These three victims, Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, and Suzanne Truesdale all claim John Loftness, Gary Ricucci and Steve Griney conspired to commit crimes against them. Mitchell condemns their accounts as “completely false.” He is absolutely certain but he offers not one shred of evidence and he does not address any of their specific allegations in the lawsuit – he just makes a blanket statement. These victims are nothing but liars to him and the CLC pastors on whose behalf he is speaking. It is sickening beyond description!
As an aside, I recently wrote about Jeff Truesdale. He was another child abuser in CLC. I address Paragraphs 59 and 90 in depth in this article.
The Conspiracy to Cover Up the Sexual Abuse of Children Under C.J. Mahaney Grows as Shannon Truesdale Comes Forward to Tell Story of Abuse by Her Father & Sister
Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:18PM
Do you realize what this statement entails if Mitchell is correct? It means these three women would have had to interact with each other before contacting Susan Burke and Bill O’Neil (the lawyers who filed the lawsuit) in order to concoct these fanciful and wicked accounts.
Then they’d have to meet with Burke and O’Neil and totally deceive them into believing their outrageous lies. But that is not at all how it happened! These three victims had absolutely no contact with each other about the matter before the lawsuit was filed. They conveyed their stories to Burke and O’Neil independent of one another. I know because I was working with Burke and O’Neil. But I cannot stop there – Mitchell not only condemns them; he condemns everyone in the lawsuit.
Mitchell is saying every allegation dealing with the conspiracy to commit and cover up child sexual abuse is completely false and to this he adds an emphatic, “Period!” He has spoken. End of discussion. Not a single allegation is true. Not even partially true. So, Covenant Life Church that is the end of the matter.
There are six plaintiffs in the lawsuit that allege a conspiracy to commit and/or cover up child sexual abuse at Covenant Life Church. They are Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, James Roberts, Dara Adams-Sutherland, Renee Palmer-Gamby and Olivia Llewellyn-Graham. According to Mitchell, all of them made up their stories of a conspiracy and four of them (Heather, Jessica, James, and Olivia) made up their stories of sexual abuse.
Put a different way - according to Mitchell, all of the alleged crimes in the lawsuit committed by John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Dave Adams, Nathaniel Morales, Stephen Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo and Charlie Llewellyn were made up by their accusers. Only two things were true in the lawsuit pertaining to the sexual abuse of children according to Mitchell. Dave Adams abused his daughter (but not James Roberts) and a teenager abused Renee Palmer-Gamby. Adams went to jail and the teenage offender was convicted. Otherwise, everything else in the lawsuit is a lie. That literally encompasses hundreds of factual allegations.
But there is more to be said, and I want to make at this point, three things very clear. Though the lawsuit is full of false allegations, we see the Lord’s good purposes in it. There is much we’ve learned, and much we will continue to apply as a result of walking through this over the past two years. It has heightened our sensitivity to the realities of sexual abuse and its devastating effects on individuals and families. And it has helped us to tighten our policies and our action plan whenever reports of abuse arise. That is the first thing. 10:41
Mitchell repeats himself, “The lawsuit is full of false allegations.” Not that it contains some false allegations. It is full of them. Yet, he never bothers to cite them or present any evidence proving their falsity. He makes a pronouncement without proof. That is the SGM/CLC way of refutation. If Mitchell wants to denounce the plaintiffs, victims and their families as liars, then he must go through their allegations one by one and present compelling evidence showing how they are false. Otherwise, he should shut his mouth. Period!
Moreover, Mitchell has the audacity to claim the lawsuit “has heightened our sensitivity to the realities of sexual abuse and its devastating effects on individuals and families” while he condemns all the victims and families named in the lawsuit. There is nothing more devastating for a victim or their family than to be totally discounted and called a liar in practically every respect.
The Failed Handling of the Nathaniel Morales Situation
Second, you are going to hear us tonight acknowledge that we failed in a significant way in our handling of the Morales situation. You will hear more details about that later. 10:51
Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, Grant Layman, and Corby Megorden will acknowledge they “failed” in their “handling of the Morales situation” but nothing more. They will acknowledge no failure in relation to the victims in the lawsuit and no failure in relation to any other victims of child sexual abuse in Covenant Life Church over the past 35 years. The long line of pastors in CLC are blameless. That’s the message from Mitchell.
And then finally, tonight is about making a clear and specific apology for the ways we, your pastors, have failed. And tonight is about providing as much information as we can. 11:05
Harris, Boisvert, Maresco, Layman, and Megorden offer an apology but they do not ask forgiveness for sinning or breaking the law. Everyone in CLC knows you don’t apologize for sin; you ask forgiveness for sin.
Liebeler and Mitchell could have presented much more information and far more pertinent information.
So in just a moment, the independent investigator who was retained by the church, will come to share a report of his findings. When he’s finished I’ll come back up and I’ll follow that report with some reflections; then you will get a chance to hear directly from the pastors who were involved in 2007 in the handling of information relating to Nate Morales. And then finally I’ll conclude with some remarks about where we go from here. So, I’d like Mr. Lars Liebeler to now come and share his report. 11:37
The big moment has finally arrived! The “independent investigator” is finally going to “share a report of his findings” after his 17-month investigation. Everything promised by Joshua Harris will be now put on the “table.” Every detailed covered. Nothing will be withheld even if it makes the pastors look bad. That includes their cover-up of the crimes confessed to Grant Layman in 2007 by Nate Morales. It too would be “fully addressed and accounted for.” All these promises were broken by Harris like so many other occasions.
Joshua Harris
Sermon, Hold Fast to the Gospel.
May 18, 2014
After the civil lawsuit was over, our plan is for the investigators to provide a full, objective accounting of the issues raised by the suit [lawsuit] and for this to be shared with the entire congregation. No matter how painful that is, we want everything to be known and addressed and we will put it all on the table when this investigation is completed. But in the meantime, partial information has been shared in the criminal lawsuit that is stirring these understandable questions. …
I just want you to understand that the events related to 2007 are a significant issue for us and they are going to be fully addressed and accounted for. I want you to know that. I can’t say any more than that.
Liebeler took 43 minutes on October 12, 2014 and 34 minutes on October 26, 2014 to present his findings. That comes to 1 hour and 17 minutes and it only cost the members of Covenant Life Church $100,000. He was paid $430 per hour per his contract. Laugh out loud!
Frankly, I could not have been more concerned for his unjust reporting. It disparaged the victims and vindicated the perpetrators without putting forth evidence. Nor did the Liebeler report make any attempt to address the vast majority of specific allegations in the lawsuit as promised by Harris and the CLC pastors.
This oral report by Liebeler was just like the written report produced by Ambassadors of Reconciliation on its findings regarding Sovereign Grace Ministries in April 2010. A complete whitewash! The AoR cover-up cost over $400,000.
Lars Liebeler
Minutes 11:54-55:26 (43 mins. 32 secs.)
Introduction, Background to Findings, & the Morales Situation
Good evening everyone. My name is Lars Liebeler as Mark Mitchell had mentioned and I been retained some time ago by the pastors and the church to conduct an independent investigation covering a variety of different topics and so I am here to report on a portion of what I have done in that investigation this evening. 12:16
You can’t be retained as a lawyer for CLC and do a truly independent investigation of CLC at the same time. It is impossible. I agree with this statement.
Boz Tchividjian @BozT Mar 24, 2018
Labeling an investigation “independent” doesn’t make it so. When the motivation for an investigation is self-preservation, it will often be labeled as “independent” and “transparent”, when in fact it is it “internal” and “classified”.
At this juncture in time, I have prepared two written reports and submitted those to the pastors to provide them with information. I am here tonight to summarize and present my findings with respect to one of those reports. I will only be making an oral presentation and I will not be publicizing the written report. The reason for that is, as Mark had mentioned, that there are several details, many details in there that are somewhat confidential with respect to the victims and their families. And it makes it very difficult to redact portions of it and then people are trying to guess who people are. 12:59
Liebeler focuses on issues related to the CLC pastors and Nathaniel Morales in this first report.
Here’s what I’d like to ask. What are the “several details,” oops, ”many details” that are “somewhat confidential” and what does “somewhat confidential” mean? Actually, it doesn’t matter. None of the details regarding Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan or Jeremy Bates and their families were confidential because they all came out at the trial of Nathaniel Morales. Nor are any of the allegations of fact in the lawsuit.
These details should have been included in the oral report. They were not confidential. They were public. From my perspective, this is an excuse to withhold vital and specific information that would enable members to research and investigate for themselves. They are being kept in the dark.
An unredacted written report should have be made available to the members of CLC in keeping with the promises made by Harris. Liebeler argues against this by claiming, “And it makes it very difficult to redact portions of it and then people are trying to guess who people are.” In other words, he doesn’t want people reading a redacted version of his written report because people will end up guessing at identities.
Yet this claim makes no sense because Liebeler proceeds to give a heavily redacted oral report that has people guessing who is talking about throughout his presentation! The withholding of names and details made the oral report extremely difficult to follow and prevented people from being able to follow up on assertions by Mitchell or findings by Liebeler about which they had concerns or questions. It was all part of their plan to obscure the truth.
I’ve tried to get as much information and specific detail to answer your specific questions with respect to the pastors and their knowledge about the Morales situation and I am going to provide that to you orally tonight. 13:13
Liebeler claims he “tried to get as much information and specific detail” about the pastors knowledge of Morales’s history of sex abuse. Well, he was unsuccessful in some critical respects! Why? The lawyers for C.J. Mahaney, John Loftness and Gary Ricucci refused him access to their clients. They all had knowledge of Morales’s abuse.
It also appears CLC pastors Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert and Chris Glass refused to answer and/or answer truthfully some of his questions. Or, it is possible they provided Liebeler incriminating information that he intentionally withheld since he was retained as their lawyer. Liebeler literally worked for them. He was their legal counsel. In effect, a defense lawyer.
A truly independent investigator is obligated to report on his interactions with such individuals. Liebeler should have told CLC exactly what he asked each man and exactly how each man answered. Nothing like that kind of investigative reporting is found in his report.
As background, my firm is called Thaler Liebeler LLP. It is a small law firm in Washington D.C. and I was retained in July of 2013. I am the chief investigator. I’ve had a couple of my colleagues help me on this but I am chiefly responsible for the work of the report and I’ve reviewed all of the report. 13:38
Liebeler had no experience in the investigation of child sexual abuse. He was a bad hire. I’d like to know what criteria Joshua Harris, the pastors, the Financial Advisory Committee (i.e., Jim Wilson, Dave Dassoulos, Eric Newquist, Robert Rashford and Pat Ennis) and CLC lawyers like Chip Grange used in their selection process. In fact, I’d like to know who recommended Liebeler. He didn’t appear out of thin air. Liebeler now has his own firm, Lars Liebeler, P.C.
I am not saying he is a bad person or a bad lawyer. He appears to be an experienced civil litigator with “expertise in the areas of antitrust and trade regulation, contracts, and constitutional law.” I am simply pointing out he has no expertise whatsoever in dealing with sex abusers or their conspirators and that is vitally important for an effective investigation.
Joshua Harris wrote CLC about the hiring of Liebeler on August 28, 2013.
“After sharing our intention with the congregation on June 23, we proceeded to retain the nationally recognized, independent law firm of Thaler Liebeler LLP to do this work. This Washington, D.C. firm is an impartial third party with no prior connection to our church or the matters the lawsuit references. As we prayed and sought counsel from the Financial Advisory Committee and the church’s attorneys, we concluded that an investigation could help provide an added measure of clarity and closure over and above what the legal process provides, and serve to reassure both our church and the wider community.”
Harris claims Liebeler was “an impartial third party” but I see no reason why he would be hired to do work that is out of his field unless there is some connection to someone. In fact, I see no reason for him to accept work that is unrelated to his practice of law.
I wonder if Liebeler has a personal and/or professional relationship with Chip Grange. They both practice Constitutional Law – maybe that is the connection. I don’t know but Joshua Harris or Mark Mitchell should have told CLC why and how they chose Lars Liebeler.
Liebeler says the practice is “a small law firm. Harris says it is a “nationally recognized” law firm. I guess you can be both.
If you want “an added measure of clarity and closure” in order “to reassure both our church and the wider community,” you hire someone like Boz Tchividjian of G.R.A.C.E. (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment). Here is his resume.
“Boz Tchividjian founded GRACE in 2003. He is a former assistant state attorney, who served as chief prosecutor in the Sexual Crimes Division, where he gained experience in cases involving sexual abuse, and later served as the attorney for the Child Advocacy Center in Daytona Beach, Florida. Boz has also spoken extensively on the subject of child abuse at various events including the conferences sponsored by the American Association of Christian Counselors and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). Boz currently serves as a law professor at Liberty University School of Law and currently writes a blog for Religion News Service entitled, “Rhymes with Religion” that focuses on the intersection of abuse and faith communities. His blog can be found at boz.religionnews.com. Boz recently published a book entitled Thank You Billy Graham (Barbour). He has also authored numerous law journal articles related to the issue of child sexual abuse and is also the author of a new mini-book entitled, Protecting Children from Abuse at Church: Steps to Prevent and Respond (New Growth).”
Mr. Tchividjian was readily available to help but the pastors of CLC chose not to use him or someone like him. There were many experts in the field of child sexual abuse that could have been chosen to do an investigation but they were all passed over in favor of Lars Liebeler. Why? Members should demand a clear-cut answer.
Mark provided you with some background but I think it is helpful to walk through just a bit of it again. A civil suit had been filed against the church and various others alleging a cover up of child sex abuse by CLC members and the failure of the pastors to report child sexual abuse to state authorities. Based upon my review of information available to me at the outset of the engagement, I proposed the investigation be organized into separate sections or modules. 14:17
How the Investigation Was Organized into Five Modules or Sections
The first module that I suggested was one in which I would review and analyze the church’s current child protection policies for activities occurring on church grounds or activities that are directly sponsored by the church. 14:33
No offense to Mr. Liebeler but this is where you want experts in the field of child protection and sex abuse prevention to “review and analyze…child protection policies.”
Liebeler refers to “the church’s current child protection polices for activities occurring on church grounds or activities that are directly sponsored by the church” but no such polices were made public at the time. Moreover, CLC needs policies for activities occurring off “church grounds” or not “directly sponsored by the church.”
For example, child protection policies for the small groups meeting in people’s homes called Care Groups. Dave Mayo was a Care Group leader in CLC as of November 2019. Yet, he was also accused of sexual molestation in Paragraph 82 in the Second Amended Complaint (lawsuit).
CLC did not “revise” their child protection policies until August 19, 2016 which was 22 months after Liebeler’s report. Those revisions were woefully inadequate and primarily dealt with Discovery Land (the Sunday morning children’s ministry). They were revised again on August 9, 2018.
In the second module, and it is closely related, I would review and analyze the implementation of these policies and that is, there are many organizations that have a wonderful set of written policies, they put the policies in a file drawer, they don’t read them and they don’t follow them. So module two was, does the church follow its own policies. 14:55
Liebeler can’t “review and analyze the implementation of these policies.” He is giving this oral report in October 2014 near the end of his “investigation” because CLC could afford him no longer. He was not around to make sure the polices were revised or implemented. This is a totally false assurance.
Module three, I proposed that I review and analyze the pastors’ present or current handling and understanding of their obligations with respect to child abuse, including child sex abuse, and the receipt of information that would lead them to a suspicion that that was going on in the church or by members or whoever it came to them. 15:21
Unfortunately, Liebeler does not understand the law as it pertains to “their obligations.” According to him, it is against the law for the pastors to report child sex abusers who confess their heinous crimes in the context of “seeking spiritual advice or consolation.” That faulty understanding is extremely dangerous and could easily lead to justifiable lawsuits against CLC or the criminal prosecution of pastors if a suspected or confessed child abuser abuses other children.
Module four was designed to review and analyze the allegations regarding the current pastors’ past handling of information regarding child abuse including child sex abuse. That’s the part I am going to focus on tonight and specifically with respect to Nathaniel Morales. 15:45
Liebeler should have reviewed and analyzed how every current and past employee of CLC handled the reporting of suspected child abuse when it first came to their attention and put the results in a chart. For instance, how did former pastor Chris Glass handle the reporting of abuse brought to his attention by Rachel Bates-Paci in 1991 and by James Roberts between 1990-1994. Glass was a critical player during those years and Liebeler-Mitchell leave him completely out of their reports. That is totally disingenuous!
Module five, I proposed that I would review and analyze allegations regarding the handling of information; regarding child abuse including allegations by [against] former pastors [John Loftness & Gary Ricucci] and by [against] members of the church [Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo, Dave Adams, & Charlie Llewellyn]. That module is under way, I’ve completed some of my investigation. I am nearing completion of that and expect that I may be able to report to you on that in two weeks when I appear again before you. 16:16
Liebeler reports on Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo in two weeks. He does not report on “child abuse” allegations against John Loftness and Gary Ricucci. Joshua Harris promised a full and complete reporting on all the allegations in the lawsuit against these two pastors. Why is this excluded from Liebeler’s investigation and/or report? An explanation is required.
For example, did Loftness and Ricucci threatened legal action against Liebeler if he said anything to CLC about these allegations? Or, did Liebeler find incriminating evidence and therefore withheld it because he was representing the legal interests of Covenant Life Church? In addition, Liebeler barely addresses the allegations against Dave Adams and Charlie Llewellyn. This is wrong and contrary to every promise made to CLC that there would be a full and complete independent investigation. There was nothing of the kind.
Concentration on Civil Suit Allegations Regarding Failure to Report Nathaniel Morales
As you know and as Mark had mentioned, Nathaniel Morales was convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse in Montgomery County Circuit Court. It was a criminal trial on May 15, 2014. His sentencing occurred just recently on August 14th and he was sentenced to 40 years in prison. 16:40
It was not a one-day trial. It was a four-day trial (May 13-16). What incompetence! Furthermore, Liebeler doesn’t mention the second Morales trial which was held the following week (May 19-20) or the third Morales trial that was cancelled (scheduled for May 21-22). I don’t think he wanted CLC members to know the full extent of evidence against Morales and the CLC pastors who conspired to cover up his crimes.
My remarks are mostly going to concentrate on those events with respect to the civil suit allegations and I think Mark did a good job of describing the difference between the two. The criminal proceeding was simply the State against Nathaniel Morales. The civil suit, or at least this segment of it, is aimed at the church with respect to allegations that it failed to act and take action when it knew about Morales’s sexual abuse. 17:13
CLC pastors “failed to act and take action” when they “knew about Morales’s sexual abuse” of boys from Rachael Bates-Paci in 1991, Sam Bates around 1992, Brian Wolohan around 1993, James Roberts between 1990-1994, and Morales himself in 2007. That is a matter of fact. Read C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children (Feb. 13, 2018). They were clearly obligated under the law to report to law enforcement in three of the five cases (more later).
Personal & Professional Background & Attorney-Client Privilege
Let me give you a couple of moments on some background that I think is helpful for you to know about me. I did appear before you a couple of months ago to tell you that I was engaged in working at that juncture in time. I wasn’t able to share any of the substance of the work that I had done at that point, so this [is a] review for some of you who were there but I think it is important. 17:39
I am a lawyer. I’ve been practicing in the metropolitan area for approximately 25 years. My practice encompasses a wide variety of types of cases. Mostly trial work and litigation and investigations as well which combine many of the same elements of trying to dig into the facts and get to the truth of the matter. 17:59
From my perspective, Liebeler gives the impression he has investigated sex crimes when he says, “my practice encompasses a wide variety of types of cases.” To the best of my knowledge, however, he has never been retained to investigate sex abuse cases, prosecute abusers or represent victims. I asked him about this but he refused to answer. If he had experience with child abuse cases, he would have mentioned it as part of his “background.”
I have been retained and I do have an attorney client relationship with the church but within the scope of my engagement, it is my full independent decision about what documents I want to see, who I want to talk to, for how long, it is my choice about what I do in this investigation. So I’ve taken input originally from the church on what they asked me to do, but once I started, it was my choice about what to do. 18:33
The implications of the “attorney client relationship” should have been fully explained to Covenant Life Church in July 2013 when Liebeler was hired. They were not. This legal arrangement rendered a truly independent investigation impossible. It doesn’t matter that it was Liebeler’s choice “about what I do in this investigation” including the people he met with or the documents he requested. Why? Because Liebeler could not share any incriminating evidence regarding the actions of past or present pastors, staff, or members of CLC. He was forbidden from doing so because of his attorney client relationship with Covenant Life Church. This was not an independent investigation in any way, shape or form.
And prior to this engagement, I had no prior knowledge or connection with Covenant Life Church or its members. I am a Christian. I am a member of an Anglican Church in Arlington, VA but my church has no affliction with Covenant Life or with its former parent organization, Sovereign Grace Ministries. 18:52
This begs the question, who recommended him and on what basis? He claims to have no connection with any member in the church including longtime CLC lawyer, Chip Grange. If Mr. Liebeler had agreed to talk with me, I would have asked him about these matters. He professes to be a Christian and is therefore accountable to the ethical standards of Scripture. He doesn’t explain how he came to be hired for such a critical task. For instance, through the Yellow Pages or signage on a bus in Washington D.C. advertising his services? Hardly. The arrangement leading to his employment is concealed.
I am not a part of the litigation team that was handling the defense of the case in the civil action and I will not become a part of that team. I have been compensated for my work. My compensation for this work represents a relatively small proportion of the overall revenues of my firm. 19:13
The “litigation team” was composed of many lawyers and at least seven law firms including those from the insurance carriers representing the 13 Defendants including CLC and SGC.
I have been afforded full access to any person within the church that I wish to interview. I’ve been provided full access to any document. The church has agreed to cooperate fully and I have found that they have done so. They have cooperated fully and made everything available to me that I have asked. 19:34
“Afforded full access” doesn’t mean anything unless a person is willing to meet and then be open and honest when interviewed. Also note that Liebeler qualifies the scope of his access to “any person within the church.” There are so many vital sources and witnesses outside the church to whom he had little to no access – like the three Montgomery County detectives who investigated Morales, or the two Assistant State’s Attorneys who prosecuted Morales and believe the CLC pastors covered up his crimes.
Liebeler should have listed everyone with whom he met and reported on the content of their conversations. He should have done the same with every document he requested and received. That would have gone a long way in showing the extent to which his report was partial or impartial. Unquestionably, Liebeler’s investigation was largely, if not entirely, one sided in favor of CLC.
Liebeler also claims he was “provided full access to any document” that he requested. What about those documents about which he knew nothing? For example, did he know about the emails between Charlie Llewellyn’s daughters and Joshua Harris regarding the abuse of their father? Did he ask Harris for these emails? Did Harris give him the emails? They are damning and incriminating, yet Liebeler makes no mention of them in his report.
Lastly, Liebeler claims “the church” fully cooperated. In context, however, the cooperation appears limited to accessing official documents in the possession of CLC staff. He should have defined the word “church.” I think it means church office and his discovery is limited to official minutes, financial reports, etc. I find these kind of nebulous statements unhelpful. He should be much clearer.
For instance, Liebeler should tell us if Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Grant Layman, Kenneth Maresco, and Corby Megorden turned over their computers so a search for vital and potentially missing documents could be undertaken by a forensic computer analyst.
In addition, Liebeler should tell us if he requested and was granted access to their hard copy files and pastoral notes related to all cases of alleged child abuse in CLC. He should also have included in his report whether any computers or hard drives were replaced after the lawsuit came out in January 2013.
Lastly, Liebeler should make clear if and how individuals like Grant Layman and Robin Boisvert “fully cooperated” with all aspects of his investigation. He says little about his interaction with these two men. We don’t know what he asked them or how they answered him on a great many subjects. For instance, did Liebeler ask Layman if he told Mahaney anything about the abuse of boys by Nate Morales? The same for Boisvert. These are the most basic and obvious of questions but Liebeler provides no information on these vital subjects. That is due to corruption or extraordinary incompetence.
Executive Summary – No Evidence to Support or Suggest a Conspiracy
I am going to present an executive summary of some of the allegations that I investigated in the Second Amended Complaint. And then when I have completed that executive summary I will go into some of the specific details about that. 19:47
Joshua Harris and the pastors promised a detailed report on all the allegations, not “an executive summary on some of the allegations” when they hired Liebeler in July 2013. Harris reiterated that promise in May 2014. Their promise was broken with malice.
As Mark had mentioned on May 14, 2013, the Plaintiffs in the civil suit had filed a Second Amended Complaint. They added allegations that Covenant Life pastors had actively conspired in a cover up to protect former member Nathaniel Morales and others and to evade their legal responsibility to report suspected child abuse to state or local authorities. 20:17
That is exactly what they did with Morales. They protected him, knowing full well he was a serial child abuser, by agreeing not to report him. That agreement constituted a conspiracy to cover up crimes.
Nathaniel Morales does not appear in the Original Complaint or the First Amended Complaint. He shows up for the first time in the Seconded Amended Complaint for his abuse of James Roberts. Liebeler-Mitchell never address Roberts’s factual allegations in the lawsuit. Nor do Liebeler-Mitchell reference the fact that Morales was indicted for “sex offense third degree” against James Roberts in a separate criminal case. They pass over all this information in the civil suit and the criminal case as though irrelevant. That is absolutely reprehensible.
The introductory paragraphs of that document specifically state and I quote, “That there is a conspiracy, it has existed for decades, and the object of the conspiracy is to permit sexual deviants to have unfettered access to children for the purposes of predation, and to obstruct justice, by covering up ongoing and past predation, in addition the church failed to follow laws regarding the reporting of child abuse and known sexual predators to have access to children during school, church, youth ministry, home group and other church sponsored activities." 20:56
This is not an exact quote. It is part quote, part paraphrase. Taken together it comes from paragraphs one and two in the lawsuit.
Based on my review of the historic documents that I’ve been able to review and access including an extensive set of the pastors’ Board meeting minutes - I’ve looked at emails, letters, I’ve looked at personal notes, files regarding church volunteers, personnel records. I’ve interviewed a variety of different persons including pastors, including Covenant Life members, former members, victims and their families. I report at this time, that I have found no evidence to support or suggest that a conspiracy has existed, or now exists for any purposes related to any allegation in the amended complaint. 21:40
This sounds impressive but exercise caution. Board meeting minutes, files regarding church volunteers, and personnel records are not going to contain information about sexual predators or any decisions reached by the pastors to not report sexual predators. You may find this kind of information in emails, letters or personal notes; provided all such notes are discovered and turned over. This kind of evidence may easily have been destroyed.
Liebeler should post all “the historic documents” he reviewed. What is missing will probably tell you more about the effectiveness of his investigation than what is included.
For example, does he have a copy of the unpublished book written by Olivia Llewellyn-Graham about her experience of physical and sexual abuse by her parents that is in the hands of the detectives who investigated her case? Or does he have a copy of her formal deposition that is likewise full of evidence? Or does he have the email correspondence between Olivia’s sister Brieta and Joshua Harris that also contains evidence regarding physical and sexual abuse by their father? Or does he have the letter from Grant Layman to Olivia promising the pastors would report Charlie Llewellyn to law enforcement (see Paragraph 160) but then failed to do so? Or does he have the Child Protective Services reports.
From: Olivia Graham
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 10:31 PM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: worried for you
I am scared of what you’re going thru, and I am terrified of losing my siblings forever- which is what would happen if they knew I gave [you] permission.
What do you want me to do? I am guessing you knew there would be heat on you beforehand? I didn’t think of that when I gave permission under the request that my siblings not know.
There is no libel here though, because I can furnish you a copy of the CPS [Child Protective Services] reports, which although lacking the whole truth, do have both of my parents admitting to icing us in tubs and making us bleed. One brother also acknowledges being touched “until puberty.” And another sister confirming that. Having a copy of that document would clear everything up.
Once again, Liebeler should tell us which CLC pastors, members, former members, victims and their families he met with. That would also tell us who he did not meet with. I find his claim misleading that he interviewed “victims and their families” because it implies a large group. That is not the case. For example, he did not meet with the five victims in the lawsuit against CLC. Nor did he meet with Jeremy Cook who was one of the victims that testified at the Morales trial. I think Liebeler is referring to Sam Bates and Brian Wolohan, the two other victims who testified in the Morales trial. That is all.
I find it profoundly disturbing that Liebeler made no effort to present Covenant Life Church with specific evidence in order to support his conclusion that all the allegations in the lawsuit were completely without merit - all 46 pages pertaining to 11 plaintiffs in Maryland and Virginia. Making vague references to “evidence” is not evidence. Liebeler’s oral report to CLC was completely unlike a closing argument in a court of law when you re-present your evidence and then drive home your conclusions.
Furthermore, there were no checks and balances upon him. He had some limited assistance by staff but no group of peers to challenge his work, findings, biases, or ethics. He acted unilaterally and without accountability. Moreover, his conclusions cannot be checked against his evidence because it has all been withheld.
I report at this time, that I have found no evidence to support or suggest that a conspiracy has existed, or now exists for any purposes related to any allegation in the amended complaint.
This means ALL the evidence contained in the lawsuit is nothing but rubbish! It should be rejected and thrown out like trash. Nothing in the lawsuit even suggests the possibility of a conspiracy. Once again, Liebeler gives his summary judgment but provides no specific evidence in support of it. Neither does he provide any refutation of the allegations of fact in the lawsuit. His finding is alarming because it is unsupported!
Liebeler never makes clear that he did not meet with any of the victims in the lawsuit and therefore never heard their horrendous accounts or the additional evidence not included in the lawsuit that further supports their allegations of fact.
I found no evidence that any person, or group of persons, took any action designed or intended to permit sexual deviants to have unfettered access to children for the purposes of predation. I have found no evidence to support or suggest to me that any person or group of persons took action designed to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past predation. I have found no ongoing predation of children at the church. 22:12
Several comments are necessary. First, Liebeler “found no evidence” because he has no power to depose people under oath, execute search warrants, arrest people for lying to him, do wire tapes, impound evidence or property, do digital forensics, etc. He is not law enforcement. He is not a detective. He is a lawyer and he works for CLC, not the criminal justice system!
Second, he “found no evidence” because he doesn’t accept as evidence the ton of evidence that exists in the lawsuit regarding the conspiracy to abuse children! I wrote the following in August 2013 based upon my careful study of the allegations.
Gary Ricucci and the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David Adams
Friday, August 2, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Brent Detwiler
The Ultimate Answer to “Why a Conspiracy?”
Here’s the picture that emerges according to the Second Amended Complaint. Loftness and Ricucci conspired with Adams and Morales in concealing their crimes. Loftness and Ricucci conspired with Griney in committing crimes. Griney conspired with Hoffman in committing crimes. Hoffman and Mayo molested Plaintiff Heather Thompson.
There are many more dots that could be connected to illustrate the alleged conspiracy at Covenant Life Church but that is enough for now. Loftness, Ricucci, Adams, Morales, Griney, Hoffman, Mayo and others could easily have been working together to conceal and commit sex crimes according to the factual allegations.
Liebeler is free to disagree with my summary, but he is not free to dismiss all the evidence in the lawsuit as though it does not exist without providing compelling proof that it is nothing by lies.
In contrast, I go through the allegations and show how I arrive at my hypothesis. He does nothing of the kind. He must demonstrate the allegations are false based upon concrete evidence. That must include interviews with the victims and their families which he did not do.
Go back and read the allegations of fact in Paragraphs 59 and 90. Certainly, Liebeler knows the testimony of these three victims is admissible as evidence in a court of law. He also knows Nate Morales was convicted primarily on the testimony of Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan, and Jeremy Cook. No one ever saw Morales abuse these boys, yet their accounts are considered evidence in a court of law upon which he can, and was, found guilty.
Liebeler cannot reject these factual allegations as “no evidence.” They are evidence. He can seek to disprove them but he cannot dismiss them. He must prove they are false. Liebeler didn’t even talked to the victims. Had he done so, I believe it would have resulted in a completely different outcome except for the fact he was CLC’s lawyer and had to withhold all incriminating evidence he discovered. There was nothing independent about his investigation!
Third, he says “I found no evidence to support or suggest to me that any person or group of persons took action designed to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past predation.”
I totally disagree. If you have reason to believe or know sex crimes are being committed by predators like Nate Morales and you do not report them to law enforcement and impede others from reporting, then you are obstructing justice. That is exactly what was done by CLC pastors both as individuals and as a group for at least 20 years. It doesn’t matter whether that was their design or intent. The court is not interested in motives. It does not allow for questions like “Why didn’t you report?” It only allows for questions like “Did you have a legal responsibility to report?” or “Did you in fact report?”
Don’t get me wrong, I believe CLC pastors intended to cover up child sex abuse because they did not want police investigations and they feared financial harm, reputational harm and the loss of members. Nevertheless, their motives behind their actions are irrelevant in a criminal case. The judge and jury only concern themselves with actions, not the reasons for those actions.
All Marylanders are required to report sex crimes. No one may interfere with this obligation. When they do interfere, they are obstructing justice. When they decide not to report as a group, they are guilty of a conspiracy.
Liebeler claims he did not find one shred of evidence that even suggests a single person ever “took action designed to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past predation.” Again, the lawsuit is replete with evidence that “suggests” John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Dave Adams, Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo, and Charlie Llewellyn covered up their alleged crimes. He simply doesn’t deal with the evidence. He just dismisses the evidence.
In addition, did Liebeler study the Montgomery County detectives’ reports from the Morales investigation? I believe the evidence shows Grant Layman obstructed justice by lying to them when interviewed by them. Or, did Liebeler carefully study Layman’s testimony at the Morales trial? I believe the evidence shows he obstructed justice when he lied at times during his sworn testimony. Or, did Liebeler investigate John Loftness for obstruction of justice when he told Dominic and Pam Palmer, “do not call the police” (Paragraph 96) after their three-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted?
Furthermore, the information he gathered regarding the non-reporting of Morales by Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco and Megorden in 2007 clearly “suggests” a conspiracy to cover up crimes and thereby obstruct justice. I could go on and on.
Remember, Liebeler’s all-encompassing statement emphatically asserts he found absolutely no evidence to SUGGEST a cover up, conspiracy or obstruction of justice by anyone at any time throughout the history of CLC and SGM. I find that conclusion absurd because an overwhelming amount of evidence “suggests” (and supports) the exact opposite conclusion!
Fourth, he says “I have found no ongoing predation of children at the church.” That’s great and I hope he is right, but here’s what I want to know. Did Liebeler find any past predation of children at the church? If so, he is not telling.
Keep in mind, Covenant Life Church has always denied any children were sexually abused “at the church.” Is that untrue? What is Liebeler not telling us? The question is simple. Has anyone ever been sexually abused in the CLC building or at a CLC event? If so, the pastors should set the record straight.
Fifth, Liebeler qualifies his comment when he says he has “found no ongoing predation of children at the church.” That doesn’t mean he didn’t find predation in any number of other venues including sleepovers in members’ homes. The question is simple. Did he find ongoing predation by anyone, anywhere? If so, did he report it to police? These are the kind of issues that should be clearly addressed in an independent report.
Reporting Child Abuse & Clergy Privilege in Maryland
With respect to the allegations that the church failed to follow the laws regarding the reporting of child abuse, the answer to this question is complicated. It is intertwined with facts that neither the pastors nor the victims of Mr. Morales can recall with 100% clarity. Largely because the events occurred nearly 20 years ago. 22:36
Liebeler makes it complicated but it is not.
No one “can recall with 100% clarity” events that happened in their lives 20 years ago, but “the victims of Mr. Morales” can and did recall in great detail the facts of their abuse. Only “the pastors” suffer from selective amnesia and claim to have forgotten major events related to the reporting of Morales’s sexual abuse to them by victims and witnesses.
The answer to the question of whether the church violated the law with respect to the reporting obligations is dependent on an interpretation and analysis of the Clergy Privilege in the State of Maryland. I am going to provide a summary of some of the factual information that I think is relevant and I am going to provide you with an explanation now of the Clergy Privilege: what it is, how it operates and why it is relevant to this question. 23:05
Liebeler concludes that none of the pastors “violated the law” based upon his faulty “interpretation and analysis of the Clergy Privilege.”
The Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Statute was enacted in 1987. Under the law all persons are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse including child sex abuse. And under the law, all means all. It means teachers, coaches, bus drivers, parents, neighbors, it means everyone, everyone in this room. 23:31
This is an extremely important point with which I fully agree. Under the law, everyone in Maryland was required to report “suspected child abuse.” That includes the parents of victims. At no time did the pastors of CLC direct parents or anyone else to report in keeping with the law as it pertains to the abuses noted in the lawsuit or in relation to Nate Morales. That was their duty as pastors. This law was enacted in 1987 and yet the church was never taught or held accountable to obey the law. In fact, the pastors repeatedly enabled congregants to break the law.
If I understand correctly, the law has been slightly modified. No longer are all citizens “mandated” by law to report. It now reads, “All Maryland citizens should report suspected abuse or neglect to the local department of social services or to a local law enforcement agency. Ensuring the safety of Maryland’s children is an obligation shared by all citizens and organizations.” See https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-protective-services/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect/.
Grant Layman knew he had a legal obligation to report child sex abuse in 1993. He said so at the first Morales trial in May 2014. He also knew members in the church had a legal obligation to report and yet he never directed anyone to do so. The same is true of all the pastors. And yet, Joshua Harris told investigative reporter Greta Kreuz from WJLA-TV in Washington D.C. in October 2012 that “We are very committed to involving the authorities.” That was not true. He clearly lied to save face! After he left CLC in 2015, he told everyone they did not involve the authorities.
