Pastor_Chick Posted June 1, 2011 Author Share Posted June 1, 2011 [...]Personally, I can't say I had knowledge of this particular lawsuit. It is with great interest that I have read about it in these threads. I am not sure what they mean when they say that it does not apply to private-party lawsuits! sky sky, I can try to help you with the terminology. A "private-party lawsuit" is one where both the plaintiff and the defendant are not involved as a department or extension of the Federal government. The U. S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have been divided on their decisions when applying RFRA claims. That was why the 26th-rated law firm in the United States offered to take my case to the U. S. Supreme Court freely. They saw it having potential for being a "landmark case." The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against me because they opined that RFRA claims only apply when the Federal government is one of the parties to the lawsuit. The court did not deny that I had a "sincerely-held religious belief," but concluded that because trademark law is "neutral" in scope and application, I could not prevail on my defenses. I understand that "neutral law" means applying to everyone, like the Scripture that says, "...all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond..." (Rev. 13:16) It is very interesting to note that the SDA Church would NORMALLY have sided WITH me on the RFRA claim except that they were my adversary and could not. It was one more proof of their "double-minded" approach to "sustaining" their institutions. Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overaged Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 "One more "proof" says a lot. So far, the only "proof" I have seen is that you have fallen victim to a now aging conspiracy theory against the church. Quote "People [rarely] see...the bright light which is in the clouds..." (Job 37:21)"I cannot know why suddenly the stormshould rage so fiercely round me in it's wrathBut this I know: God watches all my pathAnd I can trust""God helps us to draw strength from the storm" - OveragedFaith makes things possible; it does not make them easy, Steps To Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted September 3, 2011 Author Share Posted September 3, 2011 Clear and responsible communication is cultivated over time with diligent effort. It is worth the invested energies. Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted September 25, 2011 Author Share Posted September 25, 2011 I came across this statement today. Quote: GOD has never established authority with any man, or any number of men, to declare what is final law for others, in matters of religious faith. Give this power to either the Governor of a State, or to the popular majority of a community, and such authority gradually becomes invested with a force that is sure, sooner or later, to be swayed oppressively. Men who stand with the minority, have a more vivid realization of this, than those on the opposite side. (Elder J. O. Corliss; The American Sentinel, 1890) Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 In case you missed this, it was dated December 23, 2010. Magistrate Judge Bryant filed his Report and Recommendation for contempt charges. Pastor McGill and Lucan Chartier are to receive fines and jail time. http://pastorwalterchickmcgilllawsuit.net/PDF/160reportandrecommendation.pdf Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresaq Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Is that document annotated by the church? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 Is that document annotated by the church? Teresa, I would like to answer your question, but not sure I have understood it. Please clarify. Thank you. Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresaq Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 The bible texts noted at the bottom of the page. Did the court put those in, which would be a violation of church and state, or did the church put them in, which would be prejudicial in their favor? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 The bible texts noted at the bottom of the page. Did the court put those in, which would be a violation of church and state, or did the church put them in, which would be prejudicial in their favor? Teresa, Ah, thank you. Actually, they were the judge's footnotes. I objected to that in my response, along with many other apparent judicial blunders. Here is a PDF of my filed objections: http://pastorwalterchickmcgilllawsuit.net/PDF/REPORTandRECOMMENDATION_Objections.pdf Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresaq Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda) The bible texts noted at the bottom of the page. Did the court put those in, which would be a violation of church and state, or did the church put them in, which would be prejudicial in their favor? Teresa, Ah, thank you. Actually, they were the judge's footnotes. I objected to that in my response, along with many other apparent judicial blunders. Here is a PDF of my filed objections: http://pastorwalterchickmcgilllawsuit.net/PDF/REPORTandRECOMMENDATION_Objections.pdf That's not good, not good at all. Seems to me the judge should have stuck strictly to the law instead of selecting which bible texts to inflict on another. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresaq Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Then again there is every possibility the judge intentionally gave you grounds for an appeal, if that is possible in your case, given what I read in your response. Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 That's not good, not good at all. Seems to me the judge should have stuck strictly to the law instead of selecting which bible texts to inflict on another. Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemy Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 These people should be able to put whatever they want on a billboard as long as it is all legal. Harold Camping used billboards and the internet for his false prophecies. The GC should have left them alone. Quote Luke 12:32 NKJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor_Chick Posted December 9, 2011 Author Share Posted December 9, 2011 These people should be able to put whatever they want on a billboard as long as it is all legal. Harold Camping used billboards and the internet for his false prophecies. The GC should have left them alone. Thank you for your comment, Alchemy. It is true that much needless expense and heart-ache could have been avoided. We are still awaiting the Court's decision about civil contempt matters pending for me and Bro. Luke Chartier. We are going on one year without any word. Has the GC thrown in the towel? I think not. Is the Court still "in a box?" I rather think so. May the God of Heaven be vindicated in the end! Quote Chick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 You ask that question as though Adventistm has invented a certain Christian principles for sale. If someone wants to to open up an SDA Church, or any church I am more than OK with that. That's what this country is all about. SDA should never have monopoly over religious practices. What GC fears is that if few churches open up that are not under its control, then the tithes all of a sudden don't have to trickle up to CG. It looses control. That's why it has to hammer down on any independent churches that may open up. Name me any other denomination that would do that? Sad but true. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 It makes me think of Windows and Mac (shoot me if this is a bad parallel): If Apple hadn't been so proprietary about the Mac system, we would probably all be using Macs now. Does this have a parallel in trademarking a church's name? I think it might. We need to show we are Christians by our love; we need to make it easier for people to learn Bible truth - and maybe that means a variety of churches who carry the name; we need for people to know us by our service to others and not by our court cases. so true sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen The real problem was this. They were impersonating the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That's not the real problem. The real problem is a religious institution invoking corporate laws created by government for financial institutions, and uses them to monopolize a religious faith. Basically, GC decided to define an SDA believer as the one who is affiliated with GC. If you are not affiliated with GC and you call yourself Seventh Day Adventist... it's grounds for a lawsuit. Well put. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Thank you fccool. I think you are on to something very significant. I also want to respond to LD here. Quote: I have always wondered what Jesus would do in this situation. The answer seems clear from Scripture: And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:38-40) Right on! sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Apples goal is to make money, not get full market share.. They have about 80% of the industries profit. They have about 95% of the share of high end (over $1,000) computers... They also do not allow other computer companies to call themselves apple computers, and leech off of their good name. Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 It is wrong to impersonate a company and it is just as wrong to impersonate a Church. Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: Pastor_Chick There is a fair amount of reading, and I think it is both interesting and sad. I wonder why I cannot find anything in the Adventist periodicals about this? Do you suppose the GC wants to keep this away from the constituency? Is that a rhetorical question? I think rather that it is a very good question. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 It is wrong to impersonate a company and it is just as wrong to impersonate a Church. A church that has become a financial corporation, a trademark? Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: fccool I don't think this is a question of whether or whether you should trust GC with your money. I have no doubt that people who comprise it are not out in it for the money. I think we certainly should question any organization that would put self-preservation above any moral ideals that it claims to stand for. I'm with you 100%,cool.It's not the money!! If it is not the money what is it then? You can differ in theology in this church as much as you want but as soon as the tithe becomes an issue the dead rise from their graves as it were. sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyblue888 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Originally Posted By: LynnDel It makes me think of Windows and Mac (shoot me if this is a bad parallel) I think a better example is that of a franchise. Something like Burger King or McDonald's. If you want to own one of these restaurants you have to serve the menu they dictate and pay them fees. The Adventist church has a mission to carry the Three Angels' Message to the ends of the Earth. That requires a world-wide organization. We are not set up like congressional churches because we are not one. We have a much higher calling. We are preparing the way of the Lord by making His path clear. Those that don't want to be part of this world-wide structure should separate themselves from it and choose another name. The Lord Himself has told us that if we allow this order of things to continue (men having put God aside and accepted the devisings of men) our faith would soon become extinct. The only "structure" that will stand the test is that which is founded upon the truth and not upon the devisings of men. (T.M.481,366,360-363) sky Quote "The merits of His sacrifice are sufficient to present to the Father in our behalf." S.C.36. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresaq Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I wonder when is it ok to take on an identity that one is not... Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.