tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post299828768704806383..comments2024-03-23T22:54:58.661-04:00Comments on FBC Jax Watchdogs: The Watchdog Goes Idle for a While...FBC Jax Watchdoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10740366031265491559noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-30435173254212641642009-10-18T15:07:58.447-04:002009-10-18T15:07:58.447-04:00Guys:
Still here. Will still be providing my tho...Guys:<br /><br />Still here. Will still be providing my thoughts and questions when new legal developments occur.<br /><br />I am lol at the supposed sleuths/stalkers on this site and what they think they know.<br /><br />Some might even say that internet stalking is an indication of sociopathic or obssessive compulsive type behavior though I cannot say to whom that might apply since it's one of about 100 anons on here who comment.<br /><br />It is interesting to ponder whether FBC Jax or the other defendants will engage in any discovery as it relates to this site.<br /><br />See you soon.<br /><br />LouisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-43231190606832336102009-10-17T11:08:00.673-04:002009-10-17T11:08:00.673-04:00The sad thing about FBCJax is how many people have...The sad thing about FBCJax is how many people have been hoodwinked by a self serving man. But don't worry, the SBC will prop him up, affirm him and they will think he is a spiritual giant even though the SBC is run by spiritually dead men who are in it for personal gain and influence.<br /><br />After all, Mac was mentored by the biggest SBC con man of all: Paige Patterson. why would we expect him to act any differently?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-66449100473545997262009-10-17T10:54:15.067-04:002009-10-17T10:54:15.067-04:00Since when is "stalking" somebody taking...Since when is "stalking" somebody taking one or more pictures of a person? Since when is stealing mail a one time thing? Is thats whats being called stalking and mail stealing? <br /><br />Stalking is 15 years of hangup calls, car tampering, sitting in a window and seeing one of your family members being run off the road, threats received in the mail, and more, the more part being stuff I won't talk about.<br /><br />Mail tampering is someone opening your mailbox going thru all your mail, just sitting something in your mailbox, threatening letters comparing you to nasty people, sending pornography unrequested to your house in the name of a minister, shall I go on.<br /><br />Thats what I personally would refer to as stalking and mail tampering although none of those things were ever "reported per se" to the police. Cause none of that would have warranted any help from the police. how do they say....somebody basically has to be in the act of murder or assault before its considered a "crime"? <br /><br />Thats the difference between the "celebrity" and the "little people". Gosh, to just have someone take one picture or some mail be missing. What a nice life that would be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-14081904968439383012009-10-17T10:47:47.068-04:002009-10-17T10:47:47.068-04:00You brought it upon yourself.
October 16, 2009 10...You brought it upon yourself.<br /><br />October 16, 2009 10:22 PM<br /><br />Mac followers never think Mac has any responsiblity as the highly paid role model for Christ as their pastor to HOW HE RESPONDED AND LED THE CHURCH TO RESPOND TO A SILLY BLOG.<br /><br />Mac's ego could not take any questioning. So he misused the civil authorities. He has an ego the size of Texas. He should have either ignored it or announced to the church that he is sorry he offended anyone and he would like to talk to them. Did he do either? No. Why? Because NO one dares to question the great one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-62703483046037660392009-10-17T10:43:19.421-04:002009-10-17T10:43:19.421-04:00"Rich had an obligation to go and meet with M..."Rich had an obligation to go and meet with Mac in the beginning"<br /><br />The whole church had an obligation biblically to dismiss the charlatan they hired. But they are either to biblically ignorant or too weak to do what should have been done. They would rather worship a man and a building than Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-73132465967371291082009-10-17T00:13:02.551-04:002009-10-17T00:13:02.551-04:00Maurilio and Marshall/Louis are friends? That sure...Maurilio and Marshall/Louis are friends? That sure explains a lot!<br /><br />October 16, 2009 2:21 PM<br /><br />Facebook pals. But it sure puts some question as to Marshall...er Louis' insistence on his "neutrality" in legal analysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-47151564875251513482009-10-16T22:56:56.416-04:002009-10-16T22:56:56.416-04:00Rich had an obligation to go and meet with Mac in ...Rich had an obligation to go and meet with Mac in the beginning. He was the one harboring the ill feelings. Mac didn't even know who he was.<br /><br />For those of you "members" of FBC, Jax that are afraid to comment because you might be kicked out of the church--get real. Has there ever been anyone kicked out of your church other than Tom and his family? <br /><br />Of course not... Grow up and sign your names if you really are members of the church. <br /><br />A fact which I doubt seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-15724123692532921482009-10-16T22:22:10.552-04:002009-10-16T22:22:10.552-04:00Put it anyway that you want to.
