Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Greeny World Domination 048
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 13 & 14"
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 13
Subject: Bob Larson/ Lawsuit material
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 1995 18:37:30 GMT
From: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
[ Article crossposted from talk.religion.misc ]
[ Author was Guerilla ]
[ Posted on 23 Feb 1995 09:26:33 -0500 ]
DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. 94 CV 0121, Division 7
_________________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 56, C.R.C.P. (INCORPORATING
AUTHORITY)
_________________________________________________________________
KENNETH SMITH, Plaintiff,
vs.
BOB LARSON MINISTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Kenneth Smith respectfully moves this Court for an Order
dismissing Defendants' abuse of process claim pursuant to Rule 56(a), C.R.C.P.
AS GROUNDS, Plaintiff states:
1. The Defendants' current abuse of process claim is based solely on the
claim that I have purportedly misused written discovery.
2. To my knowledge, there has never been a single reported case holding
that the attempted misuse of written discovery constituted an actionable abuse
of process. See Debra E. Wax, Annotation, Abuse of Process Action Based on
Misuse of Discovery or Deposition Procedures After Commencement of Civil Action
Without Seizure of Person or Property, 33 A.L.R. 4th 650 (1984).
3. Written discovery is not susceptible to abuse, inasmuch as the victim's
obvious remedy is a mere two-word phrase: "Objection, irrelevant." See Osinoff
v. Muchnick, 385 N.Y.S. 583, 584 (N.Y.App.Div. 1976).
4. The hallmark of an abuse of process claim is the use of coercion to
obtain a collateral advantage -- in effect, a form of extortion. W. Page Keeton
et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts . 121, at 898 (5th ed. 1984).
Defendants do not allege that I have misused the discovery process in this
manner. More over, in the case of written discovery, such an extortion attempt
could not possibly succeed -- and even if one were foolish enough to try it, the
court could impose sanctions and attorney's fees.
5. While Colorado courts have not ruled on the question, a federal court
has ruled that the issuance of an extensive discovery request which "was not
exploited to obtain collateral advantage or used in any form of extortion" did
not constitute a "willful act" under the ambit of Arizona's abuse of process
law. Blue Goose Growers, Inc. v. Yuma Groves, Inc., 641 F.2d 695, 697 (9th Cir.
1981).
6. Indeed, the A.L.R. does not list a single case where it has been held
that mere discovery abuse, standing alone, constituted an actionable abuse of
process. 33 A.L.R. 4th 650, supra., but see, Nienstadt v. Wetzel, 651 P.2d 876
(Ariz.App. 1982) (discovery abuse, coupled with the filing of a "sham" motion
for protective order, willful failure to comply with an order to produce
documents, and other flagrant abuse of process, was sufficient to support an
independent tort claim).
7. "When discovery breaks down or the court determines that the discovery
process has been abused, the court may, in its discretion, impose various
sanctions including, but not limited to, an award of costs and attorney fees,
the exclusion of evidence obtained through misuse of the discovery process, or
the entry of dismissal or judgment by default." Watters v. Dinn, 633 N.E.2d
280, 289 (Ind.App.1 Dist. 1994) (flagrant abuse of formal discovery did not
constitute a tortious abuse of process; summary judgment granted). As existing
remedies are sufficient to deter discovery abuse, it is unreasonable to expect
that it would become a valid basis for an independent tort claim.
8. Courts have been far less charitable in situations where parties have
filed claims for the purpose of coercing an opponent into ceasing activities
unrelated to the purposes of the lawsuit. See e.g., Three Lakes Ass'n v.
Whiting, 255 N.W.2d 686 (Mich.App. 1977) (countersuit initiated for the
improper purpose of coercing plaintiff into discontinuing their opposition to
defendant's condominium project constituted an abuse of process).
9. As Dean Prosser notes, it is "what is done in the course of
negotiation, rather than the issuance or any formal use of the process itself,"
which constitutes the tort of abuse of process. Prosser and Keeton on Torts,
121 at 898.
10. Defendants have failed to identify damages specifically resulting from
the improper acts alleged, and it is unreasonable to believe they would ever be
able to do so. See Ann-Margret v. High Soc'y Magazine, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 401,
408 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (claims of damage to business reputation, loss of business,
and litigation expenses "do not constitute the type of interference with person
or property necessary to sustain an abuse of process claim").