If the statement by Harris was true, Liebeler as Harris’ lawyer, would have said something like this. “Based upon my investigation, I found an abundance of evidence that proves the CLC pastors were dedicated and determined to immediately report the suspicion of child sex abuse to Child Protective Services or law enforcement. Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree with Joshua Harris, the pastors of CLC were ‘very committed’ to involving the authorities and here’s the evidence.” In fact, Liebeler cites no evidence the sexual abuse of children was ever reported to law enforcement. Nor does Mark Mitchell or anyone else.
The following month, Harris also assured CLC at a Members’ Meeting saying, “Our church has had for many years a robust child protection policy.” This too was an empty boast. During those “many years” the pastors were not reporting suspected child sexual abuse. Nor were they directing members to do so. A “robust child protection policy” begins with a commitment by the pastors and people to report child abuse in keeping with the law.
Harris, Mitchell, Liebeler, et al. have never produced evidence that any pastor in the history of Covenant Life Church ever reported child sexual abuse, or directed a member to report child sexual abuse before these grandiose claims were made by Harris.
Pastors have a responsibility to teach the church to obey the laws of the land unless those laws are in clear violation of Scripture. The reporting laws in Maryland are plain and simple and have been in existence for over 30 years. For decades, sex crimes were not reported at Covenant Life Church.
Romans 13:1-5 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
The CLC pastors violated their consciences, broke the law, and rebelled against God and his delegated authority. They should be justly punished. Their disobedience unquestionably led to the sexual abuse of other children.
The reporting requirements to report child abuse is triggered if, quote “A person has a reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect.” There is no requirement that a person have absolute or definitive proof. It is simply “reason to believe.” It is a relatively low standard under the law. Similar to reasonable suspicion. 24:00
Liebeler is correct. The statute reads, “A person in this State … who has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect shall notify the local department or the appropriate law enforcement agency.”
It is a relatively low standard and not the one followed by the pastors at CLC.
Corby Megorden, the administrator for Covenant Life Church, laid out the pastors’ practice for reporting child sexual abuse at a church-wide meeting on August 17, 2011. Liebeler makes no mention of this long-standing practice which was clearly contrary to the law and motivated by a desire to avoid various harms including financial harm due to lawsuits. Liebeler should have exposed and condemned this practice in the strongest possible terms. That is the work of an independent investigator.
Here’s what Megorden said.
“Whenever a report comes, it comes as a report of potential abuse because we need to confirm that. It can either be confessed by an individual, it can be reported by someone else, or it can be discovered and seen by someone else. In any case, here is what we will try to do.
“First, we will first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been abuse? The next thing we do is contact our legal counsel to get their assessment. Every case is unique, every case is different. Every time we call them and say, “What are our obligations as a church?” And at times, yes, we want to protect [against various harms]. That is our responsibility to protect the church. It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit against the church. So we want to make sure we are doing this wisely and well.”
You don’t do an internal investigation when someone confesses, reports, discovers or sees child abuse. You report it immediately! Not the CLC pastors. First, they investigate and thereby interfere with law enforcement. Second, they decide guilt or innocence. Third, they call lawyers to determine liability if they report the abuse.
As a matter of practice, C.J. Mahaney and the CLC pastors did not report the sexual abuse of children even when they concluded there was guilt. The same was true of sexual assault as in the case of Charles Schmitt who preyed upon young men. Read Charles Schmitt Is a False Shepherd, Predatory Homosexual, & Divisive Deceiver - He Is Starting a New Church & Must Be Stopped! (Sep. 22, 2017). This illegal and reprehensible policy dates back to Mahaney’s tenure as senior pastor beginning in 1980.
Megorden makes it clear, the “obligation” to report known or suspected child molesters is not as great as the “responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit.” The highest priority is protecting against harms to the church - not protecting against harms to children. This was the “wisely and well” reporting policy of the CLC pastors in August 2011.
This is precisely what happened in 2007. Joshua Harris, Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, and Corby Megorden knew Nate Morales was a serial child predator but they feared a lawsuit based upon the “assessment” they received from “legal counsel.” Legal counsel is a reference to Chip Grange and his law firm, Gammon and Grange, P.C. According to Liebeler, Gammon and Grange did not inform the pastors of their obligation to report because the law firm was concerned Morales would file a defamation suit against the church if they did. More on this later.
Now there are two exceptions to the mandatory reporting requirement. Lawyers and pastors. If a lawyer learns of suspected child abuse from a client in a confidential attorney client meeting, the lawyer is not required to report that information to the police. Lawyers are required by law to keep information that their clients tell them in confidence, confidential. 24:31
Here is a working definition of the attorney-client relationship like the one Liebeler had with Covenant Life Church and its pastors. By law, he could not share any confidential or incriminating information with anyone including the church or the police. I understand the legal relationship but that is the very reason you DO NOT retain a lawyer if you’re interested in an “independent investigation.” Anything anyone from CLC told Liebeler “in confidence” went unreported and could not be shared. You will never know about it! He was bound to cover up crimes just like a defense attorney!
The law also includes an exception for information received by a minister or a clergyman in the course of communications with a member of the congregation. Quote, “In a professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church.” This exception covers communications made to clergy for the purposes of spiritual advice or consolation. So that is the operative term that covers the Clergy Privilege. “Spiritual advice or consolation.” 25:07
There is “an exception” for clergy but not a legal requirement as with lawyers. The distinction is huge and lost upon Liebeler. Clergy are not prevented from reporting the sexual abuse of children like lawyers are in an attorney-client relationship.
Here is the statute dealing with the clergy privilege or exception (underlining is mine).
2013 Maryland Code
FAMILY LAW
§ 5-705 - Reporting of abuse or neglect -- By other persons
(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including a law on privileged communications, a person in this State … who has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect shall notify the local department or the appropriate law enforcement agency. …
(3) A minister of the gospel, clergyman, or priest of an established church of any denomination is not required to provide notice under paragraph (1) of this subsection if the notice would disclose matter in relation to any communication described in § 9-111 of the Courts Article and:
(i) the communication was made to the minister, clergyman, or priest in a professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which the minister, clergyman, or priest belongs; and
(ii) the minister, clergyman, or priest is bound to maintain the confidentiality of that communication under canon law, church doctrine, or practice.
Here is the statute dealing with “any communication described in § 9-111” (underlining is mine).
2013 Maryland Code
COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
§ 9-111 - Privileged communications -- Minister, clergyman, or priest
A minister of the gospel, clergyman, or priest of an established church of any denomination may not be compelled to testify on any matter in relation to any confession or communication made to him in confidence by a person seeking his spiritual advice or consolation.
Let me summate. A minister, clergyman or priest is “not required” to report and “may not be compelled to testify” in a judicial proceeding if the three conditions above are met. That doesn’t mean a clergyman is forbidden from reporting or providing testimony if he voluntarily decides to do so. No law prevents a clergyman from reporting child abuse to the authorities or testifying against child abusers in a court of law.
What this means is, if you are a pastor and a member of your church comes to you seeking spiritual advice or consolation then everything that the church member says to you is confidential. It has been the historical tradition of most churches, including Covenant Life, to keep communications between a congregant and its pastor seeking spiritual comfort, confidential. If you are a pastor, and you don’t have permission from who you are speaking to, to break the bond of confidentiality, then you may not reveal what you have been told. And under Maryland law this includes information regarding suspected or known child abuse. 25:51
This is an egregious error! Why was Liebeler asked to do this investigation when he is not a sexual abuse attorney? Either he doesn’t know what he is talking about or he is purposely deceiving the church.
Nothing under Maryland law forbids a pastor from reporting “suspected or known child abuse” if such information is disclosed to him by an abuser, victim or witness while “seeking spiritual advice or consolation.” A pastor may ask their permission, but he doesn’t need their permission, in order to report the physical or sexual abuse of a child.
There is a place for confidentiality but confidentially has it ethical and legal limits. For example, sex crimes must be reported to law enforcement in keeping with Roman 13:1-5, unrepentant sin of a serious nature must be reported to the church in keeping with Matthew 18:15-17 and elders who continue in sin must be publicly rebuked in keeping with 1 Timothy 5:20.
Liebeler is dead wrong when he says a clergyman “may not reveal [i.e. report]…under Maryland law…suspected or known child abuse” if it is shared with him in confidence. God forbid any pastor in Maryland believes or follows this unsound legal counsel!
Pastors everywhere should read this article by Boz Tchividjian entitled, When sex offenders confess to clergy: Three mistaken beliefs.
I thank God, he has used the lawsuit against C.J. Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries and Covenant Life Church, to teach the Body of Christ that pastors must immediately report the suspicion of child abuse to civil authorities! This story has received a ton of coverage around the country. As a result, books have been written, along with innumerable articles in magazines, newspapers and on blogs. That will continue and may even increase. Praise the Lord! The church is being educated and pastors who fail to report are being called to account.
Why does such a rule exist? The rule exists to encourage both victim and perpetrators to come to their church and to seek advice from a pastor or minister without fear that what they say will be immediately revealed to the world. 26:09
The “rule” as Liebeler understands it does not exist. The actual clergy exception may have been well intended but it was not helpful. Protestant pastors and Roman Catholic priests still use it to cover up abuse for corrupt and misguided reasons. The provision provides a temptation to do so.
Biblical pastors want victims and perpetrators to come and get help but they should not promise absolutely confidentiality when they do. That is a disservice. They will help a victim to report and direct a perpetrator to turn himself in to law enforcement as part of his repentance. That is far from all they do but it is a necessary part of what they do.
The legislature has made that policy decision that it is better to encourage people to come to their pastors or their lawyers because pastors and lawyers would traditionally be giving people advice that would be helpful to them and hopefully would end up in the stopping of such conduct. 26:32
First, that is not the purpose of the “rule” for lawyers. Second, the “advice” of lawyers doesn’t “end up in the stopping of such conduct.” Defense lawyers for client sex abusers don’t direct them to plead guilty, make restitution to their victims, or accept the just consequences for their crimes. Godly pastors do and more. They also preach the gospel, command repentance, and assure forgiveness to the sincere penitent.
I will tell you that some states are like Maryland and they do not require a pastor to break that bond of confidentiality when a pastor receives information about child abuse. And some states do not recognize an exception on these grounds and they say that there is a duty to report child abuse no matter what. 26:51
Maryland law states a pastor must report child abuse like everyone else unless specific criteria are met. But even when those criteria are met, a pastor is not bound to remain silent. Clergy in Maryland should work to change the existing law so “there is a duty to report child abuse no matter what.”
There is sort of a split amongst all the 50 states. There are people who have studied this and said “What are the policies behind that? Do we want to have this rule? Do we want to have an absolute rule of saying everything should be reported?” And there is a lot of controversy about it. That is the law in Maryland though. There is a Clergy Privilege and pastors are obligated to obey that privilege. 27:15
It is NOT the law in Maryland! It is a privilege - an exception - but not a legal obligation that must be obeyed as a matter of law. There is a huge difference. Once again, this is a horrendous error by Liebeler!
Here is a link that delineates differences for Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect in all 50 states.
No Penalties for Non-Compliance & Legal Immunity
There are two other relevant parts of the Child Abuse Statute which I need to tell you about. First, there are no stated penalties for failure to comply with the statute. In most statutes it says, “It is either a misdemeanor or a felony, here is the penalty.” It is an oddity in that respect, there is no provision for fines or imprisonment and no enforcement mechanism. I am personally not aware of any person being prosecuted under the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Statute for failing to make a report. 27:50
Liebeler is correct, “there is no provision for fines or imprisonment and no enforcement mechanism” for Mandatory Reporters who fail to report. Thankfully, the law has been changed since his report.
Maryland Finally Enacts Penalties for Failure to Report Child Abuse
Joe Avrunin
June 3, 2019
As an aside, I attended the first and second trials of Thomas Chantry in Arizona in August 2018 and May 2019. He was found guilty on two counts of aggravated assault against two children and four counts of sexual molestation of a third child while a pastor in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA). In his case, three outside pastors, Tedd Tripp, Rich Jensen, Marcus “Mike” McKnight, “investigated” the assaults in 2000 but did not report them to law enforcement as mandated. It is a felony not to report in Arizona.
Far more seriously, they designed a plan whereby they covered up the crimes and withheld evidence from the parents. So did all the top officials in ARBCA. This did great harm to the victims and their families. Thank God, Chantry was sentenced to 24 years. And thank God, ARBCA has been exposed and on the verge of total collapse. All its top leaders like Earl Blackburn and David Dykstra have been disgraced.
I covered this monstrous story for three years.
World Renowned Tedd Tripp Should Be Arrested for Designing & Carrying Out a Criminal Conspiracy to Cover Up the Sadistic Abuse of Children by “Pastor” Tom Chantry
Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 5:38PM
An Overview of My Ten-Part Series on the Abuse of Children by "Pastor" Tom Chantry & Its Cover-Up by the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 12:19PM
When you don’t report child sex abusers you enable them to go on and commit heinous crimes against other children. There should be enforceable laws with penalties in Maryland for not reporting and the clergy privilege should be ended.
While “there is no provision [at the time] for fines or imprisonment” for not reporting; there is a provision for fines and/or imprisonment for interfering with the making of a report. This is extremely relevant because that is exactly what happened in Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries. It should have been included in Liebeler’s report. This critical provision exists in order to prosecute anyone who attempts to stop or discourage a person from reporting suspected abuse or neglect.
Effective: October 1, 2013
MD Code, Family Law, § 5-705.2
§ 5-705.2. Prevention or interference with report of suspected abuse or neglect prohibited
In general
(a) An individual may not intentionally prevent or interfere with the making of a report of suspected abuse or neglect required by § 5–704 or § 5–705.1(c)(2) of this subtitle.
Fines and penalties for violation of section
(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000 or both.
Let me share several examples. This happened when John Loftness told Dominic and Pam Palmer not to report the molestation of their three-year-old daughter to police.
Second Amended Complaint
Paragraph 96
May 14, 2013
On or about March 18, 1993, Dominic and Pamela Palmer, Renee’s parents, learned of the assault and immediately called the police and reported the assault. They then called Defendant Loftness, who immediately advised them “do not call the police.” When the Palmers told Defendant Loftness that they had already called the police, he expressed his displeasure (stating “that is going to be a problem”), and explained that such matters were handled internally by the church leadership, not by secular authorities.
It also happened when Joshua Harris and other CLC pastors told members that sexual abuse was handled by the church, not by law enforcement. These quotes are found in the article by Michelle Boorstein in The Washington Post.
Pastor Joshua Harris, an evangelical outlier, heads to mainstream seminary
Michelle Boorstein
January 30, 2015
In an interview, Harris said the isolation of Covenant Life, and of a small cluster of churches of which it was a part, may have fed leadership mistakes, including the decision of pastors — himself among them — to handle a child sexual abuse case internally instead of going to police.
A former Covenant Life member [Nate Morales] who helped with the youth group was convicted last year of molesting three boys in the 1980s. Trial testimony showed that the victims or their families had gone to church leaders for help and that the church officials did not call police. Harris said the thinking of the church was that such allegations should be handled as an internal, spiritual issue.”
We also see interference to report by all the people who told Rachael Bates-Paci to drop the subject and not report sexual abuse because it did not happen to her and was therefore none of her business. This came out in her testimony at the Nate Morales trial when cross-examined by Defense Attorney Alan Drew.
Rachael Bates-Paci
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Drew: Okay. Did you ever become aware that Thurlow Switzer notified the Montgomery County Police Department about sexual abuse?”
Paci: No. No sir.
Drew: Okay. Did you inquire at any point of Mr. Switzer?
Paci: No. He was my principal. I was 17. I didn’t have that relationship where I could go pester him about that [about reporting Morales]. And I was basically told by many people that I wasn’t the one who was abused so it wasn’t my problem basically.
We also see a lawyer referenced by Liebeler later in this oral report who tells either Sam Bates or Brian Wolohan to “forgive and forget” and not involve law enforcement. This is probably a reference to Chip Grange, the longtime lawyer for CLC.
“One victim was referred to a family friend [Grange] to discuss the subject of this abuse, this person was a lawyer, who knew or should have known of the obligations to report suspected child abuse to the authorities. He did not report the abuse, or advise the victim to report the abuse, but his advice to the victim was essentially to forgive and to forget.”
And of course, there is every reason to believe that CLC pastors sought to “intentionally prevent or interfere with the making of a report of suspected abuse or neglect” by one another.
In the end, Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco and Megorden all conspired (i.e. agreed) not to report Morales in 2007. Of that there is no question. But did any of them suggest or recommend they report Morales during their discussions but were deterred when met with objections? If so, that is seeking to prevent or interfere with reporting. Liebeler doesn’t deal with the matter.
The pastors should have helped victims to report. For instance, Sam Bates and Brian Wolohan. I believe they would have reported if they had received a little instruction and encouragement.
Samuel Bates
Direct Examination by State
Monday, May 12, 2014
Michalski: Now did there ever come a time when you spoke with anyone in the church about what happened?
S. Bates: I spoke to my pastor [Grant Layman]. After I spoke to my parents about it, I spoke to my pastor.
Michalski: And who was your pastor at that time?
S. Bates: Grant Layman.
Michalski: Okay. And at that time did you ever go and speak with the police department about the abuse?
S. Bates: No.
Michalski: And why not?
S. Bates: I was directed more to the people in the church to kind of talk to them about it and was never really swayed from speaking to the police, but I didn’t really want to be a lone ranger on it. I didn’t want to talk to the police by myself and just go after it by myself. I wanted to have several people involved.
Brian Wolohan
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2013
Michalski: Other than 2010 did you ever report this matter to the police?
B. Wolohan: No.
Michalski: And why didn’t you report it to the police?
B. Wolohan: Um. I mean I thought about it a couple of times, but it is obviously a big thing to do and something that was very uncomfortable to think about. Even though I was only a child it is a very embarrassing situation and I kept kind of putting off doing it.
Brian Wolohan
ReCross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Drew: One of the things you just mentioned in your response to Ms. Michalski is that, in the questions to you, is that in 2010 you decided that you wanted to come forward because you wanted to protect children. Correct? From similar harm?
B. Wolohan: Uh huh.
Drew: So between 89 and 2010 you didn’t have that degree of concern for children then?
B. Wolohan: Look, I said I procrastinated. I continued to think about whether I should do it [or] whether I shouldn’t and when I was invited to participate in the case I decided that that was the right path. It forced my hand. I had been procrastinating and weighing it.
Second, there is another provision in the law which I think is relevant. It states that any person who does make such a report in good faith of suspected child abuse is entitled to legal immunity. That is, they cannot be sued for defamation if their report caused a person to undergo an investigation for suspected child abuse. Again, the legislature has made the decision that we would rather have people making reports, so the police can investigate them. That we don’t want people being sued for defamation if they just turned out to be wrong. So there is an immunity provision. 28:37
Liebeler is correct. You cannot be sued or prosecuted for making “a report in good faith of suspected child abuse” even if you “turned out to be wrong.” Here is the statute. All plain as day.
Maryland Code
Article - Family Law
§5–708.
Any person who makes or participates in making a report of abuse or neglect under § 5–704, § 5–705, or § 5–705.1 of this subtitle or a report of substantial risk of sexual abuse under § 5–704.1 of this subtitle or participates in an investigation or a resulting judicial proceeding shall have the immunity described under § 5–620 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article from civil liability or criminal penalty.
The concerns for lawsuits by lawyer Chip Grange and administrator Corby Megorden were totally unfounded.
Who Was Nathaniel Morales?
I’m going to jump to the next topic which is the question, “Who was Nate Morales?” Nathaniel Morales was born on November 16, 1957. At the time he was tried in Montgomery County Circuit Court in 2014 he was 57 years old. I was able to gather information from a variety of different sources, those sources indicated that he began to attend Covenant Life and form friendships with various individuals in or around 1983. 29:10
Morales was excommunicated from the New Testament Church in the spring of 1981 for the sexual abuse of boys there. He came to CLC in 1981 or 1982.
Reports are that he was very outgoing and personable man. He was active in volunteering. He began working in a college outreach program. He then migrated to some youth activities and participated in, and later led, informal Bible study groups for youth. 29:32
Liebeler is withholding important information. He doesn’t tell the church that Morales led their “college outreach program” for Grant Layman. Morales was also able to lead informal Bible studies for the youth because he was well-known and well-respected by the pastors – not just parents. He was a volunteer but he was also paid staff for nine months.
His role as a Bible study leader appears to have been informal and largely based on the trust that he personally developed with several families and adolescent boys in the church. It was not something that was directly done under the direction and leadership of the pastors themselves. 29:53
That appears to be true in relation to CLC but it was not true in relation to Montgomery County Covenant Academy. He held a formal teaching and leadership position in the school which included Bible teaching and worship leading at the mid-week chapel service.
Now there have been many news reports, I am sure some of you are aware of them, and some comments at the criminal trial, suggesting that Mr. Morales was a respected leader in the church. The prosecutor used that in her opening statement at the trial. 30:08
He was a respected leader in the church. Liebeler should not imply otherwise, nor should he impugn the description of Morales by Assistant State’s Attorney Jessica Hall. I was a member of CLC in 1982-1983 and I remember the public commendation of Morales by C.J. Mahaney on Sunday mornings. He was looked up to by the pastors and therefore the members.
There was a close relationship between Covenant Life Church and Montgomery County Covenant Academy. CLC did not have a high school at the time so many of its youth went to the independently operated MCCA. Mahaney was friends with the Founder and President of MCCA, Thurlow Switzer. I also knew Switzer. MCCA was supported and promoted by the CLC pastors.
Morales was a teacher and the Vice Principal of MCCA. He was considered the spiritual leader of the school. He was esteemed in CLC because of his role in MCCA. Liebeler takes no time to describe Morales’s position in MCCA and the bearing it had on his recognition at CLC. He leaves out the vital connection between MCCA and CLC.
Morales was also a recognized leader in Covenant Life Church. He worked for Grant Layman and headed up the International Student Ministry at Montgomery College in Rockville, MD as part of the Lifeline ministry to junior high, senior high and college students. This was a well-known fact! Layman wrote about it in the “April 1988 Family News – Covenant Life Church.”
“Nate Morales is overseeing our International Student Ministry and is doing a great job! Starting from scratch this past year Nate is now meeting regularly with approximately twenty international students. Valentine’s Day will always be a memorable day for Nate as he proposed to Miss Pam Bassett after a romantic dinner in Annapolis. They are planning to be married on August 20. By the way, since October Nate has lost over 50 pounds! Congratulations!!!”
Grant Layman perjured himself at the Morales trial when he covered up the fact Morales was a paid employee and overseer during the time he was abusing boys. He was not “just a member.”
Direct Examination
ASA Amanda Michalski
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Michalski: What is the first time you can remember having contact with him [Morales]?
Layman: It would be hard for me to say. I would guess back in the mid-80s somewhere.
Michalski: And what was his role at Covenant Life.
Layman: He was just a member.
The information that I’ve acquired indicates that he was not a pastor. Morales was never a full-time employee. There is no indication that he was a part time employee or held any formal job responsibility or title. He was never a Care Group leader and there is no evidence that he received actually any training from the pastors at the Pastors College or from any pastor here at the church. 30:38
Morales was not a pastor in CLC but he was an employee. He also had an official title and formal responsibilities. Liebeler is going out of his way to play down Morales’s influence in Covenant Life Church. I am shocked by his inaccurate reporting but I also realize he is working with deceitful men like Layman who were withholding evidence from him.
Here are the facts. Morales was popular and well connected to top leaders. He was a featured vocalist in the worship group led by Layman. He was the Vice President of Montgomery County Covenant Academy where many CLC youth attended. He did informal Bible studies and mentored boys in CLC. He oversaw the International Student Ministry. He was promoted and recognized by Layman. He had a formal job description and title. He was on the payroll.
Liebeler further asserts “there is no evidence he received any training at the Pastors College or from any pastor here at the church.” The first part is true. I was running the Pastors College. At the time, it was called The School of Ministry.
Liebeler also asserts “There is no evidence he received any training…from any pastor here at the church.” That part is absurd. Layman trained him in the worship group and trained him in Lifeline In that capacity, he discipled Morales. Layman knew all about Morales and was deeply involved in his life. That is evident in the newsletter.
“Valentine’s Day will always be a memorable day for Nate as he proposed to Miss Pam Bassett after a romantic dinner in Annapolis. They are planning to be married on August 20. By the way, since October Nate has lost over fifty pounds! Congratulations!!!”
I did review a historical record of all the persons entered into the Covenant Life payroll accounting system. It does show that Nathaniel Morales was in that category, in an undesignated category with a hire date of July 1, 1987 and a termination date several months later of April 1, 1998, 1988 excuse me. Now there are many people on this list and most of them indicate an either part-time or full-time designation and what their job title is and in some of them it indicates what their salary is. For Mr. Morales it is simply blank. It only has those entries. 31:20
The fact that Morales was on the payroll speaks volumes about how Mahaney and the pastors viewed him in 1987. No one was put on payroll without their knowledge and approval. The church was relatively small and tightly run. Layman would have sought their approval before hiring Morales. That’s how things worked.
Morales’s job title may not have been entered into the payroll accounting system but the fact that he was hired by CLC is extremely significant. The entire pastoral staff thought very highly of Morales. And if he was hired and entered into payroll then he must have been paid during the nine-month (not several months) period indicated. Liebeler minimizes this and implies he was not paid.
Morales job title was well known throughout the church – under Layman, he headed up the International Student Ministry as its overseer. The “April 1988 Family News” was sent to everyone in the church and everyone read it. And yet, Liebeler didn’t receive it from the pastors, staff or members; or he deceitfully didn’t disclose it in this report.
Take note that Morales was terminated on April 1, 1988. Liebeler doesn’t tell us why he was terminated. That is such a basic question to ask given what Layman had just told the church in the April newsletter.
“Nate Morales is overseeing our International Student Ministry and is doing a great job! Starting from scratch this past year Nate is now meeting regularly with approximately twenty international students.”
Given this outstanding commendation, why was he fired the same month? Liebeler doesn’t tell us. He should have asked Layman this crucial question, “Why did you terminate Nate when he was doing such a great job leading the outreach to international students?”
There is no doubt in my mind Morales was motivated to head up this outreach in order to strike up homosexual relationships with these unsuspecting college students. He was a predator. That was his mode of operation. As noted by Layman, Morales was “meeting regularly with approximately twenty international students.” That is a frightening statement.
Morales not only preyed upon boys, he sought out homosexual men. I’d not be surprised if one or more of these international students told Layman about Morales’s homosexual proclivities or activities and Layman fired him as a result. That would have resulted in his termination. We must also bear in mind that Morales was actively and aggressively molesting numerous boys in the church while employed by CLC from July 1, 1987 until April 1, 1988. These are the crimes for which he was sentenced to 40 years in prison.
All of this should have been covered by Liebeler in his investigation. There is no excuse for not pursuing this line of questioning. Layman terminated Morales. We should be told why. Something major came up that caused Layman to fire him the same month he highly commended him. Liebeler doesn’t tell us what it was. Liebeler was retained by CLC as its lawyer during the investigation. He had an attorney client relationship with the church. That must be why he doesn’t share any incriminating evidence regarding Morales’s termination.
So there is no indication of a salary information or payment of any type. As I talked to people who had some historical knowledge of the accounting records and employment materials, no one was able to recall whether Mr. Morales ever received any payment from the church for work performed. One person close to him described him as an unpaid intern at one point but no one claimed or stated that he had an official position with the church. 31:46
Liebeler says “there is no indication of a salary information or payment of any type.” That may be true but Liebeler has already told us the same was true for most of the people on payroll. Quote: “Now there are many people on this list…and in some of them it indicates what their salary is.” I have no confidence in Liebeler’s reporting on this matter. I’d like to see the “historical record of all the persons entered into the Covenant Life payroll accounting system.”
But here is the point. You don’t put people on payroll unless you plan to pay them! And you don’t remove them from payroll unless you plan to stop paying them! Liebeler is going to great lengths to make sure no one thinks Morales was an employee of Covenant Life Church while he was sexual abusing boys in the church. All the evidence indicates otherwise. Here are the facts. Morales was a paid employee. He had a titled. He was hired by Layman. He was sexually abusing boys while an employee. He was fired by Layman. Liebeler doesn’t tell us why. That is no way to do an investigation!
Nearly all the people who I interviewed and talked to stated at some point in time in the mid to late 80’s that Mr. Morales was on the worship team. Now this appears to be a sort of nontechnical term for a volunteer that might play at least some role in the worship service. There is no evidence that he led or directed a worship team. He was musically gifted and he shared that gift by volunteering to be on stage during Sunday services either singing or sometimes playing an instrument. 32:24
Liebeler plays down or fails to understand the significance of Morales’s role on the worship team. As SGM people know, you didn’t get onto the worship group unless you were believed to be above reproach and a sincere worshipper of God. Being a lead singer on the worship team like Morales was a very public commendation of one’s character.
Morales was also Mahaney’s favorite singer and often honored by him for his solo performances. All of this gave Morales tremendous credibility and influence in the church. If he were exposed for sex abuse, it would have had a huge impact on the reputation of the pastors, Covenant Life Church, and Montgomery County Covenant Academy. It would also have shocked and alarmed parents and youth throughout the church.
Here is what one qualified source said on SGMSurvivors. I know this person.
2244
Blues0080
September 11th, 2014 at 10:01 am
I was at CLC until 1990, and then moved to the Pasadena church for the next 6 years. While at CLC, Nate Morales was a housemate for a few months. Nate was an incredibly gifted singer who was featured and honored on a regular basis. CJ regularly talked about how Nate was his favorite singer…. CLC covered up Nate’s problems to save face and not embarrass CJ because he had “commended” Nate to us. At this time we were “the best” and could not tolerate anything that would put CLC in a bad light…. like so many that failed in CJ’s eyes…it was hoped that Nate would slip into obscurity and it would all go away….
No. CLC pastors did not approve of molestations, pride was the issue as they tried to cover up and protect the reputation of the church.
Given his relative youth at the time that he was active as a member in the church, his lack of connections to anyone with any political influence in the church, his lack of financial contributions, I find that there is no significant evidence to suggest that there is a motivation for the church to specifically protect this man by covering up or hiding or tolerating his molestation of young boys. 32:57
First, we were all “relative youth at the time.” That’s a totally irrelevant point. I am three years older than Morales.
Second, Liebeler doesn’t understand the situation or else he misrepresents the situation. Morales was connected to those with “political influence in the church” – the pastors! He was friends with them and even worked for them. Grant Layman was his boss yet Liebeler claims he had no connections whatsoever. Oh my, what an egregious error! Morales was also connected to church officials like Dick Wolohan (comptroller for CLC/SGM) and regional leaders like Thurlow Switzer.
Third, the evidence about Morales being on payroll and being terminated is “significant evidence.” He writes it off as insignificant.
Fourth, Nate Morales was one of the best known and well-liked individuals in the entire church. The pastors had a thousand reasons to protect, cover up, and hide his molestation of boys and that is exactly what they did. Not once but repeatedly. They tolerated his sexual abuse for over 20 years. That’s why they never reported him to law enforcement and never publicly exposed him. They even let him remain a pastor in another denomination in 2007 after he confessed sex crimes to Layman. Why? They did not want to be sued!
Fifth, Montgomery County Covenant Academy was a well-known Christian school in the area that the CLC pastors supported. Exposing Morales would also have done great harm to the school. Mahaney and Switzer were friends. Switzer was President of the school. He learned about Morales’s abuse no later than June 1991 during his meeting with Rachel Bates-Paci, Grant Layman and Chris Glass. Like the CLC pastors, he did nothing. I’d not be surprised if Switzer asked Mahaney to not report the abuse or publicly discipline Morales.
Sixth, Liebeler claims he found no significant evidence. Yes, he did! He just explains it away. On the other hand, there was evidence to be found but he did not go after it. For example, there is no mention in Liebeler’s report that he ever attempted to interview Switzer. And of course, he never requested copies of the monthly Family News published during the years Morales attended CLC. Or else he withheld them.
Seventh, Liebeler never references Layman as a source of information. Layman quit as a CLC pastor in March 2014. Liebeler reported to CLC in October 2014. One of three things happened. Liebeler interviewed Layman and Layman lied to him. Liebeler didn’t interview Layman because his lawyers forbid it. Liebeler interviewed Layman but held back incriminating evidence in his oral report. In any case, an independent investigator would explicitly state what he learned from Layman.
There are no documents that I’ve reviewed that indicate that there were any discussion or consideration of, by the pastors for any favors [or] favoritism in any way toward Morales or a reason to give him some sort of favored treatment. 33:19
Of course not! The CLC pastors are not going to create documents for posterity that record conversations about covering up Morales’s crimes. Again, Liebeler misses the mark. I doubt Morales asked for favors. He didn’t need them. If anything, Morales knew the pastors would not report him to avoid reputational harm and financial harm as a result.
Two Relevant Segments: When Pastors Became Aware & Abuse Did Not Take Place on Church Property
There are two segments that are relevant. The first one is a time period in or around 1991 and 1992. This is when pastors at Covenant Life first became aware of Nathaniel Morales’s abuse of children. The evidence presented in the Morales trial in Montgomery County, in the criminal trial, showed that Morales has abused a number of young boys who were between the ages of approximately 10-15 years old between the years of approximately 1983 to about 1990. 34:00
The evidence at the first trial showed the abuse of boys in CLC occurred between 1983 and 1991 when they were 12-17 years of age. Pastors at CLC first became of aware of it in 1991.
The evidence at the second trial showed the abuse of boys in the New Testament Church (not part of SGM) occurred between 1979 and 1981. This was before he came to CLC.
The abuse did not take place on church grounds or property. Nor did any abuse occur at any church organized and sanctioned event such as a picnic or a Care Group meeting. The abuse took place in private homes of CLC members, typically in the late night, or early morning hours of a sleep over where several boys would be in attendance. My investigation indicates that this evidence that was presented at trial is valid. 34:31
The abuse of Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan and Jeremy Cook did not take place on church grounds or at official church events according to their testimony. The abuse of James Robert did according to the lawsuit (see Paragraph 36). We don’t know all the places or occasions other boys from CLC were abused. There was a total of nine in police reports.
Sam Bates, Gary Ricucci and Grant Layman
There were three victim witnesses who testified at his criminal trial. Two of these witnesses or their families either directly told pastors at Covenant Life that their boys had been sexually abused or provided sufficient information that the pastors should have or did know that there was a reason to believe that some kind of inappropriate contact or abuse of a sexual nature had occurred. 34:57
The three victims who testified were Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan, and Jeremy Cook. A fourth victim, Daniel Bates, was set to testify at the criminal trial but became ill and had to be hospitalized.
Liebeler leaves out a fifth victim, James Roberts. He also told a pastor about his abuse with others at a youth meeting.
Let me talk about the two families [the Bates’ and Wolohan’s] that came forward. Initial contact with one family [the Bates’] was likely made through pastor Gary Ricucci who was the family pastor for this family. And the contact occurred in either 1991 or early 1992. I’ve not had access to Mr. Ricucci because he was a named Defendant in the suit and his legal counsel did not make him available to me. And as you know he is no longer a pastor in the church. 35:32
The initial contact was with Grant Layman, not Gary Ricucci, according to the sworn testimony of Charrie Bates (mother) and Sam Bates. Scott Bates, the father, did not testify at the trial. Ricucci is C.J. Mahaney’s brother-in-law. Liebeler makes repeated mistakes when it comes to the reporting of factual details regarding names, dates, ages, etc.
Like Mahaney and Loftness, Ricucci has steadfastly refused to openly answer questions. Access to these men has always been blocked by their lawyers. Innocent men don’t act that way. They welcome the light because they aren’t hiding anything in the dark. Sovereign Grace Churches continue to refuse a real, not rigged, independent investigation. Read these articles.
A Fourth Sovereign Grace Church Reproves Leadership Team for Refusing Independent Investigation. Denhollander Responds. I Put Focus Back on SGC Leader John Loftness for Alleged Sexual Sadism of Children
(June 19, 2019).
A Split Off Denomination Forms with “Many Seasoned Pastors & Some Very Gifted Leaders” from Sovereign Grace Churches, Inc.
Sunday, May 24, 2020 at 6:36PM
Dick Wolohan told Robin Boisvert not to report in 1992. Apparently, Scott Bates told Gary Ricucci not to report in 1993. Mr. Bates regrets his decision. In 2007, however, Bates contacted Layman asking that he contact Morales to make sure he was not sexually abusing children as a pastor in Nevada. There was no request not to report. His intention was to investigate and stop Morales. Scott Bates was not “seeking spiritual advice or consolation.”
Sometime shortly thereafter, the victim [Sam Bates] who had been molested by Morales when he was a minor was referred to Pastor Grant Layman for pastoral care. And at this point in time, the victim had reached the age of majority. So, he had been victimized for a significant period of time but he didn’t tell anyone. He finally told someone [Jeremy Cook] when he was approximately 20 or 21 years old and that is when the information came to the church. 36:03
Sam Bates was victimized from 1983-1991. He and Jeremy Cook talked to each other about their abuse in 1993. Bates talked to Layman in 1993 or 1994. He was 22 or 23 years old according to his sworn testimony. Jeremy Cook testified that it occurred in 1993.
One assumes, Ricucci referred Layman to Bates but Liebeler does not explicitly tell CLC. It could also have been Mahaney. Liebeler must have asked Layman who directed him to meet with Bates. This should have been made clear in his report. It is possible Layman refused to tell Liebeler which pastor referred Bates to him. This much is clear to me, Ricucci and Layman would never be dealing with the sexual abuse of Sam Bates without Mahaney’s knowledge and involvement. That is based upon my close working relationship with C.J. over 25 years. No one operated independently of him especially on matters of great consequence.
