Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Greeny World Domination 047
GwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwD
T h e G R E E N Y w o r l d D o m i n a t i o n T a s k F o r c e
Presents:
"Bob Larson Parts 11 & 12"
GwD, Incorporated is dedicated to the exposing of false prophets. We have found
one such "prophet" in Bob Larson of Bob Larson: Live and formerly of Talk-Back
with Bob Larson. A supposed Christian radio evangelist, Bob Larson is actually
only motivated by financial gain. These 14 articles by Kenneth L. Smith prove
this. From this point on, GwD is anti-Bob Larson.
PART 11
Bob Larson: The Lyin' King
It was beginning to look as if Bob had beaten the rap. Mike Warnke and Larry
Lea were both on the comeback trail. And Robert Tilton was still preaching at
his mega-church in Dallas. Thanks to the Evangelical community's astonishing
apathy and the willing complicity of the Christian media, the "Brat Pack" was
still more or less intact. Like the watchman on the wall in Ezekiel 33, we
sounded the alarm, but the 'city of God' remained in slumber.
And then, along came Mike....
WDIV investigative reporter Mike Wendland took an unexpected interest in our
handiwork on the Internet ... and thought that his viewers might like a look at
Colorado's bush-league version of Robert Tilton. But unlike the people at Inside
Edition, he didn't insist upon sex.
Panicked by Detroit:
The first segment of Wendland's special report aired in Detroit on Monday, May
23. Larson knew that the piece was coming, but he didn't know when -- and it
appeared to have caught him off guard. His reaction was, to put it politely,
downright surreal:
"This ministry is under attack! There has been a systematic
effort over the last couple of years to 'go after' one ministry
after another. It is an effort designed in the pit of hell!
And Satan will use whoever is at his disposal [audio unclear]:
the Christian who thinks that, by dividing and conquering the
Body of Christ, he's doing some service to the cause of Chris-
tianity, or whether it's an unbeliever, who has no concern for
the welfare or the cause of Jesus Christ, and doesn't care how
the truth is manipulated to destroy the work of God, or whether
it's the 'media elite', who feel it is their arrogant responsi-
bility to pass judgment on others, when they themselves do not
put their lives open to the same kind of scrutiny in which they
would like to judge other people....
I know stuff about the Jim Bakker thing that I wouldn't tell
in public, that you will probably never know, and maybe on my
deathbed I'll tell. Someday, the truth needs to be told; maybe
someday, I'll write a book about it! You don't know the story
of Jim Bakker and what-- how that whole thing came down. You
know what the press wanted you to know....
You know about Jessica Hahn. You don't know how the whole
Jessica Hahn thing really happened, and how it really came into
being, and how it was manipulated from behind the scenes, and
how the whole thing was set up to destroy that ministry. And
you don't know the role that Satanism played in that whole
thing behind the scenes. Someday, I may come clean and tell
the whole story and blow your mind. I know!!! You don't!!!"1
Bob has been complaining about a plot to 'destroy his ministry' for years, but
this is the first time that he has tried to link it to the fall of such selfless
servants of the LORD as Jim Bakker, Robert Tilton and Jimmy Swaggart. What's
more, this sinister scheme appears to be directed by Christians:
"There are child-molesters and rapists and drug dealers run-
ning the streets of America, free on parole, who didn't do one-
millionth of what Jim Bakker did to warrant what they did to
him, to sock him away as a vendetta against the Church. And
Christians went around, beating their chests, crowing and say
ing, 'Oh, Jim Bakker got what he had coming'...
But what you've got to understand, folks, they took what they
could and capitalized on what was there, and manipulated it
behind the scenes, then it was a set-up to bring them down, to
destroy them because they were easy to topple over. And Jimmy
[Swaggart] wasn't too [unintelligible] to topple over. Okay?
Then, along came the likes of Tilton, Lea, Grant, Warnke, many
others. What they did was they went after the ones that were
easy pickings first....
They set up a pattern. A pattern of accusation, a pattern of
destruction, a pattern of going after people systematically.
Listen, again, I know stuff behind the scenes about what hap-
pened in each and every one of these situations that would blow
your mind if I could ever tell you. And let me tell you, for a
year and a half, next in line has been Bob Larson. In a year
and a half, they have done everything they could possibly do to
threaten, destroy-- you don't know the one-thousandth of the
things that have tried to be done to me, the ugliness and the
viciousness of it. And sometimes, these people call themselves
Christians. You don't know one-thousandth of it.
You don't know the private hell that I've lived through for
the last couple of years. Now, a major television network has
decided that they're going to try to take it upon themselves to
destroy me, fueled by some who call themselves Christians....
I want to tell you, it is more ugly and vicious than you can
possibly comprehend, how it's been done. The purpose of the
devil is almost beyond belief. In fact, if I were to lay out
in front of you the actual details of how this whole thing came
together and how it's been done, so help me, not one person in
ten thousand in this audience could believe -- you'd think I'm
lying."2
And you'd be right.
A Bill of Goods:
Of course, Bob didn't get a chance to see Wendland's piece until Wednesday;
once he got over the initial shock, he immediately set out on the daunting task
of damage control. His usual collection of suspected shills made their
obligatory appearances, like Tina, the phone sex operator. But the most
interesting caller of the first hour was Bill -- who quizzed Bob about the
Ministry's alleged financial woes:
Bill: "Well about your $35,000 shortfall, you always talk about
paying your bills on time, yet you've got a $35,000 shortfall."
BL: "That's right."
Bill: "You must have quite a bankroll stashed away that you're
able to pay these bills if you've got no money."
BL: "No, I don't."
Bill: "Well, where did you get the $35,000 to pay all these
people?"
BL: "Bill, read [Genesis] Chapter 41. It's the story of Joseph
in Egypt. Joseph had a dream [seven years of plenty and seven
years of famine].... Now, was Joseph used of God and blessed
by God for having the stewardship responsibility to follow the
leaning of the LORD and to prepare for difficult times?"
Bill: "So, you are running a surplus, Bob?"
BL: "No, I'm not, Bill. You're not listening to what I'm say
ing. Bill?"
Bill: "You've run a surplus in the past, and you've saved it
up?"
