2 Samuel 16:9,11 - "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head...let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him."

Matthew 7:15 - “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Matthew 24:11 - “…and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”

Friday, May 30, 2014

Tim Rogers Says Judge Norman K. Moon Should Have Recused Himself from Caner's Lawsuit - Gives No Evidence for Such a Claim

I knew it would not take long for one of Caner's defenders - that is to say Peter Lumpkins and Tim Rogers - to call into question Judge Norman K. Moon's impartiality in the Ergun Caner lawsuit. We can now add to the list of those who have it in for Ergun Caner: Calvinists, bloggers, Muslims - and now impartial federal judges.

Yesterday Tim Rogers - pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Indian Trail, NC -  posted a blog article in which he made some of the most ridiculous assertions concerning Ergun Caner's lawsuits, one of them being that the judge who threw out Caner's lawsuit was not impartial. In the comment section of the blog, Tim Rogers writes:

"Also, the judge should have recused himself because he has a history with LU and seemingly has some issues with them.... Just do the background research on the judge. No, no one issued Motion to Recuse. I never said that. I simply placed information out there that any paralegal can research and find." Tim Rogers here and here.

Really, Tim? Why didn't you mention the judge's name? His name is the Honorable Norman K. Moon. What "background research" should we do? Why didn't Ergun Caner or his lawyer do this background research and ask for the judge to recuse himself? Did Ergun Caner email you to give you some secret information that points to Judge Moon not being capable of impartiality in this case?

I took Tim up on his challenge and did a Google search of "Judge Norman K Moon Liberty University" and found that 3 1/2 years ago Judge Moon did dismiss a lawsuit brought by Liberty University challenging the constitutionality of the new health care law. Is that the "issue", Tim? Do you care to let us know, Tim? I'm sure Judge Moon would love to read from one of Caner's ardent supporters why he should have recused himself, as he prepares to make his decision on Jon Autry's request to collect legal fees and costs from Ergun Caner.

By the way, I know something about judge recusals. Judges are quick to recuse themselves when they find even the slightest fact in the case that might call into question their ability to fairly judge the case. In my lawsuit - the one that Rogers references in his blog post - the judge who was assigned the case offered to recuse himself when he discovered the close connection and involvement of his close friend and judges' chamber-mate Judge A.C. Soud had to the facts of my case. The judge was almost apologetic about not recusing himself earlier, but he had no idea about Judge Soud's involvement in the case until he read some of the case documents and testimony generated during discovery. When we were in the judge's chambers for a hearing on the case and he explained his close personal relationship with Judge Soud, my jaw hit the floor and I took the judge up on his offer to recuse himself. I found it very strange that A.C. Soud himself didn't brief his friend about his connection to the case much earlier - but that is another story.

So I find it absolutely hilarious that Caner sycophant Tim Rogers would call into question the Judge Moon's impartiality, especially considering that TWO judges threw out Caner's copyright lawsuits. But this is what Rogers and Lumpkins do - they are willing to smear honorable men to defend the indefensible. Perhaps Tim is looking into a coordinated conspiracy between Judge Moon and Judge Terry Means, the federal judge who tossed Caner's similar lawsuit against Jason Smathers.

But thank you, Judge Moon, for your detailed and fair and just decision, especially those words below:
"Plaintiff’s counsel made astounding claims during the hearing that discovery would affect the fair use analysis by showing that Defendant was not 'qualified' to direct 'appropriate criticism' at Plaintiff, unlike 'people that are qualified to render those opinions i[n] the market place and exchange of ideas in academia and elsewhere', and therefore Defendant could not assert the fair use defense.
The First Amendment’s protections, advanced by the fair use defense, have never applied to some bizarre oligarchy of ‘qualified’ speakers. Excluding speakers who criticize public figures from protection due to the speaker’s social status, level of education or other nebulous ‘qualifying’ factors would nullify the broad protections the First Amendment is meant to provide and stifle the open discourse that stands against tyranny, intolerance and oppression. Plaintiff himself has extolled the virtues of these protections and warned against the dangers of censorship and 'misinformation'...Conveniently, when criticism is directed at him, Plaintiff comes before this Court and argues that it should restrict First Amendment fair use protection to some amorphous group of 'qualified' speakers."


Anonymous said...

This guy is a blooming idiot. I realize that word is thrown around too much these days, but really, he's an idiot. He doesn't know how to argue within the rules of reason and rationality.