The bottom line i...Put it anyway that you want to.<br /><br />The bottom line is that this blog was set up to injure or cripple a ministry. In the process, the blog has hurt the church. No matter which way you turn and point fingers the matter comes back to what started the actions. You played with fire and you got burned. The church leaders have a responsibility to maintain security. At the time that this began to unfold there were security issues at other church's that made national headlines. I would bet that it was an easy matter to get law enfocement involved with the slightest hint of a potential problem. You just got caught up in the fall out. There is nothing weak about that explanation. You can still write what ever you want to. No one is denying you free speech. There are no privacy laws and you should have no expectations of privacy.<br /><br />You can holler about juvenile logic and it makes no difference. You can insult me and all of the membership of FBC to no avail. <br /><br />I cannot remember any time when I have had to answer questions to authority, about incidents that demanded a 'splanation, that did not begin with "how did this start?" <br /><br />You brought it upon yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-68223233483145634662009-10-16T14:21:11.564-04:002009-10-16T14:21:11.564-04:00Maurilio and Marshall/Louis are friends? That sur...Maurilio and Marshall/Louis are friends? That sure explains a lot!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-44371103493672376752009-10-16T12:39:24.665-04:002009-10-16T12:39:24.665-04:00Anonymous said...
Taking a break? I wonder who is...Anonymous said... <br />Taking a break? I wonder who is approving the comment moderation on the blog. Hmmm...<br /><br />October 16, 2009 12:22 PM<br /><br />__________________________________<br /><br />Glad "whomever" is approving our comments that they are still allowing to have them posted. <br /><br />Hmmm...sounds like you assume that the comments are only coming from WD, . .from my perspective to many "anon" comments are actually coming from members of FBC, but as you so well know that if we post our real name, we members very well be banned or ousted from the church. :>)<br /><br />Interesting, that the teachers and pulpit speakers have the freedom to say anything negative that they want too but (we) bloggers do not have the same right to question any of our concerns. Hmmm...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-48837893344544852012009-10-16T12:22:36.340-04:002009-10-16T12:22:36.340-04:00Taking a break? I wonder who is approving the com...Taking a break? I wonder who is approving the comment moderation on the blog. Hmmm...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-82381060315546626442009-10-16T11:20:01.062-04:002009-10-16T11:20:01.062-04:00"The more you delve into the minds of fundame..."The more you delve into the minds of fundamentalist Christians, the more you can see similarities with their extremist Muslim brethren."<br /><br />Actually, they have a lot in common with Mormons, too.<br /><br />The Holy Priesthood has been thrown out the window in the SBC since the 1980's. Some even tried to get it taken out of the BF&M. Al Mohler was one of them on the committee that tried to get it taken out. He did not win but would only settled for an 's' to be added. <br /><br />http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html <br /><br />They hate POB because it does NOT mean that the hand is more important than the eye and CAN say, I have no need of you. They want that power over others.<br /><br />They really do not like what scripture teaches and have tried for 30 years to twist it to make them more important than others in the Body. <br /><br />And we give them money. Are we contributing to their sin of wanting preeminance over others in the Body and their sin of twisting scripture?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-15396748123966979842009-10-16T11:06:48.147-04:002009-10-16T11:06:48.147-04:00How sad what the anony person above says.
A blog ...How sad what the anony person above says.<br /><br />A blog "destroying" a church? How does a blog "destroy" a church? One blogger, who writes factual articles criticizing a pastor can destroy the church of the Lord Jesus Christ? <br /><br />Hateful remarks? Nope. Biting remarks, yes. Sarcastic blogs, yes. But hateful? I think Brunson's sociopathic and obsessive compulsive remarks to a news reporter for publication are much more hateful and malicious than anything ever appearing on this blog. Throw in Soud's coward remark as well. <br /><br />Rich has "blind followers"? Rich demands no following. He doesn't tell people he is God's man. He doesn't solicit donations from people so he can do "God's will". He doesn't interpret the Bible for people, and doesn't misuse scripture to defend his actions.<br /><br />You say Rich didn't air his grievances in a Christian manner. Wrong. He was under no obligation to go privately to Brunson. Brunson is an elder, a pastor, plenty of Biblical accounts of elders being chastised publicly. Brunson committed no personal offense against Rich. You would have PREFERRED Rich go to Brunson, as it would have made it easier to identify him as a blogger and the expulsion process could have been accelerated. You blast Rich for not meeting with Brunson to discuss his grievances, yet you don't blast Brunson for his failure to meet with Rich to discuss the grievances he had with Rich. Your bias is obvious.<br /><br />Here is the best quote:<br /><br />"Instead, he created an anonymous blog at the great expense of the church members and all the body of Christ."<br /><br />Yes, bloggers must be stopped. Anyone criticizing the church must be expelled, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ so harm is not done to the cause of Christ. Puhleeze....