BL: "Bill, some years ago, there were a couple of years in
which, fortunately, God did bless us, and we were allowed to
have an excess for which I praise and thank God for. Because
it had not have been for that, this ministry would have been
out of business four years ago, and I would have been his
tory."3
In the beginning of 1990, Bob Larson Ministries was indeed in sound financial c
condition. It had a net fund balance of over $1.3 million, and cash reserves of
nearly $2 million.4 Yessir, once upon a time, things were really good at BLM.
But how have things gone since then? The Ministry's financial statements speak
volumes:
Bob Larson Ministries
Increase (Decrease) in Net Worth
For the years 1990-1992
Year and source of info. Revenues Expenses Fund Balance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fund balance, 12/31/89 $ 1,387,089
1990 Stewardship Rept. $ 5,613,445 $ 5,103,648 509,7975
---------
Fund balance, 12/31/90 1,896,886
1991 Stewardship Rept. 5,436,225 5,189,611 246,6146
---------
Fund balance, 12/31/91 2,143,500
1992 Stewardship Rept. 4,681,166 4,724,935 (43,769)7
---------
Fund balance, 12/31/92 $ 2,099,731
=========
If things were good four years ago, they must have been really good 17 months
ago: For the three years ended December 31, 1992, the Ministry enjoyed a net
profit of more than $700,000! Unless 1993 was an unmitigated disaster -- and I
guarantee that, if Bob had lost a half-million dollars last year, Bob would have
told us -- the Ministry is in far better financial condition than it was in the
'good old days'. Still, I suppose it wouldn't surprise you if Bob sees things a
little differently:
BL: "But the message that I'm trying to get across to you in
this audience is real simple: What God did for us four years
ago, and what the audience did for us four years ago, has not
been repeated. And it particularly has not been repeated in
the last four months. Consequently, the abundance of the bless
ing from God's people has been depleted to the point where I am
desperately needing your support NOW to be there on your sta-
tion. And those are the facts....
You say, 'Well, Bob, I've heard you say a lot.' Let me tell
you something: For the fourth year in a row, we've run in the
red. And we've kept going only because of the past generosity
and goodness of God's people. But that's come to an end."8
Four years ago, things were great ... but his listeners would never have
discovered that from reading his 1990 fundraising appeals:
April 6: "In the first three months of 1990, we covered costs
for only 4 broadcast days out of 60."9
May 4: "Compassion Connection is collapsing!"10
July 11: "The last two months were a financial disaster. Dona-
tions dwindled, contributions dropped off, and those who
pledged didn't follow through."11
Sept. 6: "The possibility of losing TALK-BACK in your area is
very real. August has been an agonizing month of continuous
financial shortfalls."12
Oct. 9: "Recent weeks have been the most devastating in the
history of this ministry. Every week was worse than the week
before.
Things have gotten so bad, I'm left with only two choices.
I will have to cancel the second hour of TALK-BACK, or close
down the Compassion Connection and the HOPE line."13
Dec. 7: "By December 31, I must erase a $185,000 deficit in
paying for our air time. If I can't, we could lose so many
stations it would be difficult to continue TALK-BACK."14
Remember, these letters were written back when Bob said that things were good,
and his Ministry's financial records proved that they were good. Yet, in the
midst of all this obvious prosperity, Bob is holding a 'going out of business'
sale. And what Bob asked his audience, I would ask as well:
"Are you going to say, 'Bob is honest, and he's telling me
the truth. And he's letting me know when it's been good, and
telling me when it's bad'."15
I suppose that I could say it ... just not with a straight face.
Shirley, Bob Jests -- Part II:
While Tina's appearance was merely implausible, the return of Shirley from
Bakersfield, CA to the Talk-Back airwaves could be explained only by divine
intervention or blatant fabrication. Shirley -- whose daughters purportedly
killed a boy, and left his dismembered body in the desert near Yuma, Arizona --
should not have known about the WDIV news report that she more or less 'starred'
in. And even Bob had to concede that her call seemed suspicious. Still, it
wasn't the timing of the call which was so incriminating, but rather, the
content. In this excerpt, Bob tried to direct Shirley's testimony in an effort
to impeach the WDIV news report:
BL: "Here's what happened. This videotape -- and it's gonna be
shown in some other cities-- has an excerpt of the conversation
I had with you."
Shirley: "Yes?"
BL: "And basically what happened-- well, well, in the original
conversation that you and I had several months ago, you told me
about your daughters?"
Shirley: "That they were involved in a murder. That they had
cut up a boy, they killed a boy -- well, their boyfriends did
-- killed a boy, and they cut him up, and put him in different
places."
BL: "All right. Basically--"
Shirley: "As a matter of fact, the police, when they were here
to my-- I wasn't supposed to say this over the air, but that
makes me mad."
BL: "Well, let me tell you what they did. What they did was,
they played an excerpt of your call, and then they put my face
on the screen, and they put a map of Arizona there, and they
said, basically.... I don't remember the exact words, but we're
going to prove that Bob Larson is a liar, and that he makes up
these calls. And they played your excerpt, and then they said
they contacted the police in that city, and they have no knowl-
edge of any such thing...."16
While it is not uncommon for law enforcement agencies to refuse to disclose
the particulars of an investigation, the suggestion that the Yuma, Arizona
police would deliberately deceive a national television network regarding the
grisly crime that Shirley described is patently ludicrous. Simply put, if the
body was hacked to pieces, it's pretty safe to say that the victim didn't die of
natural causes -- it's hard to imagine how the investigation could be damaged by
a mere admission to the press that one was going on.
Oblivious to that rather obvious hole in her story, Shirley marches on:
Shirley: "So that's why the cops told me not to say anything
more about it. See, the police were here-- I wasn't even sup-
posed to talk with you on the air about it. But I'm going to,
'cause that really makes me mad. When they were up here at my
house, they told me to keep my mouth shut about it, but I'm
sick of keeping my mouth shut about it. Okay?
BL: "Where are your daughters now?"
Shirley: "Uh, they're not in jail right now. It's-- it's still
pending.
BL: "Okay."
Shirley: "They say they don't have enough evidence-- he said
they don't have enough evidence, but he did tell me that when
he left my house that day, he said, 'I think we have enough
evidence now to convict them, or to pick them up'."17
Once again, this is vintage Larson: the story isn't consistent. In the
original conversation, Shirley's daughters were in jail, but now, they didn't
have enough evidence to hold them. And two months later, the one daughter
hadn't regained custody of her kids, even though the State had no grounds for
depriving her of custody. What's more, the kids were left in the custody of a
grandmother who couldn't even pay her electric bill.
