Subpoena outs blogger in church row

posted at 9:56 am on April 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

An anonymous blogger has been outed by law enforcement in Jacksonville after angering a local pastor with close ties to the Sheriff Department.  A series of false accusations about stalking and mail fraud allowed Detective Robert Hinson, who also works on the security detail for Rev. Mac Brunson to force Google to reveal Thomas Rich’s name.  Rich has been expelled by the First Baptist Church and publicly criticized, but Rich wants to know how Hinson got the subpoena in the first place:

A blogger critical of First Baptist Church Pastor Mac Brunson wants to know why his Web site was investigated by a police detective who is also a member of the minister’s security detail.

Thomas A. Rich also wants the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office to explain what suspected crimes led Detective Robert Hinson to open the probe into his once-anonymous Web site.

Rich also wants to know why Hinson revealed his name to the church despite finding no wrongdoing. Hinson obtained a subpoena from the State Attorney’s Office requiring Google Inc. to reveal the author of the blog.

Rich’s unmasking led to an eventual trespass warning banning the longtime member and his wife from First Baptist, despite the fact that Brunson and a top church administrator conceded the blog never threatened violence.

In fact, Rich used his blog to question a number of practices in the church, among them the pastor’s large salary ($300,000), his wife’s sinecure for additional salary, and accepting a land grant as a personal gift from members of the congregation.  Rich kept himself anonymous in order to protect himself and his wife from retaliation.  While people can debate whether that was a good choice, no one can argue now that he was being paranoid.  The church has not only expelled his family, they have a trespass order against Rich and his wife, and they’ve published a letter to the congregation informing them of Rich’s “sins”.

The Jacksonville Sheriff Department insists that Hinson did nothing wrong, despite finding no evidence of any wrongdoing.  Rich never threatened anyone on the blog, but Hinson said that the anonymous criticism and certain vague and anonymous allegations — for which the JSO has no evidence or documentation now — warranted an investigation, including a subpoena to force Google to reveal his identity. The investigation found no wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of Rich, but then again, it looks like the point was to out Rich and humiliate him as a punishment for daring to criticize Brunson.

Let’s accept for a moment that Brunson’s and Hinson’s allegations were true.  If so, the case should not have been handled by a detective with the very large conflict of interest that Hinson had in this case.  He’s moonlighting for Brunson; what’s he doing conducting an investigation into Brunson’s critics? It looks a lot less like a legitimate verification of security than it does a way for Brunson to co-opt law enforcement in order to protect what looks like a very sweet deal at First Baptist Church of Jacksonville.

Brunson called Rich a “sociopath” for criticizing him, but the scary one in this scenario is the minister who can apparently call on the JSO to act as his hatchet men to silence criticism.  The people of Jacksonville might want to check out their Sheriff Department and determine exactly whom and what they serve — the people of Jacksonville and justice, or a rich pastor who can’t afford criticism.

Update: Unfortunately in this day and age, churches do have a legitimate concern about security, so I don’t fault First Baptist for having a security detail.  Bloggers writing criticisms about church practices aren’t a legitimate security concern, though, and they’re certainly not a legitimate concern for law enforcement.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Where are the lawyers? I smell a law suit…

Dr Evil on April 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Another great day for free speech.

blatantblue on April 19, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Well, Ed, at least you don’t have to worry about having your cover blown! You’re quite the open book blogger!

blatantblue on April 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM

i guess i’m wondering how the church can “expell” him? what sin? I’m an Episcopalian & we still have the gay bishop in New England. The Catholic Church still has Nancy Pelosi.

is this church intolerant or what?

kelley in virginia on April 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM

I think that Obama has finally found his new church home and new pastor.

Mojave Mark on April 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM

and yeah, the secrecy of the blogger bothers me, too.

but yes, the mess stinks–i do agree with that.

kelley in virginia on April 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM

300 large a year? For a “Man of God” to lead his flock?

Good work if you can get it I suppose, but something tells me that congregation’s cumulative IQ falls short of three digits.

Bishop on April 19, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Where are all the nutz that read separation of Church and State into the Constitution?

Wade on April 19, 2009 at 10:05 AM

I’m sad because this reflects poorly on my Lord’s name and his followers.

burnitup on April 19, 2009 at 10:07 AM

Just like Joe the Plumber. Question someone with friends in the right government offices, and your identity or personal life suddenly become newss.

Wethal on April 19, 2009 at 10:07 AM

kelley in virginia on April 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM

LOL Well there’s certainly no secrets surrounding Gene Robinson–he gets more publicity than Meghan McCain does on Hot Air.

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Off to the seminary. later guys

/sarc

Jamson64 on April 19, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Thanks for the report on this. I live really close to Jacksonville but I only get the paper on weekends, this story has been clear as mud. Although I am personally Switzerland on First Baptist Church, people need to understand that they are HUGE. Not only in members but in property ownership. I am surprised that this minister had the clout to pull this off though, because relatively speaking he is a newcomer. In Jacksonville all the churches are packed on Sunday, even those with nationally diminishing populations and most do really great community outreach. As big as this church is I am not sure that it is going to get out of this situation unscathed and JSO doesn’t need any more bad press either. They get plenty already.