<br /><br />The more you delve into the minds of fundamentalist Christians, the more you can see similarities with their extremist Muslim brethren. They treat those who don't toe the line with their fundamentalist views as infidels, who must be scorned and removed and disfellowshipped and publicly ridiculed - and probably would resort to OT stoning of such mongrels as critical bloggers if not for the laws of the U.S. that protect free speech and other basic human rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-10071086122299631242009-10-16T09:17:20.466-04:002009-10-16T09:17:20.466-04:00Where is Marshall....er I mean, Louis? I cannot un...Where is Marshall....er I mean, Louis? I cannot understand why he is ignoring questions about his facebook pal, Maurillio.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-65145902154954523312009-10-16T09:16:00.175-04:002009-10-16T09:16:00.175-04:00"...like I said. You have no evidence. "..."...like I said. You have no evidence. "<br /><br />Your hero's destroyed the evidence of the investigation. Why? Why aren't they still looking for the stalker. Just answer that ONE question instead of repeating your cult like mantras. <br /><br />Can't you think? Or are they doing all your thinking for you. <br /><br />"It would seem that the WD is the one that got caught with an anonymous blog with hateful remarks that were intended to destroy a church and it's pastor. Whose hind side is showing now?"<br /><br />This really is like talking to a 12 year old. <br /><br />Who decides what is hateful? calling someone a sociopath to a reporter is not hateful? I suppose you would call it truth.<br /><br />See how that works? That would be YOUR version of truth<br /><br />That is what we call this blog. Truth made known. Show us one lie WD told about Mac. Just one. And remember, asking hard questions is not lying.<br /><br />Your problem is that FACTS make Brunson look SO bad that these silly illogical mantra's are all you have. So, keep following and more importantly, keep giving to Mac and Honey. <br /><br />But why be anonymous? Obviously they would appreciate your defenses of them and reward you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-60683528593296706632009-10-16T08:48:14.025-04:002009-10-16T08:48:14.025-04:00Some blogs., refer to a "victim". WHAT v...Some blogs., refer to a "victim". WHAT victim? Has there ever been a crime committed established. And where are the police reports for such crime? You can't have a victim if there is no crime!!!<br /><br />As for approaching some preachers for a controversial discussion or a concern that they don't like, "forget about it", unless you are willing to bow, trust and obey. Been there, done that. Some of the most "unkind", hard-nosed people I know, or have ever dealt with, were preachers. Some have very deceptive demeanors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-25833255941204239062009-10-16T07:46:40.399-04:002009-10-16T07:46:40.399-04:00...like I said. You have no evidence.
If one i......like I said. You have no evidence. <br /><br />If one is a liar then all are liars. Either everyone involved is a liar or everyone has their version of the truth. (both sides)<br /><br />It would seem that the WD is the one that got caught with an anonymous blog with hateful remarks that were intended to destroy a church and it's pastor. Whose hind side is showing now?<br /><br />You cannot have your cake and eat it.<br /><br />How can any of you blindly follow a man with these credentials? WD did not have the decency to approach the pastor with his grievances in a Christian manner. Instead, he created an anonymous blog at the great expense of the church members and all the body of Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-37151268898899211512009-10-16T07:29:02.918-04:002009-10-16T07:29:02.918-04:00"Det. Hinson destroys his investigation gathe..."Det. Hinson destroys his investigation gathered material after 90 days."<br /><br />Why the rush to destroy material after 90 days other than knowing that your "off duty" employment and being a member of FBC could be seen as being is a direct conflict of interest. <br /><br />This detective needs to rebuild his own reputation and get another part time job - his credibility is in question as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-64534758033525701062009-10-16T00:14:36.950-04:002009-10-16T00:14:36.950-04:00I am reposting the comment I made here:
From my u...I am reposting the comment I made <a href="http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/04/seeking-censure-of-wade-burleson.html?showComment=1240664220000#c1227512290523902537" rel="nofollow">here</a>:<br /><i><br />From my understanding, for a Civil Subpoena, Google or Comcast have to inform the target about the subpoena so it can be challenged in court if necessary. For a Criminal Subpoena, they do not have to inform the target or the defendant. I am unable to find references to corroborate this for Florida. Maybe one of the readers can do this.<br /><br />Time line:<br /><br />11/13/08 - Det. Hinson Closes investigation.<br /><br />2/11/09 - Blount informs WD, that this matter will be disclosed to the deacons.<br /><br />Number of days between 11/13/08 to 2/11/09 (91 days) [Inclusive count].<br /><br />Det. Hinson destroys his investigation gathered material after 90 days.<br /><br />I am guessing that WD found out about these subpoenas by end of March 2009, as a result of a tipoff by one of the deacons who attended the meeting(s) with Blount and others in Church Leadership.</i>Rameshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09728392311602332613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-2116711119383444342009-10-15T22:50:52.829-04:002009-10-15T22:50:52.829-04:00"You are making up some mythological investig..."You are making up some mythological investigation, that should occur, that no one in their right mind would spend $5 on."