It must have been 'divine providence' -- despite Bob's inept direct
examination of his witness, he got precisely what he wanted:
Shirley: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to yell at you. [BL inter-
rupts, "That's OK."] They make me angry. They make me almost
as angry as they do you, Bob."
BL: "Well, I tell you what, Shirley-- Your call that day has--
has been used by the media to basically slander me and to
accuse me of being a liar, and it was then used in the face of
a Christian talk-show host to further accuse me of making up
people like you."
Shirley [interrupts]: "Oh, man!"
BL: "Of course, I know the story, and I was never asked or told
this was going to air, or they never asked for permission to
play your call. Nothing. I mean, they did not get the tape
recording over from us. How they got your voice, I don't know.
Somebody--"
Shirley [interrupts]: "I was gonna say, did they ask my permis-
sion to use my voice?"
BL: "They didn't ask for it, and they didn't ask mine-- they
didn't ask permission for anything. But they used this to make
you into a liar and to make me into a liar and I-- as I watched
the video running, I thought, 'What those people don't know is
that this ministry did what it could to help Shirley after the
fact, but they don't bother to ask those questions'."
Shirley: "Well, yeah, but what right did they have to play any
thing? Where did they get it from?"
BL: "I don't know where they got it from, Shirley, but when
you're dealing with the media, they don't play fair. These are
not ethical people who go by the rules--"
Shirley [interrupts]: "Well, we know that!"
BL [continues]: "And-- and play above board. They-- they are
out to smear, and they don't care who it takes...."
Shirley: "You know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to get those
reports. I'll get everything I can on it-- what little, what
news they did on it, what newspaper reports they did on it and
everything--"
BL [interrupts]: "All right, will you do that, Shirley? ..."18
As of this writing, it has been more than seven weeks since Shirley made that
pledge ... which should have been plenty of time for her to get that police
report. In light of the fact that, under the circumstances, the Yuma police
would have no reason whatever to lie to NBC, the absence of documentation
becomes more and more incriminating with the passage of time. And let us
assume, right now for sake of argument, that the documentation never comes.
One question remains: Did Shirley deceive Bob, or did Bob defraud his audience?
While the evidence is admittedly circumstantial, it points directly at Bob.
First, Shirley "just happened" to call from Bakersfield, and as Bob conceded,
she "didn't know" about the WDIV report. That means that she would have had to
have called on the regular line and gotten right through, while Tina the phone
sex operator claimed that she had dialed "all week" without success19; moreover,
it also means that she didn't have a compelling reason for calling. Second, she
volunteered everything that Bob 'needed' to cast aspersions upon the WDIV
report, and serve as a pretext for his grandstand speech:
BL: "Let me tell you how the media operates, just so you know.
They never told us that they were going to play a purloined
tape of the show with Shirley's voice. They never asked us how
we followed up, and what we did, and what we know about the
veracity of this story. No. They took the tape, played it,
went behind her back and my back-- now, this is how the media
operates, folks. You need to know. You watch that you-know-
what on television, hey, I wanna tell you something: You don't
know sneaky the Devil is being to twist stuff. You don't know
how sneaky the Devil is being."20
Like the majority of Larson's lies, his statements contain a grain of truth to
them. Bob was never "told" the details of the story, but that was more a
function of his refusal to appear on camera than any thing else. The tape was
recorded from the public airwaves, which is perfectly legal, and WDIV's
rebroadcast falls within the ambit of the "fair use" doctrine of
17 U.S.C. = 107. And while Mike Wendland may not have asked Bob Larson
Ministries how they followed up, I did, and I published a transcript of my
conversation with a Compassion Connection operator, in which she concedes that
they never bothered to call the Yuma police.21
It is interesting to note that, in Shirley's second appearance, she almost
seemed to go out of her way not to mention that the crime purportedly took place
in Yuma, Arizona. This is standard procedure for the Mighty Larson Art Players;
it simply wouldn't do for listeners to pick up the phone and check out the
story.
Sounds Like Bob Larson:
By Friday, Bob had regained most of his composure, and was ready to mount his
counteroffensive. Using his 50th birthday as an excuse and a motif, he painted
himself as an innocent victim of that scandalmongering secular press:
"The message of this song that I wrote fifteen years ago and
recorded fourteen years ago is maybe needed more today than
ever. So, for all my Christian critics, listen very carefully
to the words of this song:
'Brother,
Why are you angry with me, Brother?
What have we done to one another?
Why do you say you find a fault in me
and then you never tell what's on your mind?
Oh, Brother,
Why don't you ever call me Brother?
And say you mean what you have said
[unintelligible] behind my back,
But never to my face to share the
grievance that you have against me...'"22
Unquestionably, this was the most impressive public relations ploy I have ever
seen Bob use. Without saying it, he is subtly insinuating that his critics
never bothered to confront him, and if they had, this silly little
misunderstanding could have been cleared up.
While Bob Larson's Christian critics haven't confronted him to his face, it
hasn't been for lack of trying. Former Watchman Fellowship staffer Fred
Wheeler23 approached him long before this story ever hit the media, but was
brusquely rebuffed. Christian talk-show host and pastor Stewart White
reportedly followed suit, but Larson slammed the door in his face, as well.24
Christian reporters Joe Maxwell,25 Jay Grelen,26 and Mike Wendland27 fared no
better. He will appear on TBN,28 answer written questions submitted by the
Church of Satan,29 and whine about how the secular media "raped" him on his own
broadcasts,30 but has steadfastly refused to submit to cross-examination from
knowledgeable inquisitors.
Friends and foes alike observe that, even though he is the consummate
press-hound, Bob doesn't take public criticism gracefully. Ever since Michael
Roberts broke the Larson story in Westword magazine two years ago, Bob has grown
increasingly fearful of the press -- and his ministry has adopted a 'bunker
mentality'. For a man who has nothing to hide, he certainly is going out of his
way to hide it.
The following memo is further evidence that his silence was part of an
orchestrated plan:
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOB
FROM: BONNIE
RE: CT INTERVIEW/BILL ABBOTT UPDATE
DATE: 7/27
CC: DIRECTORS
* Christianity Today -- Reporter Joe Maxwell
* 30-minute telephone interview re: BLM, fundraising, BL's
finances and personal life
* Deadline is August 12th. Best days -- 7/29, 8/10-11-12.