11. Defendants have established a pattern of conduct which, in itself,
constitutes an abuse of process. First, they filed a frivolous abuse of
process counterclaim in this matter -- claiming that mere filing of a summons
and complaint was an actionable abuse of process. Second, they filed a
counterclaim for intentional interference with contract, which they made no
discernible attempt to prosecute, and have recently withdrawn with prejudice.
Finally, they filed the counterclaim in question here, presumably with full
knowledge that there was no credible precedential support for their position.
12. Defendants have used the aforementioned counterclaims -- in conjunction
with the psychological testimony they intended to extract in formal discovery --
in the attempt to extort an unconscionable settlement from me. Exhibit A.
13. A crucial element of Defendants' extortionate offer was the requirement
that I recant statements made concerning Larson in my previous articles for
distribution to the public. Exhibit A at 1-2. It is this explicit,
extortionate use of process that is the signal feature of tortious abuse of
process.
14. Defendants have stretched their "discovery as research" argument to
nonsensical extremes. For example, in the deposition of Defendant Bob Larson,
counsel objected to my inquiries regarding Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #33
(an excerpt from Larson's diary) on the grounds that I was trying to
authenticate it for my book. Counsel was, of course, aware of the fact that
that "document" is more than 1,000 words in length, and in cursive script;
anyone familiar with Larson's handwriting (including myself -- I have seen
enough of it) could authenticate it in a court of law. See, e.g., Edward J.
Imwinkleried, Evidential Foundations 39-38 (Michie Co. 1989) (1980). To even
suggest that I would need more for journalistic purposes is lunacy.
My purpose in asking about the diary was to show that it was in fact a
"diary" (and, by implication, that Defendants committed perjury in originally
denying its' very existence), and that Larson routinely recorded trivial details
therein. By implication, the fact that I was only mentioned seven times therein
-- and not once in connection with the supposed threats against him -- tends to
prove that Mr. Larson did not believe me to be involved in the incidents. (The
Exhibit, along with my scripted deposition questions, is attached at Exhibit B.)
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an Order granting the
following relief:
1. That the Defendants' abuse of process claim be dismissed
with prejudice (or in the alternative, that I be allowed
to add two claims for abuse of process and punitive dam-
ages);
2. That Defendants' claims for attorney's fees and costs be
denied, and
3. That appropriate sanctions be imposed, both upon Defen-
dants and counsel, pursuant to Rule 11, C.R.C.P.
Dated this _____ day of February, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth L. Smith
Plaintiff's address:
23636 Genesee Village Rd.
Golden, CO 80401
(303) 526-5451
+---------------------------------------+
| Reverend Modemac (modemac@netcom.com) |
+--------------+ "There is no black and white." +-------------+
| First Online Church of "Bob," A Subfaction of the Excremeditated |
| Congregation of the Overinflated Head of L. Ron Hubbard |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
FINGER modemac@cambridge.village.com for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!
PART 14
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson
Subject: Bob Larson: More True Lies
Date: 21 Apr 1995 17:46:31 -0400
Organization: Concentric Research Corporation
Lines: 424
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <3n993n$ock@voyager.cris.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: voyager-fddi.cris.com
Bob Larson: More True Lies
Okay. So, he looks more like Danny DeVito than Arnold Schwarzenegger. And
young wife Laura couldn't pass for Jamie Lee. But Reverend Bob Larson and his
Mighty Larson Art Players are at it again -- staging their own home-grown
adaptation of the box-office thriller.
[I have reported on recent developments in the Larson saga
in my newest pamphlet, Sympathy For The Devil. But as it was
written in tract format, and brevity was next to godliness, I
had to edit out a lot of the more intricate material.
I thought that serious Larso-philes (like Reverend Larson
himself!) might enjoy some of the left-overs.]
Fraud-Day the 14th:
Good Friday. It is the day when Christians observe Jesus' sacrifice on the
Cross. And, like most Christian organizations, Bob Larson Ministries took the
afternoon off. Still, unless you knew what to listen for, you wouldn't know it.
Reverend Larson learned long ago that when he replayed a taped show, donations
fell dramatically. So, he pioneered the concept of a re-air -- a show comprised
of pre-recorded callers and yet, made to appear as if it were live. He reads
canned scripts, which are then "dropped-in" or mixed into the final tape. The
net result is a show which appears, to the casual listener, to be live;
listeners are even invited to call into the program.
But at times, Rev. Larson's immaculate deceptions go a bit far. For example,
during one of Friday's pre-recorded drop-in segments, fifteen minutes into the
show, he made this plea for funds:
"Go on. Go call right now. And could you be the person we
need today to step forward? I mean, no one's done it yet.