<br /><br />No. Actually YOUR hero's made up a mythological investigation. And they destroyed the files as quickly as legally possible and THEN sent Tom the trespass warning.<br /><br />they certainly did not want those files accessible. <br /><br />But wait! The stalker was never found...so why destroy the files? Aren't they still investigating that? Why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-82533558504170086322009-10-15T22:47:13.023-04:002009-10-15T22:47:13.023-04:00"Even though the victim seems very credible, ..."Even though the victim seems very credible, you think she is lying anyway. A veteran police investigator said that the there was there to get a subpoena. The JSO and the SAO thought it credible enough to issue a subpoena. Everyone is lying or stupid?"<br /><br />So the stalking happened? Why destroy the report? ON the first possible legal day it could be destroyed. You do not want to go there, do you? <br /><br />Of course you think she is credible. A lot of people think Paige Patterson is credible. That is why he is still at SWBTS. A lot of folks think Steve Gaines is credible. A lot of folks thought Bernie Madoff was credible. Adolf Hilter, Jim Jones (Jimmy Carter once gave him an award). A lot of folks think Obama is credbile. Hillary Clinton...the list goes on.<br /><br />Tee Hee...a veteran police guy who just happened to work for the celebrity pastor. <br /><br />No, they got caught with their pants down. Or, you would be able to see the reports and the PO would have a mail theft report. <br /><br />No, take off your tin foil hat and use your brains. Stop worshiping man and follow Christ.<br /><br />BTW: Since you don't think they would lie about this then why are they not still looking for the stalker? Isn't Honey still scared?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-83153185518639636602009-10-15T21:25:38.697-04:002009-10-15T21:25:38.697-04:00Anon 7:13..On what planet do you reside? Maybe Plu...Anon 7:13..On what planet do you reside? Maybe Pluto, since it is the most furtherest from the Earth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-36291587446116174812009-10-15T19:13:30.130-04:002009-10-15T19:13:30.130-04:00Let me get this straight.
You have no evidence to...Let me get this straight.<br /><br />You have no evidence to contradict the stalking incidents. In light of the fact that you cannot contradict the stalking incident, you choose to believe that the victim is lying. Even though the victim seems very credible, you think she is lying anyway. A veteran police investigator said that the there was there to get a subpoena. The JSO and the SAO thought it credible enough to issue a subpoena. Everyone is lying or stupid?<br /><br /><br />It sounds like you wish and hope that the victim is lying and therefore she must be lying. You are making up some mythological investigation, that should occur, that no one in their right mind would spend $5 on. <br /><br />Makes perfect sense to me. I'll buy that. Sign me up as an official WD fan club member. Send me the signed photograph and the tee shirt. Anyone that has that much courage has my perfect respect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-22950636656652957872009-10-15T15:33:35.548-04:002009-10-15T15:33:35.548-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.New BBC Open Forumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300115421477555376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384632623933772727.post-45885355552684187372009-10-15T14:49:53.705-04:002009-10-15T14:49:53.705-04:00To all - there is way too much speculation. Use y...To all - there is way too much speculation. Use your common sense. The "church leadership", whoever that might turn out to be, wanted to know who the blogger was so they could discipline him. Period. To do this, they needed to get his identity. They either knew, or quickly found out, that Blogger/Google would not give up the information due to Federal Cable Act privacy protections. So they needed law enforcement, or a civil suit, to get the information LEGALLY. They chose, according to A.C. Soud's resolution, not to pursue civil legal action in the courts. So they needed a criminal charge. Their employee, Robert A. Hinson, told them there was NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Now they are stuck. So they ask their employee Hinson to use his connections to get the information. To do this, he needs a subpoena. Big problem for me or you, no problem for a detective with the JSO who also works at the church. He gets the subpoena's under the guise of a "criminal investigation", gets the information and destroys his file. No way anyone ever knows a thing, right? End of story. WRONG!. Robby gets caught with his pants down, makes the JSO and SAO look bad, and realizes they now must cover for what he did. Rather than throw "church leadership" under the bus, they come up with a very weak story of mail stealing and picture taking and even though there is not one piece of evidence anywhere linking these activities (if they even existed) to the blogger. They try to issue PR statements and cover each other's backside, but the blogger does not accept their weak explanations and files suit.<br /><br />Summary: The church used Hinson to get around Federal Privacy laws and never thought anyone would know. They got caught with their pants down, their hands in the cookie jar. And they really don't know how they are going to BS their way out of this one.<br /><br />The rest is just superflous nonsense to take away from the obvious. To "shut em down" and "aggressively confront" criticism of the pastor, Federal privacy laws had to be violated. Having a JSO detective (who also is the personal gopher and bodyguard of the man being criticized) do the dirty work was their mistake. Now they must give an account of their actions to the world. Amen and AmenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com