* He indicated that they have the Westword, but also have inde-
pendent sources of info regarding finances. I conclude from
this that they have the divorce decree.
* Said that several charges had been levied against BL. I
inquired what charges and by whom but he declined to answer.
* Indicated not all questions would be indicting, but that this
obviously wasn't to be a flattery piece. CT wouldn't be call
ing if they didn't have serious questions regarding BL and BLM.
* Could not or would not tell me if the story is independent of
a BL interview.
After speaking to the directors, my suggestions is that the BLM
Board decline the interview. I think it will look better on
paper if it's not just Bob Larson saying no he won't speak.
I also suggest we not wait to respond and put them in a posi-
tion where they call us back. It is easily printed that Bob
Larson did not respond to 'numerous' inquiries. Numerous is
open to anyone's definition and this makes us look bad. I
would prefer we are simply up front in our declination.
BILL ABBOTT
* Per BL request filled BA in on the above.
* BL agreed that there is no win in doing the interview.
* Suggest in addition to the Board saying no that we give a
reason the board says no. 'The Board of BLM is considering
legal action against parties spreading malicious and defamatory
statements against Mr. Larson. Until this matter is resolved
the Board has put a moratorium on all interviews so as not to
involve other parties'."31
To the best of our knowledge, the BLM Board never gave even passing
consideration to the filing of a lawsuit, and based upon my knowledge of libel
law, there isn't an attorney this side of J.C. Joyce (Robert Tilton's attorney)
that would have taken the case. Bill Abbott is an expert in media law; he knew
better, and so then should we.
Bob insisted that he didn't want to deal with the charges raised by his
critics, but, as is so often the case on Talk-Back, the very next caller "just
happened" to bring it up (I'll interrupt Bob's soliloquy with pertinent
observations):
Charles: "I have a really important question to ask you, Bob."
BL: "I'm not into questions on my birthday, but we'll see."
Charles: "I'm kinda confused 'cause I've been reading different
books about Christian ministries and stuff--"
BL [interrupts]: "Yeah?"
Charles: "I saw a salary figure attributed to you--"
BL: Well, I can tell you right now, it wasn't true. And that's
just not something I [unintelligible]--I don't even want to get
into that 'you-know-what' today. I don't want to do it. It's
just not true, Charles."
[While Bob said, "No, no," he said "Yes!" with his eyes. He didn't want to
get into it, but spent the rest of the segment talking about it:]
BL: "In fact, ironically, it's the same figure--the same figure
that they've been beating me bloody with. The news media did
it this week, in two major cities in America. First of all,
what they did was to quote a figure that involved, almost five
years ago, a one-time windfall situation in which God blessed
me, and I prospered....
[The windfall Bob is referring to was a $150,000 retroactive bonus, paid
either in 1989 or 1990, ostensibly for his forbearance of salary during the
first 18 years of the Ministry's existence. As a general rule, retroactive
bonuses to executives are invalid -- on the grounds that consideration is not
given. In a for-profit corporation, share holders could attack the bonus
payment, but the not-for-profit corporation is not beholden to anyone.
It is interesting to note that the $150,000 bonus did not appear on the
Ministry's 1990 Form 990 (which listed Larson's base compensation of $131,879,
contributions to employee benefit plans of $54,708, and other allowances of
$35,750, for a total package of $222,23732 -- not including salaries paid to him
by International Broadcasting Network and BLM's Canadian subsidiary). And as
you might have expected from an accountant, I used conservative figures in my
estimate of Larson's annual income:
Bobby E. ("Bob") Larson
Estimated Personal Income from Ministry Activities
Year ended December 31, 1990
Direct compensation - Bob Larson Ministries (BLM):
Salary $ 81,500
BLM - Prorated bonus 25,000
BLM - Expense account 33,000
BLM - Retirement allowance 50,500
BLM - Housing allowance:
Mortgage payments 22,512
Utilities, etc. 4,980
-------
Compensation - Bob Larson Ministries 217,492
Direct compensation - BLM subsidiaries 95,428
-------
Total direct compensation from Ministry activities 312,920
Indirect Ministry-related compensation 184,833
-------
Total compensation from Ministry activities $ 497,75333
=======
You will also note that $150,000 bonus is nowhere to be found in my estimate.
I excluded it on the grounds that it was a one-time event, and inclusion would
tend to unfairly overstate his annual income.]
BL: "Secondly, figures that they quote don't have anything to
do with the Ministry.... Now, in 25 years' time, I've person
ally made a lot of real estate investments. God has blessed
me. I-- I've fallen into things that, boy, it sure wasn't my
brains that got me. God has blessed me. I've taken some chances
and God has blessed me."
[Let's take a quick look at one of Bob's shrewd real estate deals. In late
1985, Bob and former wife Kathy bought the building housing the Ministry for
$1,415,000.34 But they didn't put up a dime of their money -- they mortgaged
that property for $1,550,000,35 and evidently, pocketed the difference. So far,
it looked like a shrewd deal; Dave Del Dotto would have been justifiably proud.
Unfortunately for Bob, 1986 was a disastrous year for Denver real estate: the
market went into an absolute free-fall, as property values plummeted by 10% and
more -- and there was no end in sight. Suddenly, Bob's "shrewd investment"
became a white elephant. And as he was personally liable on the mortgage, his
net worth dropped as fast as the building's value.
What was a best-selling author and commentator to do?
Like many investors who were saddled with burned-out tax-shelters, Bob tried
to 'cut his losses' by selling the building to an entity he controlled (the
Ministry) for $1,800,000.36 A $385,000 profit, in less than 15 months, is
nothing to sneeze at -- until you start looking at the fine print.
By all accounts, the building was worth somewhere between $1.2 and $1.3
million (several years later, it was revalued on the Ministry's books at a
shade more than $1 million). Yet, the Ministry bought it from the chairman of
its' Board of Directors for the grossly overinflated price of $1.8 million.
Instead of buying another comparable building on the open market for $1.3
million, the Ministry "gave" Bob a windfall of over half a million dollars. Or
to put it another way, Larson sold the building to the Ministry for the $1.3
million it was worth -- and put $500,000 worth of sacrificially-given Ministry
funds into his own pocket.
So, did Bob reap God's blessings ... or steal His money?]
BL: "I have written 22 books. So, you know, go buy a calcula-
tor. Go buy a calculator. I've written 22 books. Half of them
have been best-sellers. I don't get food stamps. Is this a
mystery? Is this should be like a great shock to those news
paper reporters, and people who want to go around quoting fig-
ures?"