Come on! We need a $500 Champion and a $1,000 Hero."1
Since it was a pre-recorded show, Rev. Larson would have had no way of knowing
whether anyone had given $500 or $1,000. Granted, it was true when it was
recorded, but that is beside the point.
Sometimes, it seems like every day is fraud-day at Bob Larson Ministries --
every month is "worse" than the one before, and almost every day, a financial
disaster. The March 6, 1995 letter to Ministry supporters was no exception:
"Unfortunately, in most cities the cost of air time and sat-
ellite services has continued to rise. At the end of each year
we have to renegotiate many of our station contracts. Station
expenses jumped drastically in 1995. To top things off, Janu-
ary and February have been our worst months ever."2
Reverend Larson gives his flock the same old song-and-dance -- even when the
Ministry had a profit of over $500,000.3 But as H.L. Mencken reportedly put it,
"you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the average
American." And, judging from his luxurious home and ski condo, Rev. Larson is
not about to go broke any time soon.
A Ministry That Tells the Truth?
It seems that the media had been getting to Rev. Larson lately. His recent
dog-and-pony show in Wichita was the "top story" on their local newscast.4 Our
report from Minneapolis was that he was greeted by at least one negative
newspaper article, and someone placed copies of my pamphlet, "The Two Faces of
Bob," in the offering plate.5 And after months of muted rumbling, on March 29,
1995, Rev. Larson finally blew his stack.
It was the same shtick as in earlier versions, where he claimed that he was
just a misunderstood man of God, making $69,000 a year, and his critics were
Satanically-inspired liars. Still, his most entertaining comments were these
made in response to a caller who asked about Cornerstone magazine's 1992 expos
of Mike Warnke:
"It [the magazine that exposed Warnke] was the same one who
published a bunch of lies about me. They tried to do the same
thing. They got Mike, and they said they'd get me, and came
after me.
They even went back to my home town, talked to people that
know me over thirty years ago, and get this-- who contradicted
some things that I say-- and they quoted them -- they aren't
even Christians -- went back thirty years ago, quoted them as
telling the truth, and called me a liar, when, in fact, those
people were lying.
But get this-- so-called 'Christians' quoted non-Christians
about their memory of thirty years ago, and presented them as
being truthful, juxtaposed against me being a liar! I mean,
that's the way this stuff works, Tim."6
That is the way investigative journalism works. Disinterested witnesses have
no reason to lie, and as such, are considered more likely to tell the truth.
And, as Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart demonstrated so graphically, even
ministers sin. As the old maxim goes, Christians aren't perfect ... just
forgiven. Christian reporters like Jon Trott can hardly be faulted for
doubting Rev. Larson's word. His perpetual pleas of poverty don't square
very well with the fact that Bob Larson Ministries has had a $500,000+ profit
over the last four years,7 and his claim to sole authorship of Dead Air is
inconsistent with courthouse admissions.8 And even where you can't check his
claims independently, they are often so inherently improbable that they bury the
needle on the B.S. meter. For instance, in response to a caller who asked how
much the ministry got in commercial advertising revenue, Rev. Larson claimed it
was minuscule:
"The national advertisers -- and there's just a couple of
those -- they do buy advertising on the broadcast. And we're
very grateful for that, and it provides a little bit of cash,
but it isn't ten percent of the satellite bill, let alone the
air time bill . . . it's nothing compared to what the overall
responsibilities are -- I mean, it's not even one percent."9
The Ministry's 1993 tax return lists network expense of $347,760;10 ten
percent of that is less than $35,000. Bob Larson Ministries runs ten scheduled
advertising spots each day, or roughly 2,500 spots per year. Therefore, the
cost of a one-minute national radio advertising spot on Talk-Back is less than
$14. To put that number in perspective, the cost of a one-minute advertisement
on KQXI (Larson's Denver affiliate) is $14-18.11 If Rev. Larson is telling the
truth, it is cheaper to buy national advertising from him than it is to buy
local advertising on just one of his nearly 200 affiliates. I suppose anything
is possible; it is just that some things are more possible than others.