Liebeler is mistaken when he says “the information came to the church” via Sam Bates. No, it first came to Grant Layman and Chris Glass via Rachel Bates-Paci in 1991. Her brother Sam and two other boys confided in her that they had been abused by Morales. That was the reason for her meeting with Layman, Glass and Switzer. She wanted Morales reported and stopped.
The indications are that he was referred for pastoral care to Grant Layman because Pastor Layman was the singles’ pastor at that point in time. Pastor Layman did provide pastoral care to this victim. Any and all communications between the victim, his parents and Pastors Ricucci or Layman were protected by the Clergy Privilege. Because this family and victim came to the church and to the pastors for the purpose of spiritual advice or consolation. 36:40
The chain of command was being followed. Job descriptions were being executed. This was official church business. I have no doubt, it was reported up to Mahaney and down to Layman by Ricucci. Further, Layman and Ricucci are Mahaney’s brother-in-laws.
Because the information that was provided to the pastors was protected by the Clergy Privilege it was therefore exempt from disclosure under the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Law. I also note that the parents and the victim at that time specifically stated that they did not want to report the abuse to the police because a public prosecution, would have in their judgment, caused additional emotional stress and trauma to the victim. 37:08
The Clergy Privilege may have applied to Ricucci’s and Layman’s meetings in 1993 though I am not certain all the criteria were met. For example, Rachael Bates-Paci told me her mother Charrie Bates wanted the abuse reported to police in 1993. Her desire was likely interfered with by Ricucci and Layman given their policy of not reporting to police but instead handling sexual abuse internally. The Bates now regret not reporting in 1993.
In 1993, neither Ricucci nor Layman were familiar with the Clergy Privilege. Layman repeatedly stated on the stand at the Morales trial that he had a legal responsibility to report and purposely chose not to do so. Liebeler should have made this clear.
Special care is exercised by the court, prosecutors, Child Protective Services and law enforcement when working with children and juveniles who are victims in order to minimize their “stress and trauma.”
I have now interacted with and counseled many victims over the past nine years. They wish they had reported and not waited. They suffered tremendous “stress and trauma” during their years of silence. Confronting their abuser brought tremendous relief. That was clear in the case of Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan, and Jeremy Cook.
Samuel Bates
Direct Examination by State
Monday, May 12, 2014
Michalski: Okay. And did there come a time when you did actually go and make a report to the police department about the sexual abuse.
S. Bates: It was about four years ago.
Michalski: And do you recall the circumstances that led to the decision to do that?
S. Bates: Speaking with some of my friends and my wife, it kept coming up every so often.
Michalski: What kept coming up?
S. Bates: I’m sorry. The abuse from Mr. Morales. His name would come up or someone would talk about him and it would kind of just come back into my mind and it was tough to hear that – what was going on with Nate, whether it be at a church or somewhere else. I just always kind of felt like I need to deal with this. So finally, I was, a buddy of mine [Jason Huff] works for the FBI, he had spurred me on to really pursue it. He gave me a name in Rockville for Sally Magee [the detective]. And from there we just went after it. Whether it be going after Nate himself or contacts of Nate. And it took really about two, two and half years, for them to actually find him and here we are.
I think more stress and trauma is experienced when victims, or their parents in the case of children, fail to report. Just one example. The guilt of not reporting often takes a psychological toll upon the victim and family knowing the abuser is likely abusing others when he could have been stopped. That one thought deeply affected Rachel Bates-Paci for nearly 20 years. That’s why she continually tried to persuade others to take action.
I specifically find that no pastor from the church attempted to discourage the victim [Sam Bates] or his family from reporting the abuse to the police. With respect to this victim, I find that no pastor encouraged the victim or his family to report the abuse to the police. 37:35
That may or may not be true. For example, Rachel testified that people discouraged her from reporting or trying to get others to report. Sam is her brother. Here’s what important. The pastors should have helped and encouraged the Bates family to follow the law and report for their own good and the good of others.
Furthermore, Boisvert and Layman had already confronted Morales in the spring of 1992 for the abuse of Brian Wolohan. Layman knew Morales was a serial predator when he met with Sam Bates in 1993. And remember, Rachel told Layman (and Chris Glass) about the abuse of her brother and other boys in 1991. If Layman knew, which he did, so did others and they did not encourage reporting or report themselves.
Lastly, I don’t trust Liebeler’s account that Sam Bates didn’t want his abuse reported to law enforcement. Liebeler’s version is contradicted by Assistant State’s Attorney Jessica Hall.
Jessica Hall
Assistant State’s Attorney
Opening Statement
Monday, May 12, 2014
And Sam ultimately did not keep quiet. He did unfortunately wait until he was an adult and when he told people about the abuse as an adult he went to the church [in 1993] and he brought the abuse forward to the church and laid it on the doorstep and asked them to do something about it. He assumed the church would do the right thing. That they would report the abuse to the authorities. That they would go to the police so that Mr. Morales would be held accountable for his actions. But the church did not. You will hear from witnesses in the church and from Mr. Bates himself that the church covered it up. The church protected Mr. Morales.
Brian Wolohan, Robin Boisvert & Grant Layman
Victim number two [Brian Wolohan]. At or about the same time frame, another family [Dick Wolohan] contacted their pastor, Robin Boisvert, regarding Mr. Morales’s contact with one of their sons [Brian]. This contact is independent of the contact that came through to Pastor Ricucci. 37:59
Liebeler is confused about the timeline. It wasn’t “at or about the same time frame.” It was a year earlier.
The father of this family requested that Pastor Boisvert accompany the father to a meeting with Mr. Morales to discuss inappropriate contact reported by the man’s son. Pastor Boisvert met with the father and Mr. Morales at a park in early 1992 to discuss the contact. 38:35
Bob Rosencrantz (a family friend) told Dick Wolohan his son Brian had been sexually abused by Morales after Brian told him. Boisvert told detectives that Layman was also part of the meeting. This was recorded in official police offense reports. Liebeler leaves it out. They didn’t “discuss inappropriate contact.” They confronted Morales on sexual abuse.
The participants’ recall of the exact nature of what was said at the meeting is unclear. My assessment is that the meeting was somewhat inconclusive. After the meeting, Pastor Boisvert specifically asked the father of the victim if there was anything more that he wanted to do with respect to Morales and the father said no. He specifically said he did not want to go to the police. His son, at that point in time, was just straddling the age of majority. It is very difficult to pinpoint the exact time when this occurred, but he was either 17 or 18 years old in my judgment at the time this occurred. 39:07
It is very easy to pinpoint the exact time if you listen to the testimony of Dick Wolohan. He was explicit. It was the spring of 1992. Brian was 17. Liebeler’s incompetence is intolerable.
If Boisvert or Layman had helped Brian, he would have reported. The pastors abandoned him after 1993. Dick Wolohan (who was a colleague and friend) told me at the Morales trial in May 2014, that NO ONE ever followed up with Brian or himself after 1993. It broke my heart. Liebeler leaves out this part of Brian’s testimony.
Brian Wolohan
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2013
Michalski: Other than 2010 did you ever report this matter to the police?
B. Wolohan: No.
Michalski: And why didn’t you report it to the police?
B. Wolohan: Um. I mean I thought about it a couple of times, but it is obviously a big thing to do and something that was very uncomfortable to think about. Even though I was only a child it is a very embarrassing situation and I kept kind of putting off doing it.
Brian Wolohan
ReCross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Drew: One of the things you just mentioned in your response to Ms. Michalski is that, in the questions to you, is that in 2010 you decided that you wanted to come forward because you wanted to protect children. Correct? From similar harm?
B. Wolohan: Uh huh.
Drew: So between 89 and 2010 you didn’t have that degree of concern for children then?
B. Wolohan: Look, I said I procrastinated. I continued to think about whether I should do it [or] whether I shouldn’t and when I was invited to participate in the case I decided that that was the right path. It forced my hand. I had been procrastinating and weighing it. And like I said, I kind of, you know as a Christian, you wrestle to what extent you leave things in the hand of a sovereign God and to what extent you use the judicial system. And I kind of leaned towards the former throughout those years. And I didn’t know for sure whether future abuses were occurring or not. He was out of my life. I didn’t have information as to whether he was continuing this activity. Then, you know when it came up, it struck me as somebody had made a decision and I was going to go along with it.
Pastor Boisvert did provide pastoral care for the father. As I said the family expressly stated they did not want to report the matter to the police for the same reasons that the first family did. They felt that it was going be an event that would cause more trauma to their child. They had already gone through enough. 39:26
Boisvert should have instructed Dick Wolohan in the law regarding reporting and then helped him to follow it. Not reporting causes more trauma than reporting from all I have observed in working with victims of abuse.
Liebeler is dead wrong about Boisvert. He did not provide “pastoral care for the father.” After the meeting in the park, he never talked to Dick about it again!
At some point thereafter, this victim was also referred to pastor Layman for pastoral care given that he was near the age of majority and pastor Layman again, at that time, was the singles’ pastor. 39:40
Layman worked for and reported directly to senior pastor C.J. Mahaney as the singles pastor. Layman was also Mahaney’s brother-in-law. Brian would never have been “referred to Pastor Layman” without Mahaney’s knowledge. In fact, Mahaney probably asked Layman to meet with him. Liebeler withholds all this information.
Any and all communications between the victim, his parents, and pastors Boisvert and/or Layman in this instance were also protected by the Clergy Privilege because this family and the victim came to them principally for the purposes of spiritual advice and consolation. 39:59
Remember, according to Liebeler’s faulty understanding of the law, “protected by the Clergy Privilege” means it was illegal for the pastors to report the crimes to law enforcement. That was absolutely not the case! Furthermore, not every “communication” occurred in the context of seeking “spiritual advice and consolation.” For instance, with Rachael Bates-Paci in 1991, John Roberts between 1990-1994, Scott Bates in 2007, etc. Those communications indicated they wanted Morales stopped!
Although it is not entirely clear from a legal perspective whether the actual meeting in the park amongst pastor Boisvert, [pastor Layman], the father, and Mr. Morales was for the purpose of spiritual advice or consolation, there is as you know biblical precedent for such a meeting and it was preceded and followed by meetings seeking spiritual advice or consolation. Therefore, I conclude that the Clergy Privilege does apply to all the communications that are associated with this victim at this time. 40:32
This is ridiculous! The meeting in the park was to confront Morales on the report that he molested Brian. Again, the pastors didn’t even know about “the Clergy Privilege.” As Layman clearly testified in the Morales trial, he knew was obligated by law to report Morales. So did Boisvert and Ricucci. All these men were knowingly breaking the law and they were not instructing anyone to follow the mandatory reporting law.
Because the information was protected by the Clergy Privilege, it was therefore exempt from disclosure under the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Act. Consequently in the 1991, 1992 time period, I do find that the pastors complied with their legal obligations under Maryland law. 40:53
In June 1991, Rachael Bates-Paci asked three pastors - Chris Glass, Grant Layman and Thurlow Switzer - to stop the sexual abuse of Nate Morales. They scandalously violated “their legal obligations.” I cover all of this in detail in this article. It is a must read to fully understand the extensive nature of the cover-up by Mahaney and his staff.
C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children
February 13, 2018
Nathaniel Morales, Dick Wolohan & Teen Challenge
Now almost immediately after the meeting in the park between Mr. Morales, Pastor Boisvert, and the father of the victim; Mr. Morales left the Maryland area. He traveled to Michigan and voluntarily checked himself into a program called Teen Challenge. Teen Challenge was set up to address issues of alcohol abuse and homosexual attraction. That is why he checked himself in. 41:25
He may have been forced to enter the program by the CLC pastors under the threat of being reported to law enforcement. See the article just referenced.
The father of the second victim traveled to Michigan later in the summer of 1992 to personally visit Mr. Morales at Teen Challenge. The purpose of the visit was for the father, was concerned about his progress and wanted to check on him. During their conversations, the father told Mr. Morales that he forgives him for what he had done. 41:52
Dick Wolohan was seeking to be gracious but he was really being taken advantage of by Morales and some bad theology. Morales needed to be held to account in a court of law. Wolohan later found out Morales had abused another of his sons. Morales never told him.
Morales Never Reported in 1990’s Due to an Unfortunate Combination of Events
From a point no later than approximately the early spring of 1992 then, Mr. Morales had no further connection with Covenant Life Church. To summarize this time period then, there were a number of opportunities for Mr. Morales to have been stopped right then in 1992 but it didn’t happen. The reason that he was not brought to justice at that time, however, was not because of a conspiracy designed to protect him, instead it was an unfortunate combination of events. 42:37
Nonsense. Yes, there was a conspiracy to protect him. All the pastors believed they had an obligation to report under the law but none of them did. That includes Mahaney. The CLC pastors learned of abuse by Morales on numerous occasions concerning multiple individuals from 1991-1994. They never instructed the parents to report and they never reported themselves though mandated by law as stated by Layman.
First, as you might imagine, the victims themselves were adolescent boys were terribly ashamed and embarrassed of what had happened to them. And Mr. Morales was an extraordinarily manipulative person and they were fearful of the consequences of reporting his conduct. Even when they reached the age of majority, the prospect of reporting his conduct to the police and potentially undergoing a public trial was a severe deterrent to them reporting. 43:08
Per their testimony in court, the boys were also fearful of the consequences meted out by the CLC pastors and Thurlow Switzer at the Montgomery County Covenant Academy if they came forth and made accusations against the popular and high-standing Morales.
Second, the parents of the victims had a duty under Maryland law to report what had happened to their children but they did not. But the reason why they did not was their own desire to protect the children that they love. They wanted to protect them from further embarrassment and from further mental anguish. The incidences of public outcry, excuse me of abuse clouded their judgment and I believe in retrospect the parents realize that they should have reported this information. 43:33
The parents did not report because the pastors did not help them to report and did not want them to report. Furthermore, if the parents “should have reported this information,” how much more the pastors!
Third, one victim [Sam Bates] was referred to a family friend [Chip Grange] to discuss the subject of this abuse, this person was a lawyer, who knew or should have known of the obligations to report suspected child abuse to the authorities. He did not report the abuse, or advise the victim to report the abuse, but his advice to the victim was essentially to forgive and to forget. I believe the lawyer should have reported the abuse himself or counseled the victim and his family to report the abuse themselves. 44:18
In my opinion, Chip Grange is guilty of covering up the sexual abuse of children in Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries contrary to the law. I use to work with Grange on legal policies and procedures related to SGM.
Fourth, the pastors were not under any legal duty to report Morales to the police. And to the contrary, their legal duty was to maintain the confidentiality of what they had been told for spiritual comfort and healing purposes. And as I stated before the parents had stated they did not want to go to the police. There is a certain risk to a pastor that he may be subjected to legal liability for revealing confidential information entrusted to him by a congregant. 44:50
Liebeler is wrong on all counts! First, the pastors were under legal duty to report when approached to stop him. Second, there is no legal duty to maintain confidentiality. None. Third, you are immune to “legal liability” for reporting suspected or known sex abuse that comes to your attention as a pastor even if the person asks you to keep that information confidential. On this latter point, Liebeler contradicts himself. Liebeler is misleading all of Covenant Life Church in the most horrendous manner!
Should Pastors Insist on Reporting by Victims or Their Parents or Report Themselves?
I am going to ask the question that many of you may have on your minds now, but I don’t think I can answer it. Should the pastors have forcefully insisted that the victims of the Mr. Morales abuse go to the police themselves? Should the pastors have disregarded their confidentiality obligations to those whom they were ministering and gone to the police themselves over the objection of the families? I don’t know the answers to these questions. And I think that anyone who tells you that these are easy questions is badly mistaken. These are very difficult questions. 45:28
This is shocking! The State of Maryland provided clear cut answers to these questions in 1987. Yes, the CLC pastors should have helped and directed (not “forcefully insisted”) the victims and their parents to report in keeping with the law. I am not suggesting this is an easy thing to do, but it is the right and necessary thing to do. And yes, the CLC pastors should have reported the crimes if they were unable to persuade the families to do so. Nothing prevented them.
Reporting is not a matter of disregarding their confidentiality obligations. They have no such obligations under the law and they are commanded in Scripture to report such crimes. I am confident the families in question back in 1993 (i.e. the Bates’ and Wolohan’s) would have returned to thank them later. Instead the victims lived in unresolved misery and Morales went on to abuse large numbers of children including two stepsons.
I love the testimony of Jeremy Cook – one of Morales’s victims. This was posted on SGMSurvivors.
Another SGM Survivor
May 14th, 2014 at 9:59 pm
Now that the trial is in the hands of the jury, I have decided to break my silence. That’s why I gave the interview today to the local news that I linked earlier. Yes, I am Jeremy Cook, one of Nate Morales’s victims, and one of the key witnesses in the case against him. I posted a few times a year or so ago but had to remain silent in order to not jeopardize the trial.
Brent and others have certainly captured many of the important parts of my testimony, so I don’t need to re-hash that here, but I wanted to say to everyone here that I am grateful for the support and for this community. I have been a regular reader here for quite some time, and reading the stories, comments and conversations here have given me encouragement through this process.
Ultimately, my purpose in pursing this trial was first and foremost about preventing a known predator from continuing to victimize others, and to hopefully encourage others to come forward with their own stories of abuse, and pursue their own justice, and to get these predators off the streets. I have been blessed the past few days to meet some of the regulars here on this board, and I want to say thank you to each of you.
I think the biggest surprise to me through this entire process was how amazing I felt after I testified. I was incredibly nervous in getting ready, and the walk through that courtroom up to the witness stand seemed like the longest walk of my life. But after I sat down, and stared down my abuser, and got over the initial rage at seeing him, I began to have a new perspective. Suddenly, I realized that he had no power over me anymore. I was in the position of power, not him… and then I began to speak. Difficult at first, but then the words and the story started flowing. And let me tell you all, it was liberating! Suddenly, I didn’t want to stop talking, I just wanted to share everything I could. And when it was done, I felt amazing. It felt like a giant weight had been removed from my shoulders, one that I didn’t even realize was there. The walk back from the witness stand and out of the courtroom felt like a walk of pride and a walk of strength. Once I left the courtroom, I wanted to jump for joy!
I now feel relieved, freed, unburdened, and like I can face the world fresh. I had no idea how much this had all weighed on me for so many years. The shame is nearly gone. The fear is certainly gone. No matter the verdict, I am free, for I told the truth. I told my story. No longer am I hiding in the shadows, but I am free!
So all of my rambling aside. If nothing else can come of this, if just one other victim can hear my experience, and have the courage to come forward from my experience, then all the hard work to bring this to trial was worth it.
The 2007 Governing Board & Nathaniel Morales
Jumping ahead from this timeframe approximately 15 years to 2007. No action was taken by the church or any pastors with respect to Mr. Morales in the 15-year period from 1992 to 2007. During that time, none of the Covenant Life victims themselves or their families had any contact with Mr. Morales or reported his prior activities to the police. He moved far away, and he was not in this area. 46:07
After 15 years, God moved in his sovereignty and power to expose the CLC pastors and help the CLC victims.
In the spring of 2007, the father [Scott Bates] of the victim [Sam Bates] who had initially come to the church through the family pastor, Gary Ricucci, in 1991, contacted pastors on the Board to report that one of his family members [Rachael Bates-Paci] had recently searched the internet and had learned that Nathaniel Morales was a pastor in a church in Las Vegas, Nevada. 46:33
The pastors on the CLC Board were Joshua Harris, Kenneth Maresco, Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert, and Corby Megorden. Harris is apostate, Maresco left CLC, Layman and Megorden resigned from ministry, only Boisvert remains at CLC and should be removed.
It is not entirely clear what the father’s objective was in bringing this information to the attention of the pastors. But the communication does not appear to have been for the purpose of obtaining spiritual guidance or comfort and therefore would not have fallen under any exception to the mandatory reporting requirements of the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Statute. 46:58
This is a huge admission by Liebeler! Scott Bates did not contact the pastors for “spiritual guidance or comfort.” That is true. There was no “exception” not to report.
It appears as though the motivating force for the communication from this family was that another family member, a sibling of the victim, had held an offense for what Morales had done years ago. The pastors knew this and they were informed that this was the motivation and that is the reason they were contacted. The father told them this information. 47:21
I hate this wretched propaganda by Liebeler contrary to all the facts. This is purposeful disinformation intended to discredit a key witness – the heroine in the whole story – Rachael Bates-Paci. She was the one who went to Glass, Layman and Switzer as a 17-year old and reported the horrible abuses being committed against boys by Morales. She also testified to all of it under oath at the 2014 Morales trial. Unlike Liebeler and the pastors, she is trustworthy and commendable.
Rachael was NOT carrying a sinful “offense” though she had reason to be righteously angry at Morales for abusing two of her brothers and several of her friends. In fact, she was carrying an extraordinary burden that Morales was still abusing boys but now as a false shepherd. She told me so in a two-hour interview on September 26, 2014. And she was right! What does Liebeler know? Nothing! He never attempted to talk with her. It is a lie that her father Scott told the pastors he contacted them because his daughter was “offended.” He contacted them because she discovered Morales was a pastor and wanted to make sure the CLC pastors looked into the matter.
The Board of Governing pastors discussed the issue at a Board Meeting on March 7, 2007. There were five pastors in attendance. The pastors discussed the question of what obligation the church had with respect to this matter. The Board decided it would obtain guidance from legal counsel. Legal counsel was consulted in July regarding a proper course of action. 47:48
They were contacted by Scott Bates in March. They sat on it. They contacted “legal counsel” (Chip Grange) in July. Robin Boisvert was not in attendance according to Mark Mitchell. John Loftness must have been the fifth pastor in attendance. Once again, Liebeler is not forthcoming with information. He is protecting his clients. These men had no interest in “a proper course of action.” They are about to break the law again!
Records indicate that there were two separate telephone calls involving two pastors and one legal counsel. The total time of the consultation on this issue was approximately 45 minutes between the two calls. 48:03
He provides no names because he wants no accountability for the “two pastors and one legal counsel.” Nor does he want this information used in a civil or criminal case. Once again, he is protecting his clients. I worked with Chip Grange as the “one legal counsel” from 1982-2007 while on the SGM Board of Directors. I never talked to or communicated with anyone else in the law firm.
Legal counsel advised the pastors that there was a possibility of liability for defamation if colleagues or superiors of Mr. Morales in Las Vegas were contacted and alerted to Morales’s prior conduct. Two pastors reported this information back to the Board in August of 2007 at the Board Meeting. 48:28
The Covenant Life pastors and Chip Grange have always been preoccupied with potential lawsuits against them; not doing what is right even when dealing with a sexual predator like Morales or Charles Schmitt. I have no respect for Grange. He also recommended an unethical and illegal “hush fund” be used to prevent a family from joining the lawsuit.
UPDATED: Hush Fund Used by Top Sovereign Grace Leaders to Meet the Demands of a Sovereign Grace Pastor Whose Son Was Sexually Abused
Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 8:13PM
The Board Meeting minutes state, quote “That Grant suggested that he call Nate directly and ask if he, Nate, has made those sins known to those whom he is accountable?” The elders agreed that Grant would call or email him and pursue this avenue. After that Board Meeting, Grant Layman contacted Mr. Morales by email and by phone and made this inquiry. 49:02
Grant Layman is the point man. Mahaney’s brother-in-law. Mahaney is still training Joshua Harris as sr. pastor and is the apostle over CLC at this time.
Mr. Morales stated to pastor Layman that he was suffering from memory loss and that he had no clear recollections from the time of being in Gaithersburg during the period of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. 49:16
This is all a lie by Morales. He did not suffer from memory loss. He tried to use this ploy leading up to his trial but was tested by court appointed doctors and they discovered no such condition. This is one reason why pastors like Layman should never investigate sociopathic perverts. Leave it to professionals.
Pastor Layman reported this information back to the family and no party took any further action at that point. 49:25
Layman also reported back to Harris, Maresco, Boisvert, and Megorden that Morales confessed to him on the phone that he sexually abused Sam Bates and Brian Wolohan. “No party took any further action.” That’s right. Layman and the rest of the governing board of pastors had an admission of crimes and yet they did nothing! This confession was also conveyed to Scott Bates by Layman in an August 31, 2007 email. It was used as evidence in the Morales trial.
I find that because the purpose of the contact with the church from this family was no longer principally related to spiritual advice or consolation that the information was no longer communication that was protected by the Clergy Privilege. 49:45
No kidding!
Although there was no new information with respect to whether or not Mr. Morales was engaged in any child abuse, the context of the contact from the family, and their renewal of the previous assertions that Morales had previously engaged in the child abuse of their son, acted to remove the protection of the privilege. 50:07
There was “new information.” Liebeler’s leaves out Morales’s confession of crimes to Layman in their August 2007 phone conversation. Liebeler should have been confronted by Harris or Layman for the intentional omission.
The testimony below from Layman comes from a transcript of Morales’s first trial. “Michalski” is the Assistant State’s Attorney and lead prosecutor.
Grant Layman
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Michalski: And did you ask him [Morales] another question, a specific question about whether or not he’d ever followed up with the Bates or Wolohan family to ask for their forgiveness and seek reconciliation? [for the sexual abuse]
Layman: I did.
Michalski: And what did he say in response, in regards to any [sexual] abuses that had been committed?
Layman: He acknowledged abuse but could not remember any details.
Michalski: And what did you do after you spoke with the Defendant [Morales] in regards to that email if anything?
Layman: I reported back to the pastoral team about the conversation and I sent that email to Scott Bates.
Michalski: And at that point in time when you received those statements from the Defendant, did you report it to the police at that time?
Layman: No.
Michalski: Okay. And to your knowledge did anybody on your pastoral team or anybody in the congregation report the matter to the police?
Layman: Not to my knowledge.
This testimony by Layman was given on May 14, 2014. Liebeler gave his oral report on October 12, 2014. He knew all about Layman’s testimony that Morales confessed to crimes and that no one on the pastoral team reported those crimes to law enforcement.
Morales’s confession of sexual abuse to Layman was “new information.” He knowingly withholding incriminating evidence. This deception tells you everything you need to know about his investigation. He is protecting his clients like a defense attorney without ethics.
The context of the communication indicates that the family was requesting that the pastors actively do something in relationship to Morales or a third party, his superiors. The purpose of the communication was not principally to facilitate spiritual advice or consolation. 50:27
It had nothing to do with spiritual advice or consolation.
I do think the pastors made a correct decision to consult legal counsel regarding their obligations. In reconstructing those communications with counsel [Chip Grange], I don’t find that there is any indication that legal counsel advised the church to report Morales to the police or raise this issue for discussion during the consultation to determine if there was an obligation at that point in time to report him even though it had been 15 years since he had been in this area and he was out of state. 15:01
Liebeler is protecting his clients once again. He claims the pastors asked about “their obligations” to report but never got answers from their “legal counsel.” Therefore, Liebeler puts all the blame on the law firm of Gammon and Grange, P.C. (he obviously does not like the lawyering of Chip Grange) because they never advised the pastors to report Morales or even discuss the matter. That exonerates the feeble-minded pastors who didn’t know better. Ha, ha!
Anyway, Liebeler adds, it was 15 years ago and Morales lives out of state. Why report? This is so insipid and insidious! All the pastors knew they were required to report Morales in 2007 especially after he confessed to crimes. Layman knew it in the early 1990’s and he was a very young pastor. He said so under oath at the Morales trial.
Grant Layman
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Drew: So you knew about Sam Bates and allegations of being sexually abused. Correct?
Layman: Yes.
Drew: And you knew about Brian Wolohan being sexual abused. Correct?
Layman: I knew there was abuse. I didn’t know details.
Drew: And you had no duty as a pastor, or one of the pastors at that church, to report that to the police department? Is that what you are telling me?
Layman: I am telling you that there were plenty of people involved and I had no. [Drew interrupts]
Drew: I am asking about you! I am asking about you!
Layman: Right. I did not.
Drew: Did you have a responsibility as a pastor, when you become aware of sexual child abuse, did you have a responsibility to report that to the police department? That is a yes or no!
Layman: I believe so.
Drew: And you didn’t do it.
Layman: No sir.
Liebeler is cunning. He leaves this admission by Layman out of his reporting.
As a technical matter, the Board failed to comply with the mandatory reporting obligations because there are no time limits set forth in the statute at all. It is silent on that issue. So, technically they failed to comply with the statute. 51:18
The last sentence should anger everyone reading this account. Harris, Layman, Maresco, Boisvert, and Megorden knew Morales was a serial sexual predator going back to 1979. In 2007, he confesses to Layman that he abused Sam Bates and Brian Wolohan. Liebeler retorts, “So, technically they failed to comply with the statue.” That is why sexual abusers prosper and victims pile up!
Whether the Board’s reliance on its legal counsel was reasonable or not is difficult to determine. By 2007, all the pastors had a great deal more familiarity with their obligations to report suspected child abuse. The law firm had briefed them on a periodic basis on those obligations and there had been instances before where there were abuse situations that the church had reported to Child Protective Services. So the pastors knew about the obligation and had complied with that obligation in other unrelated matters. 52:00
There are NO instances of the Covenant Life pastors ever reporting the sexual abuse of children to law enforcement. That is why they have never cited a single example. There have been occasions when they reported the physical abuse of children. There are also occasions when they did not report the physical abuse of children. The same is true for the battering of women. Liebeler is being crafty when he uses the phrase “abuse situations.” It only includes physical abuse.
The complicating factors in this analysis include the lengthy duration of the time since the last suspected event of child abuse and the fact that Morales was in a distant location. 52:16
Liebeler is making excuses. Time made no difference. All the victims had vivid recollections. I heard their testimonies in court. And Grant Layman could easily have flown to Nevada to talk with Morales or his denominational leaders. Distance was not a factor. Morales didn’t live in Siberia or Antarctica.
I do find that the concern regarding defamation was not warranted. As I noted earlier, the Maryland Child Abuse Law contains a very specific provision that anyone who makes a report of suspected child abuse to Maryland authorities shall be immune from a prosecution in a civil or criminal action. Had the church reported Morales to the authorities it could not have been sued by Morales or by any other person for making this report. 52:47
That is so clear under the law and so easy to find in the law. What is wrong with Chip Grange?
Maryland Code
Article - Family Law
§5–708.
Any person who makes or participates in making a report of abuse or neglect under § 5–704, § 5–705, or § 5–705.1 of this subtitle or a report of substantial risk of sexual abuse under § 5–704.1 of this subtitle or participates in an investigation or a resulting judicial proceeding shall have the immunity described under § 5–620 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article from civil liability or criminal penalty.
Though he is correct, Liebeler contradicts himself when he says, “Had the church reported Morales to the authorities it could not have been sued by Morales or by any other person for making this report.” Previously he said, “There is a certain risk to a pastor that he may be subjected to legal liability for revealing confidential information entrusted to him by a congregant.” Reporting “confidential information” (i.e., crimes) to law enforcement posed no legal liability given the statute above.
I do conclude that the decision of the Board to authorize Grant Layman to make direct contact with Mr. Nate Morales in 2007 to inquire whether he had made his sins known to others who he reported to was unwise. I do not find that the Board had any intent to warn or tip off Morales in any way but the unintended consequence of contacting him about past sins could have done just that. 53:20
Morales’s “past sins” were also heinous crimes and they were continuing. Liebeler should have made this crystal clear. Layman and the rest of the Board (Harris, Boisvert, Maresco & Megorden) didn’t involve the police. They took matters into their own hands. Layman is authorized to make direct contact with Morales to see if he told denominational leaders about his “sins.” Of course, that is precisely the way sexual abuse was handled in CLC. Let the pastors handled it without notifying law enforcement. Liebeler calls this “unwise.” It was also illegal. They are content to cover up Morales’s crimes.
Sexual predators are always sociopathic liars. You never trust anything they tell you. Interestingly, Liebeler doesn’t tell us how Morales answered their question. That is, did he tell his superiors about his history of sex crimes. Once again, Liebeler is withholding information.
Two years later in 2009, an adult who was victimized by Morales during his time at Covenant Life did make contact with the police and this report eventually led to the arrest of Mr. Morales in Nevada, his return to Maryland and his eventual conviction on charges of sex abuse. 53:39
The “adult who was victimized” was Sam Bates - the son of Scott Bates and brother of Rachael Bates-Paci. Liebeler refuses to say he was sexually abused. Pathetic! The CLC pastors did nothing to stop Morales. Therefore, Sam finally resolved to report him on October 20, 2009. After a three-year investigation, Morales was arrested on October 15, 2012 in a Wal Mart parking lot. His former wife, Marcia Jo Griffith, who was with him told me the whole story. From 2007 to 2012, he continued to sexually abuse boys because the CLC pastors conspired to cover up his crimes which C.J. Mahaney first learned about in 1991. Liebeler never talked to Marcia.
A very brief conclusion. There is no question that Nathaniel Morales was and is a very deceptive and immoral man. People in this church were not the only people who were deceived by him. He deceived people both before and afterwards. 54:01
This is a critical admission by Liebeler. He knows Morales was “a very deceptive and immoral man” before coming to CLC (1982) and after leaving CLC (1991). He doesn’t explain himself, however. Once again, he refuses to call Morales a sex abuser – instead, he calls him immoral. This is after Morales was already in prison serving a 40-year sentence. Liebeler knows Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco, and Megorden knew Morales was a serial predator in 2007, but of course, he makes no mention of it in his report.
One other note, I do believe based on what I’ve said here that you’ll note that some of the press coverage with respect to the trial has been a little bit incomplete and inaccurate. And particularly the questioning of Grant Layman at the criminal trial. No one raised the issue of whether there was confidentiality associated with his initial understanding of these reports. And so the only thing I would say in addition to my report findings is, is that the overall, the press doesn’t know really as much, and they have made some inaccurate statements about that. 54:44
This is a bunch of malarkey intended to besmirch the States Attorney’s Office in Montgomery County, MD and also the excellent press coverage by Eric Tucker of the Associated Press. There was nothing “incomplete and inaccurate” about his reporting and that of others.
Lawsuit claims evangelical church group concealed sex abuse allegations in Md., Va.
Eric Tucker
October 17, 2012
And Liebeler complains about “the questioning of Grant Layman” but that questioning was done by Alan Drew, Morales’s lawyer! Drew didn’t raise “the issue of whether there was confidentially” because there was no legally binding confidentially. Liebeler has made up a law that does not exist.
Liebeler also falsely contends “the press…have made some inaccurate statements” about pastoral confidentiality. Of course, he doesn’t cite any examples. Why? Because they don’t exist.
I do conclude in that 1991 and 1992 there were no laws were broken with respect to the reporting requirements. I do believe that in 2007, there were some errors in judgment that were made by the pastors and by legal counsel. I do not know whether they arise to the level of violating the law or not. But as I have described to you, I do believe that there were errors in judgment made. I know the pastors are going to want to address that. 55:11
Reporting laws were clearly broken in 1991 when Rachael met with Chris Glass (her senior high youth pastor at CLC), Grant Layman (the overall youth/singles pastor at CLC) and Thurlow Switzer (her school principal where Morales worked) and told them about Morales’s abuse of multiple boys. Rachael wanted him stopped! They covered it all up and did not report his abuses to law enforcement. That was an explicit violation of the law. She testified to this under oath at Morales’s first trial. Liebeler knows the law was broken.
In 2007, Morales confessed to Layman in a phone call that he abused two boys. That was documented in his August 31, 2007 email to Scott Bates which was used as evidence in the trial. ASA Amanda Michalski said she could have arrested Layman in the courtroom for conspiracy. All of this is known to Liebeler. It is pure deception when he says, “There were some errors in judgment. … I do not know whether they arise to the level of violating the law or not.” Yes, he does.
Harris, Mitchell and the CLC pastoral staff did not want an independent investigation when they hired Liebeler. He was simultaneously being paid to “investigate” them and defend them as their lawyer. His top priority was to keep them out of lawsuits and prison.
Thank you very much for your attention. And as Mark Mitchell had said, if you have any questions, they can be written down on the cards and if I am able to I will be back in two weeks to answer as many of these questions as I can. Thank you. 55:26
Mark Mitchell
Minutes 55:38-1:02:26
No Evidence to Substantiate Allegations of Any Conspiracy
Thank you very much Lars. We are very grateful for all the work you have put into your investigation for the last several months and for coming tonight and your willingness to come back in two weeks to answer questions. 55:49
Liebeler began his investigation in July 2013. It continued until November 2014. It was 17 months long, not several months long. The investigation was not completed because CLC ran out of money. People were leaving the church in droves.
Folks, I know that that was a lot of information to absorb so what I want to do is go back briefly and highlight a few things from what Mr. Liebeler mentioned in his report. 56:00
It is important to note what Mitchell is about to highlight. In a nutshell, that there has never been a conspiracy to commit or cover up the sexual abuse of children in Covenant Life Church.
First with regard to the civil lawsuit. Mr. Liebeler reviewed the allegations of the civil lawsuit that involved our church. The lawsuit alleged that there had been a long standing conspiracy here to allow sexual deviants to have access to children in order to prey on them. The lawsuit also alleged that the church covered up this conspiracy and continues to do so. 56:24
You “allow sexual deviants to have access to children to prey on them” when you refuse to report deviants to Child Protective Services or law enforcement and don’t inform families in harm’s way. CLC pastors have failed to do these things going back to at least 1991. Liebeler joins their long standing conspiracy with his bogus investigation and discreditable report.