[If Bob had, indeed, written 22 books -- on his own time, and using his own
personal resources to research, write, and promote them, his critics simply
wouldn't have any basis for criticizing him. But when Ministry employees do
the bulk of his research, writing, and editing for him (while on the Ministry's
payroll), Ministry money is used to pay for direct-mail advertising of his
books, and Ministry airtime is used to promote his books, there's a real cause
for concern. And, to add insult to injury, Larson even had the audacity to sell
books that Ministry employees wrote while on Ministry time for a 50% markup, far
more than the customary 10% author's royalty. Yes, God has prospered him -- but
at the expense of the Social Security checks of little old ladies who have been
duped into supporting his largesse.
When famed bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he simply
said, "That was where the money is." Willie was wrong.]
BL: "And if primarily -- apart from the Ministry -- through my
own wisdom and resources and good judgment, and God's blessing
-- God has blessed me -- then should the figure matter?"
[Since I know a fair number of them, I can say with some confidence that there
isn't a single one of Larson's critics that would begrudge him as much wealth as
he could attain. But, as I told him in conversation nearly two years ago, I
don't object to his being wealthy, but rather, I take offense as to how he got
it. Bob didn't make his fortune from writing books, or investing in real
estate; he made it from his Ministry. Bob did it by defrauding his listeners,
and using his Ministry as his own personal piggy-bank. Bob's God helps those
who help themselves ... to the contents of the collection plate.
Bob Larson might not be a competent musician, writer, or minister, but he does
have an undisputed talent for raising money. He can turn almost any situation
into a plea for donations, and this is no exception:]
BL: "You see, I believe this Ministry ought to prosper, and one
of the most hurtful things is to see that over the last few
months, it has not prospered. It's hurt deeply. And you know,
there are people out there who would come along and say, 'Well,
you know, the LORD must be trying to 'teach you a lesson', Bro-
ther.'
You know, God's got a lot of ways of getting my attention and
your attention without using the faithlessness of other people
regarding their finances. God doesn't need your stinginess to
teach me a lesson."37
It's not like Bob's listening audience has only two choices ... to give their
tithes to him, or pay taxes to Bill and Hillary. There is a vast array of
worthy charities out there, run by people who believe that their ultimate
mission is to help the needy, as opposed to helping themselves. Even the
layperson has an obligation of stewardship; throwing money at the first man who
comes along and calls him brother is by definition irresponsible. If Bob
doesn't get a Champion, some organization more worthy of it undoubtedly will.
Still, I'd reckon there is hope for Bob yet. After all, he didn't lie about
his age....
The Soap Opera Song:
Throughout his recent trials and tribulations, Bob Larson has tried his best
to maintain at least the outward appearance that the disclosures concerning his
many moral indiscretions have had no effect upon his ministry. And like Robert
Tilton before him, he has for the most part succeeded. But every now and again,
the obvious cracks in Bob's porcelain facade are exposed; even when he tries to
pick topics which should keep the Bob-bashers away, they just keep on coming.
Consider what Duane from Aurora had to say when Bob asked him what he would do
if he became 'dictator for a day':
"First off, I would rescind the tax-exempt status for churches.
Second, I would institute the death penalty upon conviction for
fraud, when perpetrated in conjunction with evangelistic fund-
raising activities. And third, I would declare a one-time holy
holiday so [Bob hits his panic button; dead air] watch on TV as
your sentence is carried out [more dead air]."38
Angry denials won't silence legitimate questions; even devout long-time
Bob-backers have started to doubt him. Each censored caller and every new
revelation raises the level of suspicion even further -- as a result, to
maintain the Ministry's cash flow level, Bob has to ride his remaining
supporters just that much harder. And now, our favorite Mafioso minister has
started his own spiritual protection racket, using 'shake-down tactics' worthy
of John Gotti to replenish his coffers:
"What you do in these next four minutes is not an option.
Did you hear me? It is not an option! God doesn't give you a
choice! If you have been blessed by this ministry ... you do
not have a choice. Give--and it will be given to you. That's
not a choice, that's a command! Most Christians don't under
stand that. They think that when the offering plate comes by,
that's an option. No, it is not an option. And that offering
plate's going under your nose right now! It is not an option,
unless-- you want your life to be cursed. Now that's what Mal-
achi 3 says: You rob God, you're gonna be cursed."39
Thus spake the Dapper Don, Bob Corleone: You give-a me money, or I breakka you
legs. God so loves a cheerful giver....
Ever since the WDIV incident, Larson's image consultants evidently have given
him strict orders to shut up. Gone are the passionate and entertaining tirades
against "enemies" who are out to destroy him and his ministry. Gone are shows
about atheists, witches and the occult. These days, he's even hard to listen to
on fast forward.
Clinton, abortion, and gays ... oh, my!
There are still ways to keep abreast of current developments in the world of
"Beelze-Bob," but those avenues are shrinking at an exponential rate. Larson
recently settled the age discrimination case filed by the undisputed star of the
WDIV report, Muriel Olson.40 If Larson stays true to form -- and he will --
Olson will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement, and yet another
incriminating 'voice' from the past will be silenced. Still, as this letter
from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attests, the evidence
remains:
"Charge No. 3209211626 [letter signed by Francisco J. Flores,
Jr., EEOC District Director, on December 31, 1992]
DETERMINATION
Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the
following determination as to the merits of the subject charge
filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Acts (ADEA) of
1967, as amended.
All requirements for coverage have been met. The Charging Party
[Muriel Olson] alleges that she was discriminated against in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, in that
she was discharged and paid less than other employees at her
level because of her age, 61.
Investigation reveals that Charging Party was hired as a word
processor, at age 56, on January 2, 1986. Charging Party was
later promoted to head of the word processing department and
trained subordinate word processors. Charging Party requested,
and Respondent [Bob Larson Ministries] agreed, to change her
title to Rewrite Editor. At this point Charging Party had dele-
gated all her other duties to subordinates. Charging Party's
sole duties were to rewrite and edit chapters of a book being
written by her employer. Charging party completed her work on
that book in March 1991. There were no other duties for Charg-
ing Party to perform and her position was eliminated."41
According to WDIV's Mike Wendland, despite this clear and unequivocal
confirmation of Ms. Olson's WDIV testimony, Bob Larson Ministries spokesman and
attorney James Rollin Miller told their counsel that if they had bothered to
look at Olson's suit against Larson in Jefferson County District Court, they
would have found that her claims to authorship were dismissed as without merit.