Cindy Munford on April 19, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Another black eye for organized religion.

Jamson64 on April 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM

If it’s a legal subpeona, Google is in the clear. Then again, wasn’t Google ready to go to the Supreme Court to prevent the Bush Admin from knowing the IP addresses of terrorist communities on the net? Need some help recalling those details. Anyway, the thin-skinned pastor/sheriff cabal stinks to high hell.

Western_Civ on April 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Oh, and while I’m about it, is it common for large churches to have “security” details? I’ve never heard of this.

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM

i guess i’m wondering how the church can “expell” him? what sin? I’m an Episcopalian & we still have the gay bishop in New England. The Catholic Church still has Nancy Pelosi.

is this church intolerant or what?

kelley in virginia on April 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Kelley, I think the Episcopal Church just defrocked a woman priest in Seattle who had converted to Islam, but thought she could continue to serve as a priest and somehow combine the two faiths.

Wethal on April 19, 2009 at 10:13 AM

So, how long before someone starts a new blog in that community, discussing the relationship between the preacher and the Sheriff’s office, and maybe atteding the church to collect information? Seems the Pastor has opened an invitation to crate a whole new blogging genre. I’m betting it would make for some good local ad sales for a year or so.

MikeA on April 19, 2009 at 10:14 AM

I’m thinking that if the pastor needs a security detail, there is a problem there; either the church has gotten too big or the pastor too powerful. Or something, it just seems odd to me.

Bishop on April 19, 2009 at 10:14 AM

An anonymous blogger has been outed by law enforcement in Jacksonville after angering a local pastor with close ties to the Sheriff Department.

WOW

What a drag!

Nothing like a corrupt Christian abuse of powers to fuel an ironic backlash for the Feds to look into every church as suspect.

If only this particular Baptist preacher were Democrat.

I suppose the ACLU will come to the defense of the blogging excommunicated member aka injured party.

maverick muse on April 19, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Where are the lawyers? I smell a law suit…

Dr Evil on April 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Big time. The Detective had no legitimate reason to release Rich’s name to anyone. He may have been fine to investigate, it’s another thing to release information. Olympic bombings in Atlanta ring a bell?

Rocks on April 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Wethal on April 19, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Well good to know that their are boundaries.

Cindy Munford on April 19, 2009 at 10:19 AM

I am popping the corn.

Cindy Munford on April 19, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Well good to know that their are boundaries.

Cindy Munford on April 19, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Not really. They are about to, or already have elected a Buddhist as a Bishop.

Rocks on April 19, 2009 at 10:21 AM

who had converted to Islam, but thought she could continue to serve as a priest and somehow combine the two faiths.

Wethal on April 19, 2009 at 10:13 AM

I just laugh so hard when I think of that lady.

blatantblue on April 19, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Very odd that a judge would sign on for this. I’d be asking who.

AnninCA on April 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Wethal on April 19, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Yes they did. The Seattle? woman whose name I forget was under the jurisdistion of the RI diocese since that is where she was credentialed. Geralyn Wolfe(sp?)the Episcopal Bishop of RI was responsible for her(Seattle’s)carefully thought out removal. Wolfe did the right thing. She gave the woman a year to find the path she wished to take. In the end the woman still asserted that one could be Muslim and Christian simultaneously.

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Rocks on April 19, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Why don’t they just change to Unitarians? Isn’t that the one that believes in all faiths or none but they celebrate together?

Cindy Munford on April 19, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Ah, the Religion Page — my favorite of the week.

The Baptist church down the street had something similar happen, in which the parsonage wound up being owned by the pastor. When the pastor and the church parted ways, a for sale sign went up on the parsonage, and it was sold to a third party. It’s now back to being a parsonage (after the third party sold it back to the congregation), but the net result is that the pastor got one hell of a severance package, given that all this happened here in lovely Culver City, CA during the California real estate boom.

I thought us Catholics were immune to this sort of thing, but apparently (in a weird twist of local law which Baptists will cheer) not so. A Catholic church which isn’t in the Catholic Church?

Of course, for the Episcopals, the winds blow the other way in California.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2009 at 10:25 AM

None of us are anonymous, except to the general public. Anyone who gets on has to know that they risk being outted at anytime. That said, the PD and AG need a good stiff monetary lesson from the blogger for the witch hunt. The agents of government need to learn to stay in their own yard and not crap on mine.

Limerick on April 19, 2009 at 10:25 AM

the scary one in this scenario is the minister who can apparently call on the JSO to act as his hatchet men to silence criticism

To me, the scary one is the JSO, for making itself, or allowing itself to become the hatchet men.

petefrt on April 19, 2009 at 10:26 AM

This is the kind of behavior that drives people from churches. It’s all too common – the overpaid pastor (who eventually gets a “calling” to some paradise church and leaves the congregation hanging), the groupie congregation who will do anything for the pastor, the substitution of gossip for the gospel: it’s why people leave, and often not for just a different church.