Now when the civil lawsuit went to trial, the court simply didn’t get into the issues of whether or not the allegations were true. The case was dismissed on other grounds. So, we are grateful that as a part of his work in reviewing our church practice and policy, Mr. Liebeler also was able to independently look into the allegations. And as he mentioned he found no evidence to substantiate allegations of any conspiracy to give predator’s access to children or to cover up a conspiracy at Covenant Life Church. 56:55
The first point by Mitchell is critical. None of the allegations in the lawsuit have ever been tried in a civil or criminal court. That is correct. They have never been proven true or false in a formal court proceeding. Therefore, Mitchell is “grateful” that Liebeler has done what the three courts did not do – rule on “whether or not the allegations were true.”
This leads to his second point. Mitchell claims Liebeler “was able to independently look into the allegations.” That is true but as a matter of fact he never talked to those making the allegations – the victims. That is incredulous! He only talked to their abusers (e.g. Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo and Dave Adams). He only heard the predators’ side of the story. His investigation was one sided. It was not an independent investigation; it was a woefully incomplete investigation with obvious bias.
Third point. Based on this one sided and incomplete investigation, Mitchell asserts “no evidence” was found by Liebeler to support a conspiracy to commit or cover up child sex abuse. According to Mitchell and Liebeler, the entire lawsuit is nothing but a fraud based on lies and fictional accounts of child sex abuse by the victims with a couple exceptions.
I have written about Mitchell on several occasions. He is completely untrustworthy. In September 2019, he was fired as the executive pastor at CLC for patterns of serious sin including outbursts of angry. I hope he responds to the grace of God. I wrote about it.
Executive Pastor Mark Mitchell Removed from Ministry at Covenant Life Church for Patterns of Sin Including Outbursts of Anger
October 1, 2019
As I said earlier, though the lawsuit is full of false allegations we see the Lord’s good purposes in it and it has helped to heighten our awareness of the reality of abuse and its devastating effect on individuals and families. And it has helped us to tighten policies that were already in place and our action plan whenever reports of abuse arise. 57:22
If the “lawsuit is full of false allegations” then Mitchell has a responsibility to prove it. So does Liebeler. You can’t call the victims of sex abuse liars unless you are willing to prove they are liars by presenting compelling evidence. Otherwise, you slander them and worse!
Mitchell and Liebeler never provide such evidence. If it were possible, they should be confronted by the members of Covenant Life Church and asked to go back through each allegation and show how and why it is false. Otherwise, no one should accept their unsupported conclusions!
I have never charged C.J. Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries, or others with lying without putting forth the evidence to support the charge. That’s because truth and integrity matter to me. If I can’t or won’t provide evidence for my accusations, then I should keep quiet!
What Did the Pastors Know & When?
After the civil lawsuit, the investigator also looked into the actions of Nathaniel Morales and how his situation was handled by pastors at Covenant Life Church. And in light of the press coverage of his criminal trial many people understandably had a lot of questions. So I want to go over a few things that the investigator discovered relating to Morales and the goal of this brief review is to attempt to clearly answer the question, “What did the pastors know and when?” 57:52
People didn’t have questions because of the press coverage, they had a lot of understandable questions because of Grant Layman’s testimony and admission in court that he and others did not report Morales’s abuse in the early 1990’s and in 2007 despite their understood legal obligation to do so. The press coverage wasn’t the problem. The court testimony and its transcript was the problem.
In the 1980’s, Morales attended CLC from approximately 1982 to around 91 or 92. He was about 25 years old when he first became involved. From approximately 1983 to 1990 Morales committed numerous acts of sexual abuse. Some of his victims and their families were members of Covenant Life Church at that time. During this time, no one beyond Morales and the victims knew of the abuse. 58:20
I know of nine victims from Covenant Life Church. There were probably more. That doesn’t include other victims who were not members of CLC. From 1979-2012, Morales abused scores of boys in at least five states and two countries.
In the early 90’s, around the 91, 92 timeframe, victims reported the abuse to their families. The father of one victim [Scott Bates] informed a CLC pastor [Gary Ricucci according to Liebeler], who left the church several years ago [Oct. 2010]. This pastor met with the father and the victim [Sam Bates]. And the victim’s family indicated that they did not want to report. 58:40
Mitchell is mistaken. Sam Bates never talked to Gary Ricucci. He only talked to Grant Layman and not just once.
Sam Bates
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Monday, May 12, 2014
Drew: When was the first time you talked to Grant Layman about this?
S. Bates: When I was 22 [1993] or 23 [1994]. This was much, much later. After we got back from Florida [Jan. 1990] and after I talked to Bob Rosencrantz [1993].
Drew: So between the ages of 12 to 22 you never spoke to Grant Layman about this incident.
S. Bates: No.
Drew: Now there would have been, I don’t know, another 9 to 11 pastors who were still in the church?
S. Bates: At least. Yes.
Drew: Which of those pastors if any did you talk to about any of this?
S. Bates: None. Zero.
Moreover, it is not accurate to say, “the victim’s family…did not want to report.” Rachel wanted to report and she told me her mother, Charrie wanted to report but deferred to her husband, Scott and son, Sam. It is more accurate to say that Scott Bates and Gary Ricucci didn’t want to report because “there was concern about reputations being tarnished.” Not just Sam’s reputation, but the reputation of the pastors and the church. Scott came to regret his decision not to report.
Detective Sally Magee included the following in one of her reports.
“On 12-02-2009, the writer and Det. R. Toner met with Bates’ parents, Scott Bates and Grace [Charrie] Bates. … When Scott talked with the pastor [Gary Ricucci] about the situation, there was concern about reputations being tarnished. Scott lamented that the incident had a profound effect on his family and he didn’t handle the situation as well then, as he might handle it today.”
Grant Layman, who was the singles’ pastor at the time, met once with the victim [Sam Bates] for pastoral care. And Grant is a former pastor, but he remains a member here at Covenant Life Church.
I don’t trust the information Layman provided Mitchell and Liebeler. Rachael told me her brother Sam met with Layman on numerous occasions.
Also, as you were told in the early 90’s, the father of another victim [Brian Wolohan] of Morales came to Robin [Boisvert]. The father [Dick Wolohan] asked Robin to accompanying him to a meeting to confront Morales and afterward Robin asked the father if he wanted to take further measures. He did not. 59:10
Notice the purpose of the meeting. It was to confront Morales on his sexual abuse of Brian. It was not for “spiritual advice and consolation.” Mitchell contradicts Liebeler who said, “It is not entirely clear from a legal perspective whether the actual meeting in the park amongst pastor Boisvert, the father, and Mr. Morales was for the purpose of spiritual advice or consolation.” No, it was perfectly clear.
Morales left the area shortly after this meeting and Robin had no knowledge of any other victims. Grant Layman met once with the victim [Brian Wolohan] that Robin was aware of for pastoral care but neither Grant nor Robin were aware of the information each other had. That is very important to understand. 59:34
If true, then who did Robin tell about the sexual abuse of Brian? It is clear, Robin did not keep the information to himself. He reported it to someone else. Furthermore, Robin did not ask Grant to meet with Brian for “pastoral care.” Someone else asked Grant to meet with Brian about his abuse.
Lars Liebeler knows the answers to these questions. So do Robin Boisvert and Grant Layman but they are covering up. A truly independent investigation would tell us who Boisvert informed and who gave Layman the assignment of meeting with Brian. Of course, all this clearly points to C.J. Mahaney. He ran a tight ship and would have insisted all this information come to his attention. Layman, Boisvert and Ricucci would never have dealt with sexual abuse cases without Mahaney’s oversight and direction.
People should also keep in mind that Ricucci was alleged to have conspired to commit and cover up sex crimes in the lawsuit in conjunction with Loftness by three witnesses. I know these witnesses and believe them. More later.
Lastly, Layman and Boisvert “were aware of the information each other had” not unaware as Liebeler claims. For example, they confronted Morales together with Dick Wolohan in the park according to police reports.
Between 1992 and 2007, during this period neither the victims nor their families nor any pastors had any contact with Morales or the authorities. Nothing was known about Morales’s life or whereabouts. 59:47
They should have been tracking him and following up on him. They didn’t care he left CLC a vile sex abuser and would inevitably prey upon new victims.
In 2007, the father [Scott Bates] of one of the victims contacted pastors at Covenant Life Church to report that Morales was currently pastoring a church in Las Vegas, Nevada. The issue was brought to the Covenant Life Governing Board, which was a subset of the pastoral team, that had governing authority for the church. Four pastors who were on the Board at that time remain on staff at Covenant Life. That is Joshua Harris, Corby Megorden, Kenneth Maresco and Robin Boisvert. But Robin was not present at this meeting. 1:00:22
Lars Liebeler says five pastors were at the March 7, 2007 meeting. The fifth pastor was John Loftness. Mitchell doesn’t mention him by name because he is an alleged sexual sadist.
John Loftness in Focus – Former Chairman of the SGM Board & Alleged Sexual Sadist
July 14, 2013
The governing Board discussed information reported by the victim’s father. The Board discussed it and decided to seek input from the church’s legal counsel. In the subsequent meeting, the Governing Board discussed their biblical responsibility and the legal advice they had received. Legal counsel had raised concerns that notifying the Las Vegas Church about Morales’s past could make the church liable for character defamation. 1:00:49
“The church’s legal counsel” is a reference to Chip Grange. That has always been the case. They “discussed their biblical responsibility and the legal advice.” Instead of obeying the Bible they followed Grange. Being “liable for character defamation” was more important than reporting a confessed, serial, child abuser and sexual pervert. Money has always been the pastors’ primary concern.
In C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children, I pointed out how Grange should be church disciplined and called upon to make a public confession of sin. To my knowledge, he is still a respected member in good standing at CLC.
Grant was tasked by the Governing Board to make contact with Morales to find out if his past abusive behavior was known. In August of 2007, Grant exchanged emails with Morales and spoke to him via phone. And in September of 2007, Grant reported back to the Governing Board about his communication with Morales. 1:01:12
This is when Grant Layman told Harris, Maresco, Boisvert, and Megorden about his confession of sexual abuse.
He then followed up with the victim’s father [Scott Bates], that was Grant, and shared about his communication with Morales. They did not want to talk with Morales or do anything further at the time. 1:01:23
Scott and Sam did not want to do anything further; but Charrie (mother) and Rachael (sister) did. Regardless, the CLC pastors had a legal, ethical, and biblical responsibility to report his crimes to law enforcement. The cover-up of Morales’s sexual abuse began in 1991, it continued in 2007.
Now we fast forward to October of 2009. The victim [Sam Bates] reported Morales to the Montgomery County Police who then began an investigation. Both Robin and Grant made themselves available to investigators to answer questions. 1:01:38
They were not truthful with detectives when interviewed. That is evident in the police offense reports I cite in C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children.
In May of this year [2014], Grant testified at the Morales trial and press coverage of that trial and Grant’s testimony raised questions about how the CLC pastors handled the situation. All the while the civil lawsuit was under appeal. 1:01:54
Mitchell is pulling the same stunt as Liebeler. The press was at fault.
In August of this year, Morales was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. Again, I know that is a lot of information to process but we are hopeful that it helps you to understand the history relating to Morales. 1:02:09
It doesn’t help with anything of substance.
At this time, I am going to invite the men who were involved in the 2007 Governing Board and are still in this church to come forward. As I mentioned Josh, Robin, Kenneth, and Corby will come. And Grant will also join them as well. You will hear directly from them. 1:02:26
“Still in this church” excludes John Loftness. He left CLC in a rage with Mahaney, Ricucci, and others. What follows now are repetitive, scripted, and superficial apologies that were approved by their lawyers.
Joshua Harris
I would like to read a statement on behalf of all of us, the five of us, we are speaking as members of the Board back in 2007 to respond to the findings of the independent investigation and our actions regarding Nathaniel Morales. We are communicating together because we made the decisions together. At the conclusion of this joint statement, we would each like to ask your forgiveness individually. 1:03:11
“We made the decisions together.” That is a conspiracy under the law. At the conclusion, no one asks forgiveness for sins or breaking the law or allowing a sexual pervert to continue as false shepherd and abuse more boys; they ask forgiveness (i.e. apologize) for making mistakes.
Before we share we want to say that we understand that you will need time to process what you’ve heard tonight. It is understandable if you are disappointed with us. We are disappointed with ourselves. As you heard from the independent investigation in 2007, it was brought to our attention by the parent of a victim that Nathaniel Morales was serving as a pastor in Las Vegas, Nevada. The parent asked if we would consider making contact with Mr. Morales’s church with the goal of inquiring about his current accountability, what he had disclosed regarding his past, evidence of repentance, and possibly facilitating a meeting with their family. 1:03:54
“We are disappointed with ourselves.” That is a typical Josh phrase. Not, “We are convicted of sin including a preoccupation with financial harm, not future victims.” Get ready for what they discovered about Morales’s accountability, the disclosing of his past, and evidence of repentance. It should have compelled them to report.
The two elders who had been involved in the 1990’s, Grant and Robin, informed us that sexual abuse had occurred [in the 1990’s] but even they were not aware of the details or the extent of the abuse. We spoke with our legal counsel [Aug. 2007] to seek advice on how we should proceed. The Board then decided to honor the family’s request and try to make contact. After making contact, we learned that Morales was the only elder in his church. He said he was willing to meet with the family to seek reconciliation but ultimately the family decided not to meet with him. 1:04:29
At least five elders, not two, knew “that sexual abuse had occurred” in the 1990’s. That is C.J. Mahaney, Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert, Gary Ricucci, and Chris Glass.
Layman is lying for certain when he denies knowing “the details” and “extent of the abuse.” Rachael it out for him in June 1991. So did Sam in 1993. As did John Roberts and “other boys” around the same time. This is Paragraph 37 from the Second Amended Complaint. It is never addressed by Liebeler in his report – how’s that for an investigation that took 17 months and cost 100k.
Second Amended Complaint
May 14, 2013
37. During 1990/1994 timeframe, as Plaintiff Roberts reached high school, he continued to engage in self-help by avoiding Morales. He knew others had been molested by Morales, as his molestations were well known. During one youth group discussion group about being “pure,” some of the teenage boys expressed dismay that it was “too late” for them to be “pure.” Plaintiff Roberts then openly referred to Morales’s ongoing molestation of boys, stating words to the effect, “yeah, Nate got me too.” This discussion group was headed up by Chris Glass, who reported directly to Defendant Layman. After Plaintiff Roberts was questioned about what he meant, and disclosed that Morales molested boys, Chris Glass cautioned him and the other boys against talking about the facts. Plaintiff Roberts learned that Chris Glass informed Defendant Layman about what had transpired immediately after the discussion closed.
Furthermore, Layman learned from Morales during his August 2007 conversation, that Morales had a history of sexual abuse before coming to CLC in 1982. This information comes from the second trial of Morales. Don Spires was the head of the New Testament Church and denomination.
Grant Layman
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
9:44:39-9:46:29 AM
Michalski: When did you meet Mr. Morales?
Layman: I believe it would have been some time in the mid-80s.
Michalski: And did there come a point in time where Mr. Morales came to you to serve on the worship team at Covenant Life Church?
Layman: Yes.
Michalski: Following that did there come a point in time in 2007 when you spoke with Mr. Morales about his conversations with a man by the name of Don Spires regarding allegations of prior sexual abuse?
Layman: Yes.
Michalski: What if anything did he tell you about his conversation with Don Spires?
Layman: He related to me that Don Spires was his mentor and that he acknowledged to him everything from his past and that Don Spires had died I believe three years prior.
Michalski: Okay. And did he say anything in regards to whether or not Mr. Spires had held him accountable for the sexual abuse.
Layman: Yes. …
Without getting into all the details, here is what we learn. Layman discovers Morales has a history of sexual abuse before he arrived at CLC. Liebeler, Mitchell, and Harris never divulge this fact. Why is it so important? Layman and the pastors knew in 2007 that Morales was non-stop abusing boys from at least 1979 to 1991 when he fled CLC. They knew he was a sociopathic serial sex abuser.
Harris also tells us, “We learned that Morales was the only elder in his church.” In other words, he had no accountability. This implies he had not disclosed his past. And of course, there was no evidence of repentance. How do I know? He would have turned himself into law enforcement.
During all this time the family did not ask us to report him to the police. Nor did we urge the family to do so. 1:04:36
Scott and Sam Bates did not ask them to report but neither did they ask the pastors not to report. Charrie and Rachael on the other hand wanted him reported. That was well known. They were gravely concerned he was abusing children by using his position as a pastor. Actually, he was a bishop in his Pentecostal denomination.
The bottom line for us is that we now see this as a huge mistake. It was a serious failure of judgment and leadership on our part. We failed to press for more information about the nature and the extent of the abuse. We failed to press into caring for the victims and to make sure they had received the ongoing counsel and support they needed. We didn’t ask enough questions of our legal counsel. We failed to seek the help of a wider circle of counselors who might have helped us make a better decision. And we did not pay sufficient attention to the Bible’s instruction to honor the role of the State in enacting justice on wrong doers. Romans 13:1-6 instructs us to do this. 1:05:31
This is a legally safe and watered-down acknowledgement. There is no admission of fault! Harris describes it as “a huge mistake “and “a serious failure of judgment and leadership.” He confesses no sins of commission. They just fell short and didn’t do enough.
Let me focus on this phrase, “We failed to press into caring for the victims and to make sure they had received the ongoing counsel and support they needed.”
Even after this superficial apology, the CLC pastors did absolutely nothing to “press into caring.” Here are a couple examples. In June 1994, Nate Morales married Marcia Jo Griffiths. She did not know he was a pedophilic monster. Soon after, he abused two of her sons from a previous marriage. Marcia and I became friends. The CLC pastors have never asked her forgiveness or her sons’ forgiveness for not reporting Nate. They didn’t care one lick.
The same was true with Jeremy Cook.
From: Brent Detwiler
To: Jeremy Cook
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM
Subject: Anyone Ask Forgiveness
Hi Jeremy,
I think I’ve asked in the past but did any of the CLC pastors ever follow up with you after the trial to ask forgiveness for not helping you or reporting Morales.
Hope you are well.
Thanks
From: Jeremy Cook
Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Anyone Ask Forgiveness
To: Brent Detwiler
Brent,
No one from CLC ever even acknowledged what happened to me, let alone making any amends whatsoever.
I would say that you are the only “person from CLC” who has had any contact with me on this subject.
Jeremy
From: Brent Detwiler
Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Anyone Ask Forgiveness
To: Jeremy Cook
That is beyond grievous! They should have expressed great sorrow, asked forgiveness, cared for your soul, and commended your efforts in prosecuting Morales. Not reaching out to you proves their public apology was totally insincere. I am so grieved for all you have suffered because of their hypocrisy, selfishness and hardness of heart. May the Lord bless you with his peace and presence.
We should have alerted civil authorities so that past wrongs could be prosecuted. It has never been our intent to conspire to protect child abusers as the civil lawsuit alleged. But it was a serious error in judgment and we want to fully own this. We are ready to receive whatever consequences the Board of Elders in cooperation with you the congregation believe are appropriate in light of our failure. 1:06:07
Harris claims, “we want to fully own this,” but then insists, “It has never been our intent to conspire to protect child abusers.” Harris is owning nothing. Going back to 1991, CLC pastors under the direction of Mahaney decided not to report Morales. They did the same with other abusers like Charlie Llewellyn in 1996, 2008, and 2010.
In so doing, they protected known abusers and allowed them to continue abusing. Intent is irrelevant in the eyes of the law but Harris never explains why they didn’t report. Furthermore, as pastors they knew abusers don’t stop. Therefore, they allowed them to continue. That was intentional. They should have been fired but “the Board of Elders” did absolutely nothing. After all it was just “our failure.”
In the clarity of 20-20 hindsight, we see that we wrongly analyzed the problem which led to a flawed process of decision making. And the independent investigation has helped us to see this. 1:06:22
What a bunch of hooey! Harris is a con artist. This is fully owning in “Josh-world.” Harris knows Liebeler’s report is corrupt but he plays along. He had neither the courage nor the integrity to expose it. Josh was about saving Josh. It is no surprise he renounced Jesus Christ, divorced his wife, and separated from his children, to embrace homosexuality in 2019.
Since that time, we have received more training and grown in our awareness of sexual abuse, knowing what we know now, related to the extent of Mr. Morales’s abuse, and a heightened sense of our duty to report, we would handle it very differently. We should have aggressively pursued the details of the abuse and then walked the family through the principals and the reasons for reporting. 1:06:48
The con continues. Grant Layman knew it was “our duty to report” in 1991. He expressly said so at the Morales trial in 2014. Harris and the pastors were plenty aware of “the extent of Mr. Morales’s abuse.”
We would now like to each share a statement of apology. We know that it might seem cumbersome for each of us to repeat the same words, but we would ask that you bear with us. 1:07:02
“A statement of apology,” not a confession of sin for covering up the sexual abuse of children and breaking the law.
It is important for us to be able to say these things directly to you and to express our sorrow to all those whom our failure has affected. We have been entrusted with leadership and you have placed your confidence in us. We have tried to honor the Lord and do what is right before him as pastors, but we see in this instance how significantly we have fallen short. Robin if you would come first. 1:07:30
They did not express their “sorrow” to any of the victims in the lawsuit like Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, James Roberts, and Olivia Llewellyn-Graham. They called them liars and claimed they made up their stories for the money.
The same is largely true “in this instance.” They our confining their “failure” to Morales. It is sickening to hear Harris say the pastors tried to honor the Lord or do what is right. No, they collectively decided not to report the most heinous of crimes and made no effort to follow up with Jeremy Cook, Dick and Marsha Wolohan, Brian Wolohan, Marcia Jo Griffith, etc. The statement is full of minimization and self-justification.
Robin Boisvert
I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the part that I played in them. 1:07:44
He, like the others after him, confess to no sin and no law breaking, and therefore asks no forgiveness for real transgressions. All you get is an apology for coming up short.
Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law but in this instance we failed. Specifically, failed to effectively love the victims of abuse and their families by not pressing in to care for them. Failed to pursue further information from the victims and their families to effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:08:10
This kind of lying takes nerve. None of them tried to do what is right in the sight of Lord or the law. Where do we seen any evidence of the same? Nowhere. For example, I talked to Dick Wolohan at the May 2014 trial. He told me Boisvert never talked to him after their confrontation of Morales in the park in 1993. There was literally no pastoral follow up or care by him or anyone else. “Not pressing in to care for them” doesn’t begin to describe the sin committed by Boisvert. Yet, Boisvert has the audacity to say, “Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right.” No, there was little to no attempt to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law. At every point they disobeyed Scripture.
Failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully understand the best course of action. The overall effect was a failure to make every effort that I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry, I am sorry for the way these failings have affected you. And I ask your forgiveness. 1:08:34
Again, the CLC pastors did not fail to ask questions, etc. They chose not to do what they knew was right and required by the law. It was not a failure to make every effort; it was a failure to make any effort. “For these failings, I am deeply sorry.” Boisvert and the rest only acknowledge shortcomings. There is nothing about deceit, selfishness, hardness of heart, or disobedience to God.
Grant Layman
As you know I am no longer a pastor here at Covenant Life but given my role in 2007 and earlier, I asked the men if I could participate in this statement tonight. 1:08:54
I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the part I played in them. 1:09:09
I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law but in this [one] instance, we failed. Specifically, I failed to effectively love the victims of abuse by not pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the victims to effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:09:32
I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully understand the best course of action. The overall effect was a failure to take every step I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the way these failings have affected you. Please forgive me. 1:09:58
Layman did not try to what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law. He said so under oath. What a despicable claim. Furthermore, he knew “the risk that Mr. Morales posed.” The minimalization continues. He didn’t “take every step…to protect children.” No, he did take any step to protect children.
Kenneth Maresco
I also like to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the part that I played in them. 1:10:21
Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law but in this instance, we failed. Specifically, I failed to love the victims of abuse by not pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the victims to effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:10:45
I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully understand the best course of action. And the overall effect of this failure was to take every step that I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the way these failings have affected you. And I ask you to forgive me. 1:11:13
This reminds me of the cults. They mindlessly parrot Scripture once indoctrinated. This scripted statement by lawyers is nauseating.
Corby Megorden
As well, I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the part I played in them. 1:11:32
Collectively, I do believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law but in this instance, we did fail. Specifically, I failed to love the victims of abuse by not pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the victims to effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:11:54
I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully understand the best course of action. And the overall effect was a failure to take every step I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the way these failings have affected you. Please forgive me. 1:12:15
These men conspired to cover up Morales crimes in 2007. In 2011, Megorden was still covering up crimes as a matter of policy. He was the top administrator. Sex abuse cases were brought to him for review. His acknowledgement doesn’t begin to scratch the surface.
Joshua Harris
Covenant Life Church, I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of this church for these events that we reviewed and the part that I played in them. 1:12:34
Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law but in this instance, we failed. Specifically, I failed to effectively love the victims of abuse by not pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the victims to effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:12:59
I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully understand the best course of action. The overall effect was a failure to take every step I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the way these failings have affected you. And I ask that you would forgive me. 1:13:23
Speaking on behalf of all of us, we want to close by expressing our sorrow for the suffering of all the victims and their families, Mr. Morales’s terrible crimes of abuse. We are grateful that justice has been served in his sentencing. Sexual abuse especially against children is wicked.
Justice should have been served in 1991. “Sexual abuse especially against children is wicked” but that did not matter to C.J. Mahaney and his staff in 1991 or Joshua Harris and his staff in 2007 and following.
Harris is making this “apology” in October 2014. Six months earlier, Morales was found guilty. None of the pastors attended the May trial to express any sorrow or provided any support to any of the victims or their families or friends. That was left to people like me.
Additionally, we desire to express our deep sorrow for the suffering of any victims of abuse, either or sexual. May the Lord comfort you and may we as a community continue to learn to effectively minister to victims of abuse. Thank you. 1:14:08
“Deep sorrow.” Then reach out to them to ask forgiveness, make restitution, and stop calling them liars.
Mark Mitchell
Minutes 1:14:24-1:31:33
No Conspiracy - Harris, Boisvert, Maresco, & Megorden Commendable - Not Disqualified
Over the past few months, and most recently at our Pastors’ Retreat, the elders and the non-staff elder candidates together have taken time to review the details from the 1990’s as well as 2007, as well as look into and consider carefully the independent investigator’s findings. We took time to interview each of the men, who just spoke to you, the 2007 Board Members individually and then spent time in discussion. Grant was not with us for that time. 1:15:02
If the elders reviewed the details and interviewed the pastors, they should have written a detailed report regarding their findings with proofs. Not a chance! This was a worthless enterprise. None of these men can be trusted. Sovereign Grace Churches and Covenant Life Church still need to do an authentic independent investigation by a team of professionals with expertise in family crime, not by a single individual retained as their personal lawyer.
Our goal was to make our own assessment as elders about whether there was anything in their actions that would say they are not above reproach. And would immediately disqualify them from continued ministry. 1:15:18
Mitchell and the other elders conclude they are “above reproach.” What a surprise!
Our discussion would affirm what you just heard from these men directly; that is, we don’t believe there was any conspiracy to protect a sexual predator or to obstruct justice, but we do believe that it was a significant failure to not report Morales and to not provide better care for the victims and their families. 1:15:41
What else would you expect from these men? This is executive pastor Mark Mitchell talking. Remember, there are six plaintiffs in the lawsuit against CLC. The CLC pastors have stated four of those plaintiffs (Heather, Jessica, James, and Olivia) made up their sensational stories of sexual abuse. And they say all six plaintiffs (add Dara Sutherland and Renee Palmer-Gamby) are wrong in alleging a conspiracy based on their interaction with the CLC pastors.
Now while we do see this as a significant failure, we do not believe that any of their actions disqualify them from ongoing ministry. We took significant time to carefully consider a variety of Scriptures. The places where Scripture indicate the biblical qualifications for an elder in Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3. We carefully considered 1 Timothy 5 where it talks about assessing and evaluating charges that are made against an elder – the applicability of that Scripture. We considered other Scriptures as well. 1:16:24
“We do not believe that any of their actions disqualify them.” Nothing disqualified C.J. Mahaney either in the eyes of these elders in 2011 despite 600 pages of evidence in The Documents. Joshua Harris even told CLC that C.J. was qualified to plant a church.
And what I want you to hear is that though we recognize this was a significant failure, as you heard from these men, not only do we not believe that they are disqualified, but we affirm these men, as in our perspective, biblically qualified ministers of the gospel. And we would commend them to you. 1:16:48
A total whitewash. “We affirm these men…we could commend them to you.” Their “significant failure” is not significant and it is not sinful.
Now we recognize that given all that you’ve heard this evening, you may need some time to process that and we understand that, and that is a key reason why we’ve set up the next Members’ Meeting two weeks from now to take your questions and then take time to answer them. 1:17:05
The next meeting is worse! Mitchell and Liebeler justify sex abusers and libel victims without ever contacting the victims.
Tonight, the goal has been to give you the relevant information, to express our sincere apology for the failures that took place and to give you time and space to process this information. And we want you to know that we are eager for your feedback. I’ll share more about how you can do this at the end of the meeting. 1:17:27
Mitchell and Liebeler withheld a ton of “relevant information.”
But before I transition, I want to proclaim to these men, these brothers, we love you and we do respect you. Thank you for sharing humbly tonight. Thank you for taking responsibility before the Lord for what you believe was a significant failure. We respect you for that. And we want to proclaim that the blood of Jesus Christ has provided for your complete forgiveness before God as it has for each one of us. We proclaim that to you. 1:18:06
The insurance lawyers clearly demanded the pastors acknowledge nothing more than “a significant failure.” That is the operative word. Mitchell proceeds to honor Joshua Harris, Grant Layman, Kenneth Maresco, Robin Boisvert, and Corby Megorden. That is true to the history of honoring leaders who have acted dishonorably like C.J. Mahaney. These men never confessed any sin but Mitchell absolves them like a high priest.
With our remaining time, I want to answer two additional questions and then share some concluding remarks about what we are learning and how we are seeking to grow. 1:18:20
Apparent Contradiction in February 2013 Statement Regarding Knowledge of Morales
The first question is how do we explain the apparent contradiction between the church’s public statement that was made in February of 2013 and the details that were revealed during the Morales criminal trial. 1:18:34
It wasn’t an apparent contradiction; it was a lie that Mitchell will attempt to explain away.
The church’s public statement in February of 2013 said, “Contrary to the impression left by the news reports, Covenant Life Church had no knowledge of such abuse until many years later after the abuse when an adult who had been victimized as a child came forward.” 1:18:55
In other words, the CLC pastors are saying they didn’t know about Morales’s abuse of boys until “many years later” when Sam Bates came forward. That is totally false. Sam Bates was still being abused in 1991. He came forward in 1992 or early 1993. It was one or two years later not “many years later.”
That statement was based on Grant’s notes from the early 80’s from a meeting that took place, I’m sorry, Grant’s notes from a meeting that took place between him and one of the victims in 2011. Those notes indicated that the abuse started in 1983 and took place in the early 80’s. The church’s statement was therefore based on the belief that the abuse had occurred in the early 80’s and the church has learned of it in the early 90’s, which is why we made the statement “many years later.” 1:19:26
This is a complete and total lie by Mitchell. Grant Layman knew the abuse started in “the early 80’s.” He also knew it ended in July 1991 when Morales was forced out of CLC. The month before (June 1991) he learned of the abuse from Rachael Bates-Paci. In other words, he learned of the abuse when the abuse was taking place, not many years later.
However, during the Morales trial, testimony was shared that the abuse took place between approximately 1983 and 1990 and this is where the discrepancy came from. In other words, the church’s February 2013 statement was based on information that we now know to be incomplete. We had partial information. And so we communicated what we knew at the time and we learned more during the Morales trial. 1:19:56
The testimony stated the abuse occurred between 1983 and 1991, not 1990. The CLC pastors did NOT have incomplete or partial information. They knew full-well people came forward at the time of the abuse and immediately after the abuse.
What we want to share with you, the congregation, is that we are really, really sorry for the understandable confusion that this caused. We could have and should have been more vigorous in comparing the information we had with other sources to make sure that information was accurate and complete. And again, for that we apologize. 1:20:20
Here is what I wrote about this matter.
C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children
Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 12:42PM
They categorically denied all knowledge of any sexual abuse by Nathaniel Morales “until many years after the abuse when an adult [Sam Bates] who had been victimized as a child came forward.” Let’s rehearse the indisputable facts one more time.
Morales abused Sam Bates from 1983-1991. He abused Brian Wolohan and Jeremy Cook from 1988-1991. Rachel Bates-Paci reported abuse to Chris Glass and Grant Layman in 1991, Dick Wolohan met with Grant Layman and Robin Boisvert regarding the abuse of Brian Wolohan in 1992, and Sam Bates and his parents met with Grant Layman and Gary Ricucci regarding his abuse in 1992 or early 1993.
This much is absolutely certain! Layman and Boisvert knew the denial put out by the Covenant Life pastors was a lie! There is no way around it.
Furthermore, are we to conclude that Layman and Boisvert never told Joshua Harris or any of the other CLC pastors about the timeline they had already laid out for detectives which completely repudiated the “Response to News Reports”? Remember, their interviews with detectives took place in January 2010. The denial was put out in February 2013. Did Layman and Boisvert really keep secret for three years what they told the detectives about their knowledge of Morales’s crimes going back to the early 1990s? I can’t imagine that is the case.
Moreover, the Covenant Life pastors claimed they learned about the sexual abuse of Sam Bates “many years” after the fact, not a couple years, a few years, or several years but many years. Many years is a long period of time. That is a completely false statement!
What is the clear implication? We didn’t cover anything up! There wasn’t a period of “many years” when we knew about the abuse but did nothing. Therefore, the media is wrong to imply we knew. Nothing could be further from the truth! That was pure spin.
The purpose of this denial was obvious. The CLC pastors wanted everyone to think they knew nothing about any abuse for the longest time and that is why they did nothing for the longest time. In fact, they clearly implied Sam Bates was abused as a young child and didn’t come forward until many years later as a mature adult which is when they found out. Nothing could be further from the truth. Covenant Life pastors knew about the abuse at the time of the abuse and shortly after the abuse.
Stephen Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo
The second question I want to answer is what about the allegations in the civil lawsuit that certain members of our church committed abuse. Are those allegations true? Well based on the information we have at this time; we don’t believe the allegations are true. Neither the information that we have received through the course of the lawsuit, nor from the independent investigator’s work, nor our knowledge of the men, supports that any of the allegations are true. 1:20:48
Translation, the victims in the lawsuit are lying.
Now the investigator’s work on this is not fully complete, so we do await his final conclusions. But as he said earlier, he hopes to report more on this at our October 26 Members’ Meeting. 1:21:00
“Not fully complete” after 17 months.
It is important for us to state that if indeed these men have been falsely accused, as they maintain they have, and as the evidence so far suggests, then they have also suffered in a significant way as a result of this civil lawsuit. And we pray that the Lord would resolve this quickly and continue to strengthen these men and their families as they await the results. 1:21:29
Mitchell is rallying Covenant Life Church behind three men alleged to be sex abusers by credible victims. The abusers are the ones “falsely accused” and the ones who have “suffered.” They need to be “strengthened,” not the victims of abuse.
Some Reflections by Mitchell
Now some reflections. First, I just want to express again on behalf of the current pastoral team our deep sorrow for the suffering and pain the victims and the parents had to endure because of the evil actions of someone they trusted. We sympathize with the extremely difficult position the parents were put in and we can easily understand their reluctance to go to the civil authorities in order to protect their children from further trauma. 1:22:02
You can’t feel “deep sorrow for the suffering and pain the victims and the parents” had to endure when you believe they made up their accounts.
We also want to express our deep respect for those whom work directly with the victims of child and sexual abuse. Whether your work is law enforcement, counseling, or ensuring their safety and security. Your work is very challenging and we respect the training, compassion and sensitivity that you employ as you care for victims and their families and as you seek to bring perpetrators to justice. You are a gift from God to us and we are grateful for you. 1:22:34
The CLC pastors didn’t respect law enforcement for their “training, compassion and sensitivity.” That is one reason they did not report to them. They told parents their children would be traumatized by law enforcement if involved in an investigation. The CLC pastors never worked with them “to bring perpetrators to justice.”
Finally, I want to take a moment to reflect on our role as pastors. We are called by God to shepherd his flock - 1 Peter 5. And God tells us in his Word to pay careful attention to yourselves, to ourselves as elders, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to care for the church of God which he obtained with his own blood. 1:23:01
The CLC elders “pay careful attention” to covering up for one another.
People come to pastors during some of the most difficult moments of their lives. Martial conflicts, the prospect of divorce, parenting challenges, medical crises and the death of loved ones. And during these times, they understandably look to us for guidance, support, hope and consolation. And they trust us to do and say what is right and best. And we are deeply sorry for failing to do this in our care for these families who have experienced the devastation of sexual abuse. 1:23:44
I’ve interacted with many of the victims or their family members from CLC. Multiple ones said the betrayal and mistreatment by the CLC pastors was more difficult to deal with then sexual abuse.
So on behalf of the elders for both what took place in 2007 and in the early 90’s, we are sorry for failing to involve the appropriate civil authorities for counsel, guidance and for accountability to the law relating to Morales’s sex abuse. 1:24:04
Mitchell is apologizing to the church, not James Roberts, Jeremy Cook, Marcia Jo Griffiths, or scores of other victims. Mitchell never tell us why the pastor didn’t involve “civil authorities.”
We are sorry for failing to walk with the families and together with them to report the incidences of abuse to the civil authorities. And we are sorry for failing to adequately care for the families both during and after the traumatic experience of abuse. 1:24:24
How can “pastors” not care for victims of abuse or report perpetrators of abuse? Only if they are covering up and looking out for their own interests. That’s how! Furthermore, they still have not cared for the victims and their families that were part of CLC, nor for victims and families of Morales outside of CLC.