So, Judge Moon is biased against Ergun Caner because he dismissed a lawsuit brought by Liberty over Obamacare three years ago? Even if this were somewhere close to a basis for recusal if LIBERTY were the party to the present suit (trust me, it is not, that would be a rule that if you ever lose before a judge, that judge is then biased against you and can't ever hear a case you're a party to again, it would basically the same logic as "that referee made a call against us last time he officiated one of our games so therefore he's disqualified from officiating one of our games again), the plaintiff in this suit is ERGUN CANER, not LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY FIRED ERGUN CANER. So how could any bias the judge has against LIBERTY UNIVERSITY mean he's biased against ERGUN CANER?

An Attorney said...

As an attorney, I have twice felt it necessary to ask a judge to consider recusal, and that in the same case. In the first instance, the judge personally knew many of the witnesses in the case, and I believed that the other side might feel that the judge would be biased and that would delay the proceedings if the judge kept the case. When the other side answered the suit, the judge decided to recuse on the judge's motion.

In the second instance, a party in the case believed that the judge had displayed bias at one point in the proceedings and issued an order that most easily could be interpreted as showing bias. When this was pointed out to the judge, the judge recused on the judge's own motion.

Judges generally do not hold onto any case where they are aware of a possible suggestion of bias for or against a party -- it only complicates their life as a judge and they have nothing to gain by not recusing.

Anonymous said...

From Rogers:

"The report did express that Dr. Caner made factual statements that were mis-stated and as such did create the illusion of something he was not referencing. In other words, in Dr. Caner’s mind he was speaking the truth, but because of the way it was stated, the facts were not properly presented."

That last sentence makes it obvious that arguing with this clown is a worthless endeavor. You don't try to convince Baghdad Bob that Saddam is bad. Whether Baghdad Bob really believes his nonsense is beside the point - either way, he's not going to stop spewing it. I wish people would stop wasting time engaging Rogers, Lumpkins and their ilk. Focus your energies on informing the uninformed and putting the inescapable truth out there.

Bennett Willis said...

But everyone is entitled to a little fun--even a Watchdog. :)

Bennett Willis said...

Now, let's see if Lumpkins will take up the "cry."

Anonymous said...

so who's the censor now?

can't stand a dose of your own medicine?

Anonymous said...

The judge has spoken. Twice. The facts are what James White, the Watchdog, and numerous others have stated. The man lied about key, distinctive parts of his bio in order to gain fame and money from followers of Jesus right after 9/11 when we were most gullible and most vulnerable. What is there left to dispute. Do you think Mike/Butch Caner from Ohio would have risen to stardom in SBC circles? Do you think speaking in jibberish to help sell your lie is merely "misspeaking" or fact mistakes from the pulpit. How many of you have spoken gibberish to anyone to get them to think you knew another language? That is intentional fraud. Explain it please, Caner supporters.

Then, he took unethical action and tried to silence those pointing out his decade of deceit and was laughed out of court by two judges. What is there left to dispute.

The man's a liar and those that hear him and pay him to speak, obviously don't care. Why? Sadly, I am beginning to believe that they all preach lies, so why be a hippocrite and call him out. They even pay him to lie to their children. They will lose that entire generation as a result. Who cares? Not them. They have jobs and bills and don't believe the bible anyway in my opinion.

But if your faith is based on such indefensible positions, then its time to wonder if you know God at all. These men clearly don't. They deal in fables, myths and lies...about themselves and about the Bible. But they say trust me. Have faith. Don't rely on logic. Don't question me. And we open our hearts and wallets to them. Sad.

Anonymous said...

Some gems from Pastor Timmy's blog:

"The court cannot dictate to a person they are to file a lawsuit. Jonathan Autry has clearly filed a lawsuit against Dr. Caner. His, is the same lawsuit, that of a civil suit. Dr. Caner filed a lawsuit that should have been a criminal charge and that is one of stealing the property of someone else. Had his lawsuit been awarded both Smathers and Autry would have been on the handle for criminal activity. But that is the nature of copyright. It has to go through the civil process first and then the criminal charges would come. The suit was dismissed. Autry is filing a civil suit to get money."

- Wow, I'm a lawyer, one who practices copyright law and he's just laid a lot of new law on me.

"Thank you. Now, to your earlier statement. My daughter was born in North Carolina. We moved to South Carolina when she was 9 months old and we stayed there until she was 4. From the time she was 4 we have lived in NC. We were visiting friends the other day and I heard her say she was “raised” in South Carolina. Now, is she lying? No, she was raised until she was four in SC. If she were speaking like Dr. Caner and said she was raised in SC some that wanted to place her in a bad light would call this out and destroy her."

- First of all, how old is his daughter now? If she's now an adult, then yes, I think any reasonable person would agree that saying she was "raised" in South Carolina would be misleading, and no reasonable adult would say that if they moved to a different state when they were four. But that's really secondary, because this little analogy is not in any way analogous to Caner's lies. He said he was born in Turkey, which is a flat-out falsehood that he knew wasn't true. He said he grew up in majority muslim countries, knowing full well he has lived in the U.S. since the age of four. And of course, this in any event is just the tip of the iceberg as far as Caner's lies go. Rogers and Lumpkins just ignore the ones that even they can't come up with an absurd explanation for (like speaking gibberish, learning English by watching American TV in Turkey, etc.).