Upsetting.

P.S. My church has a police officer who directs traffic for us; is that what this guy’s job was? I can’t imagine an actual security detail. Maybe I’m too provincial.

emailnuevo on April 19, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Although I am personally Switzerland on First Baptist Church, people need to understand that they are HUGE. Not only in members but in property ownership. I am surprised that this minister had the clout to pull this off though, because relatively speaking he is a newcomer. In Jacksonville all the churches are packed on Sunday, even those with nationally diminishing populations and most do really great community outreach. As big as this church is I am not sure that it is going to get out of this situation unscathed and JSO doesn’t need any more bad press either. They get plenty already.

Cindy Munford on April 19, 2009 at 10:11 AM

a church with deep pockets and a law enforcement abuse of authority. There’s a combo to make any civil rights attorney’s eyes gleam with anticipation. I;ll bet the alleged victim has plenty of retainment offers from which to select.

a capella on April 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM

P.S. My church has a police officer who directs traffic for us; is that what this guy’s job was? I can’t imagine an actual security detail. Maybe I’m too provincial.

emailnuevo on April 19, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Remember that large chuch in CO in which a guy with a shotgun was shot and killed by the female former police officer a couple of years ago? The guy had shot up another church, then drove to this one and shot two or three members of the congregation before he was killed? That church had a security apparatus complete with CCW.

a capella on April 19, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Southern Baptist churches are autonomous–there are no bishops or dioceses that control what happens in the local church, although most churches that call themselves Southern Baptist do adhere to the Baptist Faith and Doctrine and cooperate (autonomously) with other churches through either the Southern Baptist Convention or the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Any congregation can expel anyone, I suppose (although forgiveness and reconciliation should be the words of the day for any SB church). But that’s just from the congregation. You can’t be excommunicated from the Southern Baptist Church. He and his wife can attend any other Southern Baptist church he wants to attend. And there are probably many congregations out there in the Jacksonville area who would welcome them.

bamaconservative on April 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM

kelley in virginia on April 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM

No, the church is not “intolerant”, rather, the pastor of this church sounds like a power/control freak who will use whatever he can to keep his congregation “in line”. I’ve known pastors like this, and had to report one to a local sheriff for email harassment once. It happens. Sometimes these guys get power mad and they need to be taught a lesson. The only mistake the blogger made, in my opinion, was to remain a member of the congregation. If it were me, though, I’d be filing a lawsuit against the church, the pastor, and the sheriffs dept, not to mention bringing this up to the powers to be over this church.

jdawg on April 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Unfortunately it’s pastors like this that make the headlines, thereby providing fodder for the anti-religionists.

That said, this particular case stinks on a number of different levels, the most alarming aspect being the abuse of office by the Sheriff’s Dept. to get a warrant in the first place. I hope there is a law suit for monetary damages against the Sheriff and the state AG’s office.

cruadin on April 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM

This was a horrible abuse of power, but I hope it doesn’t get harped on as a example of how oppressive the Church is. It’s not representative.

Sir Corky on April 19, 2009 at 10:41 AM

i guess i’m wondering how the church can “expell” him? what sin? I’m an Episcopalian & we still have the gay bishop in New England. The Catholic Church still has Nancy Pelosi.

is this church intolerant or what?

kelley in virginia on April 19, 2009 at 10:02 AM

It’s being discussed whether Episcopalians are even christians at all, Kelley.

Proper, biblical, God-honoring churches do practice church discipline. However, in this case…

300K??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? ugh. This is the kind of garbage that makes me ill. Way to blur those lines there, buddy.

Here is something I think shows real, true Christian faith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTc_FoELt8s&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

I urge you to watch it. All of it.

Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 10:41 AM

Oh, and while I’m about it, is it common for large churches to have “security” details? I’ve never heard of this.

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM

A lot of larger churches do, but not for the reason this church had one, apparently. The church my wife and I attend have a security detail, but they do things like keep an eye on the cars in the parking lot to make sure no one breaks into them, or make sure no one takes off with someone else’s child, that kind of thing – not as a bodyguard for the pastor, or a pastoral “goon squad”.

jdawg on April 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Another black eye for organized religion.

Why is that? The religion isn’t the problem. It’s the people that are the problem. It’s like saying guns are the problem not the people shooting other innocent people.

watson007 on April 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM

a capella on April 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM

This church is that big. I don’t know how big of a hit in membership it would have to take to put a dent in it. I don’t think this has played out yet and I don’t know if any damage control is possible. I am sure every attempt will be made to minimize the damage.

Cindy Munford on April 19, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Very odd that a judge would sign on for this. I’d be asking who.

AnninCA on April 19, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Wanna bet whether he is in the congregation too?

conservnut on April 19, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Sounds like a bunch of Obama supporters to me.

/stirs

Midas on April 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Another black eye for people who fancy themselves God.
Jamson64 on April 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM

FIFY.

BKennedy on April 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM

That church sure has changed over the years. IIRC, during the Lindsey years, senior and junior never lived the high life like this current preacher. Hell, they lived a life of squalor compared to this guy. That blogger’s concern seems legit to me. I hope he does file a lawsuit against the church and the city.