Now we recognize that this apology cannot undo the pain and the suffering that has already taken place, but we do hope that you, the congregation, can receive it as sincere. 1:24:37
When will the CLC pastors ever apologize to the victims by name in public? Never.
Now where do we go from here? Well in closing, I said earlier that the Lord has used the civil suit and the circumstances related Nathaniel Morales to help us grow and change. I want to take a moment to tell you how. 1:24:50
The biggest area needing to “grow and change” is integrity. Fifteen months after this oral report, lead pastor P.J. Symth (Joshua Harris’ replacement) would lie to CLC about his involvement in covering up the sexual sadism of his famous father. I exposed Symth but once again, Mark Mitchell and the elders, acted with deceit and covered up his lies and past. It was wickedness on top of wickedness.
New & Indisputable Evidence Proves P.J. Smyth Knew All About Father’s Violent Beating of Boys – He & Pastors Continue to Deceive Covenant Life Church Despite My Appeals
Friday, March 2, 2018 at 2:40PM
P.J. Smyth & Mark Mitchell Refuse to Answer Question at Members’ Meeting About Reliable Witnesses Calling P.J. a Liar for Denying Knowledge of Father’s Violent Beating of Boys
Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 5:38PM
Number one, we have strengthened our partnership with law enforcement and other civil authorities in addition to our legal counsel when it comes to the suspicion of abuse or the reports of abuse of any kind. For example, we are actively seeking the counsel of law enforcement officers who attend this church on matters that pertain to who should, and who shouldn’t, have access to children. 1:25:14
All good but it means nothing unless men have integrity. In a time of temptation, only those genuinely living for the glory of God will do what is right.
And we have made and continue to make phone calls to Child Protective Services to get their counsel, seek direction and make reports about suspected child abuse and or neglect. 1:25:26
This should be spelled out in detail. When and how often “have [they] made” phone calls to CPS to report suspected child abuse? Liebeler should have made a chart listing every occasion when suspected abuse was reported and not reported by the pastors over the last 30 years. The chart should also have included the nature of abuse reported (e.g. sexual, physical, neglect, etc.). Names could be redacted.
To my knowledge, the pastors have never reported a case of suspected child sex abuse to CPS until after the Second Amended Complaint was filed in May 2013. And notice there is no claim by Mitchell of ever reporting to law enforcement – only to Child Protective Services.
Number two, we have sought training from law enforcement and other authorities on how to better handle abuse. For example, in October of last year, we brought in officers from the Family Crimes Division of the Montgomery County Police Department to train pastors and key staff on how to best cooperate with civil authorities, to explain what happens in a typical investigation, and to help us better understand how to better educate families on the nature and practices of sexual predators. 1:25:55
The pastors should follow the guidelines laid out by civil authorities for Mandatory Reporters (i.e., Health Practitioner, Educator, Human Service Worker, Police Officer). That would be a good start.
Here’s what they are required to do. Make “an oral report, by telephone or direct communication, as soon as possible to the local department or appropriate law enforcement agency” and make “a written report: to the local department not later than 48 hours after the contact, examination, attention, or treatment that caused the individual to believe that the child had been subjected to abuse or neglect.”
Here is the “Report of Suspected Child Abuse /Neglect” form used by Mandatory Reporters in MD.
To my knowledge, CLC has yet to do any churchwide teaching “to better educate” the church or “families on the nature and practices of sexual predators.” Instead, they have been focused on defending themselves and all the alleged abusers (i.e., John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Charlie Llewellyn, Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo, Dave Adams, and even Nate Morales in relation to James Roberts, while condemning all the victims/plaintiffs as liars. The pastors have no clue as to “the nature and practices of sexual predators.” They have defended all the men I’ve referenced above.
Number three, we’ve changed the way that we handled information as a pastoral team that relates to the protection of children. If any pastor receives information that indicates a particular individual may pose a risk to children, that information is not only shared with a direct supervisor and those who oversee Children’s Ministry, it is also shared with the entire Board of Elders so that collectively we can determine exactly what to do. 1:26:24
This is bad policy and contrary to the law! Any pastor receiving “information that indicates a particularly individual may pose a risk to children” should report it to law enforcement first and do so immediately! “May pose a risk” is a euphemism for a report of sexual abuse. The pastors have learned nothing! They still want to be in charge. It could take days to meet with “the entire Board of Elders” but worse it is not for them to “collectively…determine exactly what to do.” That has been decided for them. Report the suspected abuser immediately and then follow the lead of law enforcement in “exactly what to do.” Yikes.
Here is the advice of Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
“This means that sexual abuse in the context of the church must be handled in terms of both authorities responsible—both the church and the state. The state has been given the sword of justice to wield against those who commit crimes (Rom. 13:1-7). The church has no such sword (Matt. 26:51-53). This means that the immediate response to allegations of sexual abuse is to call the civil authorities, to render unto Caesar the responsibility that belongs to Caesar to investigate the crime. The church may or may not know the truth of the allegations, but it is the God-ordained prerogative of the civil authorities to discover such matters and to prosecute accordingly. When faced with a question of potential sexual abuse, call the authorities without delay.”
And then number four and finally, we are committed to growing in how we care for victims of abuse and their families. Joe Lee in particular is working with members in this church to explore ministries and agencies that can train us in this further. We believe we can do much more than what we have done in some situations in the past. We want to not only provide sound biblical guidance to those who are suffering the grievous effects of sin but we also want to come alongside them to share comfort, healing and the hope of Jesus Christ. These are just a few of the steps that we have begun to take. 1:27:06
The next month (Nov. 2014), Joshua Harris and Mark Mitchell released Joe Lee and Isaac Hydoski from staff. They were dissenting voices in how things were being handled. Hydoski told me he was “fired.”
We want to keep listening and we want to keep growing and we want to hear from you. If you’d like to connect with us in person, please contact your pastor. If you’re not sure of who to talk to, please call the church office and our receptionist will point you to the right person. 1:27:23
We want you to hear this that we are eager to meet with you and we are eager to talk with you about these things in more detail if that would serve you. 1:27:33
Private talks are often used to mislead individuals since there is no public scrutiny or accountability. If I had finished this commentary seven years ago scores of people at Covenant Life Church could have written up questions based upon it and approached the pastors. I hope former and current members still do.
Now as I close tonight, I want to take a few moments to share about next steps. I mentioned earlier that in two weeks on October 26th at 6:00 p.m. we’ll have another Members’ Meeting. And the investigator will come and will share a report based upon his review of our internal child protection policies and procedures. So a portion of the meeting will be focused on those issues, but the rest of that time will be shaped by your questions and comments. 1:28:01
That did not happen. There was no review of the policies and procedures. Instead, Mitchell and Liebeler took the evening to defend the pastors and perpetrators and condemn the victims.
Please send in any questions you have per the instructions that you will receive by email this week. You know, we are grateful that after such a long time we can finally say to you, if you have any questions at all, please come talk to us. We are eager to talk with you. Don’t hesitate to let us know your thoughts or your questions as you are thinking through these things. And also we want you to know that at the conclusion of this meeting in just a moment, I will be here, down here at the front, and would be happy to talk with you if you’d like. 1:28:37
The lawsuit was closed but not based upon its merits. This gave cover to the CLC pastors. They could say anything they wanted in private meetings without fear it could be used in a civil case.
Next month, November, we will be having two Coffee & Conversation meetings on November 9th and the 23rd. Those will most likely be right after Sunday service. And I mentioned also earlier that we are going to make the contents of tonight’s meeting available to members. We want every member to have access to what’s been shared here this evening. But we want to communicate that this information is for your personal use as a member of Covenant Life and not for distribution or publication in any form. 1:29:08
This is a subdued threat of legal action intended to contain the report.
Our legal counsel has advised us that future civil litigation is possible. And therefore, we don’t want to carelessly hand out information that could be twisted and used against the church and others. 1:29:25
If not for the statute of limitations running out in Maryland, CLC and the pastors would have been sued by various parties for damages and the victims vindicated.
If the oral reports were truthful and convincing, you’d want verbatim transcripts out in the public domain and have no concern they could be “twisted and used against the church and others.”
We also believe that the best place to work through these issues is face to face in the context of a church community. In keeping with 1 Peter 2, verse 17, this is a way to show proper respect to everyone especially the victims and their families and to love the family of believers. 1:29:44
It is nauseating to hear Mitchell talk about “proper respect” for “the victims and their families.”
Now the details of exactly how we are going to make the contents of the Members Meetings known, we still have to discuss. We plan to finalize that this upcoming coming week. 1:29:54
In the meantime, please be praying about what you have heard. The lawsuit and all the circumstance surrounding it have been extremely challenging for our church. It has brought some of the most grievous sins and painful experiences that exist in this fallen world to the forefront of our minds. We need God’s help to work through all of this together and to help each other to heal and grow in a redemptive way. 1:30:21
As a result of the Liebeler-Mitchell reports, hundreds of people left Covenant Life Church. They saw threw their dishonest presentation and pervasive deceit. This verse sums it up
Proverbs 12:17 Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit.
In 2 Corinthians 4, God’s Word encourages us in the midst of affliction to look not only to the temporal things that afflict us but also to the eternal things that never change. These eternal truths give us hope that can’t be taken away. God’s promises remain true even and especially during difficult times. 1:30:44
God rules over all that takes place in our lives and the life of this church and as Romans 5:8 says, “He has proven his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” Nothing can change this fact and nothing can separate us from his love. 1:31:04
“God rules over … the life of this church.” Yes, he does. In his love, he sought to discipline its pastors but they would not learn from it. As a result, it incurred God’s judgement. It is a shell of its past. In 2011 there were 23 full time pastors. Today, there are four and one is the school principal.
Because we are confident that God is working redemptively through all of this, we want to embrace all that he has for us as leaders and as a church in this time. Changing and growing is good. So let’s pray with sober faith that God accomplishes his holy purposes in us and among us remembering that he who promised is faithful. I’d like Greg Somerville to come up at his time and pray to close the meeting. 1:31:33
As of this writing, the present-day child protection policies are found in two documents. They are limited in scope and confined to what happens at the CLC building. Both documents focus on Discovery Land which is the children’s ministry on Sunday morning. Here are excerpts from the introductions.
Child Protection Policy Summary for Covenant Life Church Ministries Involving Child Oversight
Revised August 19, 2016
Protection of children attending functions at Covenant Life Church is a responsibility we take very seriously. The following is a summary of the church’s overall Child Protection Policy and other procedures that are in place wherever child oversight exists.
Security Personnel
Sunday morning Discovery Land security is comprised of several layers of security that function together. Certain other CLC non-Sunday functions also utilize these formalized security teams. Security personnel are briefed on individuals of concern, sex offenders, and other known/potential risks. Security personnel are briefed on individuals of concern, sex offenders, and other known/potential risks.
This policy is in place when “children [are] attending functions at Covenant Life Church.” That is, at the church building. It includes “Sunday morning Discovery Land” and “wherever child oversight exists” for “certain other CLC non-Sunday functions.” This child protection policy is limited to functions at the church building. That is woefully inadequate.
The second document likewise focuses on the Sunday morning children’s ministry.
Reporting Potential Child Abuse and/or Neglect
A vital aspect of care for children in Discovery Land is understanding what to do if you believe a child is at risk of harm. Covenant Life Church (“CLC”) cares deeply about children and desires to prevent all child abuse and/or neglect. Any suspected child abuse and/or neglect must be reported immediately to legal authorities, in accordance with Maryland state laws. CLC believes that it is the moral responsibility of every CLC employee and Discover Land volunteer to report to local law enforcement authorities if there is reason to believe that child abuse and/or neglect has occurred.
Volunteers should exercise sound judgement in reporting potential child abuse and/or neglect. If a volunteer has reason to believe that a child has suffered abuse and/or neglect, that individual must immediately follow a two-step reporting process:
First, to the local department of social services or to a local law enforcement agency,
Second, to the Discovery Land director. If the director is not available, the report
must be given to a CLC pastor.
These policies are good but they are confined to official children’s activities at the CLC building. They do they address a host of other important issues.
For instance, are the pastors committed to immediately report any, and all, suspected child sex abuse to law enforcement or will they continue to investigate alleged crimes for themselves that occur away from the CLC building? For example, Morales’s crimes occurred in private homes.
Or will the pastors continue to put families in harm’s way by not warning them of suspected or known sex abusers and thereby allow them to remain anonymous? For example, there is no mention of posting the identities of members who are registered sex offenders in the private members’ section.
Or, will the pastors continue to break the law and not report child sex abusers like Nate Morales for fear of a lawsuit? Have they renounced this standard practice as articulated by Corby Megorden?
Further, these policies don’t address functions that include children and youth under age 18 when they participate in small groups, outings, off site functions like small group meetings, picnics, retreats, outings, etc.
If the pastors have written policies, they have not published those policies. That is utterly unacceptable and inexcusable. The lawsuit against CLC came out in January 2013. Liebeler started his work in July 2013. He completed it in November 2014. It is now May 2021 and the CLC pastors have not produced any policies for the church that spell out exactly how the pastors and people of CLC will prevent the sexual abuse of children or deal with the sexual abuse of children except at the church building. In the same vein, the CLC pastors have done no church wide teaching or training on the subject. Nor have they had experts come in to equip the church at large.
END OF REPORT – PART 1
##
Covenant Life Church Members’ Meeting
October 26, 2014
Report by Lars Liebeler
Part 2
Opening Scripture & Prayer
0:00-2:36
I did not transcribed opening.
Mark Mitchell
Minutes 2:37-13:57
We Want to Answer Questions to the Best of Our Ability
Hello everyone. Thank you so much for coming out this evening. I want to begin by just sharing a heartfelt thank you for all of the open and honest questions that many of you submitted. We received 65 different submissions. Many of those contained multiple questions. And we just appreciate the thoughtfulness and the care that you demonstrated in submitting those things to us. What this also means is that we have a lot that we are going to cover this evening. 3:12
Mitchell and Liebeler selectively answered questions in this second oral report. They did not answer “all of the open and honest questions” many submitted.
Now one thing I want to say right off the bat, and I want to emphasize throughout our evening, is that we want to answer your questions to the best of our ability and we want you to have every opportunity to share with us the things that are on your heart and the things that concern you. We are packing as much as we can into this evening but there is a lot to absorb so we do encourage you afterwards if you have comments and questions, please do follow up with us. We are eager to sit down with any of you and interact with you about the things that are on your heart and mind. 3:48
Answering questions means nothing if they are not answered truthfully and backed up with evidence.
To facilitate that we have planned two Coffee and Conversation meetings. The first one is going to be two Sundays from now on November 9 and then the second on November 23. Both will be after church at 12:15. I believe it will be in the Edward’s Room so we want to encourage you come on out if you’re interested. Now I’ll do my best to be brief here but I do need to repeat some of the administrative items that I shared at our last Member’s Meeting so bear with me if you would as I do. 4:17
Read this article to see how Mitchell avoided questions at a Members’ Only meeting on a different subject regarding the lying of lead pastor P.J. Symth who followed Joshua Harris when he left.
Restrain Feelings, No Recording or Transmitting, Not Posting Comments & Questions
First, we respectfully ask that each of us would exercise restraint in expressing our feelings. As I mentioned last time, applauding or speaking out in the meeting in certain ways can have the effect of short circuiting someone else’s ability to absorb what they are wanting to hear and taking things in for themselves. So honoring this request is a way that we can consider each other’s interests above our own. 4:45
Number two, we want to ask that no one in attendance record or transmits any part of this meeting in any way. We are sharing sensitive information that is intended for our church family and we want to protect the privacy of any victims and families that will be referenced, so we do not give permission for tonight’s meeting to be recorded or transmitted in any way. 5:13
I covered the real reason in comments about the first report – not wanting the information to be used against them in legal proceedings. And let me add a second reason. They did not want bloggers to have the information either. I’m the only one who managed to get a recording with the help of old CLC friends. Then I painstakingly made transcripts. I regret it has taken so long to publish them. I didn’t want the transcripts going out without comment given all the deceptive information put forth by Mitchell and Liebeler.
Three, as with the last Members’ Meeting, our production team is recording the meeting and members may pick up either an audio CD or DVD at the church office during office hours. We anticipate that probably by mid-week or so those should be available and so for your benefit, or if there are other members, you can communicate that to them as well. 5:32
I assume people had to return these CDs or DVDs. They also had to sign confidentiality agreements.
And then finally, this evening we are once again providing index cards for you to jot down comments and questions as you think of them. We will be creating another online form for you to submit questions and comments for the November 9th Coffee and Conversation meeting. However, because tonight’s content deals specifically with allegations of the civil lawsuit and members of our church we will not be posting your questions or comments to the member area of our website; so that is a difference. And I do think some of the comments we will make later on will help you understand why we believe this is wise. 6:09
Above, Mitchell referenced 65 questions they received after the first Members’ Only Meeting. They did not post them. “I want to begin by just sharing a heartfelt thank you for all of the open and honest questions that many of you submitted. We received 65 different submissions.” No one saw the questions.
Now, he tells the church none of the questions asked after the second Members’ Only Meeting will be posted. Therefore, no one in the church had any idea what questions about members alleged to be sex abusers were answered or not answered.
Plan Another Time to Report on Child Protection Policies
We announced on October 12th at the last Members’ Meeting that we were going to be devoting a portion of tonight’s meeting to hearing from the independent investigator a report on our child protection policies. However, after reviewing all of the questions and comments that were submitted it was clear that many of the concerns lay elsewhere. So we will need to plan another time to give you the information from his investigation with regard to our child protection policies. He is going to be making, I think, a few remarks on that this evening. But tonight we are structuring our meeting around the things that you are most interested in hearing about based on the comments and questions that we received. 6:57
Mitchell repeatedly refers to Liebeler as “the independent investigator” but he is nothing of the sort. This is brain washing.
The first oral report only stirred up questions because it was filled with misinformation that was contrary to what was stated under oath at the Morales trial. For instance, the testimony of Grant Layman and Rachael Bates-Paci. I’d estimate at least 30 members from CLC were in attendance at the trial. I interacted with many of them. What Liebeler reported in his first report did not match what they heard firsthand.
Four Main Categories & Thoughts to Get Oriented
And the four main categories that we want to cover this evening are: first, the allegations of the civil lawsuit including the findings of the independent investigator. Second, our response to your questions about Nathaniel Morales and the pastors’ handling of information about him. Third, our approach to reporting incidence of sexual abuse in the past and what we are doing now. And then finally, we will answer a few questions that don’t fit neatly into these three categories. 7:24
Every time Mitchell says, “independent investigator,” read “hired gun.”
Before we get into the allegations of the civil lawsuit, I want to share a few thoughts to help us get oriented. God is using all the trials that we are walking through as a church to conform us to the image of his Son. And we believe that God is bringing about his good purposes and good plans for our church and that he is moving us forward in significant ways. And we are grateful for this and we are thankful for his mercy and all the ways he is helping us to grow in a variety of areas through the things we have experienced. 7:58
This is pure positivism and wishful thinking on Mitchell’s part. Mitchell was fired in September 2019 and CLC has gone from 23 full-time pastors to four pastors since 2011 and one is the school principal. The Lord has not allowed them to move forward. He has opposed them every step of the way.
The church of Jesus Christ will always face spiritual opposition and obstacles. We are exhorted in 1 Peter 5:8, “Be sober minded, be watchful, your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour.” We will always be up against our battle with the world, and the flesh and the devil. We will always be in a spiritual battle and the trials that we have been experiencing as a church are no exception. But this is not the whole story. 8:32
Mitchell and the pastors always put themselves forth as under satanic attack (“spiritual opposition and obstacles”). Their paradigm is completely faulty. They are under God’s discipline.
Our faith has been tested through the things that we have experienced but God is at work in our test and in our trials to help us to grow. James 1 says, “Count it all joy my brothers when you meet trials of various kinds for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness and let steadfastness have its full effect that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” We can count it all joy as we meet our current trials and whatever trials the Lord ordains for us in the future. Why? Because God’s good purpose is to make us more godly, more mature, and more Christ like through the things we experience and for that we can be grateful. 9:20
Mitchell interprets all that is happening as a test and a trial. He does not see the judgement of God upon the church for leaders committing child abuse and covering up child abuse and then putting forth a corrupt report based upon a spurious investigation. For him, it is not about what they have done wrong. It is about enduring “trials of various kinds” to become more mature.
Our posture is summed up in 1 Peter 5, “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you casting all your anxieties on him because he cares for you.” Our God is faithful and we can trust him to care for us no matter what we experience. 9:44
Our God is faithful. He will strengthen the humble but he also humbles the proud. Mitchell doesn’t quote “God is opposed to the proud” in verse 4.
Members’ Meeting Highly Scripted
One or two people commented about our Members’ Meetings and specifically that they felt highly scripted as I read from my notes. What I hear in these comments is an appeal for us to get real, to be transparent, and open with you as a congregation. And this really is getting at something that is very important. Yes, by all means we want to be real and open and transparent with you and we really are doing our best to do that. But brothers and sisters we are also working with some very real constraints. Tonight, we are dealing with very sensitive and private information. Information that affects people’s reputations, their futures and their livelihood so we must do this responsibly and with all discretion as Philippians 2 says, “Looking to the interests of others.” Those others being victims of abuse, people who have been accused, justly or unjustly, church members as well as the wider community. 10:50
The apologies were highly scripted. In fact, everything was scripted. Liebeler and Mitchell were also working from prepared remarks. Harris, Layman, Maresco, Boisvert and Megorden should have confessed their specific sins against specific individuals with great sorrow; not read an apology approved by their team of insurance lawyers protecting them from liability. There were no “very real constraints.”
All the “sensitive and private information” was made public at the Morales trial and in the lawsuit. The “victims of abuse” in the lawsuit from CLC used their real names. They didn’t want anonymity. The only exception was Grace Goe. She used a pseudonym but later gave me permission to write a blog article about the physical and sexual abuse of her father and reveal her identity – Olivia Llewellyn. In her case, Joshua Harris, Grant Layman, and other CLC pastors promised to report the sexual abuse of her father but reneged and broke their word.
The Conspiracy Surrounding Plaintiff Grace Goe at Covenant Life Church
Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 5:18PM
Brieta Llewellyn-Allison Calls Out Joshua Harris for Covering Up the Sexual Abuse of Children at Covenant Life Church Based on First-Hand Knowledge
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 2:02PM
Mitchell, Liebeler and the pastors were never real, transparent or open with the congregation. They were withholding evidence and putting forth disinformation. That is why many members left the church after the Liebeler reports. People saw through their deceit and obfuscation.
We are also dealing with matters of law in the sight of God who says that “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (Psalm 89) and we are exhorted in Scripture in the book of Ephesians to only use words that are good for building up as fits the occasion that it may give grace to those who hear. Now all of these things call for us to speak wisely and precisely and we believe that by doing so we are also speaking lovingly. And these truths inform why I will be sharing with you tonight from prepared remarks. So I do want to thank for your patience and your forbearance in that. And please do hear that we are always eager to sit down and meet with you and discuss these things in an informal setting. 11:40
What “matters of law”? In typical fashion, Mitchell doesn’t explain himself. “Wisely and precisely.” No, craftily and deceitfully. These “prepare remarks” were a carefully scripted narrative to cover up guilt and mislead Covenant Life Church.
Allegations in Civil Lawsuit Regarding Conspiracy to Commit & Cover Up Sex Abuse Are False
Okay, let me now address our first category, the allegations of the civil lawsuit. Now in a few moments, Mr. Lars Liebeler, the independent investigator, is going to come and give his findings relating to the allegations in the civil lawsuit; but I first want to remind us of the context of the civil lawsuit and clarify some of the terms that we are using. As it relates to Covenant Life Church, the civil lawsuit alleged that pastors of Covenant Life had conspired to allow sexual predators to have access to children and obstructed justice by covering it up. And it additionally alleged that some current long-term members of Covenant Life perpetrated various acts of abuse. Now one important distinction we want to make is between the Defendants who are named in the lawsuit and therefore the target of the main allegations of the lawsuit; we want to distinguish between them and those who are accused of misdeeds in order to support those main allegations. 12:44
Keep in mind the “allegations” are allegations of fact the plaintiffs planned to prove in a civil court. Mitchell misrepresents the lawsuit. It not only alleges pastors “conspired to allow sexual predators to have access to children” by not reporting; it alleges that pastor Loftness was a sexual sadist and pastor Ricucci aided and abetted him.
Mitchell does not name “The Defendants.” They were C.J. Mahaney, Gary Ricucci, John Loftness, Grant Layman and CLC. The “current long-term members of Covenant Life” alleged to have “perpetrated various acts of abuse” were Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo. Mitchell leaves out reference to member Dave Adams who was a convicted child abuser (more on him later).
Only Covenant Life Church as a corporation and individual former pastors as it relates to this church were Defendants. Now it is also important to distinguish between the allegations of conspiracy and obstruction of justice on one hand and the allegations made against members of our church on the other. They are two different things and we need to speak to them separately. 13:11
Let me summate what is in the lawsuit. It alleges Defendants Mahaney, Loftness, Ricucci, and Layman covered up sexual abuse. It further alleges two pastors (Loftness & Ricucci), a children’s ministry director & teacher in the CLC elementary school (Steve Griney), the overseer of the International Student Outreach (Nate Morales), a pastoral assistant (Dave Mayo), three prominent members (Dave Adams, Mark Hoffman & Charlie Llewellyn) and the juvenile son (Chris M.) of a prominent member (Paul M.) were guilty of child abuse. Mitchell and Liebeler only address the allegations against Griney, Mayo, and Hoffman.
At the Members’ Meeting on October 12th, we said that the allegations of conspiracy and obstruction of justice are false. The truth is Covenant Life Church did not participate in any conspiracy to allow sexual molestation of children to take place and Covenant Life Church did not seek to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past sexual abuse of children. And the independent investigators’ findings were entirely consistent with this. 13:47
Bottom line, Mitchell is calling all six plaintiffs (i.e., Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Dara Sutherland, Renee Palmer-Gamby, James Roberts, & Olivia Llewellyn-Graham) liars for alleging a conspiracy based upon their personal experience with the CLC pastors in the handling of their abuse. Read the Second Amended Complaint to understand their repeated charge of a conspiracy.
In contradiction to Mitchell, here is what Assistant State’s Attorney Jessica Hall for Montgomery County, Maryland said about the CLC pastors at the Morales trial. Of course, what does she know! Believe Mitchell, he has nothing to hide!
“The church covered it up. The church protected Mr. Morales. … The church would cover up for Mr. Morales. … The church would protect a man who molested children. … The church did nothing. … They ignored the fact that heinous crimes had been committed.”
ASA Hall also said the following.
Jessica Hall
Assistant State’s Attorney
Opening Statement
Monday, May 12, 2014
And we are here today, ladies and gentlemen, in 2014 that this man sexually molested three boys, Sam, Jeremy and Brian and when the abuse was occurring the boys didn’t tell. And several years after the abuse ended and the abuse was disclosed to church authorities, the church did nothing. They ignored the abuse. The church pretended the abuse didn’t happen. They [the pastors] accepted the defendant’s apology and went on with their lives. They ignored the fact that heinous crimes had been committed against their sons. They ignored the fact that this man caused irreparable damage to these young men. Damage that these boys had to live with every day into their adulthood.
Liebeler never mentions or addresses these emphatic statements by ASA Hall. An independent investigator would cite them and then give his assessment of them.
Read this article for the truth. C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children (Feb. 13, 2018).
And with respect to the members of our church who are alleged to have committed abuse, I am now going to ask Mr. Lars Liebeler to go ahead and come on up, our independent investigator, and he is going to address this issue. 13:57
Liebeler is not going to deal with John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Dave Adams, or Charlie Llewellyn. Only with Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, and Dave Mayo. Notice again Mitchell’s reference to Liebeler as “our independent investigator.” He beats this mantra into the heads of CLC members like a cult leader. It doesn’t matter that it is not true. Liebeler did not act in an independent manner and he did a horribly unjust investigation.
Lars Liebeler
Minutes 14:05-47:41 (33 mins., 36 secs.)
The Overall Theme - Are Covenant Life Church & Discovery Land a Dangerous Place?
Thanks Mark. Mark didn’t tell me about the non-scripted part either. He sent me some other comments to address but not that one. 14:18
There was a theme to some of the [questions]. First of all I thank you for your questions and it showed me, there were a few people who approached me after the meeting on the 12th and asked me some very astute questions that showed they were paying attention and had been following this very carefully and asking very good thoughtful questions. There were a number of them that were forwarded to me by email as well through the church but also a couple people independently consulted with me. 14:49
No one will ever know what “very astute questions” Liebeler was asked.
I think I’d like to make a broad statement that addresses a sort of a theme that some of questions address and that is, “Gee, why have you focused so much on some specific items to the exclusion of other items that are talked about in the lawsuit or on the blogs or what not?” And I wanted to at this point, sort of remind you about how we, me in conjunction with the pastors, had decided to approach the organization of this investigation. 15:23
Liebeler excluded so much in the lawsuit and everything on my blog. He covered nothing in detail. His excuse follows.
As Mark had mentioned, summarizing some of the language in the Second Amended Complaint, that overall theme, with not respect to specific items, that the overall theme was that Covenant Life Church was a dangerous place where child predators were roaming and they were allowed to do so. So that is the overall theme and then there were specifics. So it makes sense to answer that broader question first. It doesn’t make sense to talk about what may or may not have happened in the lobby 20 years ago. It makes sense to answer the question first, “Is this a dangerous place to send your children?” That is why we organized the modules the way they were so to answer that question first. We haven’t specifically talked about that but I wanted to just give you a sort of a preview of that. 16:21
Covenant Life was “a dangerous place” going back to 1980 when Mahaney and Larry Tomczak determined not to expose long-time homosexual predator and “apostle” Charles Schmitt. It continued with Nate Morales. Alleged predators John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Steve Griney, Dave Adams, Dave Mayo, Mark Hoffman, and Charlie Llewellyn were a protected class and “roaming” on Sunday mornings, in the elementary school, at Celebration events (the large regional conferences we did for churches), and in homes. So were juvenile predators. God knows how many other predators were not reported and how many other children were abused.
Liebeler says, “It doesn’t make sense to talk about what may or may not have happened in the [CLC] lobby 20 years ago.” Only the broader question. Is CLC a dangerous place in 2014. But what a minute, I thought he was hired to investigate alleged crimes from the past? So, what is he talking about? He doesn’t tell CLC. He conceals it and quickly moves on. It goes over their heads. Well, here’s what he is referencing. It is another glaring example of Liebeler’s corrupt investigation from my perspective.
Victim: James Roberts
Paragraphs: 32-35
Location: Covenant Life Church Premises
Timeframe: 1982/1984
Age: 8/10
Alleged Abuser: David Adams
Alleged Conspirators: John Loftness, David Adams & Other Defendants
32. In 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff James Roberts was sexually molested by David Adams on the CLC premises. David Adams was playing the banjo in the lobby, and Plaintiff Roberts, a child attending church and Children’s Ministry, wandered out to listen. David Adams isolated Plaintiff Roberts, had him sit on his knee, and began to rub his hands over Plaintiff Roberts’ penis while telling Plaintiff Roberts “what a good boy [he] was.” David Adams tried to push his hands up Plaintiff Roberts’ shorts, and Plaintiff Roberts pushed him off and escaped.
33. During the 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff Roberts knew Defendant Loftness as the principal of the School. Sometime after the molestation, Plaintiff Roberts approached Defendant Loftness and told him that David Adams had molested him. Defendant Loftness directed Plaintiff Roberts, an elementary school child, to re-enact the molestation.
34. From the date of this report to present, Defendant Loftness failed to inform Plaintiff Roberts’ parents of the molestation. Nor did Defendant Loftness abide by his mandatory reporting obligations to report the molestation or take any steps whatsoever to prevent David Adams from having access to children for abusive purposes. Instead, Defendant Loftness required Plaintiff Roberts, a child, to attend a meeting with himself and David Adams. Plaintiff Roberts was directed by Defendant Loftness, the principal of his school, to “forgive” Adams for the molestation.
35. From 1982/1984 to the present, Defendant Loftness conspired with David Adams and the other Defendants to cover up David Adams’ pedophilia. As a result of the conspiracy, David Adams had access to and did molest other children, including his daughter, which is discussed below.
How damnable for Liebeler to report, “It doesn’t make sense to talk about what may or may not have happened in the lobby 20 years ago.” And “We haven’t specifically talked about that.” He is concealing the sexual abuse of James Roberts by Dave Adams and its cover-up by John Loftness.
Remember the promises of Harris? They were all broken!
Joshua Harris
Sermon, Hold Fast to the Gospel.
May 18, 2014
After the civil lawsuit was over, our plan is for the investigators to provide a full, objective accounting of the issues raised by the suit [lawsuit] and for this to be shared with the entire congregation. No matter how painful that is, we want everything to be known and addressed and we will put it all on the table when this investigation is completed.
The answer is that in that modules one, two, and three, which talked about what are the policies with respect to child protection. Are the policies being followed? Do people understand them? Have there been any instances of break downs currently in the recent history? And the answer to that is that the Discovery Land is a safe place for children. That there are policies that can be improved in some areas but the polices are in place. The key people who are involved in childcare and the volunteers understand what those policies are. Pastors asked me, would I be willing to answer this question. Would I feel comfortable having my children in Discover Land and the answer is yes. 17:07
Discovery Land is the Sunday morning Children’s Ministry. To my knowledge, all physical and sexual abuse of children took place in other venues.
So that is why we focused those first couple of modules on those questions. The reason why we didn’t talk about that specifically [James Roberts] is because it is not as important once we know the answer to that question to go through the question about whether the childcare protection policy for volunteers should be two pages or 30 pages or back and forth. The answer overall and generally is that Discovery Land and other child ministries throughout the church are safe for children and those policies that are in place are adequate and improving all the time. 17:55
Policies may have improved but the pastors and Liebeler are still deceiving and covering up in these very reports. Liebeler’s assurance of safety means nothing! The lack of integrity calls into question any commitment to obey the law or follow the child protection policies in every case. Furthermore, it is my understanding that CLC still does not make members aware of suspected, known, or convicted child molesters. He never addresses Adams or Loftness for the crimes they committed against Roberts because “it is not as important.”
Reaffirms No Conspiracy to Protect Child Predators Including Nathaniel Morales
I did find that there was no conspiracy to try to protect child predators. I talked about that last week. I am going to reaffirm that this week. Once that part of the investigation was completed about what’s the current state of the child protection policies and their implementation here, it then made sense to go into some of the historical aspects and the reasons why we prioritized things the way we did, and that is to talk about the Nate Morales situation first, was because that did involve some current, those allegations did involve current pastors. And so I thought it was more important to address that question about current pastors rather than talking about pastors who are no longer at the church. 18:45
How did Liebeler “find” that John Loftness did not cover up the crimes committed against John Roberts by David Adams? And how did he find Loftness and Ricucci were innocent of the crimes alleged against them by three victims? He never addresses these issues. He never offers proofs. He just passes over them because it is unimportant to talk about “pastors who are no longer at the church.” How convenient!
And of course, he never talks about the cover up of crimes by pastors who were at the church in 1997, 2008, and 2010 in the case of Charlies Llewellyn. He addresses none of the following!
Victim: Olivia Llewellyn-Graham
Paragraphs: 152-161
Location: Home
Timeframe: 1997-2012 (minimum)
Age: 13-24
Alleged Abuser: Charlie Llewellyn
Alleged Conspirators: Gary Ricucci, Grant Layman, C.J. Mahaney, Other Defendants
152. As Donna Doe was being subjected to the terror of living with her pedophiliac father, Defendants were also forcing Plaintiff Grace Goe [Olivia Llewellyn-Graham] to endure constant physical and sexual abuse from her father [Charlie Llewellyn], a wealthy man who was and remains a prominent member of the Covenant Life Church.
153. Grace Goe’s father repeatedly beat her on her naked buttocks so harshly that she bled and bruised. Her father would then submerge her into an ice bath to hide the physical manifestations of the beatings.
154. Grace Goe’s father also repeatedly sexually abused her, making her rub his feet, which he then inserted into her vagina. He also molested her on several occasions by rubbing his hands over her breasts, at times outside her clothes and at times against her bare skin under her clothes.
155. Grace Goe’s father engaged in the physical and sexual abuse towards the other children, including the male children, whose penises he repeatedly fondled.
156. Defendants Ricucci and Layman learned of the ongoing abuse no later than in or around 1997, when Grace Goe was 13. At that time, a housekeeper named Mary Burcham reported the ongoing abuse of the Goe children to Defendants Ricucci and Layman, and discovery will show other Defendants. Defendants Ricucci and Layman met with Grace Goe and her older female sibling [Brieta Llewellyn-Allison], who reported the fact of the abuse to the Individual Defendants [e.g., C.J. Mahaney] and sought protection from their abusive father.
157. Rather than report the ongoing abuse to the secular authorities or take any steps to stop the abuse, Defendants informed the father that his children [Brieta & Olivia] had reported the abuse. This led to further abuse by the father. In exchange for the conspiracy of silence, the abusive father paid to send Defendants Mahaney, Ricucci and Layman and their families on vacation to the Kiawah Islands, South Carolina.
158. On or about September 17, 2008, Plaintiff Grace Goe again reached out the Defendants, seeking assistance in preventing the ongoing abuse of her siblings. Defendants failed to report or take any other steps to stop the ongoing and severe abuse.
159. In May 2010, Plaintiff Grace Goe again sought help from Defendants Layman and Ricucci, as she was concerned that her father was continuing to abuse the children remaining in the house.