Rev. Larson was able to attract some interesting sponsors, including a
manufacturer of herbal diet products and an investment house selling precious
metals. Still, by far the most intriguing member of Larson's 'rogues' gallery'
of commercial advertisers is Oklahoma-based Amerivision (d/b/a "LifeLine") --
which markets itself as a "Christian-based" long-distance [telephone] company.12
If you switch your telephone service to 'LifeLine', ten percent of your
long-distance bill13 is donated to the charity of your choice. If the
average consumer's monthly long-distance bill is $50 per month, then the
designated charity gets $5 per month ($60 per year). If only 500 people
signed up with LifeLine and named Bob Larson Ministries as their designated
charity, BLM would get $30,000 per year ... as much as Rev. Larson claims
to be getting from all three of his national advertisers combined!
To better promote Lifeline's services, Rev. Larson broadcast a full-blown
infomercial. And in response to his softball questions, company president
Freeney gave Larson's listeners the impression that LifeLine had a social
conscience and adhered to Christian values:
BL: "Why do companies like AT & T feel so compelled to support
homosexuality?"
TF: "They think there's a lot of profit in it. I think the
bottom line for corporate America is greed. They don't
care about morals in the country. They don't care about
anything but the bottom line, which is dollars in their
profit account."
BL: "And what does Lifeline care about?"
TF: "Well, let me tell you. Lifeline is seeking to help min-
istries. To help spread God's word. To help bring people
into the Kingdom. To help promote biblical family val-
ues...."14
Freeney further emphasized his organization's Christian ethic:
TF: "[O]ur company is built around the Lord Jesus Christ. And
we have in our company -- my partner Carl Thompson teaches
this every day -- we have a Bible study for 30 to 45 min-
utes where we study God's Word. We seek God's wisdom and
His direction...."15
But as is often the case with people that voluntarily associate with Larson,
reality doesn't quite appear to measure up to Freeney's press releases. In
response to a call by former Watchman Fellowship staffer Fred Wheeler,
Amerivision "spiritual leader" Carl Thompson left the following message on his
answering machine:
"Fred, this is Carl Thompson. I'm the president of Amerivi-
sion. You need to get a life. I don't want to hear from you
about Bob Larson. I don't want to hear about you from anybody.
I don't want your opinion. [Voice rising in anger] I don't
need to hear anything from you.
If your life is built around discrediting Bob Larson, you
need to get a life. Don't call us -- I don't care about your
opinions, I don't care about what you think. You just need to
go someplace else. [Voice continues to rise] If I don't make
myself clear -- I hope I do! My name is Carl Thompson! Quit
trying to discredit Bob Larson! I don't care what you think!!
Bye!"16
Amerivision is a company with a conscience ... which appears to have been
seared by insatiable greed. Reverend Larson is good for business; evidently,
they couldn't care less as to whether they are supporting a Christian
organization.
The Minister's Agenda:
According to Rev. Larson, a Minnesota reporter dredged up the tale of one of
his most embarrassing moments. In late 1991, he reportedly got kicked in the
mouth by Margo Hamilton's horse. He was treated and released the same night,17
but as is often the case, he turned it into a life-and-death struggle -- and a
poignant fundraising ploy:
KEEP THE VIDEO ALIVE!
January 27, 1992
Dear Friend,
It's hard to believe just a few weeks ago I nearly died!
I still remember lying in the emergency room, staring at
a blood-splattered ceiling, doctors scurrying all around me.
Moments earlier, a Flight for Life helicopter had flown
me from a lonely mountain road to a Denver hospital. I remem-
ber a paramedic saying, "He'll die if we don't stop the bleed
ing."18
Bob Larson, exaggerate? Never! Even if you cut the carotid artery, there
isn't enough pressure to splatter blood on the ceiling. And if Rev. Larson was
bleeding that profusely, there is no way he could have survived long enough to
get to the hospital.
Lori Boespflug, who claims authorship of that melodramatic fundraising
letter,19 confirmed that Larson was flown to Denver via Flight for Life.
However, the fact that he was released within hours is a strong indication that
he was never in legitimate danger of death. If he had suffered a substantial
loss of blood, there would have been a risk of shock ... and the hospital should
have kept him overnight for observation.
The tear-jerking letter continued:
"But it was a kick in the head by a horse that almost
killed me. Perhaps you heard the story. My beloved horse
Breezy was sick and Jeff, who works in our shipping depart-
ment, had gone to the stable to help her.
Later that same night I went to relieve Jeff. When I
arrived, he and Breezy were gone. I walked down a darkened
road to find them. Suddenly, another horse spooked and tried
to jump a fence. She got caught and was in danger of breaking
a leg.
I ran to rescue the horse and kicked at the fence to free
her. When I did, she reared up and came down on top of me.