Alan on April 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Oh, and while I’m about it, is it common for large churches to have “security” details? I’ve never heard of this.

Unfortunately in this day and age it’s not uncommon, given that churches have been targeted by many lone nuts over the last few years.

There was the 2005 Living Church of God shooting in Wisconsin.

There was the 2007 New Life Church shooting in Colorado.

There was the 2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist shooting in Tennessee.

There was the 2007 Neosho First Congregational Church shooting in Missouri.

And last month there was the Marysville First Baptist Church shooting in Illinois.

In addition to the threat of crazed individuals looking to make a name for themselves by attacking a public place where they expect to find large numbers of unarmed victims, churches are also prime targets for burglary due to the large amount of audio and video equipment they usually have, musical instruments such as guitars that can be easily fenced, petty cash that might be kept in the church office, as well as cash received during Sunday services that might be locked up inside the church until someone makes a bank run on Monday. There are often parking and traffic control issues that have to be dealt with as well.

So, no, it’s not uncommon at all for churches to have to have someone in charge of security operations. Usually these people are police officers who are members of the church. Sometimes they volunteer. Sometimes they are paid. The size of the church is usually what determines whether they are paid or not.

Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM

None of us are anonymous, except to the general public. Anyone who gets on has to know that they risk being outted at anytime. That said, the PD and AG need a good stiff monetary lesson from the blogger for the witch hunt. The agents of government need to learn to stay in their own yard and not crap on mine.

Limerick on April 19, 2009 at 10:25 AM

No, it is possible to remain anonymous. You don’t have a profile with a web page, so nobody knows who you really are, Limerick. Only the proprieters know, and they aren’t telling.

I’m not into secrecy and a disconnect between my content and myself, but some are. For them, there are ways of assuring a disconnect between your content and yourself that only a search warrant executed via INTERPOL can breach
.
The error here was using US-based services. For a US person to get anonymity, they obtain their domain name and server rentals overseas in a country immune to a US search warrant, and there they are. Most registrars have anonymizer services (which are supposedly there to prevent you from being spammed), wherein the registrar buys your domain name with itself as nameholder, “leases” it to you, and then you get to administer the name. Ditto for hosting services — you go to Germany or Sweden (far outside the reach of US law) and contract with a hosting service to put up a blog. You point your domain name at the server you’ve rented, and viola!

Whether Hinson did something wrong or not ought to be determined in a court of law — perhaps as a civil suit. The situation does not pass the smell test — this is certainly an instance where Hinson used color of law on behalf of his pastor to persecute another member of his church. That a “trespess warning” was issued indicates that the pastor has the backing of the rest of the congregation, now owns the church property, or has filed a legal document without the standing to do so.

This sound like it will be an interesting court case. Hopefully the media will continue to track it.

unclesmrgol on April 19, 2009 at 11:02 AM

It gets even better further into the story. It’s amazing to me that the investigation files were shredded and the subpoena cited no reason for the request for a signature of the judge. What the heck? With over 200 years of American legislative and jurisprudence review behind us, we still have a municipality that operates like this — as though the potential for government misconduct is some new development in society? There ought to be a law that requires probable clause be included on subpoena’s so the judge signing the subpoena knows what it is. Jeez, maybe what this country needs is a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect against this kind of abuse of governmental power … oh wait.

If this story pans out as accurate, Hinson should be fired, his direct superior should be fired, and, if different, so should the Sheriff (or recalled if it’s an elected position.)

Rich should, at the very least, sue the city for damages and Brunson for his “sociopath” slander and, if, in the discovery process, finds any vestigial files indicating Brunson offered misrepresentations to the Sheriff’s office in order for them to investigate, then add that too, not to mention considering filing false charges.

Dusty on April 19, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Jesus is suspiciously absent at that ‘church,’…ya’ think.

apco on April 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM

I hate people who blog anonymously under fake names.

(Or used to, anyway.)

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 19, 2009 at 11:05 AM

What an incredible conflict of interest. You’d think a man of the cloth would understand the problem of serving two masters. But because he’s trying to cover his own a**, that concept goes out the window. It’s stunning how leaders in all areas of life are oblivious to the concept of conflicts of interest. This pastor should be ashamed of himself, though I know he won’t be. And this sheriff should be dismissed–but that’s up to the residents of Jacksonville.

An interesting subplot: what about this land gift to the pastor? As a federal taxpayer, I want the IRS asking the pastor for the names of his donors. Then, I want the IRS confirming that these donors didn’t try to deduct a personal gift to the pastor as a charitable deduction. And if a donor’s individual gift exceeded the gift tax annual exclusion, the IRS should be determining whether these donors have filed gift tax returns for their gifts to the pastor. Let’s see how much integrity these church memmbers really have.

BuckeyeSam on April 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM

It’s being discussed whether Episcopalians are even christians at all, Kelley.

That was something of an unkind and and un-Christian thing to say. I’m sure Kelley, as do I, sees heself as Christian as any of you. If your defintion differs, then it appears that any ‘discussion’ of levels of Christian thought and doctrine might be your issue and not ours?