160. On May 14, 2010, Defendants conspired to mislead Plaintiff Grace Goe into believing that they would finally assist in ending the abuse. Defendant Grant Layman affirmatively made misrepresentations in writing to Grace Goe, assuring her that “after the pastors discussed this situation, the bottom line is, we feel a moral obligation to report.”
161. Yet this was a falsehood. Defendant Layman and his co-conspirators again failed to report the abuse, and instead continue to assist the wealthy father in avoiding any consequences for his ongoing abuse of his children.
Mahaney was the senior pastor in 1997. Harris was the senior pastor in 2008 and 2010. He was also a conspirator in the cover-up. Here is a sampling of what Brieta Llewellyn-Allison said about Harris. She is Olivia’s older sister.
Brieta Llewellyn-Allison Calls Out Joshua Harris for Covering Up the Sexual Abuse of Children at Covenant Life Church Based on First-Hand Knowledge
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 2:02PM
Until he comes clean about all the lies he told while he was a pastor and the abuse he covered up in Covenant Life (and yes, I know this personally), this paltry gesture means nothing. He’s doing marketing now, which fits him well, as he’s always been the master of spin.
Liebeler and Mitchell never reported to CLC about the case with Charlie Llewellyn. They just skipped over his horrific abuse of his children. It is another example of their duplicity.
The Second Amended Complaint Is Very Disorganized
After that module, then there were also allegations in the complaint relating to members of the church. I will report briefly on those issues today. I hope this gives you a little bit better understanding about why I’ve chosen to talk about the things that I’ve talked about in a specific order. If I were to simply pick up the Second Amended Complaint and go from front to back and answer all those questions one by one about whether something did or didn’t happened it would be a very disorganized presentation because the Second Amended Complaint jumps around significantly and I’d be talking about things that are not as important to you as a congregation now rather than things that are. 19:30
This is pure poppycock. Liebeler’s report is the “very disorganized presentation” because he does not “go from front to back” “one by one” through the Second Amended Complaint which is what Joshua Harris promised.
Liebeler’s oral reports are almost impossible to follow. He is the one who “jumps around significantly” and he covers so much material that is unimportant compared to what is actually important in the lawsuit. This is a diversionary tactic by Liebeler designed to skipped over incriminating evidence. He doesn’t want to answer the allegations of fact presented in the lawsuit. That is his worst nightmare.
Investigation Not Yet Complete
The fact that I haven’t addressed a specific issue in the civil complaint or on the blogs that is of a particular concern to you does not mean that it has occurred, it doesn’t mean it hasn’t occurred. It means I’ve not yet completed that portion of the investigation relating to that issue. This work takes time and it takes resources. And I’ve worked with the pastors to create a budget that allows me to do a thorough and complete job so I can stand here with integrity and give you the answers that I want to. The budget is not unlimited. But please keep that in mind. 20:13
This is another pathetic excuse for not doing an honest investigation. He had plenty of time to address every issue in the civil complaint. And I was raising countless issues on my blog. The CLC members were reading my posts. He totally avoided them. He just didn’t have the time! Absolute nonsense!
He started his work in July 2013. It is now October 2014 but he’s still not investigated C.J. Mahaney, John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Charlie Llewellyn or Dave Adams. And he did not properly investigate Steve Griney, Dave Mayo and Mark Hoffman. He has been working for 17 months but now needs more money and more time. He accomplished almost nothing. I think that was by design. He purposely avoided vital issues or else he is not telling us what he found.
Liebeler is not about “standing here with integrity.” He is about protecting the guilty because he is their lawyer. I sure wish the CLC pastors had given me a budget of 100k to do my investigation. Instead they cursed my writings and defamed my character.
Liebeler Attends One Day of Trial and Listens to Audio Tapes
I am going to spend a few minutes talking about some follow up questions from the last session that we had. There were several people who forwarded questions asking whether I had either attended the Morales criminal trial or had listened to the audio tapes. And I did attend one day of the trial and I did listen to all the testimony that was recorded on CDs so I’ve listened to that and I am familiar with that. 20:45
This means Liebeler knew Grant Layman testified to breaking the law. He doesn’t say if he attended or listened to the second trial of Morales where he was found guilty for the sexual abuse of David Tapia, Jr. That is when Layman gave incriminating testimony about his knowledge of Morales’s long-term history of sexual abuse pre-dating CLC.
Additional Reports to the Pastors about Nathaniel Morales
The question that came after that, whether I had seen it or not, was, were there any other people [besides Layman] who testified in court that they had made reports about Morales to the pastors. And there were a couple of other people. I did not address that last week but I will address it now. 21:02
If he had not been asked, he would have left this vital information out of his report. It was preposterous that he did not include the “other people” who made “reports about Morales to the pastors” in his presentation on October 12.
Jeremy Cook
There was one other victim [Jeremy Cook] who was not a Covenant Life Church member, who as he originally started to testify said that he reported the fact that he had been molested to the pastors. His testimony ranged over a course of a period of time. During additional questioning, his testimony changed. And he stated that he didn’t actually do that himself but he actually discussed with another victim the concept that they would go and talk to the pastors. So, although there was testimony at one point in time, saying that he did, he couldn’t remember which pastor he went to, he later changed his testimony. Based on the evaluation of the totality of that testimony, I determined that he actually did not approach any pastors to report that he had been molested. That he had had discussions with another victim [Sam Bates] in which they had discussed that probability of whether they should do that and take that course of action. 22:04
Liebeler is out to discredit Jeremy Cook. He didn’t “change his testimony.” He filled out his testimony as clarifying questions from ASA Michalski continued. And he never said, “He couldn’t remember which pastor he went to.” That is totally made up by Liebeler and contradicts his testimony. Liebeler is libeling Jeremy. In reality, Jeremy is a hero for boldly exposing Morales and the CLC pastors. Here is some of his testimony.
Jeremy Cook
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Michalski: And what if anything happened after you told your parents in relationship to the church?
Cook: After I told my parents, I worked with Sam [Bates] to bring it to the attention of the pastors at Covenant Life Church because they were, again that was the way we were raised, you take these things to your pastors. So we took it to the pastors of Covenant Life Church and we were told that it would be handled. It would be taken care of.
Michalski: And specifically, did you speak with a pastor by the name of Grant Layman at that time about the abuse?
Cook: I did not speak with Grant directly. No.
Michalski: And at that time, when you initially disclosed to Mr. Bates and to your parents, did you ever report it to the police?
Cook: No.
Michalski: Can you tell us why you didn’t report it at that time?
Cook: Well, I believed that when it was reported up to the church that they would take care of it. I believed that they would pursue it. That they would handle the situation. That they would do something to stop him.
Jeremy also published this comment on the SGMSurvivors blog.
Another SGM Survivor
May 14th, 2014 at 9:59 pm
Now that the trial is in the hands of the jury, I have decided to break my silence. That’s why I gave the interview today to the local news that I linked earlier. Yes, I am Jeremy Cook, one of Nate Morales’s victims, and one of the key witnesses in the case against him. I posted a few times a year or so ago, but had to remain silent in order to not jeopardize the trial.
Brent and others have certainly captured many of the important parts of my testimony, so I don’t need to re-hash that here, but I wanted to say to everyone here that I am grateful for the support and for this community. I have been a regular reader here for quite some time, and reading the stories, comments and conversations here have given me encouragement through this process.
Ultimately, my purpose in pursing this trial was first and foremost about preventing a known predator from continuing to victimize others, and to hopefully encourage others to come forward with their own stories of abuse, and pursue their own justice, and to get these predators off the streets. I have been blessed the past few days to meet some of the regulars here on this board, and I want to say thank you to each of you.
I think the biggest surprise to me through this entire process was how amazing I felt after I testified. I was incredibly nervous in getting ready, and the walk through that courtroom up to the witness stand seemed like the longest walk of my life. But after I sat down, and stared down my abuser, and got over the initial rage at seeing him, I began to have a new perspective. Suddenly, I realized that he had no power over me anymore. I was in the position of power, not him… and then I began to speak. Difficult at first, but then the words and the story started flowing. And let me tell you all, it was liberating! Suddenly, I didn’t want to stop talking, I just wanted to share everything I could. And when it was done, I felt amazing. It felt like a giant weight had been removed from my shoulders, one that I didn’t even realize was there. The walk back from the witness stand and out of the courtroom felt like a walk of pride and a walk of strength. Once I left the courtroom, I wanted to jump for joy!
I now feel relieved, freed, unburdened, and like I can face the world fresh. I had no idea how much this had all weighed on me for so many years. The shame is nearly gone. The fear is certainly gone. No matter the verdict, I am free, for I told the truth. I told my story. No longer am I hiding in the shadows, but I am free!
So all of my rambling aside. If nothing else can come of this, if just one other victim can hear my experience, and have the courage to come forward from my experience, then all the hard work to bring this to trial was worth it.
This is the man Liebeler discredits and disparages!
The factor that made it difficult for them to do that was, number one, they were extremely embarrassed about what had happened to them. Number two, they felt that there was a risk they would not be believed and that there would be repercussions to them. And that in essence is a part of many people who engage in molestation is that they threatened the victims with the concept that if they do come forward there will be repercussions. This is in an attempt to keep them silent. And unfortunately, in this case that was successful. 22:41
Sam, Jeremy and Brian all came forward in the 1990’s. Though often the case, Morales never threatened them with “repercussions.” That was made clear at the trial. Liebeler is making it up. This is another example of his deceit and/or incompetence.
Rachel Bates-Paci & Girlfriend of Victim
There were two other people who testified at the Morales criminal trial. One was the sister of a victim . The other, actually the sister of the victim testified, there was another person who I interviewed who was a girlfriend of one of the victims and they had stated at one point or another that they had approached a pastor here at the church to report that information of molestations by Nate Morales. I did speak to the pastors who they stated that they made these reports to. The pastors said that they had received no such reports. 23:23
This is the most vile and deceptive part of Liebeler’s report. He leaves out names so you cannot follow or investigate for yourself. This account also exposes the extent to which Grant Layman and the pastors were willing to lie. Follow closely. It is extremely important.
Liebeler says, “two other people who testified.” Wrong. One other person testified under oath – “the sister of a victim.” That is, Rachael Bates-Paci, the sister of Sam Bates.
Then he says, “There was another person I interviewed who was a girlfriend of one of the victims.” That is a reference to Marie Molina. She was a girlfriend of Sam Bates in the 1990’s. She knew of the crimes committed against Sam by Morales from 1983-1991.
Next, Liebeler says that Rachael and Marie “stated at one point or another that they had approached a pastor here at the church to report that information of molestations by Nate Morales.” Liebeler plays dumb when he says, “at one point or another.” That is vital information.
Liebeler doesn’t name the pastors, which is part of the cover-up, but “the pastors said that they had received no such reports.” In other words, the pastors denied Rachael and Marie ever approached them. The lying is unending.
As an investigator that places me in a situation with nothing else of a person who I talked to who appears to be telling the truth and says there was a report made. I talked to the pastors, who I spent a lot of time with, they said they did not recall and did not receive a report. So the question for me is, “Gee, is there anything else that I can help to resolve this discrepancy? Are there any documents? Is there anybody who wrote down in a diary something? Is there any other witnesses who can help me resolve this issue?”
In both of these instances it was very very difficult to do. And so I am really reluctant to say that one person is a liar, one person is telling the truth. The events that we are talking here occurred now 22 years ago. Taking that into consideration, I think that people can have difficulty with remembering certain items in their life and it doesn’t mean that they are lying. 24:31
What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. First, Liebeler never talked to Rachael. He doesn’t make that clear. Second, he “interviewed” Marie only because she came to him. He doesn’t make that clear either. He says Marie “appears to be telling the truth.” But then he talks to “the pastors, who I spent a lot of time with” (which is very telling) and they said they “did not receive a report.” He spent no time with Rachael (or any of the victims in the lawsuit).
So you have Rachael and Marie stating they reported to the pastors and the pastors stating they never received a report. Who’s lying? Bring on the amnesia defense! No one! Rachael, Marie and the pastors are just having “difficulty with remembering certain items in their life.” That is laughable.
Liebeler throws up his arms in exasperation. “Gee, is there anything else that I can help to resolve this discrepancy? Are there any documents? Is there anybody who wrote down in a diary something? Is there any other witnesses who can help me resolve this issue?” What a deceiver. Yes, there is the sworn testimony by Rachael Bates and corroborating testimony by Scott Bates (her father) and Robin Boisvert in police offense reports.
Rachael’s testimony suffers from no loss of memory. It is clear, confident and compelling. She had no “difficulty with remembering.” Liebeler never quotes her testimony.
Rachel Bates-Paci
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 20014
Hall: Now I want to direct your attention to specifically 1991. Did there ever come a time when you spoke with the leadership at Covenant Life Church about allegations of sexual abuse?”
Paci: Yes. The summer of 1991 after school was out.
Hall: And who did you speak to in the summer of 1991?
Paci: Chris Glass and Thurlow Switzer who was our principal of the school [Montgomery County Covenant Academy] and Grant Layman.
Hall: Okay. And Chris Glass, what was his role in Covenant Life Church at that time?
Paci: He was my pastor. He was the younger, the youth pastor.
Hall: And what was Grant Layman’s role in the church at that time?
Paci: He was for a little bit older, like I guess for older singles, older meaning probably early 20s versus high school.
Hall: Okay. And in 1991 did there ever come a time when you reported these allegations of sexual abuse to the police?
Paci: No.
Hall: And why not?
Paci: Because I was 17 and I probably should have but I didn’t because I was told by my [church] leadership and I kind of gave it over to my pastors and my parents.
Hall: Okay. Now I want to direct your attention to 2007. Did there come a time in 2007 when you became aware of Mr. Morales whereabouts?”
Paci: Yes.
Hall: And where was Mr. Morales living at that time?
Paci: In Nevada.
Hall: In 2007, did it ever come to your attention as to whether he was affiliated with any type of religious institution at that time?
Paci: Yea. I google searched him and I found him to be a pastor or assistant pastor at a church in Nevada in Las Vegas. The Vegas Valley [Christian] Church if I recall correctly.
Hall: And after you found out that information, did you pass that information onto someone else?
Paci: “Yea. I passed it to my Dad [Scott Bates] who then spoke to Grant Layman about it.”
Rachael Bates-Paci
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Drew: So in 1991, you spoke with the church leadership about allegations of sexual child abuse by Mr. Morales?
Paci: Yes.
Drew: And can you put it into a season or you really can’t do that?
Paci: It was the summer.
Drew: Summer?
Paci: Yes.
Drew: Who did you speak with? Who was the leadership that you spoke with?
Paci: Thurlow Switzer, he was the President of the school or principal of the school. And Chris Glass and Grant Layman.
Drew: Okay. Thurlow Switzer and his role was Principal?
Paci: Principal of the school. President, principal or something to that effect.
Drew: Okay and then you also spoke to who?
Paci: Grant Layman and Christopher Glass.
Drew: Did you speak to those individuals all at once or did you speak with them separately?
Paci: I spoke to Christopher Glass and then he went with me to speak with Thurlow Switzer and Grant together.
Drew: Okay. And you made the report of what you had heard concerning sexual abuse?
Paci: Yes.
Drew: Now, did you ever become aware after you made that report that Chris Glass reported these allegations to the Montgomery County Police Department?
Paci: No. I wasn’t made aware of that.
Drew: Then you went with Mr. Glass to speak with Thurlow Switzer and Grant Layman?”
Paci: Yes.
Drew: About the same topic, sexual child abuse?
Paci: Yes.
Drew: “Okay. Did you ever become aware that Thurlow Switzer notified the Montgomery County Police Department about sexual abuse?”
Paci: No. No sir.
Drew: Okay. Did you inquire at any point of Mr. Switzer?
Paci: No. He was my principal. I was 17. I didn’t have that relationship where I could go pester him about that [i.e., about reporting]. And I was basically told by many people [not to report] that I wasn’t the one who was abused so it wasn’t my problem basically.
Drew: Who told you since you weren’t abused that it wasn’t your problem?
Paci: My parents for one.
Drew: Anybody else that you can recall?
Paci: No. But that was the gist of it that it didn’t happen to you so – but it weighed heavy on my heart for a really for a long time.
Drew: To the best of your knowledge did Grant Layman ever go forward to the police department about any of these allegations?
Paci: As far as I know, no. He did not.
Layman and the other pastors are lying about not receiving reports from Rachael and Marie. By the way, Marie’s sister, Ellen Molina, was in the courtroom during the Morales trial.
One other point. Chris Glass is a major player in this scandal. Liebeler never mentions his name or indicates he ever talked to him. The deceit and/or incompetence is unending. There should have been a full accounting of any and all interaction with Glass by Liebeler. He was the first pastor Rachael went to about Morales’s abuse. He was also told about Morales abuse by James Roberts around the same time.
I didn’t in the end feel that it was necessary for me to absolutely come down and say, “This conversation did occur or it didn’t occur” because ultimately the question that I then went to was “If it did occur would the outcome have been any different with respect to Nate Morales?” And I think that the answer to that is probably no for this reason. That as I described it two weeks ago there is a Clergy Privilege that attaches to the communications for the victims as they come to a pastor seeking pastoral care. Both of those victims [Sam Bates & Brian Wolohan] that came and reported [in 1993] said they did not want to go to the police for various reasons. If another family member [Rachael Bates-Paci] who disagreed with that came [in 1991] and said something should be done in reporting this, I want you to convince my brother to go to the police. Does that break the Clergy Privilege? I don’t think that it does. You could put a whole bunch of legal scholars in the room with the books and close them up for 100 days and they could come out and you would have, if you put 20 in there, you would have 10 opinions about that. I don’t know that it is a resolvable question. 25:51
More deception by Liebeler. He is happy to keep everything nebulous. Far worse, he asks and answers, “Would the outcome have been any different with respect to Nate Morales? … Probably no.” What is wrong with Liebeler? The answer is “absolutely yes!” If Layman, Glass and Switzer had reported Morales in June 1991 as mandated by law, the next 21 years of sexual abuse by him would have been averted!
Liebeler is also being disingenuous by not supplying dates. Rachael came two years before Sam and Brian. She wanted Morales stopped. No “Clergy Privilege” applied! The question is easily “resolvable” if your honest.” Glass, Layman, and Switzer deserve prison time.
If in fact those conversations did take place, I don’t think that the Clergy Privilege necessarily was broken if somebody said, “Well, I heard another report from a sister [Rachael]. Do I then do anything differently?” I don’t think they [the pastors] would be acting in bad faith if they said no. The victim told me that he wanted to keep this private and just to have pastoral care about it. So, in the end, I don’t think that the results necessarily would have been different. 26:32
Liebeler speaks with great ambiguity to cloud the issues. “If in fact those conversations did take place.” What conversations? The ones by Rachael and Marie with the pastors. When did they take place? Liebeler deceives again. He makes it sound like Rachael and Marie reported to the pastors after Sam reported to the pastors. That is not the case. With Rachael it was two years earlier. With Marie I don’t have an exact timetable and Liebeler conceals it. It appears she came forward after the abuse ended in 1991 because Morales was exposed by Rachael and fled CLC but before Sam came forward to in 1993.
Was C.J. Mahaney Told about Nathaniel Morales?
Let’s see. There were a couple of other questions let me thumb through. There is a long question emailed that talked about this question about why it is possible that two different reports that came into two different pastors [Robin Boisvert, Gary Ricucci], is it possible that both of them didn’t share it with anybody else on the pastoral team. More specifically, people said, “Well gee, C.J. Mahaney must have known about this.” I did not have access to C.J. Mahaney to ask that question. He is a defendant in the suit, he is represented by counsel during the pendency of the civil suit in particular, they made the decision not to talk about things. I do know from speaking to his lawyer that his position is that he did not know. 27:40
There were at least four different reports of abuse to four different CLC pastors (Glass, Layman, Boisvert, Ricucci) and one outside pastor (Switzer). Liebeler dismisses the reports by Rachael and Marie. I cover the topic of C.J. knowing about Morales at length in C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children (Feb. 13, 2018).
Glass, Layman, Boisvert, and Ricucci would NEVER have withheld information about the sexual abuse of numerous boys at various times from Mahaney. I know from working with C.J. for 27 years. We filled C.J. in on far less important matters all the time.
Liebeler did not talk to Mahaney. But did he talk to Glass, Layman, Boisvert, and Ricucci? In other words, did he ask them if they ever told Mahaney about Morales. He is entirely mute on the subject which was of greatest interest to all the members of CLC! They wanted to know. Asking the question and reporting the answer was so basic to his investigation! This is another example of deceit or extreme incompetence.
In thinking, in talking to a lot of different pastors in the church about what it is that they share with other pastors, there were a lot of different opinions about what is it that triggers the need to discuss something, a sensitive issue with other pastors. And I didn’t get a consistent answer all the way across the board. I talked to maybe ten or 12 of the pastors and there was a varying. So it is in the end something that I think is pastor specific and I don’t think that is necessarily a wrong answer. There isn’t a legal obligation that you share every bit of sensitive information with other pastors to get their input on it. So I don’t know the answer to the question about whether it is likely or unlikely that C.J. Mahaney should have known or did know about this. 28:32
It is plain from testimony in the Morales trial and in police reports that Layman, Ricucci, Boisvert and others were talking with each other about Morales. “Plenty of people were involved.” Layman said this in court.
Grant Layman
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Drew: And was part of your responsibilities, doing those things that you just mentioned, that is to lead, to encourage, Bible studies, service in the community; did you have a responsibility that if you became aware of incidences of child abuse that you had a responsibility to either bring it to the people who are in charge of the church [Mahaney] or to the police?
Layman: Yes.
Drew: So you knew about Sam Bates and allegations of being sexually abused. Correct?
Layman: Yes.
Drew: And you knew about Brian Wolohan being sexual abused. Correct?
Layman: I knew there was abuse. I didn’t know details.
Drew: And you had no duty as a pastor, or one of the pastors at that church, to report that to the police department. Is that what you are telling me?
Layman: I am telling you that there were plenty of people involved.
As the “independent investigator” Liebeler never mentions or reports on these incriminating statements by Layman. Two simple questions should have been asked of Layman. Did you report to Mahaney since he was “in charge of the church” and who were the “plenty of people involved?”
Asking these questions of Layman was crucial to any bonafide investigation. Yet, he skips over the entire subject. I guess it slipped his mind! The same questions should have been asked of Chris Glass, Robin Boisvert, Gary Ricucci, Thurlow Switzer, Chip Grange and others. And when Layman says “plenty of people” were involved only a fool would believe that did not include Mahaney who was his immediate boss, brother-in-law and close friend.
I would say in the end, it is the same question again, does that break the Clergy Privilege if the family reports the information and says, “We don’t want to go to the police. We have come here for pastoral care.” Even if one pastor shared it with another pastor that doesn’t necessarily break the privilege. 28:53
Smoke and mirrors ad nauseum.
As a practical matter, if there are more pastors who know about it and they share information and they had known at an earlier time that there was more than one victim, I think as a practical matter your answer is, “Gee, we’ve got a problem and it may be a bigger problem than we know.” 29:14
And that was exactly the case. They knew in 1991 there was more than one victim. Rachael told them about three victims. Then they became of aware of more in 1993 and 1994. Of course, they were sharing information and comparing notes.
That is one of the issues that in the module one in talking about what the current child protection policies are, there is a “Do Not Serve List.” And when people are identified as being unsafe to be around children, they are placed on a list so they cannot serve in Discovery Land and that is appropriate. Over the course of time it’s been unclear that everybody involved in every single ministry knew about that and that was a recommendation that I made is that all pastors need to know who is on the “Do Not Serve List” and why because the sharing of different information among the different ministries can help you piece together pieces of information that appear different then if you just have one isolated incident. 30:14
It is not enough to have a “Do Not Serve List” for individuals who are “unsafe to be around children” in children’s ministry. There needs to be a list of convicted sex abusers on the CLC website and anyone in harm’s way must be told about people who are unsafe to be around their children. This information should not be confined to the pastors or Sunday security.
So I think that that is a very good question about whether it is possible or plausible that only two pastors [Boisvert & Ricucci] knew about this and they were essentially in silos, information silos at this point in time. We know that later on Pastor Layman, eventually at some point, knew that there were two people and provided pastoral care for both of those victims [Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan] but I don’t find there is evidence, and I scoured the documents with respect to the meeting minutes of the Board of pastors in which there sometimes is sensitive information discussed. I don’t see anything in there at this time period that would indicate to me that other pastors knew about this at this point in time. I don’t know if that answers your question to your satisfaction or not; but those are the facts as I know them. I don’t think that those facts, that if you say that the whole pastoral board did not know at that point, it certainly doesn’t prove there is a conspiracy, it doesn’t prove there is an intention to protect a child predator; it is consistent also with the fact of what happened, that is that the families had come for pastoral care and didn’t want to go to police. 31:40
Liebeler keeps spinning his web of deception. Robin Boisvert and Gary Ricucci were not in information solos. Neither were Grant Layman and Chris Glass who he once again dismisses as having knowledge of crimes in 1991 per Rachael compelling testimony under oath. And Liebeler never tells us which pastor Marie talked to about Morales. It could have been anyone including Mahaney. These are not “the facts,” they are the fake facts. Liebeler is creating an entirely false narrative.
The elders’ minutes are not going to record the sexual abuse of children that went unreported to law enforcement. They are not that stupid.
The two witnesses [Rachael & Marie] who did testify, or that we learned had stated that they went to the pastors, at least one of them [Rachael] at the time, was near the age of majority or at the age of majority. Age 18. I don’t think that is relevant for the question about whether that communication then eliminated the Clergy Privilege but I think it is important to note that anybody at any time had the right to go to the police and the obligation to go to the police if they had a reasonable suspicion that there was child abuse going on. 32:24
Liebeler is dastardly He listened to the testimony of Rachael Bates-Paci. He knows she was 17 years old and went to them as a minor. He also knows why she didn’t go to the police. I’ve already cited her sworn testimony above.
Liebeler Claims the Press Reported that Only Pastors Could Go to the Police
One of the questions that I received by email was, because at the very end of my comments I said to you that I don’t think that the press had reported things very accurately or very fairly. And what I meant by that was, I think I’ve highlighted the areas where the pastor s could have improved and done a better job particularly in 2007. I think in isolation to say the only people that could have gone to the police were the Covenant Life pastors and that is sort of what you get when you look at some of articles and discussions outside the courthouse steps; that is not accurate. There were other people who had this information who also under Maryland law had an obligation to report to the police and they did not. 33:15
Absolutely no one was saying “the only people that could have gone to the police were the Covenant Life pastors.” When Jeremy Cook did a TV interview “outside the courthouse steps,” he said they were taught to go to the pastors and believed the pastors would report to police. He never said they were the only ones who could report. But Liebeler is right that there were “other people” who had an obligation to report but the pastors never required them to do so.
No Evidence Any Pastor Ever Told Victims Not to Report
An essential question which I believe I answered last week and I’ll say it again, I found no evidence that any pastor ever told anyone that they should not go to the police. That’s a critical distinction in my mind about whether there is an existence of a conspiracy or an intent to protect child predators. Anybody who had the information was perfectly free to go to the police themselves. I never found any inkling that any pastor said, “Don’t go to the police.” You must stop going to the police, we will handle this inside.” I don’t find any evidence that ever happened. 34:01
This is moronic! I guest Liebeler never had time to read the Second Amended Complaint during his 17-month investigation.
Victim: Renee Palmer Gamby
Paragraphs: 94-106
Location: Likely a Home Group
Timeframe: 1993
Age: 2 (almost 3)
Alleged Abuser: Home Group Babysitter
Alleged Conspirators: John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Grant Layman
96. On or about March 18, 1993, Dominic and Pamela Palmer, Renee’s parents, learned of the assault and immediately called the police and reported the assault. They then called Defendant Loftness, who immediately advised them “do not call the police.” When the Palmers told Defendant Loftness that they had already called the police, he expressed his displeasure (stating “that is going to be a problem”), and explained that such matters were handled internally by the church leadership, not by secular authorities.
Liebeler categorical states, “I never found any inkling that any pastor said, ‘Don’t go to the police. … We will handle this inside.’ I don’t find any evidence that ever happened.” That means the firsthand testimony of Dominic and Pam Palmer regarding John Loftness is not evidence in Liebeler’s mind. Hats off to such an impartial and clear-thinking investigator!
Seriously, this example is illustrative of all Liebeler’s work. Bogus! It gets worse.
The Extent of Immunity When Reporting
Another question to answer. It was about the extent of the immunity under the child protection law. And I described that if anyone makes a report of suspected child abuse in Maryland that they are entitled to, and they have, legal immunity. And the question was whether or not that immunity could protect them if they had actually contacted someone else in a Nevada church. 34:38
That whole discussion there, I think and the question to the extent of that immunity, can be answered this way. That the immunity is designed to encourage people to report to the police. That’s what their obligation is. 34:55
This is a moot point. The CLC pastors should never have contacted anyone in Nevada. They should have contacted law enforcement in Maryland and allowed Maryland detectives to take it from there.
The Police Should be Contacted & Do Investigation – Not the Pastors
There is no legal obligation that someone go to someone else’s, the suspected abuser’s employer, and make a report there. That is the responsibility of the police. So in clarifying that, you are not supposed to take, no one is ever supposed to take, essentially make that determination about who else should know, that’s what the police are to do because the police are also the ones to investigate whether or not there is truth to the allegations that there is a suspected child abuse situation. 35:34
I agree with Liebeler for once. The long-standing policy of the CLC was “to investigate whether or not there is truth to the allegations.” Corby Megorden, the CLC administrator and a board member, publicly explained this policy to CLC on August 17, 2011. So did Joshua Harris in 2015.
I spent a fair part of the investigation looking through documents that were guiding documents for the pastors from their law firm. And I did find that this concept was contained there. That there were legal guidelines explaining that in sensitive situations and difficult situations whether it be child abuse or other threatened imminent danger to people that the police should be contacted and let those civil authorities handle those matters. 36:09
If true, then the CLC pastors violated those legal guidelines. So did their lawyer, Chip Grange, who put them together. That doesn’t surprise me. These men have shown themselves to be hypocrites time after time. C.J. Mahaney is the prime example.
I found evidence that pastors, administrative pastors who received that information from the law firm [Gammon & Grange] had circulated it to the rest of the pastors and said these are the guidelines that we are to follow. Please read these and be familiar with them. So again the concept that there, at least a far as a document trail, that is we don’t go to the civil authorities, we don’t go to the police, we handled it in house, I found just to the contrary that there is legal advice saying, difficult situations, in appropriate situations under law, you should report matters to law and I found that pastors circulating those documents to each other. 36:55
That is why Grant Layman testified that he had a legal obligation to report Nate Morales to law enforcement. Joshua Harris, Kenneth Maresco, Robin Boisvert, and Corby Megorden knew the same in 2007 when Morales confessed to crimes. Yet they did the exact opposite. Policy and polity mean nothing when men are corrupt and follow their self-interests and not the interests of Christ or others.
News Media Wrong about Grant Layman’s Testimony
Further questions. I had a question in which again was a reference to the news media essentially getting it wrong and reporting that Grant Layman’s testimony on the stand, in what way did they get it wrong. What exactly did Grant say and how was that misinterpreted? 37:20
CLC members were attempting to hold Liebeler accountable for his erroneous and disreputable reporting. He does not answer honestly.
Toward the end of his testimony both the prosecution and the defense were spending a lot of time asking whether Grant Layman had an obligation in 91, 92 to report the suspected child abuse. None of the lawyers in the room made any mention or discussion of the Clergy Privilege and they didn’t ask any questions with respect to what the desires were of the victim [Sam Bates]. So that was what my reference was to the fact that he was answering a question at the end of that, did you have an obligation to report this information, he said yes, which in the end, I think was inconsistent with what his legal obligation was, was to obey the Clergy Privilege and protect the wishes of the family and victim not to report. So that was my reference to that point. 38:32
Liebeler is twisting the law! Once again, this is due to extreme incompetence or extraordinary deceit. First, “the Clergy Privilege” did not apply to Layman when Rachael Bates-Paci asked him, Glass and Switzer to stop Morales in June 1991. They all had an obligation to report. Rachael was not confiding in them or asking them not to report. She was doing the exact opposite. She wanted action! They were mandatory reporters under the law! Furthermore, there is no record of Sam or his family asking Layman not to report or to keep matters confidential in 1992. That is why Liebeler cites none.
Second and most importantly, Liebeler totally misrepresents how the Clergy Privilege works. A clergyman in Maryland may keep information confidential if he chooses under certain conditions but he has no legal obligation to do so. He is free to report crimes confessed to him in “confidence.” But Liebeler states just the opposite. He claims Layman had a “legal obligation” “to obey the Clergy Privilege” and “not to report” the sexual abuse of children to law enforcement. That is nuts but that is what he’s feeding all the members of CLC. This is crackpot lawyering. There is no such law!
Are There Consequences for Breaking Clergy Privilege?
Let’s see. Let me make sure that I’ve addressed all the questions there. I believe there was a question about what are the consequences to a pastor if they were to break the privilege and reveal a confidence that had been entrusted to them by a congregant. Again, I didn’t do independent research on this to determine how valid that cause of action is but I did see that there were legal memos that were in the files, prepared by the law firm [Gammon & Grange] and sent to the church saying when someone tells you something in confidence and it is covered by the privilege you need to adhere to that. Because if you reveal the information and it causes damage to the congregant you may be subject to being sued for damages. 39:26
When a congregant reveals “a confidence” to a pastor he does not have to keep it in confidence if it involves unrepentant sin (Matthew 18:15-17) or crimes committed against him, by him or by others. For example, a pastor does not remain silent about aggravated assault, sexual abuse, murder, extortion, grand larceny, etc.
Instead, you help the person repent and turn himself in to law enforcement. If he doesn’t do so, you report him. You are not going to be “sued for damages” if you report “pastor” Nate Morales to the authorities even though a victim wants you to remain silent. You are protected by the law. In my opinion, Gammon and Grange counseled the CLC pastors to do that which is unlawful and unbiblical out of concern for financial harms.
The memo that I saw said there was a case in CA and there’s some other cases here. I didn’t investigate that specifically but I wanted to answer the question for whoever posed that question about what the consequences would be. Some lawsuits are valid. Some are invalid. I couldn’t tell you whether someone would win or lose a lawsuit if they tried to sue their pastor for revealing a piece of information. I do know that it has happened in the past. Not all those cases win. Some of them loose. Sometimes there is a good reason to reveal the information and it outweighs what the danger is but that’s an issue that is out there and I just wanted answer that question for you. Those were the questions. Or a summary of the questions that I received that were passed to me. 40:26
You are “immune from civil liability” if you report the suspicion of abuse in good faith. You are not going to lose a lawsuit. Here’s how the law reads in Maryland. “All reports of suspected child abuse are immune from civil liability unless they are purposefully erroneous or malicious.”
Heather Thompson-Bryant Regarding Steve Griney Mark Hoffman & Dave Mayo
The third part of my presentation tonight is to give you the results of what I know so far for what we are calling module five. And that is that I looked into some of the allegations that were made by a particular Plaintiff who was a church member here that she was sexually abused by three different men in the church: Mark Hoffman, Steve Griney and Dave Mayo. 41:01
He is talking about Heather Thompson-Bryant. Her father, Chuck Thompson, was a pastor at Covenant Life Church when she was abused. Dave Mayo was a pastoral assistant to her father.
Liebeler claims he “looked into some of the allegations” but he didn’t do so in a just, impartial or professional manner. His “investigation” was a fraud in my opinion. Why? He didn’t even contact Heather or her father. He only talked to her abusers to get their “side of the story.” That is outrageous.
Libeler wasn’t interested in hearing her story or evidence or even asking her questions. He was prejudicial, not independent, throughout his supposed investigation. I hope it is apparent by now it wasn’t an investigation, it was whitewash.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 7:38 AM
To: Heather Thompson-Bryant
Subject: Lars Liebeler
Did Lars Liebeler ever attempt to contact you as part of his investigation? I don’t believe so but wanted to confirm.
From: Heather Thompson
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Brent Detwiler
Subject: Re: Lars Liebeler
Nope. He didn’t. Not at all.
Allegations Against Steve Griney Do Not Have Any Merit
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that this girl [Heather] was raped twice by Mr. Griney, who was a kindergartener teacher in the Covenant Life School, and also served in the children’s ministry for years and years. She alleges that she was sexually abused, fondled and molested by Mr. Griney from the time she was approximately 3 years old until she was approximately 9 years old. The time frame being 1983 to 1989. 41:43
Liebeler never attempted to contact Heather, nor her parents, Chuck and Sandy Thompson, who vouched for her. Nor fellow victims Jessica Roberts-Thomas and Suzanne Truesdale. There is nothing about this in his investigation. Heather joined the First Amended Complaint (Jan. 11, 2013) under the pseudonym Paula Poe. She used her real name in the Second Amended Compalint (May 14, 2013) to lend greater credibility to her charges. So did Jessica.
My investigators and I have interviewed more than 15 people who were identified by the alleged victim of this conduct. We have examined the details of the alleged abuse to determine whether it is possible that these acts took place with no witnesses. We have not found any witnesses who have corroborated any of the allegations of sexual touching, molestation, abuse or rape on the part of Mr. Griney. 42:05
Liebeler doesn’t tell us who he interviewed but the group was comprised of perpetrators and conspirators who were covering up criminal activity. It is so damnable that he interviews the crooks but never the victims or the victims’ witnesses. Why? Because he ran out of time and CLC ran out of money!