However, as Judge Polidori's order dismissing the case shows, the facts never
quite seem to square up with Bob Larson Ministries' press releases:
"Plaintiff's [Olson's] Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for
Relief are for conversion, unjust enrichment and accounting and
implied trust, respectively. Plaintiff alleges that her work
on the books produced by the Defendants was more than mere
editing; rather, the books were 'ghostwritten' by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asserts that she was never compensated for her liter-
ary product, and this constitutes conversion by the Defendants,
and that leaving proceeds of these works solely in the hands of
the Defendants would be unjust enrichment.
Ownership rights in literary products are governed by federal
copyright laws. Title 17 U.S.C. =201, reads, in pertinent part:
'(a) Copyright in a work protected under this title vests
initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors
of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work.
(b) In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or
other person for whom the work was prepared is considered
the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the
parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written
instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised
in the copyright.'
One of the definitions of 'work made for hire' is 'a work pre
pared by an employee within the scope of his or her employ
ment'. 17 U.S.C. =101.
Plaintiff alleges that she began as a supervisor in the word
processing department. Plaintiff acknowledges that she per
formed many other duties for Defendants, including working as a
re-write editor for Defendants books. There is no dispute that
the Plaintiff performed all of these duties as part of her
employment. As such, Plaintiff's contribution was 'work made
for hire', and any ownership rights lie with the Defendant.
Plaintiff's compensation came in the form of wages. Therefore
the Court would find that summary judgment is proper on the
Plaintiff's Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief."42
While the Court properly acknowledged that Muriel Olson was not the "author"
of the books she claimed to have written (e.g. Satanism: The Seduction of
America's Youth) for purposes of U.S. copyright law, it tacitly confirms the
EEOC's finding that she was indeed an author-in-fact. The Ministry paid her
salary -- while she was writing Bob Larson's books. And, as Olson's timesheets,
the EEOC, and internal Ministry memos43 attest, the time that Ministry employees
spent on Bob's books was quite substantial. Yet, this fact was conveniently
ignored on the Ministry's 1990 tax return.44
Either the books in question are, in fact, Ministry property (under 17 U.S.C.
=201, Bob Larson Ministries would be a co-author), and Larson's receipt of
royalties constitutes embezzlement, or time spent by employees on Larson's books
constitutes compensation to him (under 26 U.S.C. =61 and Treas. Reg.
=1.61-21(b)), and he has willfully signed a false tax return (see, 26 U.S.C.
=7206(1)). Either way you slice it, it still looks like a felony.
O-wim-o-weh, o-wim-o-weh, o-wim-o-weh, o-wim-o-weh....
While the 'Larson beat' has been remarkably quiet in recent months, there have
been a few curious developments. It seems that IBN vice-president Pam Koczman
and her husband John have filed for divorce.45 Koczman, a conservative Lutheran
pastor, reportedly confessed to members of his congregation that his wife's
purported infidelity was at least part of the reason for the break.46.
As we have learned from both the Anita Hill and Paula Corbin Jones affairs,
the fundamental problem with charges of sexual impropriety is that they
invariably boil down to a simple game of "he said, she said." Unless you
happen to catch them in flagrante delicto (like former Tilton aide and pastor
Dan Moroso, who pleaded guilty to having oral sex with a known prostitute, in
broad daylight, in an apartment complex parking lot47), or find spent condoms in
a divorced minister's personal garbage, one or both of the parties could invoke
the 'Bart Simpson defense': "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, and you can't
prove it!"
For our purposes, the question of who Pam may have become intimate with is
almost beside the point; the Koczman incident speaks to Bob's public rationale
for firing BLM vice-president (and, Dead Air author) Lori Boespflug. Larson
allegedly dismissed Boespflug for living with her fiance,48 not really sinful
per se, but such a relationship does give rise to a presumption of
Biblically-proscribed behavior. On the other hand, Boespflug insisted that she
was fired because she refused to 'put out' for Larson.49
Every divorce is a tragedy; we should not inquire into the whys and wherefores
any more than is absolutely necessary. I wouldn't say one word about it, except
for the fact that it puts Bob Larson in a delicate situation. Unconfirmed
reports have reached me that Pam Koczman (who, as Christianity Today's Timothy
Morgan reported last year, is a defendant in a sexual harassment suit50) has
moved in with her current paramour, even though her divorce is, at last check,
still pending. If these reports are true, and Larson, as he publicly insisted,
fired Boespflug for apparent adultery, then he is obliged to show Pam the door,
as well ... no ifs, ands, or buts.
Like sands in the hourglass....
_____________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES
1Bob Larson, "Talk-Back With Bob Larson" (hereinafter, "Talk-Back"),
Radio broadcast, 24 May 1994.
2Ibid., ibid.
3Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
4Bob Larson Ministries (hereinafter, "BLM"), 1990 Form 990, p. 3
(obtained by author from the Internal Revenue Service).
5BLM, 1990 Stewardship Report.
6BLM, 1991 Stewardship Report.
7BLM, 1992 Stewardship Report.
8Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
9Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 6 Apr. 1990, p. 2.
10Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 4 May 1990, p. 1.
11Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 11 Jul. 1990, p. 1.
12Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 6 Sept. 1990, p. 1.
13Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 9 Oct. 1990, p. 1.
14Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 7 Dec. 1990, p. 1.
15Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
16Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
17Ibid., ibid.
18Ibid., ibid.
19Ibid., ibid (first hour).
20Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
21Ken Smith, "Bob Larson: Patterns of Fleece" (Internet article),
March, 1994, pp. 3-4.
22Talk-Back, 27 May 1994.
23Fred Wheeler, Telephone conversation with author, Jul. 1992.
24Perucci Ferraiuolo (free-lance reporter; regular guest on Stewart
White's radio program), Telephone conversation with author, May 1994.
25Joe Maxwell, Telephone conversation with author, Aug. 1992 (see
also, note 33, infra.).
26Jay Grelen, Telephone conversation with author, Jan. 1993.
27Rick Salinger (KCNC news reporter, who worked with Wendland on the
recent NBC exposE of Larson), personal conversation with author, 13
May 1994.