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM

[BuckeyeSam on April 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM]

Both great points.

Dusty on April 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Thank you for posting this, Ed. You are my hero.

Squid Shark on April 19, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Folks, if you think about a Florida preacher having the ability to send the cops after you for talking negativly about him on a website, try to get your mind around the concept of rooms full of federal agents reading all the things we all say about Obama. Chilling. But you gotta know it is happening.

MikeA on April 19, 2009 at 11:12 AM

If anyone is curious as to what criminal activity this blogger committed you can check out the blog as it is still up…

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/04/times-union-jso-and-fbc-jax-troubling.html

I’m not promoting it in any way, I was just curious and you can decide for yourself.

Deanna on April 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Says a lot about the author of that statement, doesn’t it? That tolerance thingy seems to have gotten lost somewhere.

a capella on April 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM

a capella on April 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Am not joining in your point of view either. My opinion of these kinds discussions is simply that they are better left un-discussed. And..it’s partly my fault for having made that crack about Gene Robinson. That was unkind and un-Christian and I’m sorry I made it. I’ll try to do better in the future.

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 11:28 AM

It’s being discussed whether Episcopalians are even christians at all, Kelley.

That was something of an unkind and and un-Christian thing to say. I’m sure Kelley, as do I, sees heself as Christian as any of you. If your defintion differs, then it appears that any ‘discussion’ of levels of Christian thought and doctrine might be your issue and not ours?

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Says a lot about the author of that statement, doesn’t it? That tolerance thingy seems to have gotten lost somewhere.

a capella on April 19, 2009 at 11:16 A

Jeanie, biblical authority has been tossed out the window, homosexuals are ordained, some are calling abortion a “gift”…so, spare me the lecture and look around you.

I am talking about the Anglican communion. You have African primates taking over communions here in the US because they are flocking out of the shame of a church. Do you not follow the christian community at all? These are believers who are desperate for truth and have to break fellowship IN HEARTACHE because they know the Episcopalian church has abandoned the faith.

Unchristian? No. It’s the truth. The bible is pretty specific. American Episcopalians have strayed. Thus, the chatter over whether the Episcopalians are even a Christian denomination any longer.

Christians are not to tolerate sin. We are to kill it within us through the Holy Spirit’s power. We tolerate (as in, live near and associate with) non christians by virtue of living in this world. The church’s entire BUSINESS is sanctification. We are to expel those who are unrepentant as they are a danger to the assembly of believers. This idea of reworked tolerance is foreign to true Christianity.

Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 11:31 AM

That was unkind and un-Christian and I’m sorry I made it. I’ll try to do better in the future.

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Jeanie, why is it unkind to make a value judgement as we are admonished to do all over scripture? I say what I say in total love for those who are lost and/or deceived. My words aren’t always reflective of my love…and that is a problem I have. But, recognizing truth from error is what we are about…and that IS love. Does that make sense? I’m sick today, so, I’m not doing too well in the explanation department.

Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Jeanie, I was not meaning to sound as hostile as I did…I was responding to both comments.

Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM

A paranoid religious leader with a security team? The name Jim Jones immediately came to mind. Anyone remember him?

greasywrench on April 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Lot of you are missing the point. Using law enforcement resources for private purposes is a criminal act in every state. Nothing to do with organized religion, everything to do with this cop going over the line to “protect” his off-duty job and committing a crime in the process.

n0doz on April 19, 2009 at 11:40 AM

This church has a Wikipedia page.

Apparently they are used to pushing their weight around in civil and in church politics.

Right_of_Attila on April 19, 2009 at 11:48 AM

In Kentucky we have a law against Harassing Communications.
You can read it for yourself here.

It’s written broad enough, particularly in section A, where it says that a person is guilty of this offense if he:

Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, telegraph, mail, or any other form of written communication in a manner which causes annoyance or alarm and serves no purpose of legitimate communication

I imagine that it is pretty annoying to have somebody trying to split your congregation without having the stones to do it upfront during a business meeting. Generally, this is the statute we use against heavy breathers on open phone lines, but it could be applied to this situation. I guess Rich would argue that his communications were legitimate, but that’s a pretty subjective argument.

Anyway, if Florida has a similar law a legitimate criminal complaint could be generated. If a report is generated, then law enforcement is expected to use all the tools available to investigate it, which includes subpoenas.

If law enforcement goes through all of this to identify a heavy breather, we would usually tell the person who made the complaint the suspect’s identity and leave it up to them if they wanted to file a criminal complaint with the county attorney. The same principle applies here.

Bottom line is that there has been no crime committed by law enforcement or the church. Ethical issues might exist, but that’s it and good look proving it. If a complaint is made, it’s law enforcement’s business to investigate it.