Liebeler claims he “examined the alleged details of the abuse.” People must read the Second Amended Complaint (lawsuit) to see how deceptively Liebeler is reporting the allegations of facts. They are found in Paragraphs 56-84.
The details make clear there were no witnesses in 12 of the 13 cases of abuse when Heather was abused. In nine of those cases, the abuse was carried out by Griney alone. In three cases, it was carried out with John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, or Mark Hoffman. In only one case, were there “witnesses.” That is why he did find any witnesses or corroboration. Liebeler is so dishonest!
Furthermore, people have totally misconstrued Paragraphs 73-77 where there is reference to other children and adults. The following occurred away from that larger group, not in front of the group.
Victim: Heather Thompson Bryant
Paragraphs: 73-77
Location: Indiana University of Pennsylvania - Celebration
Timeframe: May 28-31, 1988
Age: 7
Alleged Abusers: Stephen Griney, Other Adults, Older Boys
77. Griney raped Plaintiff Thompson. Others were present and holding her down as Griney raped her. After Griney finished raping Plaintiff Thompson, he made her available to others, who raped her as well.
The circumstances of the allegations indicate that is not possible that these events could have occurred without other witnesses having information other than the victim or someone detecting these events. I conclude that the allegations with respect to the abuse by Mr. Griney do not have any merit. 42:31
The allegations of fact found in Paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 65, 67-68, 69-70, 71, 78-79, 80 occurred without any witnesses. Griney was alone with Heather. He isolated her or did it covertly. There were no witnesses! Of course, all “these events could have occurred without other witnesses having information.” No one was around to observe them.
But surprise, there are witnesses Liebeler doesn’t mention! Fellow victims. Here are Paragraphs 59 and 90. Liebeler never talked to Heather, Jessica, or Suzanne.
Victims: Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Suzanne Truesdale
Paragraph: 59
Location: Covenant Life School (Aspen Hill) – Room in School
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Age: Heather – 4/5, Jessica – 7/8, Suzanne – 8
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Stephen Griney, Gary Ricucci
59. On one occasion during the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness, Griney and a third person [Gary Ricucci] isolated Plaintiff Thompson along with two other girls [Jessica & Suzanne] attending the school. Defendants took the children to a room within the school, and directed them to take off their underwear. Defendant Loftness pulled a plastic rod along Plaintiff Thompson’s left leg and through her vagina. He then began to hit her bottom.
Victims: Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Heather Thompson Bryant, Suzanne Truesdale
Paragraph: 90
Location: Covenant Life School – Empty Room
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Ages: Jessica – 7/8, Heather – 4/5, Suzanne – 8
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Steve Griney, Gary Ricucci
90. During the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness, Griney and Defendant Ricucci brought Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas into an empty room with two other girls. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas recognized the girls, one of whom was Plaintiff Thompson. (The other is not being named here to protect her privacy.) Defendants directed the girls to strip off their underwear, and lay across desks. Defendant Loftness beat Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas on her bare buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas heard the unnamed girl [Suzanne Truesdale] crying, and saw Griney hitting her on her bare buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas turned over her shoulder to look for Plaintiff Thompson, and realized Defendant Ricucci had taken her out of the room. Defendant Loftness continued to beat Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas’ bare buttocks, and then he inserted his fingers into her vagina.
None of this matters to Liebeler. “I conclude that the allegations with respect to the abuse by Mr. Griney do not have any merit.” In other words, Heather, Jessica, and Suzanne are all liars! Liebeler is a defense lawyer trying to get his guilty client off! That’s his legal obligation. He is NOT an independent investigator.
Allegations Against Mark Hoffman Without Any Merit
The Second Amended Complaint also alleged that the same person [Heather] who is now approximately 34 years old was fondled, molested and sexually abused by a church member by the name of Mark Hoffman during the time that Mr. Hoffman was an active leader and participant in the Children’s Ministry at the church. The alleged timeframe overlaps with the other allegations and extends from approximately the same time 1984 to 1990 or 1991. Molestations were alleged to have occurred in Children’s Ministry activities, babysitting activities, and at the Griney household on a kindergarteners’ sleep over with other children. 43:13
The allegations of fact against Mark Hoffman are found in Paragraphs 60-64, 66, 72, 83-84. Sometimes Hoffman and Griney worked together in the sexual abuse of Heather.
My investigators and I have interviewed witnesses with respect to these allegations. There is much overlap with the previous allegations against Mr. Griney as far as the witnesses who we determined may have had knowledge of this. We have examined the allegations in detail to determine whether it was possible that these acts took place without any witnesses. We have also determined there is no basis to support the allegations against Mr. Hoffman. No witness has provided us with independent testimony or information to substantiate these allegations. Mr. Hoffman participated in the Children’s Ministry for years, and when he was younger, babysat for many families. Not one other person has ever made any allegation that Mr. Hoffman ever acted inappropriately with any of these children. We conclude that the allegations against Mr. Hoffman are without any merit. 44:13
There were no witnesses to interview because Hoffman abused Heather alone (Paragraphs 66, 83-84) or with Griney (Paragraphs 60-64, 72). Of course, “it was possible that these acts took place without any witnesses” because the abuse was done singularly or in conjunction with another perpetrator in undetected locations. Liebeler makes a big deal out the “witnesses” when none existed. His deceit reaches new heights.
Allegations Against Dave Mayo Have No Merit
The Second Amended Complaint also alleges that a gentleman by the name of David Mayo sexually abused and molested the same victim in approximately 1988 when Mr. Mayo allegedly babysat for her. I’ve interviewed Mr. Mayo and others with respect to these allegations. I reviewed in detail the specifics of these allegations to determine whether these allegations could have occurred without any other witnesses detecting or any other information being made available. I found no witness to corroborate any of the allegations against Mr. Mayo in any other way. 44:55
There is one allegation against Dave Mayo in Paragraph 82.
There are other pieces of evidence made available to me regarding Mr. Mayo’s activities in 1988 including extensive travel and training in connection with his employment and I find that those indicated it extremely unlikely that he even participated in babysitting activities. I conclude on the basis of what I have learned that there is no merit to the allegations made against Mr. Mayo. 45:25
This is an email I sent to blogger Todd Wilhelm at Thou Art the Man in April 2016 that addressed Liebeler’s handling of Dave Mayo. Terry Mayo is Dave’s wife.
From: Brent Detwiler
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 9:38 AM
To: Todd Wilhelm
Subject: RE: Terry Mayo
Liebeler made two points in his oral report to CLC on Oct 26, 2014 regarding Dave Mayo. First, he found no eyewitnesses to the alleged crimes. Second, Mayo was doing “extensive travel and training in connection with his employment and I find that those indicated it extremely unlikely that he even participated in babysitting activities.”
That is all the “evidence” put forth by Liebeler in making his case. I find it woefully inadequate, even dangerous, that he emphatically proclaimed Mayo’s innocence on that basis. First, obviously there are not going to be eyewitnesses. The abuse stealthily happened in an upstairs bedroom while Heather Thompson-Bryant was sleeping according to the factual allegation.
Second, Mayo was a close friend of the Thompson’s. Liebeler does not point this out. Nor does he point out whether or not the Mayo’s ever babysat the Thompson children. That is a serious omission. The lawsuit also says, “Dave Mayo served as an assistant to a Pastor.” That is a reference to Chuck Thompson. He is Heather Thompson-Bryant’s father. He was on staff from the beginning. He left CLC in 1992 to join Larry Tomczak and the staff in Fairfax. Liebeler knows that but doesn’t report that to CLC. Another glaring omission.
Mayo also did all kinds of volunteer work in CLC as cited in allegation 82. He certainly had time and occasion to babysit. It doesn’t matter if “calendars” showed Mayo was busy and traveled. I was busy and traveled extensively but we also babysat for friends. So did others. Moreover, if Liebeler was being objective, he would have cited precisely how many days out of 365 days in 1988 that Mayo was gone.
Third, Liebeler never talked to Heather Thompson-Bryant or her parents about the alleged abuse or the babysitting arrangements. You can’t declare something didn’t happen solely based upon your interaction with the alleged perpetrator. He should have told CLC his reporting was entirely one sided on this point. That is what an “independent” investigator is required to do.
This type of superficial reporting and investigating is typical of Liebeler in my opinion. He comes to hard and fast conclusions based on the filmiest of evidence and doesn’t point out to Covenant Life Church any of the three points above. I find that extremely prejudicial. Yet he says, “I conclude on the basis of what I have learned that there is no merit to the allegations made against Mr. Mayo.”
Outstanding Requests & No Specific Details Regarding Witnesses
I do have outstanding requests to speak with approximately 3 or 4 other witnesses regarding the allegations made by this victim. I will continue to pursue that but I felt that at this stage of the investigation I had spoken to enough of the key witnesses who were identified by the victim in a deposition that she gave and that since there was no corroboration from any of those witnesses, I felt comfortable standing before you to make the conclusions that I have just made. 46:02
There is no due process by Liebeler. He talked “to enough of the key witnesses – no corroboration.” The keys witnesses were fellow perpetrators and those that aided and abetted them like Denise Griney, the wife of Steve Griney.
Liebeler has declared CLC members, Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo innocent of sexual abuse. Remember, they are his clients! He works for them as their lawyer since he is employed by CLC and they are members. He can say nothing incriminating about them due to the lawyer-client relationship he has with them by legal contract.
I realize I have not given you specific details regarding exactly which witnesses I have spoken to and the details of what they have said. Some of the witnesses told me that they did not want their names used for a variety of different reasons. Some of the specific information if I were to give you the details would have a tendency to reveal their identity so that is why I have not done so. 46:25
Liebeler doesn’t give details so his work can be cross-examined. The witnesses don’t give names for the same reason. In most cases, the witnesses were fellow abusers. No wonder they didn’t want their names known. There is nothing credible about Liebeler’s findings.
Not at Liberty to Reveal Details
Secondly, I do know that the victim [Heather] at one point reported these matters to the police and an investigation was begun. I am not at liberty to tell you the details of what the accused people in this case told me. I am not their lawyer. It is for their own lawyers and themselves to make a decision about whether to speak publicly or to remain silent and I can’t make that decision for them and so I decided not to give any more specific details. 47:01
Liebeler is not being honest. He is their lawyer in the general sense. He is representing CLC and they are members. For that reason, he is not “at liberty to tell.” On the other hand, he is not their personal lawyer representing them in the criminal investigations.
Notice how he talked to perpetrators about the details but never talked to any of the victims in the lawsuit. All the alleged perpetrators have remained silent and none have spoken in public to defend themselves. Just like Loftness and Ricucci.
Other Elements in Investigation Ongoing
There are other elements in my investigation that are ongoing. I will be in communication with the pastors to determine the timing of those and again to prioritize the remaining items that I have and some of them are still related to the Second Amended Complaint at this point in time. And if they asked me to come back and report on those I will do so. Thank you very much for your attention. 47:29
Liebeler investigated for 17 months and didn’t finish it. That’s ridiculous. He never came back to report again. Thank God.
Mark Mitchell
Minutes 47:42-1:24:27
Allegations Related to Gary Ricucci & John Loftness
Lars, thank you very much for your hard work, you and Caroline and others in looking into these things and coming to report to us this evening. We are very grateful. 47:51
I will make a few comments regarding the men that Mr. Liebeler just reported on. I’ll make those comments in just a few moments. I want to begin by addressing a few other things that were mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint that Mr. Liebeler was not able to touch on or did not address. 48:10
It is laughable that Mitchell later explains they did not talk to victims because they ran out of money. Read the article below. No, it is tragic! No, let me change that again; it is a wicked deception! How can you do a 17 month investigation on sexual abuse and not talk to the victims of sexual abuse? Only if it is corrupt from the beginning!
The “Independent” Investigation of Sexual Abuse at Covenant Life Church Didn’t Include Talking to the Victims of Abuse – Incredulously, Executive Pastor Mark Mitchell Says Exclusion Was Due to “Limited Finances”
Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:50PM
First with regard to former pastors. There are allegations that relate to how former pastors, Covenant Life pastors, handled information related to child abuse, specifically Gary Ricucci and John Loftness. We have not had access to these men because the legal counsel that represented them in the lawsuit did not make them available to the independent investigator. He noted that. Now, we are not authorized to speak on their behalf, so we won’t do that this evening. What we will say is that in every case mentioned in the lawsuit related to them that we are aware of, we can confirm that the civil authorities were involved. 48:49
More deception. This time by Mitchell. “The civil authorities were involved” but only because the parents took action. This was over the opposition of Loftness and Ricucci. No civil authorities were ever involved because of Loftness or Ricucci or any of the Covenant Life pastors. That is why none are ever cited by Mitchell or Liebeler. Read these articles.
John Loftness in Focus – Former Chairman of the SGM Board & Alleged Sexual Sadist
Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 5:32PM
Gary Ricucci & the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David Adams
Friday, August 2, 2013 at 8:11PM
“The civil authorities were involved” in “every case mentioned in the lawsuit related to them.” That means they had probable cause Loftness and Ricucci committed crimes. While they believed there was guilt they didn’t feel they had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 11 members their guilt.
For example, Suzanne Truesdale refused to testify against them in the same way she refused to testify against her father, Jeff Truesdale. That’s because she was guilty of sexually abusing her sister Shannon.
Moreover, Jessica Roberts-Thomas has yet to prosecute. I talked to her on May 1 for over two hours. Loftness terrifies her and has done things to intimidate her since encountering him in 2019. She has written a book about her whole ordeal. I hope she publishes it and decides to criminally go after him, Ricucci, and Griney. She did three years of work at the esteemed Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C.
Grace Goe (Olivia Llewellyn)
The next situation I’d like to address has to do with the Plaintiff referred to as Grace Goe. This Plaintiff described alleged abuse that occurred within her family while they were members of Covenant Life Church in the 1990’s. We’ve recently learned that Grace Goe has withdrawn as a complainant in any potential future lawsuit. Also in 1997 there was no knowledge of allegations of sexual abuse by the members of the Covenant Life pastoral staff. We also deny the allegation that any pastor ever received a gift in exchange for their silence to cover up alleged sexual abuse. It is not true. Finally, we want to let you know that in 2008 when she first contacted the elders, Child Protective Services had already been contacted and had already conducted an interview with the family in their home.” 49:49
The “described alleged abuse” is found in Paragraphs 153-155 in the lawsuit. Of course, Mitchell does not quote the allegations or rebut them one by one. Here they are.
153. Grace Goe’s father repeatedly beat her on her naked buttocks so harshly that she bled and bruised. Her father would then submerge her into an ice bath to hide the physical manifestations of the beatings.
154. Grace Goe’s father also repeatedly sexually abused her, making her rub his feet, which he then inserted into her vagina. He also molested her on several occasions by rubbing his hands over her breasts, at times outside her clothes and at times against her bare skin under her clothes.
155. Grace Goe’s father engaged in the physical and sexual abuse towards the other children, including the male children, whose penises he repeatedly fondled.
The physical abuse was first reported to Gary Ricucci and Grant Layman by Mary Burcham in 1996. She was the Lewellyn housekeeper. Then it was reported by Brieta Llewellyn (age 15) and Oliva Llewellyn (age 13). That took great courage. Ricucci and Layman were CLC pastors who worked for C.J. Mahaney and reported directly to him. They are also his brothers-in-law.
156. Defendants Ricucci and Layman learned of the ongoing abuse no later than in or around 1997 [actually 1996], when Grace Goe was 13. At that time, a housekeeper named Mary Burcham reported the ongoing abuse of the Goe children to Defendants Ricucci and Layman, and discovery will show other Defendants. Defendants Ricucci and Layman met with Grace Goe and her older female sibling [Brieta], who reported the fact of the abuse to the Individual Defendants and sought protection from their abusive father.
Mitchell says, “In 1997 there was no knowledge of allegations of sexual abuse by the members of the Covenant Life pastoral staff.” That may be true but there was knowledge of physical abuse. The pastors did not report it to law enforcement as mandated. The children were provided no protection. The beatings continued.
157. Rather than report the ongoing abuse to the secular authorities or take any steps to stop the abuse, Defendants informed the father that his children had reported the abuse. This led to further abuse by the father. In exchange for the conspiracy of silence, the abusive father paid to send Defendants Mahaney, Ricucci and Layman and their families on vacation to the Kiawah Islands, South Carolina.
Mitchell says, “We want to let you know that in 2008 when she [Olivia] first contacted the elders, Child Protective Services had already been contacted and had already conducted an interview with the family in their home.”
Olivia met with Layman and Ricucci in 1996 for the first time, not in 2008. Mitchell lies. She and Brieta “contacted the elders” and reported the physical abuse like Mary Burcham did. Olivia met with them a second time in 2008 and a third time in 2010. During these meetings, she talked about the physical and sexual abuse of all the Llewellyn children.
158. On or about September 17, 2008, Plaintiff Grace Goe again reached out [to] the Defendants, seeking assistance in preventing the ongoing abuse of her siblings. Defendants failed to report or take any other steps to stop the ongoing and severe abuse.
159. In May 2010, Plaintiff Grace Goe again sought help from Defendants Layman and Ricucci, as she was concerned that her father was continuing to abuse the children remaining in the house.
Read this article for more details.
The Conspiracy Surrounding Plaintiff Grace Goe at Covenant Life Church
Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 5:18PM
Brieta was also in contact with Joshua Harris and Grant Layman concerning the abuse. She has incriminating emails between them documenting their knowledge of the family’s abuse. (Harris replaced Mahaney as lead pastor in 2004) That is why she called Harris a liar in October 2018. She wrote, “Until he comes clean about all the lies he told while he was a pastor and the abuse he covered up in Covenant Life (and yes, I know this personally), this paltry gesture means nothing.”
Harris and Layman knew all about the physical and sexual abuse that Brieta and her siblings suffered at the hands of their perverted father, Charlie Llewellyn. So did Mahaney and Ricucci. Read this article for more details.
Brieta Llewellyn-Allison Calls Out Joshua Harris for Covering Up the Sexual Abuse of Children at Covenant Life Church Based on First-Hand Knowledge
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 2:02PM
Child Protective Services were contacted but not by the pastors. Mitchell leaves a false impression. They were contacted by Olivia’s “Heartbroken Aunt,” Patricia Horst Llewellyn.
Heartbroken Aunt
SGMSurvivors
June 6th, 2013 at 10:05 am
My first time to post, because I can’t keep silent anymore, I am an aunt of O.L. [Olivia Llewellyn] Because my husband [Victor] and I were looked upon as next to pagans because we didn’t go to CLC [Covenant Life Church], we didn’t use corporal punishment with our children, we weren’t homeschooling, etc. My nieces and nephews were forbidden contact with us [by Charlie & Greer Llewellyn]. On the rare times I saw them and tried to intervene, O.L. herself told me she was “proud to suffer for righteousness” the brainwashing [by her parents Charlie & Greer] was SO severe it was impossible to help. At one point I contacted Social Services but it was as good as nothing, they were quickly fooled and charmed by the family.
Olivia told me the same thing. Charlie and Greer deceived Child Protective Services (cf. Social Services) with denials, small admissions of wrong, gifts, flattery and parading the children around as happy and well-adjusted during the “interview with the family in their home.”
Mitchell says, “We also deny the allegation that any pastor ever received a gift in exchange for their silence to cover up alleged sexual abuse.” The lawsuit says “In exchange for the conspiracy of silence, the abusive father paid to send Defendants Mahaney, Ricucci and Layman and their families on vacation to the Kiawah Islands, South Carolina.”
Mitchell doesn’t deny the expensive week long vacation on the exclusive island (the PGA Championship is being played there this week). I confronted Charlie Llewellyn in person about this in June 2015. He told me he sent Mahaney and Ricucci, but not Layman, on the all-expenses paid vacation as a “thank you” for their personal care, not in exchange for their silence. If true (and he is a serial liar), the “personal care” was Mahaney and Ricucci not reporting him to law enforcement. This is nothing new. Olivia told me he has always used his wealth to manipulate people.
After her third visit, Layman and Ricucci discussed the horrendous abuse with “the pastors.” This is a reference to the governing elders comprised of Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, Corby Megorden and Layman. These men have a history of covering up abuse. They did the same thing with convicted sex abuser, Nate Morales, when he confessed his crimes to Laymen in 2007 who then passed the information on to the rest. And bear in mind, Mahaney knew all about Morales and Llewellyn too.
160. On May 14, 2010, Defendants conspired to mislead Plaintiff Grace Goe into believing that they would finally assist in ending the abuse. Defendant Grant Layman affirmatively made misrepresentations in writing to Grace Goe, assuring her that “after the pastors discussed this situation, the bottom line is, we feel a moral obligation to report.”
161. Yet this was a falsehood. Defendant Layman and his co-conspirators again failed to report the abuse, and instead continue to assist the wealthy father in avoiding any consequences for his ongoing abuse of his children.
Mahaney and the governing elders did not report the physical and sexual abuse of nine children to law enforcement. That kind of evil is beyond comprehension.
Lastly, let me address this statement by Mitchell. “We’ve recently learned that Grace Goe has withdrawn as a complainant in any potential future lawsuit.”
Olivia was in despair due to addictions, etc. I could go into detail because she shared them with me over many months. I became a friend, confidant, and counselor. Her manipulative father and mother told her they would step in and save her from destruction if she withdrew as a complainant in any future lawsuit. She did so under duress to save her life! Literally.
David Adams
The next situation I’d like to address refers to another church member referenced in the lawsuit by the name of David. A different David than David Mayo. The lawsuit contains some accurate facts as well as some unsubstantiated allegations. Since the main charges were fully adjudicated through the legal system two decades ago, we did not make this particular issue a subject for the independent investigation. So I want to briefly review the allegations. 50:21
David Adams repeatedly molested his adopted daughter over a period of 4 years. See Paragraphs 40-43. He was found guilty.
First, the first one concerns an incident that reportedly occurred in the early 1980’s. We have found no evidence to support this particular claim [by James Roberts]. 50:31
“The first one concerns” James Roberts between 1982-1984, not the adopted daughter between 1983-1986. Mitchell dismisses out of hand these allegations of fact by James Roberts with “We have found no evidence.” That is no way to investigate.
Furthermore, Loftness and Adams were conspiring to commit and cover up sexual abuse based on my knowledge of the evidence (I talked with James on May 20, 2014) and that contained below in the lawsuit.
Victim: James Roberts
Paragraphs: 32-35
Location: Covenant Life Church Premises
Timeframe: 1982/1984
Age: 8/10
Alleged Abuser: David Adams
Alleged Conspirators: John Loftness, David Adams & Other Defendants
32. In 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff James Roberts was sexually molested by David Adams on the CLC premises. David Adams was playing the banjo in the lobby, and Plaintiff Roberts, a child attending church and Children’s Ministry, wandered out to listen. David Adams isolated Plaintiff Roberts, had him sit on his knee, and began to rub his hands over Plaintiff Roberts’ penis while telling Plaintiff Roberts “what a good boy [he] was.” David Adams tried to push his hands up Plaintiff Roberts’ shorts, and Plaintiff Roberts pushed him off and escaped.
33. During the 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff Roberts knew Defendant Loftness as the principal of the School. Sometime after the molestation, Plaintiff Roberts approached Defendant Loftness and told him that David Adams had molested him. Defendant Loftness directed Plaintiff Roberts, an elementary school child, to re-enact the molestation.
34. From the date of this report to present, Defendant Loftness failed to inform Plaintiff Roberts’ parents of the molestation. Nor did Defendant Loftness abide by his mandatory reporting obligations to report the molestation or take any steps whatsoever to prevent David Adams from having access to children for abusive purposes. Instead, Defendant Loftness required Plaintiff Roberts, a child, to attend a meeting with himself and David Adams. Plaintiff Roberts was directed by Defendant Loftness, the principal of his school, to “forgive” Adams for the molestation.
35. From 1982/1984 to the present, Defendant Loftness conspired with David Adams and the other Defendants to cover up David Adams’ pedophilia. As a result of the conspiracy, David Adams had access to and did molest other children, including his daughter, which is discussed below.
However, the lawsuit does accurately note that in 1988, David was tried and convicted of abusing his stepdaughter. After serving two years in jail, he was released on parole in 1990. He remained under legal supervision until 1994. The lawsuit’s allegation that the church retained and paid for his attorney is entirely unfounded. David’s family, despite receiving much financial and spiritual support from the church, experienced profound hardship as a consequence of his sin. The marriage ended in divorce and the children were temporarily placed in foster care. And to this day, David still grieves over his actions and the effect that had on his family. 51:19
Much of this is strongly contested by Peggy Adams (the wife/mother) and Dara Adams-Sutherland (sister). Dara is a Plaintiff in the lawsuit.
He remarried in 1995 and he and his wife have raised two children and have been active members of Covenant Life Church. Now for some of us, especially parents, the fact that a man who committed child abuse attends our church may be very troubling. And dealing with the presence of child abusers in our church can cause concerns and fears to surface. It is important that these concerns and fears are heard and addressed. 51:47
I don’t trust David Adams. He has never acknowledged his crimes against James Roberts. Read Gary Ricucci & the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David Adams.
Now as pastors we aim to address these issues as best we can from a biblical perspective. There is an undeniable tension between ministering to a repentant child abuser and making sure that we protect vulnerable children. As a church we want to be a redemptive community for all people. This doesn’t mean that past sins don’t have present consequences. They do and for those who have committed abuse those consequences at Covenant Life Church involve significant restrictions. 52:20
The pastors at CLC still don’t tell the church about convicted sex offenders or suspected child abusers in their midst. People in harm’s way are not warned.
Now since he first reported himself to authorities in 1987, David has willingly submitted to guidelines and accountability structures imposed by the pastors. He has never served in children’s ministry and he has avoided contexts where he might be alone with children. In cases where he and his family have anticipated any substantial interaction with other children, it has been his practice to inform their parents of his background and let them set whatever boundaries they considered appropriate. Now he realizes he has not done this perfectly, but he has followed up in every case where he’s become aware of any particular concern. 53:00
No one should trust a convicted sex offender to self-report (“inform their parents”).
Now there are many parents in our church who can vouch for David’s integrity. For over 25 years not one additional instance of abuse has been reported and we thank God for this evidence of genuine repentance and transformation. But our policies will remain in place and if anyone does know of a situation where David has failed to adequately practice the guidelines described a moment ago, we would ask you to please speak with him or speak with a pastor. 53:33
Very naive. The case of James Roberts is totally dismissed. Like other victims, Mitchell has called him a liar.
Returns to Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, & Dave Mayo - No Evidence to Support Any Allegation
Now I want to return to the men that our independent investigator spent some time talking about. As you heard there were several allegations against, and I am going to focus here on the two men who remain in the church - Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo. Both current long-time members as well as Stephen Griney, who was a long-time member who recently transitioned to another church but is well known in our church community. 54:02
Mark Hoffman was a leader in children’s ministry. Dave Mayo was a pastoral assistant. Steve Griney was a teacher in the Covenant Life Elementary School. Mahaney abruptly fired Griney in 1990 with no explanation. That is when much of the abuse was taking place. Mitchell doesn’t explain why he “recently transitioned to another church.” I’ll tell you why. People in the church believed the compelling evidence in the lawsuit against him.
Now these were some of the most grievous allegations in the lawsuit. No one had ever heard of any such accusations, no one on our pastoral team, against these men. We heard these things for the first time when the lawsuit documents were filed and made public in May of 2013. Almost all the allegations against these men came from one Plaintiff as the investigator referenced earlier. 54:30
It is possible Mitchell didn’t know “of any such accusations” but I have no doubt Mahaney learned about Griney’s abuse in 1990 or earlier. And of course, Loftness and Ricucci knew about it because they worked in tandem with Griney.
The same kind of thing was true in 1996. Mahaney learned about Jeff Truesdale’s sexual abuse of his daughter Suzanne from ~1984-1992. So did Loftness and Ricucci. They also learned that Suzanne sexually abused her younger sister Shannon from 1989-1995. They covered up all these crimes and did not report them to law enforcement. That is how they operated.
The Conspiracy to Cover Up the Sexual Abuse of Children Under C.J. Mahaney Grows as Shannon Truesdale Comes Forward to Tell Story of Abuse by Her Father & Sister
Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:18PM
The allegations against Steve Griney came from Heather, Jessica, and Suzanne. The allegations against Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo came from Heather.
Now as a precaution, we took a number of steps at the time according to our child protection policies to restrict their access to children while the lawsuit was ongoing and we sent an email about that to members last year. 54:44
Hoffman and Mayo now have access to children. That is insane.
Now this situation has obviously taken a tremendous toll on these men and their families and because the trial did not specifically address the accusations related to these men, we asked the independent investigator to look into these allegations as part of his work. And as you heard from him tonight, he has found no evidence to support any of the accusations made against them. So as I wrap up this section, I do want to make now a few concluding remarks. 55:15
This is damnable. The heart wrenching testimony of the victims constitutes “no evidence.”
I know from my confidential interaction with sources that detectives with the Montgomery County Police Department and Federal agents who reviewed the case believe Steve Griney is guilty of the crimes alleged against him by Heather but they were not able to build a strong enough case to prosecute him.
Mitchell is concerned about the “tremendous toll” upon men I believe are abusers. He has never shown any concern for the victims. And all the victims in the lawsuit are liars. Not just Heather.
Not Satisfied with the Level of Detail
First, we do recognize that some of you still may not be satisfied with the level of detail of what you’ve heard so far this evening. We do understand your perspective. However, we still believe it is very important for us to exercise extreme sensitivity toward every person who is named in the civil complaint. 55:37
More deception. All of the victims from CLC in the lawsuit have gone public. “The level of detail” in the lawsuit is considerable. They are not showing “extreme sensitivity” to them. They are covering up their stories of abuse and protecting the Griney, Hoffman, and Mayo in the process. People must read the Second Amended Complaint!
For example, here are the charges against Hoffman and Mayo by Heather. Each sentence should be addressed but Liebeler and Mitchell in detail but they never even talked to Heather or her parents.
Victim: Heather Thompson-Bryant
Paragraph: 82
Location: Mayo’s Home - Babysitting
Timeframe: 1988
Age: 7
Alleged Abuser: Dave Mayo
82. Towards the end of summer 1988, a man named Dave Mayo was babysitting the Thompson children at his home. Dave Mayo served as an assistant to a Pastor [Chuck Thompson, Heather’s father], taught New Member classes, served as an assistant Home Group leader, and also assisted in raising money for the CLC’s building fund. As Plaintiff Thompson was sleeping upstairs, Dave Mayo entered the room and laid down next to her. He began to profess how precious she was, and began kissing her neck and mouth, playing with her hair, and rubbing her body, including her vagina. He pulled his pants down, licked Plaintiffs hand, and wrapped it around his penis. As he was forcing her to fondle his penis, he whispered “that’s a good girl”, and “I love you” into her ear. Similar molestations occurred on several subsequent occasions when Dave Mayo babysat.
Liebeler and Mitchell dismiss this as a lie without ever talking to Chuck and Sandy Thompson. Mayo was close friends with them. He worked for Chuck. For instance, Liebeler never asked Chuck and Sandy if Mayo babysat Heather in his home. Instead he concluded, “I find…it extremely unlikely that he even participated in babysitting activities.”
Liebeler and Mitchell also dismiss as a lie Heather’s charges against Hoffman without addressing the details.
Victim: Heather Thompson-Bryant
Paragraphs: 83-84
Location: Covenant Life Church Picnic (Smokey Glen Park) – Playing Hide-and-Seek
Timeframe: 1990 or 1991
Age: 9 or 10
Alleged Abuser: Mark Hoffman
83. In summer of 1990 or 1991, Plaintiff Thompson was attending a church picnic at Smokey Glen Park, and playing hide-and-seek out in the woods with other children.
84. Hoffman appeared as Plaintiff Thompson was hiding behind the tree. Hoffman inserted his fingers into Plaintiff Thompson’s vagina, and gave her a long and sloppy kiss on her lips. Plaintiff Thompson, now 10 years old, slumped to the ground after Hoffman left, and formed her first suicidal thought.
Liebeler is not an investigator. An investigator would verify whether there was a church picnic in the summer of 1990/1991 at Smokey Creek Park. That is easy to do. He would also find out if the children were playing hide and seek. Again, ask Heather’s parents. He would also ask them about Heather’s state of mind after the picnic and whether she became withdrawn, sullen, or self-destructive. Liebeler has no interest in the truth.
The phrase “slumped to the ground” and “formed her first suicidal thought” has always affected me. Liebeler and Mitchell trample upon Heather. This is revictimization of the worse kind. May God deal with them in his holy justice!
Many Allegations in Lawsuit Are Not True
The second thing I want to say is that when we have said that there are false allegations, some have wrongly concluded that we were saying that the Plaintiffs, all the Plaintiffs, are not victims in any way. That is not what we have said or what we are saying. There were multiple Plaintiffs listed in the civil suit and some of them clearly were victims. Law enforcement was involved with their situation, their criminal activity against them was verified and the perpetrator was punished by a court of law. In regarding other Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, what we are saying is that many of the things that have been alleged there in the civil complaint simply are not true. 56:24
Mitchell is not being clear. There are six victims in the lawsuit pertaining to Covenant Life Church. Two got convictions (Renee Palmer-Gamby & Davina Adams). The other four (Heather, Jessica, James, & Olivia) “simply are not true.” Translation – they are liars. Furthermore, all six are liars according to Mitchell for alleging a conspiring to cover up their abuse. It is deceptive not to spell out the details.
Commends Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, & Dave Mayo
And regarding these men [Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo] who have these serious accusations made against them, just a few thoughts. First, I think it is important for us to try to imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. What it would be like to have these accusations made against us. How would that make us feel? How would that land on our families? How might that impact the broader relationships? How might that impact our employment situations? I think it is important for us to just ponder really the extreme difficulty that these men have faced for the last 18 plus months. 57:07
Mitchell is defending the guilty and damming the innocent. It is rare for victims to make up false claims.
Dr. Diane Langberg is one of the foremost experts on subject of child sex abuse in the world. She is a “practicing psychologist and international speaker working with trauma survivors, caregivers and clergy around the world.”
Here is what she says about victims lying. This is common knowledge for all those working in the field including law enforcement. They also know perpetrators are sociopathic liars.
“Numerous studies have documented that it is rare for children or adults to lie about abuse. When victims do lie about abuse, they tend to lie to protect their offender, not to get him or her into trouble.”
These men from the very beginning maintained their innocence and yet have understood the necessity of submitting to restrictions that limit their access to children here. They have chosen to bear up under these accusations and they have sought to trust the Lord even though this circumstance has cost them dearly in their reputations, in some cases in their jobs, as well as being treated by other believers with suspicion. 57:40
Of course, Griney, Hoffman, and Mayo “maintained their innocence.” They don’t want to go to prison.
This investigation by Liebeler is illegitimate. He doesn’t know how to investigate sex crimes. He has no expertise in the field. His approach has been partial, prejudicial and corrupt from my perspective. No one should trust the conclusions of Liebeler and Mitchell. There is good reason to treat these men with appropriate suspicion.
Neither we, nor the independent investigator, has found any evidence to suggest that the allegations against these men are true. So in light of this and consistent with our policies, the pastors believe it is right and appropriate that the restrictions against these men be completely lifted and that their reputations be restored. These men should not continue to be treated as if they have done these horrific things. 58:11
The testimony of the victims doesn’t count for anything! There isn’t “any evidence” and yet they never talked to them or their parents. Nor did they talk to the detectives who gathered evidence.
Notice all “the pastors” vindicate Griney, Hoffman, and Mayo. That includes Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Dave Brewer, Jamie Leach, Adam Malcolm Greg Somerville, Don DeVries, Braden Greer, Isaac Hydoski, Joe Lee, Matt Maka, Kenneth Maresco, Corby Megorden, Kevin Rogers (current lead pastor) Eric Sheffer, Keith Welton, and Ben Wikner.
We want to encourage you, as the church family, as their brothers and sisters, to love these men and their families, to affirm them, to embrace them, and to let them know they are cherished members of this church community since the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that they are innocent. We want to commend them to you. 58:39
Mitchell is simply lying! The evidence is not overwhelming. It is underwhelming at best. He should be exhorting the church to love, affirm, embrace, and cherish the victims in the lawsuit and outside of the lawsuit. Instead, the pastors are commending evil doers. This is indoctrination. Mitchell beats into their heads the mantra of “innocent” like he does “independent investigator.”
Now some of you may still have further questions about this. And if so, we just want to invite you, please come to talk with us. We’d be more than happy to sit down and spend any time with anyone who has questions either about this situation or the decision that we have made as elders. 57:59
The manipulation in private meetings is even greater. There is no accountability whatsoever.
The Involvement of C.J. Mahaney with Nathaniel Morales
The next category I want to address has to do with Nathaniel Morales. After questions about the accusations in the civil lawsuit, the most questions that we received had to do with Morales. People were looking for clarification about how the pastors were involved, including former CLC pastors, why the 2007 board responded the way they did, and how the Clergy-Penitent Privilege functioned. So for the next minutes, I want to try and tackle some of these questions. 59:29
First, there were several questions about the involvement of former pastors [Brian Chesemore, Mike Bradshaw, Gary Ricucci, John Loftness] especially C.J. Mahaney. In 2007, neither C.J. nor the other leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries were on the Board at Covenant Life Church. And none of them were involved in any of the decisions of 2007. 59:49
In 2007, C.J. Mahaney was still training Joshua Harris as the lead pastor and overseeing Covenant Life Church.
The main decision in 2007 was the one made in August by Harris, Layman, Maresco, Boisvert, and Megorden not to report Nate Morales to law enforcements even though he confessed to abusing Sam Bates and Brian Wolohan. He also confessed to abusing other boys before coming to CLC.