Her hoof grazed my skull opening a huge gash. I staggered
down the road, dripping with blood, when Jeff found me....
My horse Breezy didn't live through the night, but I
did."20
One can just picture the heroic Wes Bryant-- I mean, Rev. Larson--risking life
and limb to save that poor horse. And three years later, we are treated to yet
another tale of his remarkable exploits:
"[Larson is reading from a fundraising letter] During one
recent weekend, I hosted Talk-Back on Thursday, and fought
rush-hour traffic afterwards, to catch a grueling flight to
Iowa. I checked into my hotel at midnight.
The next day, I was up early to prepare for Friday's broad
cast. That night, I braved a dangerous ice storm to hold a
rally -- even though the weather had closed every school in
the state. Iowa had shut down, but that didn't stop us!
The next morning, a staff member -- Patrick O'Shea -- and I
packed the van you see above. We drove three hours to our next
rally, as strong winds whipped at the car.
After the Saturday night rally, I got up at 4:00 AM the next
morning to catch an early flight, to get back to my home and
family...."21
The moral of the story, of course, is that he is a selfless man of God, but
too many people are believing his critics. Reverend Larson is an undisputed
master of fiction; it is just that his best work is wasted on fundraising
appeals.
Fly the Friendly Skies?:
Reverend Larson complained that he doesn't fly in Lear Jets ... but then
again, his knowledgeable critics have never accused him of that. However, he
has been criticized for apparently spending, for instance, $855 on a flight to
Cleveland, Ohio on October 22, 1992.22 The internal Ministry memo documenting
that charge was in the correct format, produced by a source that would not be in
a position to know what the proper format was for such a memo, and states, in
pertinent part:
"DEPART:
DENVER/CLEVELAND, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1992
CONTINENTAL FLIGHT #608 7:35 PM - 12:20 AM
737/SNACK/NON STOP
SEAT: 1E . . .
RETURN:
CLEVELAND/DENVER, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1992
CONTINENTAL FLIGHT #171 4:20PM - 5:28PM
727/DINNER/NON STOP
SEAT: 1B
AIR FARE COST: $855 FOR FIRST CLASS."23
The memo indicates that the flight schedule was verbally approved by "BL,"
according to "LA" (presumably Laura Larson, the former Ms. Laura Anderson).24
Former Ministry vice-president Lori Boespflug claimed that Rev. Larson was in
the habit of flying first-class, and even his diary refers to an incident where
he got mad "& flew first-class."25 Given the available evidence -- offset by
Rev. Larson's naked protestations to the contrary -- one could hardly be faulted
for concluding that he was in the habit of flying first-class. But in the final
analysis, that is entirely beside the point. Ultimately, the Bob Larson saga
boils down to one issue: accountability. Reverend Larson has repeatedly put
himself in positions which lend themselves to potential abuse. For instance,
like Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard,26 Larson owns the copyrights
to videotapes produced by the Ministry,27 even though the Ministry paid to
produce them.28 There is no bona fide business reason for such an arrangement
-- which invites abuse:
Assume Evangelist makes a $20,000 profit selling videotapes
during his 'road shows', and assigns that profit to the Minis
try. He gets $20,000 in taxable income, which shows up on his
personal income tax return.29 But when he turns over the cash
to the Ministry, he gets a $20,000 deduction for a charitable
contribution -- and he can say that he gave $20,000 of his own
personal income to the Ministry. And, if he decided to pocket
it instead, the Ministry couldn't legally stop him.
This 'videotape scam' borders on the sublime. The Ministry
puts up the cash, and takes all the risks ... but if the video
is successful, Evangelist could reap all the benefits. At the
very least, the Ministry would pay his tithe for him.
Bob Larson Ministries does not belong to the Evangelical Council for Financial
Accountability, nor is it formally accountable to any denomination. Moreover,
the Internal Revenue Service would never uncover a scam like this unless it were
specifically looking for it. Hence, the only assurance we have that Rev. Larson
is not opening up his own private bookstores at his rallies is that his
hand-picked Board of Directors is somehow minding the store.30
Reverend Larson continues to display an almost Tilton-esque fear of scrutiny.