I will add a couple of other points: We are learning about something in April that happened last Fall. If Mr. Rich was so “outraged,” why bring it up now? We also have not seen any of the blog posts so it’s “he said, he said” as far as to how abusive or not they are. Finally, it seems from the comments that everybody, including Ed, wants to “Harrumph” and assign evil motives to the pastor and pure motives to the blogger in large part because of the pastor’s “unholy” salary of $300,000. As with CEO pay at GM, AIG, and the rest, if the pastor is doing a good job as far as his congregation is concerned, then it’s none of our business. Seems like Rich doesn’t like it, but he was in the minority of the congregation. All the mention of the pastor’s salary does is give people a reason get on their high horses, expecting that their clergy members should don sack cloth and ashes, drive secondhand cars, and never take a vacation while their congregants get to dispose of their incomes however they want so long as they tithe 10% first.

Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM

..who will rid me of this troublesome priest blogger?

Modern Shakespeare?

BL@KBIRD on April 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Allahpundit’s real name is Thomas Rich?? Finally we know!

tneloms on April 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM

n0doz on April 19, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Exactly,
Down here in Jax, the Christians are loosing their mind saying that they are being persecuted by the press and these bloggers and their pastor is a “good man”.

The non religious are using it to rationalize their hatred for religion.

The point is that this police officer and pastor acted in a wholly improper manner.

Squid Shark on April 19, 2009 at 11:55 AM

ditto Unclesmrgol…

He trusted Google…BIG mistake.

He’s not the first one to be tossed to the ‘authorities’, and he won’t be the last.

I don’t raise this point to high-jack the topic thread…I do it to point out that this stool has three legs, not just the two obvious [and very worthy of discussion...] ones.

CPT. Charles on April 19, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Sorry, n0doz, law enforcement exists to investigate private problems that have been determined to be important enough to warrant the passage of laws regulating them, therefore making them public problems. You’re probably thinking about the use of databases to run criminal histories and things of that nature. That doesn’t apply if you have a criminal complaint. Can I run your criminal history just for kicks? No. Can I run your criminal history if your neighbor files what turns out to be a completely spurious complaint against you? Absolutely.

Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM

We do not have a similar law here in FL. And yes, if there was a threatening or harrassing communication in the blog the JSO should have investigated it. But since they found NO criminal activity at all it should have ended there. But since the JSO knew very well that there was no criminal activity, the real purpose was to make up this BS supeona and get the name and then get the name of this person who was innocent of the initial accusation into the hands of the pastor.

Squid Shark on April 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Does the Pope get $300,000.00 a year? He must buy the finest silk sackcloth and designer ashes.

BL@KBIRD on April 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I will add a couple of other points: We are learning about something in April that happened last Fall. If Mr. Rich was so “outraged,” why bring it up now? We also have not seen any of the blog posts so it’s “he said, he said” as far as to how abusive or not they are. Finally, it seems from the comments that everybody, including Ed, wants to “Harrumph” and assign evil motives to the pastor and pure motives to the blogger in large part because of the pastor’s “unholy” salary of $300,000. As with CEO pay at GM, AIG, and the rest, if the pastor is doing a good job as far as his congregation is concerned, then it’s none of our business. Seems like Rich doesn’t like it, but he was in the minority of the congregation. All the mention of the pastor’s salary does is give people a reason get on their high horses, expecting that their clergy members should don sack cloth and ashes, drive secondhand cars, and never take a vacation while their congregants get to dispose of their incomes however they want so long as they tithe 10% first.

Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM

The FBC is a huge “tithe vaccum” and they have done little to nothing for the community over the years, we have a 10% unemployment and a hughe homeless population, most of which have to be stepped over for FBC members to make it church on Sunday. Yet they have little to no outreach programs, suck up a huge 3 block track of downtown real estate without being taxed and built a huge wasteful lighthouse as a gimmick instead of a soup kitchen. As for the timing the supeona was signed in March of this year

Squid Shark on April 19, 2009 at 12:03 PM

My uncle was a minister in the 50′s – 70′s. He and his family were provided modest homes near the several churches he led throughout his career, and he was paid a modest salary.
It has distressed me in recent years to see church leaders living the luxury life. It seems that for some, even the ministry has become a business.
One such business, a church I no longer attend, contains a restaurant and a Starbucks. This church may do good works, but several families are getting rich through donations to the church.
There are other Baptist churches in Jacksonville. I hope Mr. Rich and his family can find a church where the focus is less on the pastor and more on our Lord.

maryo on April 19, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Unfortunately, this sort of conflict of interest behavior by law enforcement is happening more and more. In Clearwater, FL the cops moonlight as private security for the “Church” of Scientology. The problem is, they now regularly abuse their authority and act as the “Church’s” own gestapo.

davenp35 on April 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Bloggers writing criticisms about church practices aren’t a legitimate security concern, though, and they’re certainly not a legitimate concern for law enforcement.

But if its about the Government they are, right Janet Napolatano?