"If you want to publicly ridicule me you will do it with the words I place in public." (refusing to talk to Jon Autry privately)

- I agree, it's the way to go, Tim. Put it all out there so there's no dispute about what loony things you say.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

Below is a comment I posted at Tim Rogers' website in response to his claim that Paige Patterson offered Sheri Klouda a job before he fired her, and that she refused. I choose to believe Sheri Klouda's own words on this, and not Tim's.

I posted this comment with my name, and my email address as he requested commenters do, but it is still waiting moderation.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Tim, here are Sheri Klouda’s own words regarding any offer of employment made by Patterson:
“First, I was never offered another permanent position with the same salary and benefits. The only position I was offered was temporary, and would only last until my pending dismissal in December of 2006. I begged Dr. Patterson to find a place for me at the seminary several times, and I would have taken anything I was offered, given my husband’s rapidly declining health and the need to financially support my family. I was desperate. We just bought a home based on the premise that I was hired on tenure track and would be given the same opportunities as other professors to apply and achieve tenure. My daughter was already in high school, and all of my family, including my elderly grandparents, parents and my siblings all reside in the area. There is no document related to this new position, nor was anything ever produced to support this claim.”
I will believe Sheri’s own words rather than you.

Anonymous said...

I just read that utterly ridiculous post by Tim Rogers. I'd be horribly embarrassed if my pastor wrote something like that.

I am going to coin a new term....seems like people are using the word "Calvinista" possibly started by the Wartburg Watch. My new term after reading Tim Roger's post is "Calvinphobic" lol

Anonymous said...


Did you know you got a few mentions on James White's "Dividing Line" today?


Anonymous said...

Has it been said yet that Autry won 29K in legal fees? Judge Moon ordered it on May 28.

I happen to have a log in to view documents on the PACER system and saw the actual order. If I was Caner's wife I'd let him have it. lol

Anonymous said...

Wow thanks for Watch Dogs

Bennett Willis said...

Tim also claims that Autry has sued EC. Apparently he can't tell the difference in a motion and a suit. The promptness with which this will be granted should help him clarify the matter.
Suits take a while. Motions, not so long.

Debbie Kaufman said...

This post by Tim Rogers is a lie from the very first word to the very last word. There is not one ounce of truth in any of it. I can attest to this as I was there during that time and writing on Ergun from Feburary to the time Liberty University demoted Caner. There is not truth to the White, Ascol, Caner, debate story. It was the Caner's who walked away. I was following this debate closely during that period of time. All one has to do is read Tom Ascol's blog or James White's blog during that time. The documentation on those blogs is impeccable.

My blog was attacked so many times by different porn ads that I had to delete it knowing that there was so much evidence on the internet against Ergun that I did not hesitate to delete my blog. I could not combat the attacks to it, not being tech savy in that area, and Word Press could not keep up with the attacks.

Like Tom, I can honestly say having been there during that time, that Tim is lying and continuing in the comment section along with Peter Lumpkins.

I have been a member of Emmanuel Baptist, with Wade Burleson has my minister since 1991. Wade is telling the truth in the comment section of Tim's blog. All one has to do is to read Wade's blog during that period of time. All that Wade has told Tim is the truth.

Debbie Kaufman said...

I might add, Watchdog, Jason Smathers, Jonathan Autry are telling the truth on what they write on this subject, and what they have written in the past. It is the truth. There is not a word of truth coming from either the Caner camp or Rogers, Lumpkins or anyone else who is defending Caner. They have totally made up and dared to post things that did not happen. I swear to all of this as a born again, blood bought, Christ loving, truth loving Christian.

Anonymous said...

I think you make a mistake, when you don't give full disclosure concerning all of the characters who are involved.

MS. Kaufman, respectfully, are you trying to persuade or condescend everyone into submission to your opinion?

I think that this matter is of great importance. I think you know how to make a point without the unnecessary vitriol.

Moses Model said...

Debbie, the absolute irony in a lot of this, is that I took contemporaneously Ergun's side on the White debate. White gave Ergun an ultimatum and Ergun said that he did not receive it until after the deadline had passed. I thought that was a fair point. Now Tim tries to tie me to White and say that I wanted Ergun out. Anyone who knew me, knows that was not so. He threw a baby shower for my first born. My first born is named after a Biblical character. I remember when Ergun mentioned that Biblical character in a sermon, my infant son woke up. My wife and I thought it was hilarious. When I was a youth pastor, I wanted him to come speak at my church. I was there when he was tased.