Rather than confront his Christian critics head-on, Larson seems perfectly
content to continue throwing a steady stream of mud at them. And as he
acknowledged himself on Talk-Back, it is the cardinal rule of dishonest debate:
"A: When you can't deal with an issue, you attack ad homi-
nem -- you go at the person, you do what you can to discredit
them. B: If you don't have anything intelligent to say, you
hang up."31
If, as Rev. Larson insists, the "attacks" upon him and his ministry are
totally unfounded and without merit, the simplest and most effective way to
carry the day is to open up his books and records -- even to his critics. But,
then again, if his critics are right, the truth won't exactly set him free....
______________________________________________________________________
ENDNOTES:
1 "Talk-Back with Bob Larson" (radio broadcast), 14 Apr. 1995.
2Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 6 Mar. 1995, p. 2.
3See generally, Ken Smith, "Sympathy for the Devil?" (pamphlet), pp.
4-5 (also available on the Net).
4 "Talk-Back with Bob Larson" (radio broadcast), 29 Mar. 1995.
5A Larson aide reportedly ran down the aisle of the church, holding a
copy of the pamphlet aloft.
6"Talk-Back with Bob Larson" (radio broadcast), 29 Mar. 1995.
7Bob Larson Ministries and Compassion Connection, Inc., 1990-93 Forms
990, p. 1 (Compassion Connection is a consolidated subsidiary for pur-
poses of the Ministries' audited financial statements). BLM has not,
to my knowledge, released 1994 income figures.
8See, e.g., Larson v. Boespflug (Jefferson County (CO) Dist. Ct.) (No.
93 CV 442), filed 9 Apr. 1993.
9"Talk-Back with Bob Larson" (radio broadcast), 29 Mar. 1995.
10Bob Larson Ministries, 1993 Form 990, p. 3.
11Per Gale's (courtesy of the reference desk librarian at the Jeffer-
son County (CO) Public library).
12Terry Freeney (Amerivision executive), "Talk-Back With Bob Larson"
(Radio broadcast), 13 Oct. 1994.
13E.g., "Talk-Back with Bob Larson" (radio broadcast), 29 Mar. 1995.
14"Talk-Back With Bob Larson," 13 Oct. 1994.
15Ibid., ibid.
16Carl Thompson, Telephone conversation (on answering machine tape --
recorded from voice-mail by author, with permission of Fred Wheeler),
27 Sep. 1994.
17Lori Boespflug, Interview with author, 16 Jun. 1992; see also Jay
Grelen and Doug LeBlanc, "This Is Me, This Is Real," World, Vol. 7,
No. 32, 23 Jan. 1993, p. 10 (interviewing hospital spokesperson).
18Bob Larson, "Keep The Video Alive!" (Fundraising letter), January
27, 1992, p. 1.
19"This Is Me, This Is Real," p. 10.
20Bob Larson, "Keep The Video Alive!", p. 1.
21"Talk-Back with Bob Larson" (radio broadcast), 29 Mar. 1995.
22Kathy (Hendricks, Rev. Larson's secretary(?)), Memo (to Bob/Bonnie),
14 Oct. 1992.
23Ibid., ibid.
24Ibid., ibid.
25Bob Larson, Diary (in mss.), 29 Jan. 1991.
26Church of Scientology of California v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d 1310
(9th Cir. 1987).
27Reporter's Transcript, Larson v. Larson (Jefferson County (CO) Dist.
Ct.) (No. 91 DR 226), p. 87, ll. 13-14 (hereinafter, "Transcript").
Larson's expert witness (C.P.A. Brian Campbell) admitted during cross-
examination that he receives income from books sold on his evangelis
tic travels (p. 85, l. 21) -- and that he was not aware of any formal
agreement precluding him from exercising his copyright over the videos
(p. 88, ll. 2-4).
28Transcript, p. 87, ll. 6-9.
29During the cross-examination, witness Campbell concurred with this
analysis. Specifically, Campbell admitted that income from sales of
copyrighted videos could be charged to Larson (Transcript, p. 89, ll.
21-25), and his assignment of revenues would be a charitable contribu-
tion (p. 90, ll. 1-4) to the Ministry.
30And that is not much comfort. For example, it appears that in 1991,
Larson sold books to the ministry for a 50% profit:
"During 1991, the Ministry purchased books and materials tot-
aling $67,982 from an officer of the Ministry. The officer's
cost in the books and materials sold was $45,215." Bob Larson
Ministries, 1991 Audited Financial Statements, p. 8.
It should also be noted that no mention of the transaction was made on
the Ministry's 1991 federal tax return.
31"Talk-Back with Bob Larson" (radio broadcast), 24 Mar. 1993.
______________________________________________________________________
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 :
\---------------/
GwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwDGwD48