TheBigOldDog on April 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM

watson007 on April 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Well said. The abuses here have nothing to do with organized religion. I wonder if further investigation of the pastor will reveal more problems with that church that has nothing to do with the religion itself.
Seems like some are mimicking the left wing proclivity to smear something they don’t like by trying to make this incident a reprensentative example of the entire faith. Not accurate and not very nice.

austinnelly on April 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Oh, and while I’m about it, is it common for large churches to have “security” details? I’ve never heard of this.

jeanie on April 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Mine does, but he gets a lot of threats from the left and this is a big, left-leaning urban area.

capitalist piglet on April 19, 2009 at 12:17 PM

This is the kind of behavior that drives people from churches. It’s all too common – the overpaid pastor (who eventually gets a “calling” to some paradise church and leaves the congregation hanging), the groupie congregation who will do anything for the pastor, the substitution of gossip for the gospel: it’s why people leave, and often not for just a different church.

emailnuevo on April 19, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Couldn’t have said it better myself. That mentality is way to prevalant in almost all churches these days where the almighty dollar is more important than the gospel and the special “cliques” that seem to rule the roost.

And why I attend none of them.

Knucklehead on April 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Looks like the Sheriff’s Dept is going to have to write a VERY LARGE check.

GarandFan on April 19, 2009 at 12:20 PM

kelley in virginia wrote “The Catholic Church still has Nancy Pelosi”.

Yes kelley, Jesus dined with tax collectors and whores.

rmonde on April 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Religious congregations need some kind of security and it’s not a new phenomenon. Black churches in the South were bombed in the early 1960s and the earliest shooting I can recall involved a troubled young man shooting a rabbi in a suburban Detroit synagogue in 1965 or so.

I know that at one of the synagogues that I attend has a couple of members who attend services armed, it’s about 20 minutes from the largest concentration of Hezb’allah supporters in the US.

The most troubling part of this particular case is the fact that a police officer used state power to punish an innocent person for the purposes of a sectarian religious organization.

Hinson should be fired, Brunson should be investigated for corruptly influencing a police officer.

rokemronnie on April 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM

300 large a year? For a “Man of God” to lead his flock?

Bishop on April 19, 2009 at 10:05 AM

As capitalists, it’s hypocritical to have a problem with a pastor’s high salary. Your work is worth what others think it’s worth. That’s pretty much the backbone of our economy, the part we’re upset that Obama is bypassing in not letting bad companies fail.

If his congregation thinks he’s worth that much, then that’s what he’s worth, and I don’t have a problem with religious people making money. The Bible says that love of money is the root of all evil, not money itself. The issue is if he values that money over his own job or family, not if he gets that large sum. It is possible to be wealthy and yet not let that wealth rule your life.

That said, it sounds like this pastor has a lot of problems that are not all limited to his salary, and I hope the church members have had an awakening over this.

Esthier on April 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM

The Sheriff’s department isn’t going to pay anyone as the result of a civil suit. The only people who will pay are homeowners whose property taxes go to fund municipal law enforcement. How is that justice? Justice is to have the deputy or Sheriff that revealed the name investigated and, if he/she did something improper and contrary to the law, sanctioned as is appropriate. Too many people think that being mistreated by someone else in a government position is your ticket to unearned wealth. I believe in making the victim whole in a civil suit, but this concept of punitive damages awarded to the plaintiff makes being a victim a for-profit business. How can any conservative favor that concept? Punitive damages should be abolished and this blogger should look for a just outcome and be happy, as I’m sure he is.

It’s funny how many otherwise conservative people reflexively spring to the left’s favorite tools, no matter how repulsive. Please, confine your lust for punitive damages to cases where the defendant is MSNBC or moveon.org.

Immolate on April 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM

What did the dude write? If wrote threats … or anything bordering on threats – then I think they were right to out him.

But that looks more than suspicious if they haven’t charged him with anything.

He needs to sue … I think he can get at least $300,000 ;)

HondaV65 on April 19, 2009 at 12:44 PM

and yeah, the secrecy of the blogger bothers me, too.

but yes, the mess stinks–i do agree with that.

kelley in virginia on April 19, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Not me. If he was lying, get a court order and sue for defamation of character.

Tim Burton on April 19, 2009 at 12:44 PM

[Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM]

You sound like you are taking a course or are in the field, possibly in law enforcement.

I take issue with your assertions that no crime took place. You do not know that, it is a presumption. It will be very difficult to find out because the files were shredded and the subpeona has no indication of probably cause per the newpaper article.

Do you know that it is legal to request and get signed a subpoena without listing the reason? I ask because the appearance of authority that I noted above gives me reason to think you do and I’d like to know because I don’t, though I am strident in thinking it should be.

Also, how about the shredding of the investigation files? Is that normal?

Dusty on April 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM

This is the kind of behavior that drives people from churches. It’s all too common – the overpaid pastor (who eventually gets a “calling” to some paradise church and leaves the congregation hanging), the groupie congregation who will do anything for the pastor, the substitution of gossip for the gospel: it’s why people leave, and often not for just a different church.

Upsetting.

P.S. My church has a police officer who directs traffic for us; is that what this guy’s job was? I can’t imagine an actual security detail. Maybe I’m too provincial.

emailnuevo on April 19, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Boy, is THIS the truth. I have personal experience in this regard, but I think I’ll keep that to myself.