Now in hindsight, I have more reason to doubt Ergun's side of events. In 2006, Ergun told a crowd of people that I had already graduated with my MDiv. Later I went up to him to correct the record. He told me that he thought someone had told him that. Just weeks ago, he told a judge that not only had I worked for him, but he had fired me. This was even after I provided my full name and explained who I was in writing and over the phone.

Also, briefly I am more curious as to why Rogers believes as he does. I am not suing Ergun, but Rogers is spreading the rumor that I am. Lumpkins knows this is the case, but he does not bother to correct Rogers, but instead promotes him. Contrary to what Rogers has said, Ergun has said that anonymous bloggers are going to hell. Rogers is the same guy that issued a challenge to prove that Ergun had ever said the word towelhead. Still, one could just as easily excuse this as a misstatement. :)

Debbie Kaufman said...

Jonathan, you are not anonymous any longer so you have been reprieved of the Caner curse. :)

I am going to be blunt here and be accused of slander by the Rogers/Lumpkins camp so here it goes.

They will lie, cheat, destroy, do anything they have to in order to get done what they want done. Ethics is not an issue with either of them nor others in their camp. I am talking from experience. I think you know this from your past experience.

Ergun Caner is no different. That has been shown in the past and now. You experienced it in the lawsuit he had against you.

It is my opinion that they know you are not suing Caner, they are intelligent, just ruthless. They will do whatever it takes to get the job done. This is what bothers me the most. The lies they tell with no conscience. They have done this over and over again.

If you notice they have hardly any links, they do not post comments that refute them with proof. They control the entire conversation this way. They control the "proof" given this way.

If we are going to narrow the SBC I think it should be to narrow it by getting those like Caners, Rogers, Lumpkins, and others I could name, out. Liars, ruthlessness, extortion and emotional blackmail have been their weapons of choice and have no place in the SBC. No place in any part of any Christian organization. This is about them choosing who they want out and using any of the above means to accomplish this.

Tom Rich, you, Jason, and others have first hand experience on how they operate. It's not with any rules, and it's not with any ethics. It's just plain dirty fighting. It's why they have been "winning" for the last 20 plus years. No one can go as low in fighting as they can and do.

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J Pow said...

Look up "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" and see if the characteristics seem familiar. You can go from there to "sociopath" depending on how you feel about the motives of those involved. These sort of people are attracted to power positions and the lack of "gate-keeping" at the SBC and its churches means that they'll find a way to get the importance they crave.

Those with NPD can be found all around the country in church leadership. Once there, they're difficult to take down because they are willing to go to extreme lengths to defend the outer image they've tried to maintain. If they have a use for you or don't care about you, then they'll seem fine. If you do something to them that questions their fragile facade or , they'll do their best to destroy you.

Also, those with NPD like to associate with important people so if you get a group of leaders with NPD together, they'll highly re-enforce each others' deluded view of themselves and defend each other at all costs (...that is until one of them challenges the rest of the group, then that person will be cut loose and will be an enemy).

This sort of stuff is rampant in leadership around the country, and in my estimation, is the number one destroyer of the organized church today.

Anonymous said...

Debbie Kaufman said:

"It is my opinion that they know you are not suing Caner, they are intelligent, just ruthless."

I would agree that Caner is intelligent, but I'm less sure about Lumpkins, and I'm almost positive that Tim Rogers is anything but intelligent. You read his ramblings and you think that no reasonably intelligent propagandist would write such illogical things.

Bennett Willis said...

I was not clear on this: Has Judge Moon agreed with the motion that Caner be required to pay for the litigation or not?

Or has the motion just been entered without a ruling from Judge Moon at this time?

Mark Prez said...

I noticed that earlier a comment referenced pacer and that the Judge ordered attorney fees to be paid to Autrey. I also have accessed to Pacer (as does any person whom sets up an account and thus can review any legal document filed in the Federal Courts). This is not factual. Judge Moon set forth an order on May 14th which covered one motion by Autrey dated May 2 to recover atty fees. Judge Moon stated in his order that he would not consider that motion at this time nor award atty fees which is highly rare in this style case. Whereas I would support those whom argue on the merits that Caner needs to be removed from ministry, I would also beg to argue that information needs to be correct and stated as thus, because then we are no better than Caner when we recite information that is false. Just saying...Pacer documents cover the whole shebang....to date...no atty fees have been awarded to Autrey.

Anonymous said...

Looks like an "elbow" was delivered. Caner did not win, but he is not covering the defendant's attorneys fees.

That is odd.

It would seem that a frivolous lawsuit would draw some wrath from the judge in the interest of the defendant.

More to come?