28"Praise The Lord," Television broadcast, date unknown (some time in
Apr. 1994; an excerpt from the tape was used in Mike Wendland's WDIV
report on Larson).
29Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 2 Feb. 1994.
30E.g., Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 27 May 1994.
31"Bonnie" [Bell], Memorandum to "Bob" [Larson], 27 Jul. 1992.
32BLM, 1990 Form 990, p. 4 (see note 4, supra).
33A more detailed explanation of the estimate and how it was arrived
at can be found at Ken Smith, "The Two Faces of Bob," Christian Press
Report, Jun. 1993 (article available on Internet).
34Deed (filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, 11 Oct. 1985), Reception
No. 85098153.
35Deed of Trust (filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, 11 Oct. 1985),
Reception No. 85098159.
36Deed (filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, 29 Jan. 1987), Reception
no. 87012264.
37Talk-Back, 27 May 1994.
38Ibid., 10 Jun. 1994.
39Bob Larson, Talk-Back, __ May 1994.
40Olson v. Larsen [sic], No. 93-B-469 (D. Colo. July 11, 1994) (order
advising the Court that the parties reached a settlement).
41Francisco J. Flores, Jr. (EEOC District Director), Letter, 31 Dec.
1992.
42Olson v. Larson, No. 92 CV 2058 (Jefferson County (Colo.) Dist.
Ct. Dec. 18, 1992) (order granting summary judgment).
43See, e.g., Pam Koczman, Memorandum (to Bob Larson), 18 Aug. 1992;
the internal evidence concerning Larson's willful misuse of Ministry
resources to further his career as an author is examined in greater
depth in Ken Smith, "Bob Larson: Looking Out For Number One," avail
able on the Internet at FTP.MANTIS.CO.UK [see Scott Mikusko (MIKUS
KOS@MSU.EDU) if there are problems].
44Transactions between the Ministry and "related parties" (including
the Ministry's for-profit broadcast subsidiary, International Broad
casting Network) are required to be disclosed in accordance with IRS
regulations. The Ministry disclosed their purchase of broadcast time
from IBN during 1990 on Form 990, Schedule A [those who have my press
version see the Ministry's 1990 Form 990, Schedule A, p. 1 and Sched-
ule II attached], but it did not acknowledge any purchase of employee
services by Bob Larson -- either directly or through IBN.
45In re the Marriage of Koczman, No. 94 DR 508 (Jefferson County
(Colo.) Dist. Ct., filed 23 Feb. 1994).
46Name withheld by request, Telephone conversation with author, Apr.
1994; Lori Boespflug imparted knowledge of a purported affair between
Ms. Koczman and a co-worker to me back in June of 1992.
47Rebecca Sherman, "Fallen Angel: Former Tilton Aide Pleads Guilty to
Public Lewdness," Dallas Observer, Mar. 24-30, 1994, p. 9 (courtesy,
"Brother Randall" of Snake Oil magazine, who also enclosed a copy of
the arrest affidavit).
48Timothy Morgan, "Bob on the Block," Christianity Today, 17 May
1993, p. 74.
49Lori Boespflug, interview with author, 17 Jun. 1992 (see, Ken
Smith, "CT on the Block," Christian Press Report, __ Jun. 1993, for a
closer examination of the supporting evidence).
50Timothy C. Morgan, "Personnel Woes Persist at Larson Ministries,"
Christianity Today, 13 Sept. 1993, p. 62.
PART 12
Subject: Bob Larson: A Cry for Help
Date: 21 Feb 1995 09:52:23 -0500
From: Guerilla@voyager.cris.com (Guerilla)
Organization: Concentric Research Corporation
Smith v. Bob Larson Ministries - A Cry for Help.
As some of you know from my recent 'press release' on the subject, I sued Bob
Larson for libel in January of 1994. I have strictly avoided public comment on
the proceedings as they developed, for reasons which should be obvious to any
attorney in the audience.
We estimate that Larson has spent almost $250,000 in sacrificially-given
Ministry money in defense of this lawsuit -- despite my standing offer to take
our dispute to binding arbitration, settle out of court, or find some
less-destructive way to resolve it. In public, Bob kept haranguing his
listeners about how they were robbing God by not giving to his ministry, but in
secret, he was spending "God's money" on legal fees like a sailor on furlough.
And now, he's asking listeners to put a buck in an envelope and send it to
him.....
But Bob Larson wasn't satisfied with letting the matter die a natural death;
we're still battling it out. And this poor third-year law student isn't in the
position to spend $600 per hour on experts, $100+ per hour on private
investigators, and $10,000 in Westlaw charges. I need a little help in the
'discovery wars'; all I can do is turn to my friends on the Internet (and other
places), in the hope you might have useful information...
I'm Your Wicked Uncle Bobby??? In connection with the Larson lawsuit, I
recently attended the deposition of Fred Wheeler. At the end of a deposition,
the "defending" party can examine the witness; I wanted to determine if Gayril
Gibson's charge that Larson was a child-molester would surface at trial. Since
Wheeler had repeated the charge to me, he was the man to ask on the record. I
expected opposing counsel to object to my line of questioning on grounds of
relevance, but to my surprise, he reopened his examination:.
EXAMINATION (OF FRED WHEELER).
BY MR. WOOD (Larson's attorney):
Q. So Mr. Gibson told you that Bob Larson was a child molester?
A. Correct.
Q. Did he tell you why-- Did he tell you the basis for that
allegation?.
A. Yes.
Q. What was it?
A. He said that he had been working on a pornography thing on the
radio program, anti-pornography in Hattiesburg and that they had to check
out tapes, these, whatever they are, you know, I don't know how many X rated
they are, but you know, X rated, and anyway, he said that he had-- he had,
you know, some reservations about doing it because of his position as
Christian radio station owner in Hattiesburg and what people might say so he
said he contacted his attorney William T. Abbott who had also been Bob
Larson's attorney we found out and Bill Abbott had told him, well, don't
worry about it, Bob had a problem with pornography and that, you know, if
you just keep your mouth shut and it will just pass. So he said that's.
what he did. . . .
Q. Okay. So Mr. Gibson related to you that he was doing-- Mr. Gibson
was involved in doing a show on pornography, right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And Mr. Gibson related to you that in connection with that he had
to view X rated videotapes, is that right?.
A. At least one.
Q. At least one. Okay. And Mr. Gibson told you that he was
concerned about that?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Gibson told you that he talked to Bill Abbott about it?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Abbott related to Mr. Gibson that Mr. Larson had also had
a problem with pornography but had overcome it?