C.J. was on the Board in the 1990’s but we have no knowledge of whether he was involved in the Morales situation at that time. The CLC Board minutes from that time period do not reference Morales. Therefore, any comments about the involvement of former pastors at that time on our part would be speculation. All the information we have about the involvement of former pastors in this situation is what we have learned from the independent investigator which was shared at the last meeting and he touched on some of that earlier tonight. 1:00:21
“C.J. was on the CLC Board in the 1990’s.” Mitchell knows this is false. It is an attempt to put him in the rear view mirror. Mahaney was on the Board as the senior pastor until September 2004 when he turned the church over to Harris. That is when he resigned from the Board.
Grant Layman “retired” from ministry in CLC on March 31, 2014 just seven months before this report. He is the one who testified on May 14, 2014 under oath that “I am telling you that there were plenty of people involved” in the Morales situation. Why didn’t Liebeler or Mitchell ask Layman who they were? And specifically, whether it included Mahaney?
Of course, this is far too much to expect. The thought never crossed Liebeler’s and Mitchell’s minds! And at the same time they never thought to ask Chris Glass, Thurlow Switzer, Gary Ricucci, Robin Boisvert or others if the matter was brought to Mahaney’s attention.
Then in another reprehensible piece of trash talking Michell says, “Therefore, any comments about the involvement of former pastors at that time on our part would be speculation.”
No Laws Broken in Early 1990’s & 2007 but Nathaniel Morales Should Have Been Reported
Next, several people submitted questions seeking to get more clarity on exactly what we are saying about our handling of the Morales matter. Now at the last Members’ Meeting, Mr. Liebeler stated his finding that no laws were broken in the early 1990’s in the church’s handling of information about Morales. And we appreciate that work and we are grateful for his assessment. But that does not mean that we think the situation in the 90’s was handled in the best way possible or in the way that we would handle it today. A couple of pastors recently discussed this with the parents of one of the victims and there was a very clear sense from all of us in the room that we would handle things very differently today. 1:01:07
Laws were broken in the 1990’s when the pastors were told about the abuse by Rachael Bates-Paci, Marie Molina, and James Roberts. They wanted him stopped. They were not coming for counsel. “The parents of one of the victims” is a reference to Scott and Charrie Bates.
Now the investigator’s report focused on the pastors’ actions really from an exclusively legal standpoint. We want you to hear that we believe our pastoral duty goes well beyond legal responsibility. We believe that individuals such as Nate Morales should be reported when information about their actions is first made known and that we should work closely with the victims and their families in these situations to make sure that the matter is reported. 1:01:37
Earlier in this report, Mitchell said the pastors (plural) still discuss evidence of abuse before deciding what to do instead of obeying the law and immediately reporting the suspicion of abuse. I have no confidence an individual pastor will report information when it is “first made known” to him.
At our last meeting, when the men involved in the Morales situation shared their apology they were speaking in moral terms, not legal terms. They spoke of having failed to do what they now see they should have done and they were applying that both to the early 90’s as well as to 2007. 1:01:56
Mitchell is covering everyone’s rear end. “Moral terms, not legal terms.” The lawyers (i.e., “the litigation team”) are making certain everyone knows the pastors did not admit to any violation of the law, which they clearly broke. How? They failed to individually report crimes as mandated. Far more seriously under the law, they conspired together to not report the crimes.
“Their apology” was in “moral terms” but even that is untrue. They used no clear cut terminology to describe their sin and transgression against God and the victims.
Why the Same Statement of Apology?
Now regarding their apology, some people had questions about why each man shared exactly the same statement. And we can see how this could come across as scripted and perhaps insincere. These men spent hours discussing what had taken place, examining where they had failed, and asking for the Lord’s help to communicate effectively. They considered a number of ways to present their apology including each one writing his own personal apology, each one reading a portion of a joint statement. In the end, they thought their individual apologies might be compared with each other’s for what one man seemed to focus on and what another person did not, and so they thought it would be best to take responsibility one by one for the same set of failures. And for each one to make the same apology. In the end, they all agreed that the statement that they read captured what they truly felt. 1:02:58
They made the same statement for legal protection. Each one should have made their own confession and then let the people assess who was contrite, specific, clear, humble, etc.
Now if the statements struck you as scripted, again, we understand. All I can do is assure you that they take this matter very seriously and that the apologies were heart felt. And again, we encourage anyone who has a concern, to please feel the freedom to follow up with them directly. They’d love to talk with you. 1:03:19
The apologies were superficial and did not address any issues of sin.
Reporting Policies & Practices Including Clergy Penitent Privilege
The third category now for tonight. And this one has to do with reporting policies and practices. Several people asked questions about how the Clergy Penitent Privilege has functioned in the past and how it will function in the future as it relates to pastors reporting suspected child or sexual abuse. The investigator spent a considerable amount of time at our last meeting sharing his perspective of how the Clergy Penitent Privilege applied to information the pastors received about Morales in the 1990’s and in 2007. And this was important to do because his responsibility was to evaluate how the pastors handled this information in light of the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Statute. 1:04:03
Great ready for a doozy!
However, his focused attention on Clergy Penitent Privilege left the impression to many that a key reason why the pastors did not report Morales was because of this exemption. That is not the case. The primary reason why pastors did not report Morales in the 1990’s was because as the investigator noted they were too deferential to the wishes of the family. They were concerned for the privacy of the families and their stated desire not to report. 1:04:37
Mitchell is cleaning up Liebeler’s mess. Time for a refund. Liebeler clearly stated it was against the law according to the Clergy Penitent Privilege for CLC pastors to report abuse when shared in confidence. It was not an “impression.” Mitchell is covering up for Liebeler. This is hilarious.
The CLC pastors didn’t even know about the Clergy Penitent Privilege in the 1990’s but they did know about their obligation to report. This is a three ring circus!
Dick Wolohan is the only parent for which there is evidence that he asked Boisvert to take no further steps. There is no evidence any other victim or family member asked the pastors not to report. Regardless, the pastors knew they had an obligation under the law and did not follow it. It was not a matter of deferring! It was a matter of disobeying and covering up crimes to avoid harms (e.g. lawsuits, loss of reputation, loss of people, loss of income) as articulated by Corby Megorden.
And for the 100th time, Rachael Bates-Paci, Marie Molina, and James Roberts were not asking the pastor to “defer” and not report crimes to law enforcement.
Regarding 2007, the men acknowledged the following. There was a failure to pursue the details of the abuse that the families had experienced. There was a failure to ask more questions of our legal counsel. There was a failure to seek counsel from civil authorities and there was a failure to adequately care for the families especially considering the traumatic effects of sexual abuse. And for all of these things you heard clear and specific apology from the men who were involved. 1:05:10
Once again, Mitchell is covering up. In 2007, Harris, Layman, Maresco, Boisvert, and Megorden learned Morales was a serial and predatory sex offender going back to at least 1979 in the New Testament Church denomination before coming to CLC. They had a ton of information on Morales. Liebeler and Mitchell never mention this fact though it is a matter of record in court transcripts.
Furthermore, the elephant in the room is WHY they didn’t do the things cited above! That question is never answered because the answer would reveal a criminal conspiracy. They were covering up Morales’s crimes just like they covered up the crimes of Charlie Llewellyn and Jeff Truesdale.
It is amazing Mitchell can say, “There was a failure to pursue the details” in 2007 when he and Liebeler intentionally chose not to pursue details over the last 17 months. The hypocrisy is evil and beyond comprehension.
Lastly, Mitchell repeats the horrific lie that “There was a failure to adequately care for the families.” No, there was a failure to care at all for those in the lawsuit. They are all condemned in this report.
Moreover, there was no care provided for victims of Nate Morales. Not Jeremy Cook and his family. Not Dick and Marsha Wolohan and practically none to Brian Wolohan. There was no care for Marcia Griffith-Morales and her two boys who were abused by their step father, Nate Morales. Nor was there any care or concern for the scores of boys Morales sexual abused around the country after Morales left CLC.
The CLC pastors’ apology was not “clear and specific.” It was the opposite. A real confession would read,
“We did not fear God. We intentionally broke the law. We were preoccupied with our reputations and the loss of members and money. And we made no effort to care for the victims. We forsook them in the hardness of our hearts. We didn’t even show up at the Morales trials to support them. We were only concerned for ourselves. Furthermore, we plan to contact the prosecutors and tell them everything we know about C.J. Mahaney and our long history of covering sexual abuse in Covenant Life Church. We will also be following up with all the victims. Lastly, we are stepping down from ministry because we are the most untrustworthy of men. Please forgive us for these egregious sins.”
Can We Waive Clergy Penitent Privilege?
What I want to do now is address several similar questions that we received from many of you and I want to summarize them with two specific questions. First, can we as pastors waive Clergy Penitent Privilege in order to report suspected child or sexual abuse? Our answer is yes. Though there is some room for differing interpretations, our understanding is that in the state of Maryland the clergy does have the right to waive the privilege in order to report suspected child or sexual abuse. 1:05:48
This is uproarious! Mitchell is cleaning up a pile of dung left by Liebeler in the middle of the floor. There are no “differing interpretations.” The law is clear. Clergy have the right to waive the privilege to report sex abuse. They don’t need permission.
Of course, Liebeler expressly said it was against the law to do this very thing. I am staggered by his incompetence as it pertains to matters of abuse. Who recommended him and why?
“If you are a pastor, and you don’t have permission from who you are speaking to, to break the bond of confidentiality, then you may not reveal what you have been told. And under Maryland law this includes information regarding suspected or known child abuse.”
Will We Waive Clergy Penitent Privilege?
The next question, will we as pastors waive Clergy Penitent Privilege in order to report suspected child or sexual abuse and against the answer is yes. If the pastors of Covenant Life Church have reason to believe that child abuse or sexual abuse has taken place, we will report this to the appropriately civil authorities which would be in our case either Child Protective Services or the Montgomery County Police. 1:06:21
Once again we see the pastors (plural) do an internal investigation first. They only report “If the pastors of Covenant Life Church have reason to believe that child abuse or sexual abuse has taken place.” No, no, no. An individual pastor is obligated to report the suspicion of abuse upon reception. Not a group of pastors after an investigation and discussion.
Here is an excerpt from Dr. Al Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I’d encourage you to read the article.
The Tragic Lessons of Penn State — A Call to Action by Al Mohler
Friday, April 05, 2013 at 3:17PM
We all need an immediate reality check. I discovered yesterday that the policy handbook of the institution I am proud to lead calls for any employee receiving a report of child abuse, including child sexual abuse, to contact his or her supervisor with that report. That changes today. The new policy statement will direct employees receiving such a report to contact law enforcement authorities without delay. Then, after acting in the interests of the child, they should contact their supervisor.
How Have Past Reporting Practices by the Pastors Changed?
There was another category of questions related to what our past reporting practices used to be and how they have changed. Specifically, some were asking, was the failure to report Morales in 2007 an exception or the norm. Are there other cases where we failed to report suspected child or sexual abuse? And still are their other cases where we did report suspected child or sexual abuse. Here are our answers.
We are not aware of any other situations like Nathaniel Morales. Meaning that there have been no other cases where such predatory activity has been alleged. We are not presently aware of anyone suspected of child or sexual abuse in our church who has not been reported to civil authorities. Or to state this another way, to the best of our knowledge anyone in our church who was suspected of child or sexual abuse has been reported to civil authorities. 1:06:50
Mitchell must assume he is dealing with idiots. He acknowledges the CLC pastors did not report the worst possible case (Morales) but claims they reported all other cases! So, only the most vile predator was the “exception” to the rule. They reported everyone else, just not the worst of pedophiles. That’s perfectly understandable!
He further claims, they are not “aware of any other situations like Nathaniel Morales.” Not true. The situation with Charlie Llewellyn was like Morales. It involved the physical and sexual abuse of all nine children by him and his wife Greer over a long period of time. It too went unreported. This was known among several pastors including Mahaney and Harris and spanned 1996-2012.
Next, Mitchell claims the pastors are not aware of a single individual in the history of the church who was suspected of child abuse but not reported. That is a lie from the pit of hell! For instance, they knew about James Roberts but did not report. His case was set for trial in Montgomery County, MD but was unnecessary when Morales was found guilty in two previous trials.
Also, I just wrote an article about Jeff Truesdale. He was a prominent CLC member and friend of the pastors. In 1996, he told John Loftness that he abused his oldest daughter Suzanne after he was outed by her to her mother Siri. Loftness and others were also told about Suzanne’s abuse of her younger sister Shannon. It ALL went unreported! It was ALL covered up. Multiple pastors new about it. This is a matter of fact.
I also know of other victims in Covenant Life Church who have yet to come forward. So does Joshua Harris. They were never reported to the police. Here’s how Harris explained the long term policy of not reporting to police to The Washington Post when he announced he was leaving CLC for seminary in 2015. That is after the Liebeler report. He completely exposes Mitchell’s lie. The underlining is mine.
Pastor Joshua Harris, an evangelical outlier, heads to mainstream seminary
By Michelle Boorstein
January 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM
In an interview, Harris said the isolation of Covenant Life, and of a small cluster of churches of which it was a part, may have fed leadership mistakes, including the decision of pastors — himself among them — to handle a child sexual abuse case internally instead of going to police.
A former Covenant Life member [Nate Morales] who helped with the youth group was convicted last year of molesting three boys in the 1980s. Trial testimony showed that the victims or their families had gone to church leaders for help and that the church officials did not call police. Harris said the thinking of the church [i.e. the pastors] was that such allegations should be handled as an internal, spiritual issue.
Notice all “such allegations” were handled internally. This is exactly what Corby Megorden told CLC was their statement policy. Megorden was on the governing board of elders and the church administrator.
CLC Member’s Meeting
Corby Megorden
August 17, 2011
Whenever a report comes, it comes as a report of potential abuse because we need to confirm that.
First, we will first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been abuse? … And at times, yes, we want to protect. That is our responsibility to protect the church. It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit against the church. So we want to make sure we are doing this wisely and well.
In other words, they don’t report to police. They do their own investigation. Even if they “confirm” abuse they don’t report it if they think the reporting will “harm” the church. That includes the possibility of a lawsuit. “Wisely and well” also means covering up the crimes to avoid reputational harm that could result in members and money leaving the church.
The pastors have made many calls to Child Protective Services over the years to report child abuse, sexual abuse and/or neglect. And then finally, in cases where we are not sure if suspected child or sexual abuse was reported, we have taken action to follow up either by contacting victims and their families or by contacting Child Protective Services ourselves. 1:07:50
“The pastors have made many calls…over the years.” Yet, Mitchell provides no evidence and his claim is contrary to certified statements by Harris, Megorden, Layman, Boisvert, etc. who said they did not report.
To be the least bit credible, Mitchell should tell us how many calls were made. When they were made. Under what circumstances. And what was the outcome. He doesn’t have to provide any names. The victims can remain anonymous.
These supposed reports should also have been documented in Liebeler’s report but he makes no attempt to prove the sexual abuse of children was ever reported. I’ve asked the CLC pastors for this information and talked to individual pastors off the record. None have knowledge of sexual abuse being reported.
The CLC pastors may have reported some physical abuse and neglect but I don’t know of a single case where they reported sexual assault or abuse from 1980 to 2014 with one exception. Issac Hydroski talked to a detective around 2011 after he met with Suzanne Truesdale. She told him about her father’s long term sexual abuse of her. It had been covered up for 15 years by Mahaney, Loftness, Ricucci, et al.
Bottom line. Neither Liebeler nor Mitchell provide a shred of evidence any pastor ever reporting sex crimes. That is why there is no history of anyone being arrested, tried, convicted, or sentenced “over the years” except for David Adams and a juvenile. Adams was reported by his wife. The juvenile by the victim’s parents.
Mitchell says, “In cases where we are not sure if suspected child or sexual abuse was reported we have taken action to follow up either by contacting victims and their families or by contacting Child Protective Services ourselves.” I’d venture to say that “not sure” means intentionally not reported. In other words, they are going back to make sure they are reporting crimes they did not report in the past. This is an inadvertent admission of guilt. Mitchell doesn’t tell us what the pastors do if the parents refuse to report.
Grant Layman’s 2011 Notes & the Pastors February 2013 Statement
Now our fourth and final category. And these are just miscellaneous questions that didn’t seem to fit neatly into the above three categories. The first question, a few members expressed being confused by my explanation for the apparent discrepancies about the church’s public statement in February of 2013 and the testimony given at the Morales trial. So I want to take a few moments to try and explain this again. 1:08:18
The explanation is so lame.
The church’s public statement in February 2013 said that “Covenant Life Church had no knowledge of such abuse until many years after the abuse when an adult who had been victimized as a child came forward.” That statement was based on former pastor, Grant Layman’s notes from a meeting that took place between him and one of the victims in 2011. Those notes indicated that the abuse took place in the early 1980’s and the church had learned of the abuse in the early 90’s. The point was the abuse was not ongoing when the pastors had learned of it. However, during the Morales trial, testimony was shared that the abuse took place between approximately between 1983 and 1990 and this suggested that this information may have come to pastors just a couple of years later. Or that the time frame was much closer than what our statement had suggested. And this is where the discrepancies came from. In other words, the church’s statement was based on pastoral notes from a meeting with someone who was sharing about events that took place from decades earlier. And by nature, such conversations and notes are imprecise. We communicated what we knew at the time and we learned more information later through the Morales trial. That is where the discrepancy came from. 1:09:50
I’ve covered this before. Morales abused boys in CLC from 1983 to 1991. That is a matter of court record. Chris Glass and Grant Layman learned about it in June 1991 when the abusing was still occurring! This information did not come out a couple years or many years after the fact.
Grant Layman was on staff in February 2013 when the pastors claimed, “Covenant Life Church had no knowledge of such abuse until many years after the abuse when an adult who had been victimized as a child came forward.” Layman and Glass knew that was a lie. So did Boisvert and Ricucci. Layman’s notes from 2011 are absolutely irrelevant. The “discrepancies” were known lies to Layman, Boisvert and others.
Mitchell continues to deceive.
The Departures of Ben Wikner and Erik Sheffer
The next question that we thought important to address this evening has to do with the departure of pastor Ben Wikner and former pastor Erik Sheffer. And the question was, are their departures in anyway influenced by the 2007 actions of the pastors or any other related actions. Now we sent the letter to the church indicating the reasons for Sheff’s departure so I won’t comment this evening but his reasons for leaving had nothing to do with the civil lawsuit or the events surrounding 2007. 1:10:23
First, Erik Sheffer was covering up the sexual abuse of Jeff Truesdale and Suzanne Truesdale in 2007. He left CLC in 2014 to plant a church. Truesdale left CLC in 2014 and attended Sheffer’s church. I wrote Sheffer last week. He was one my Pastors College students.
From: Brent Detwiler abrentdetwiler@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 6:10 PM
To: Erik Sheffer eriksheffer@verizon.net
Subject: Jeff Truesdale
Importance: High
Hi Erik,
Does Jeff still attend your church? If so, how are you addressing the situation? I ask because people are contacting me. They are very concerned Jeff could abuse children in the church. I’d appreciate your feedback. I’d like to know if the church has been told of his deceit and criminal abuse.
Thanks
Brent
No answer of course. I also sent him, The Conspiracy to Cover Up the Sexual Abuse of Children Under C.J. Mahaney Grows as Shannon Truesdale Comes Forward to Tell Story of Abuse by Her Father & Sister (Apr. 29, 2021).
Now the reasons behind Ben’s departure fall into three categories. First, Ben was one of two pastors who disagreed with the decision by the elders to not place Josh, Kenneth, Robin and Corby on a leave of absence in May [2014]. The second pastor who had disagreed with that decision was Joe Lee. There was a 9 to 1 vote by the non-staff elder candidates, they had taken to time to consider the issues very carefully. They had been given access to the independent investigator and his preliminary report at that time and after discussing it they voted 9 to 1 to not impose a leave of absence at that time. And my understanding is that the one person who voted against it had nothing to do with the fact that he believed the leave of absence was appropriate, rather it had more to do with the language of what was being communicated. 1:11:21
Good for Ben Wikner. He came on staff in 2008. He resignation was effective December 2014. Good for Joe Lee. He came on staff in 2002. He was “laid off” in January 2015. These men were reading my blog articles which numbered over 20 at the time.
The “non-staff elder candidates” on the other hand didn’t think Joshua Harris, Kenneth Maresco, Robin Boisvert or Corby Megorden should take a leave of absence based upon Liebeler’s “preliminary report” in May 2014. That report was worthless. Five months later, it was damnable.
The candidates were Todd Keeler, John Leconte, Jose Troche, and Steve Wyzga. They remain at CLC. A fifth candidate was John Emilio. He pulled out. The others were Dave Brown, David Finch, Tim Harvey, Chris Kinsinger, Bo Lotinsky. They resigned in protest in 2018 over another scandal related to P.J. Smyth, the short lived lead pastor who replaced Harris. He was heavy handed and covering up the sexual sadism of his famous father, barrister and Queens Counsel John Smyth.
They submitted those results to the elders and then the elders discussed it and we voted 8 to 2 to not place the men on a leave of absence. As I mentioned Ben was one of the two dissenting pastors. His disagreement with this decision was a significant factor in his decision to leave the pastoral team. 1:11:45
God bless Ben Wikner and Joe Lee for their courage. The eight who voted against a leave of absence during the investigation were Mark Mitchell, Don DeVries, Keith Welton, Adam Malcolm, Dave Brewer, Kevin Rogers, Erik Sheffer, and Issac Hydoski.
The second reason. Ben asked that when the decision was communicated to the congregation that I also share that the decision was not unanimous. I did not agree with this and therefore I decided against it. We hadn’t made a practice of announcing vote tallies to the congregation and I didn’t think that was the time or this was the right issue for that to take place. My judgment was that the congregation was in a volatile place regarding all the issues surrounding Morales and the leave of absence and I didn’t think communicating that information at that time was going to be helpful. 1:12:2
This is very important. Mitchell was not willing to tell the church “the decision was not unanimous.” That reveals a basic lack of transparency. Mitchell had far too much power as the executive pastor. He shut Ben down. He tells all the pastors what they can and cannot do. That is not a working plurality.
In addition to that I did asked the pastors not to share the details of the vote at that time beyond the pastoral team. Ben disagreed with this and this was another reason that contributed to his decision ultimately to leave the team. 1:12:40
The pastors have a long history of keeping vital information from the CLC members. It goes along with their deceit. Mitchell wanted to pretend unanimity when in fact two of the pastors were dissenting. He got caught and that is why he is forced to address it.
The seven other pastors did not have the integrity to stop him. Mitchell forbids them from simply telling the truth and being transparent. This is image management. People in CLC were yearning for honesty and humility. They found none. The entire report by Mitchell and Liebeler is a giant fraud.
And the final one is that Ben had communicated to us that he had growing differences with the team in areas like communication, leadership, decision making and theological convictions. And so based on these three things, Ben decided as a matter of personal conviction, and this was his decision, that he needed to leave his position on the pastoral staff. 1:13:04
Ben saw through the abusive and deceptive leadership. As “a matter of personal conviction” (i.e. integrity) he had to leave. CLC is like Sovereign Grace Churches. Appearance is everything. That was not always the case.
The Lawsuit & Separation from Sovereign Grace Ministries
Finally in this section, several people asked questions about the separation with Sovereign Grace and whether it connects to the lawsuit and if so, how. The elders learned of the civil lawsuit and its allegations against SGM and the former leadership of CLC when the suit was filed and made public in October 2012. That was after the elders had come to the conclusion over the spring and summer months that the best action for the health and future of our church was to separate from Sovereign Grace Ministries. The final decision to separate from SGM, with the congregation’s affirmation, came in December 2012. And that decision was based on differences in direction and philosophy of leadership. That decision had nothing to do with the civil lawsuit. 1:13:57
The separation was due to “differences in direction and philosophy of leadership.” This lingo illustrates the pastors lack of courage and conviction. It is politically (or religiously) correct language to stay out of trouble with Mahaney and his powerful allies. The CLC elders were never willing to stand strong against the opposition of Mahaney. They capitulated.
We Answered a Majority of Questions
Well, at this time I want to prepare to close but touching on a just a few remaining items. We did attempt to answer as many of the questions as we could. And I think that the way that we grouped them, I believe we answered a majority of questions that were submitted to us but we know for a fact that we did not address every single one. So, if your specific questions was not addressed, I just want to encourage you to please come out to the Coffee and Conversation meetings next month, follow up directly with a pastor, we may be taking the initiative to follow up with you as well. So I just wanted to communicate that to you. 1:14:35
When Liebeler was hired in July 2013, Joshua Harris promised every allegation in the lawsuit would be covered. Yet so little in the lawsuit was addressed and no real evidence was put forward to rebut it. Just pronouncements based upon pronouncements.
The Liebeler-Mitchell report concluded that nothing in the 46-page lawsuit was true except for the two abusers convicted of molestation. Everything else was a lie. That’s what you get when you retain a lawyer to “investigate” his own client who he is obligated to defend.
There are tons of specific questions Mitchell and Liebeler did not address. They “grouped them” and answered in vague generalities.
The Confidence of the Congregation in Harris, Megorden, Boisvert, & Maresco
Also two weeks ago at the Members’ Meeting I mentioned that the pastors and the non-staff elder candidates had spent several hours on our September retreat interviewing the men who were on the Church Board in 2007 [excluding Grant Layman but including Joshua Harris, Corby Megorden, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco] and discussing their status. And we all agreed that their acknowledged failures, we believe, did not disqualify them from gospel ministry and that we could still commend them to you as a congregation. What we did not get to do at that retreat was to complete our discussion which we did begin on what congregational input on this could look like. 1:15:15
“Congregational input” came in the form of hundreds of people leaving CLC because of the corrupt and incompetent report by Lars Liebeler and the compromised stance of the eldership. They commended men who did evil and covered up evil. Their “acknowledged failures” fell way short and were in fact deceitful.
Now a few members submitted questions in whether the congregation would be involved in what happens from here. And that is understandable. Here are a couple of thoughts. First, we wanted to make sure that you were not unaware of our perspective of these four men and again we’ve had the benefit of evaluating these issues over several months involving many, many hours of conversation collectively with the independent investigator, our legal counsel, the men on the 2007 board, and among ourselves. 1:15:54
“These four men.” Harris is apostate. Maresco left CLC. Boisvert remains. Megorden resigned, left CLC, and is with the crooked P.J. Smyth (Harris’ replacement) who was fired, rehired, and sent away from CLC to start a church.
Smyth is another example of the pastors refusing to do what was right. He was completely disqualified from ministry for his lust of power and the covering up his father’s heinous crimes. It didn’t matter. The pastors negotiated a fake “peace” for the sake of expediency. They were afraid to offend him.
The pastors and the non-staff elder candidates after careful consideration of the biblical qualifications for elders, we all voted unanimously to affirm these men as qualified for ministry. But that said, we recognize that there is a distinction between qualifications for ministry and the confidence of the congregation to follow their leadership. 1:16:16
The exodus has continued at CLC due to the warranted lack of confidence in the pastors. The report and affirmation of Harris, Boisvert, Maresco, and Megorden resulted in greater distrust.
So next week I plan to meet with the elders to discuss how to best seek your input on this as a congregation. And we also plan to involve the non-staff elder candidates in this process as well. And once we reached a collective decision on what’s best, I will be communicating that to you. 1:16:40
It was too late. They are going to “seek your input” after the fact was a slap in the face. They didn’t want the congregations’ input until it was imploding. There was never a “collective decision” on what you do when the pastors commend pastors but the church does not.
Many Differing Perspectives in the Church
One of the things we have become acutely aware of throughout the last several months and even over the last two weeks is that there are many differing perspectives in the church. Some have been tracking the issues surrounding Morales and the lawsuit very, very closely. And many may still likely feel that they still need more time to process these things even after what they have heard this evening. Others feel like it is time to move forward as a congregation. They are eager to hear the pastors communicate vision and direction. And they are eager to put these things behind us. And there are many folks in between. So as your pastors we will be taking these differing perspectives into consideration as we consider our next steps. But at this time we believe faithful leadership going forward will involve several things. 1:17:35
The Liebeler-Mitchell report increased division in the church. The majority realized it was a whitewash. They could not “move forward.”
I sent out The Documents in July 2011. The Second Amended Complaint was filed in May 2013. CLC left SGM in December 2013. Liebeler-Mitchell reported in October 2014. Harris left in June 2015. Smyth was fired in April 2017. Mitchell was fired September 2019. Practically all the leaders in CLC are gone. And yet there has been no repentance. The same kind of demise has occurred in Sovereign Grace Churches.
First, we want to encourage everyone who needs more time to think on and talk about these things to please do so. This can happen as I mentioned at a Coffee and Conversation meeting, this can happen as you interact with one another, this can happen as you interact with pastors as you are sitting down face to face. We want you to know that we are eager to have these conversations with you if that would serve you. 1:17:58
Imagine “face to face” interaction with Mitchell? The deceit and manipulation would be off the charts. People learned the hard way NOT to meet with the pastors in private unless there were trusted witnesses and/or recordings. What Mitchell said in public was horrific. Imagine what he’d say in private about the victims, their families, the Plaintiffs’ lawyers, or me?
For those of you who are in a place to move on and you are ready to move forward, that’s understandable too. My appeal to all of us is this. Let’s seek the Lord’s help, to be patient with each other, and gracious with each other, especially towards though who have a different perspective as you do. 1:18:20
One day, I hope the Lord raises up a new group of godly pastors who do not aspire to greatness and are not wowed by the 40 acre property or the 107,000 sq. ft. building or living in the 17th wealthiest county in U.S. with some of the most powerful people in the world. C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris, and P.J. Smyth craved greatness. It backfired. “Those who exalt themselves will be humbled” (Luke 14:11).
May God raise up men who can move the church forward because they love Jesus, are willing to suffering for him, and walk in integrity.
No More Members’ Meetings
Secondly, we are not going to continue to have Members’ Meetings devoted to these issues as we have done this month. We planned these two [meetings] to address as much of the civil lawsuit and the Morales issue as we felt we reasonably could. Going forward we are going to hold these two Coffee and Conversation meetings next month for any who want to come out and ask more questions. And as we’ve stated, we are eager to interact with anyone who wants to follow up with us personally on these things. You can simply contact the church office if you’d like to set up a meeting with a pastor to talk. 1:18:55
More Member’s Meetings would have required more answers in a church-wide setting to questions that were never answered or questions that arose from this second oral report.
Instead, “more questions” would be handled in two small “Coffee and Conversations meetings” after the Sunday meeting at 12:15 PM. They were poorly attended and went unrecorded. Parents had children to pick up, care for, and feed after the meeting.
But according to Mitchell, there is no need for more meetings. He, Liebeler, and the pastors addressed everything “we reasonably could.” So what could they possibly address in small meetings they did not address in large meetings? Those things they didn’t want to address at large or in detail. Therefore, answer some questions in private from zealots who wanted the truth but that is all. It had to be kept under control.
Conduct Worthy of the Gospel
Third, I want to exhort all of us to keep the Lord Jesus Christ in view and to conduct ourselves toward one another in a manner that is worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Lord tells us in Philippians, “Let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ so that whether I come and see you or I am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind, striving side by side for the faith of the gospel.” And in chapter two, it says, “If there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests but also to the interests of others.” 1:20:04
The Covenant Life pastors have brought great reproach upon the gospel of Jesus Christ and harmed many souls because of their selfish ambition and looking out for their own interests. God has judged their hypocrisy and exposed their religious jargon.
In the mist of the challenges we are walking through we have an opportunity, each one of us, to put the gospel on display in the ways we relate to one another. And we have an opportunity to seek to honor Christ in our words, in our attitudes and in our actions. So I want to encourage all of us, let’s pray for our congregation that the Lord would indeed enable us to do this and let’s also pray that God would strengthen us and unite us as we move forward together as a church to bring glory to Jesus Christ in the ways he has called us to. 1:20:38
This report is an affront to these aspirations. It dishonor Christ and the gospel in every way. It covers up evil. It damns victims of sexual abuse. It is about self-justification and image management. Yet Mitchell seeks to quell dissent by exhorting members to “seek to honor Christ in our words, in our attitudes and in our actions.” Oh, the height of hypocrisy and arrogance.
Affirmation of Non-Staff Elder Candidates & Church Constitution
Fourth, we want to finish making progress on bringing the non-staff elder candidates before you for affirmation and finalizing our church constitution. So I’ll be writing to you on that very soon to let you know how we are planning to do that. 1:20:55
The pastors ordained nine non-staff elders in January 2015. Five resigned in July 2018 over the compromised handling of lead pastor P.J. Smyth.
Grow in Prayer
Fifth, we want to grow as a congregation in our dependence on and experience of God through prayer. And I want to take a moment here just to thank many of you, who whether it is through periods of just seeking the Lord privately or whether it’s contexts like Wednesday nights here or in other places gathering together to pray with other believers, thank you for the ways you have sought the Lord in humility and dependence and thank you for the ways you have carried the pastoral team and this congregation on your hearts. We are so grateful for you, we are inspired by your passion to pray, and we are eager to join you and really see our entire congregation just really take some steps, some strong steps forward, in seeking the Lord through prayer. We are meeting with different members of the church; we are talking about ways we can do that and we look forward to sharing with you soon ways that we are seeking to grow in pursuing the Lord together through prayer. 1:21:56
Three months later (Jan. 2015), Harris announced he was leaving CLC for seminary. A year later (Jan. 2016), P.J. Smyth was installed as lead pastor. This was an expression of God’s displeasure. He gave them a corrupt leader in keeping with their corrupt ways. Smyth divided the church further when he left and planted Monument Church (Sep. 2018). It meets 1.9 miles away from the CLC building.
God is not mocked. You cannot take “some strong steps forward” when the sovereign Lord is opposed to you.
Ready to Move Forward in Mission – Our Life Together
Finally, we are ready to move forward as a congregation in accomplishing the mission the Lord has given us to do. And as was mentioned this morning, beginning next week, we are going to take a break from Colossians to begin a series that we are calling “Our Life Together” series. And over the next four weeks we are going to be preaching on the important priorities of just building community together through fellowship, in particular through small groups, serving together and serving the Lord through the investment of our gifts and our energies for his glory as well as the call that God gives us to give financially toward the mission that God has called us to as a local church. 1:22:41
Covenant Life Church was on life support not “life together.” Attendance dropped from 4,300 in July 2011 to 800 in July 2018. It was once strong in the grace of fellowship, serving, and giving. Now it was on the verge of closing its doors.
Brothers and sisters, the last three years have been challenging. But God has been accomplishing much in our midst in the midst of the challenges. The ministry of the Word has continued to take place week after week. Believers continue to be baptized as they place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. The fellowship and communion of the saints continues to be enjoyed as we gather in groups small and large. Even just yesterday we had approximately 20 people in our Starting Point class pursuing and exploring membership here at Covenant Life Church. 1:23:21
This is a message of positivism. CLC was not “accomplishing much.” It was falling apart. Until the current pastors Kevin Rogers, Robin Boisvert, Jamie Leach and Todd Keeler address their past, the foreseeable future remains bleak.
Our commitment to missions continues to grow as we seek to engage our community and our world with the gospel and how encouraging that was to hear this morning the testimony of how God is using Ellie in her local school and through the vocation of teaching to reach young people who desperately need to know Christ. That was so powerful and encouraging. 1:23:42
I would love to see the current leaders repent or be replaced so the mission of the gospel can go forth once again.
In summary, God’s saving and sanctifying power has remained active among us and we have every reason to believe from his Word that it will continue to do so. God is faithful to his promises, he is faithful to us as his people, and his redemptive work is unstoppable. As Jesus has said, “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” May these truths fill our hearts as we take some strong steps forward now as a church to accomplish the mission God has given us. Amen. Amen. I am going to ask Kevin Rogers to come now to close us in prayer. 1:24:27
Mitchell was removed from ministry in October 2019 for patterns of sin including outbursts of anger. The “sanctifying power” of God was removed from his life. He was turned over to the evil desires of his heart. I hope he recovers.
CLC had 23 pastors in 2011. They are down to four in 2021. There have been no “strong steps forward.” God has been faithful to his promise to humble the proud in heart. And he cannot be mocked by deceitful leaders who cover up, rather than confess, their sin.
Therefore, I pray every former and current CLC pastor publicly renounces the Liebeler-Mitchell report. I especially pray the four staff elders (pastors) and three non-staff elders repent lest they be removed by God in his righteousness.
Pastors and Support Staff | Covenant Life Church (covlife.org)
Whatever the case, I am confident the Lord will bring the church through his judgment and show compassion to a new generation. When he does, that generation must be careful to confess the sins of the past and make restitution wherever possible.
The leaders of Sovereign Grace Churches must also renounce the Liebeler-Mitchell report starting with C.J. Mahaney.
I close on a personal note. Writing about CLC over the past ten years has required perseverance in the face of much persecution by the pastors and people. Some sought to frame me. Others viciously trolled me. A few prayed for my death. Many slandered me and opposed me.
Thankfully, a good number of those individuals have come to see truthfulness of my work. For that I am grateful to God.
Over the past decade, as it says on my blog tagline, I’ve sought to help “Christians judge righteously, think biblically and live courageously.” That is what I’ve attempted to do in this long piece.
It also preserves a reliable and perpetual record. If the Lord wills, he can use it to lead Covenant Life Church to repentance. That would please me to no end. I’d love to see people return, reconciliation occur, victims exonerated, restitution made, godly leaders raised up, and the gospel preached in power.
With all the godly, I labor by his grace, for his glory, and because of the cross.