But as I mentioned upthread, my pastor gets death threats, and actually needs security when he’s in public.

capitalist piglet on April 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Brunson called Rich a “sociopath” for criticizing him, but the scary one in this scenario is the minister who can apparently call on the JSO to act as his hatchet men to silence criticism. The people of Jacksonville might want to check out their Sheriff Department and determine exactly whom and what they serve — the people of Jacksonville and justice, or a rich pastor who can’t afford criticism.

Yea team!

What does this say to those interested in joining this church or Christianity?

Speakup on April 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Brunson called Rich a “sociopath” for criticizing him, but the scary one in this scenario is the minister who can apparently call on the JSO to act as his hatchet men to silence criticism. The people of Jacksonville might want to check out their Sheriff Department and determine exactly whom and what they serve — the people of Jacksonville and justice, or a rich pastor who can’t afford criticism.

Yea team!

What does this say to those interested in joining this church or Christianity?

Speakup on April 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Esthier on April 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM

I agree with you. I’ve attended a church with a larger “population” than the town I grew up in. There is a tremendous amount of work and responsibility involved in pastoring a church.

That said, I used to attend a church with only one-hundred regular members; the pastor there was paid an unusually large salary, and insisted on living in a $400K house (twenty years ago) that the advisory board approved for him. He refused an offer of free office space, because it wasn’t posh enough; instead, he ended up in a beautiful, expensive office. All on the backs of one-hundred people. He would argue for this by saying that the people he was trying to reach were affluent, so he needed to be able to attract them by living like them. (Does that sound hinky to you?)

Predictably, this was a temporary arrangement, as the church eventually had to close its doors. A while back I ran into this man, greeting people at a chain store (not Walmart). True story.

capitalist piglet on April 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Sorry, n0doz, law enforcement exists to investigate private problems that have been determined to be important enough to warrant the passage of laws regulating them, therefore making them public problems. You’re probably thinking about the use of databases to run criminal histories and things of that nature. That doesn’t apply if you have a criminal complaint. Can I run your criminal history just for kicks? No. Can I run your criminal history if your neighbor files what turns out to be a completely spurious complaint against you? Absolutely.

[Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:57 AM]

Here, I agree with you. I’d add that a criminal background check is looking at your (the government) files, not Google’s files. But if you want to expand your investigation of private problems that deemed to be public problems, which requires subpoenas, you provide probable cause to your superiors to get permission as a check and a balance.

If nothing comes of it and you take no action, then I see little problem with shredding the investigation files. However, contrary to the Sheriff Dept implying no action was taken, the Dept, via Hinson, did take action: the complainant was notified of the name of the person he caused to be investigated. That at the very least requires the files be retained in perpetuity. That should be rather obvious as Rich has now clearly suffered slander from the complainant and governmental offices were directly responsible for the cause of that slander for which the public, the ultimate defendant in any action Rich brings on the government, now has no record of their servants’ work in perpetrating it.

Dusty on April 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM

We also have not seen any of the blog posts so it’s “he said, he said” as far as to how abusive or not they are…
Dukeboy01 on April 19, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Actually I posted a link to the blog which is still up so you could read the posts if you chose to do so. But I’ll post it again just for you.

If anyone is curious as to what criminal activity this blogger committed you can check out the blog as it is still up…

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/04/times-union-jso-and-fbc-jax-troubling.html

I’m not promoting it in any way, I was just curious and you can decide for yourself.

Deanna on April 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Deanna on April 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM

[rmonde on April 19, 2009 at 12:22 PM]

That’s silly. Jesus dined with repentant tax collectors and whores. Sin is bad, repentance with dedication to a firm purpose of amendment is good (and get you a place at the diner table.)

Dusty on April 19, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Another black eye for organized religion.

Jamson64 on April 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM

Sigh…

If this goes national count on the message being “See the church just wants to control you and limit your freedom.” I wish there was someone on the right smart enough to use bloggers outing gay republicans as an example of how the left likes to invade privacy and silience critics. Or the media years long battle with global warming skeptica and the fact they do not cover them or their conferences. Free speech stifle debate? Come on Rick Sanchez that what the left and the MSM are for.

Theworldisnotenough on April 19, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Predictably, this was a temporary arrangement, as the church eventually had to close its doors. A while back I ran into this man, greeting people at a chain store (not Walmart). True story.

capitalist piglet on April 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Dang. Sounds like this man got what was coming to him.

I can see a certain merit to his idea that he needed to be like the wealthy people around, as I do believe in what Paul said about being everything to everyone in order to reach them, but it sounds like this man loved being rich more than being a pastor, and that just doesn’t work.

Esthier on April 19, 2009 at 1:14 PM

…but the scary one in this scenario is the minister who can apparently call on the JSO to act as his hatchet men to silence criticism. The people of Jacksonville might want to check out their Sheriff Department and determine exactly whom and what they serve — the people of Jacksonville and justice, or a rich pastor who can’t afford criticism.

This kind of reminds me of the true story of Walking Tall. I think an investigation of JSO is in order. They appear to have over-stepped on this one and have generated dis-trust with the people.

Zorro on April 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2