A. No.
Q. No. Okay. Why don't you clarify that part of the statement?
A. He stated that Mr. Larson had had a problem with pornography and
if you just kept quiet and just let it bypass, you know, if somebody says
something they'll forget about it. Did not say he would overcome it..
Q. So he said Mr. Larson had a problem with pornography?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. But that if you simply didn't mention it it would-- No one would
what?
A. It would pass.
Q. It would pass. What would pass?
A. Any stigma that you had with it.
Q. Okay. Now how does Mr. Larson's purported interest in pornography
related to him being a child molester?
A. Mr. Gibson stated that the-- the word-- that what he understood
the word on the street was that Bob because of the pornography was a
pedophile.
(question and objection omitted)
Q. (By Mr. Wood) Okay. Mr. Gibson stated to you because Mr. Larson
is interested in pornography he is a pedophile?
A. No. He said the word on the street was that Mr. Larson was a
pedophile.
Q. I see. The word on the street, so this was--
A. I don't know if he said on the street but--
Q. The rumor mill, would that be on the--
A. He said it with authority.
Q. He said it with authority?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. He said it with authority. And that was because the word on the
street or the rumor mill or whatever was telling him in Mississippi that Mr.
Larson was a child molester?
A. No. He said it as-- with authority as if he had inside or
intimate information on this.
Q. And did you inquire of Mr. Gibson as to the source of that
information?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You said how do you know that Mr. Larson is a pedophile, a child
molester?.
A. Yes.
Q. And what did he tell you?
A. He really didn't want to tell me.
Q. He really didn't want to tell you?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Did you press him to tell you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what did he respond?
A. He said it-- He didn't want to get anybody in trouble.
While the Gibson allegations are strictly hearsay, they fall within the
category of "pretty good hearsay" -- like the leak from the anonymous source
that gave us the Anita Hill hearings. Gibson had apparent access to one of
Larson's attorneys, whom former Larson vice-president Lori Boespflug referred to
as one of his closest advisors. As a result of that access, Gibson had knowledge
of the fact that Larson did not, in any meaningful sense of the word, write Dead
Air.2 Moreover, as the July 8, 1991 letter from Abbott to Larson3 concerning
Boespflug's role in the writing of Dead Air proves, it was information Abbott
was privy to.
As far as we know, Gibson did not have any other close contacts with Ministry
personnel. And of course, we all know that the legal profession consists of
nothing but saints. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Abbott was the source
of the other allegations.
Assuming Abbott as the source of the rumors, it can be inferred that the
disclosures were malicious. Accordingly, there are two hypotheses that
reasonably explain them: that they came from Larson in the normal course of
Abbott's representation of him, or they were fabricated from whole cloth.
The strongest argument for the "truth" hypothesis is that the rumors have come
from others unrelated to Abbott. Wheeler testified that he received similar
reports from three different and unrelated sources,4 and I have heard it from
one.
The hypothesis offers a plausible explanation for the demise of Larson's
romantic relationship with Boespflug, and also suggests a motive for the alleged
break-in at "Mrs. A's" home.5 The Salem letters seem to further corroborate
allegations regarding pornography: "Mrs. Boespflug has been known to have
brought sexual magazines into Mr. Larson's office to share with him and to keep
them in her office."6.
If Larson were a child-molester, it would also help explain a few of Lori
Boespflug's more peculiar remarks. When I passed on the information that
Larson's wife Laura had given birth, her first question was whether it was a boy
or girl. When I asked why, she said that "if it was a boy, he'd be totally
screwed up ... but if it was a girl, then, Heaven help her."7 Later on, when I
passed on the information that it was a girl, she related what her eldest
daughter Brenna reportedly had said: "Now he'll have a girl of his own to
molest."8 And at almost the beginning of our acquaintance, she told me she was
afraid to leave him alone with her kids.
The link between pornography and child-molestation is one Larson has.
tried to make on his broadcasts; it is at least arguable that it could.
stoke latent pedophilic tendencies. And with a close personal friend.
having the last name of Guccione, the link between pornography and Bob
Larson seems all but established.
If anyone has first-hand knowledge as to whether Larson has been (1) a heavy
user of pornographic materials, or (2) accused of or indicted for
child-molestation, or if anyone can provide information concerning
New Orleans-based attorney William T. Abbott, please contact me at the address
listed below, (or E-mail Scott Mikusko (a.k.a., the "Internet Guerilla") at
GUERILLA@cris.com). Thank you in advance for your help.
______________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES:
1Smith v. Bob Larson Ministries, No. 94-CV-121 (Jefferson County (CO).
Dist. Ct., filed 21 Jan. 1994), Deposition of Frederick Wheeler, pp.160-61;
163-66.
2Id., p. 158.
3William T. Abbott, Jr., Letter (to Bob Larson), July 8, 1991.
4Deposition of Wheeler at 173.
5See, Ken Smith, "As The Money Sucks," also available on the Net.
6Salem Letter #1, p. _ (see "As The Money Sucks" for a full cite).
7Lori Boespflug, telephone conversation with author, August 18, 1994.
8Lori Boespflug, telephone conversation with author, August 29, 1994.
_____________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1995 Kenneth L. Smith. All rights reserved. Copying is permitted
for non-commercial use only. Please direct your questions to the author at P.O.
Box 280305, Lakewood, CO 80228.
-----------------------------<GwD Command Centers>------------------------------
Chaos (806)###-#### | PCI (806)794-1438
GridPoint Durant (405)920-1347 | The Sprawl (806)797-0820
Federation Slayers' (806)885-2954 | Tacoland (215)750-0392
The Snake's Den (806)793-3779 | The Lagoon (203)638-3712
The Siege Perilous (806)762-0948 | Altered Reality (203)925-8349
Brazen's Hell (301)776-8259 | Cell Block 4 (806)612-8694
Pirate's Cove (806)795-4926 | Static Line (806)747-0802
PCI (806)794-1438 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp =-= etext.archive.umich.edu /pub/Zines/Greeny
ftp.fc.net /pub/deadkat/misc/GWD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/---------------\
Published by GwD, Inc. in September 1995 :FIGHT THE POWER:
GREENY world Domination Task Force copyright (c) 1993 by Lobo : GwD :
\---------------/
GwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwD47
