|
| David D. Dennis Lawsuit Director of SDA General Conference Auditing from (1976-1994)
INDEX OF LETTERS
David
Dennis Withdraws His Law Suit Against the General Conference I have
just received from David Dennis the current status of his lawsuit against the
General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church today, November 12, 2001.
Dear Bob: Its been
awhile since having contact with you. Hope I didn't frighten you off with
the news that a recipient of your mails had shared it with the opposing
attorneys. We have finally had to withdraw our suit. The judge ruled
that GC officers can be immune from the case under the ruse of First Amendment.
He died just days after making the ruling, so we shall never know what kind of
deal he cut with the GC. Our appeal, according to my attorney, could have
languished for two years and, frankly, my funds are deplete. As a last
attempt to gain some form of exoneration for the lies propagated against me I
have written an "Open Letter" to the GC President, Paulsen. I
had planned to send it to Folkenberg. But, a friend pointed out that many
think he's a "dead horse" (not true!). I have confirmation that
the letter has reached Paulsen's desk, so I now circulate it. Feel
free to share it widely: October 30, 2001 Dr. Jan Paulsen, President Two months ago, based on the advice of my attorney, I asked for the dismissal of a lawsuit against former GC President, R. S. Folkenberg, and certain of his business and political cronies, after the late District Court Judge, James C. Chapin, had ruled in favor of Folkenberg et al, thus allowing him to hide his corruption behind First Amendment privilege. I was asked by friends of the present GC administration to defer correspondence pending the possibility that you would take a Christian approach to resolving my grievance with the former leader which, based on absolute prevarications, slandered me before the world body of Seventh-day Adventists. Like Pilate, you have, it seems, preferred to simply wash your hands of the matter. On the 19th of October, you chose to publish an ANN
Bulletin in which you have repeated the old hurts, lies, and generally
omitted the real facts of the case. For
example, the tone of your message gives the impression that somehow you had won
something in Court. Nothing could
be further from the truth. You
simply convinced the late judge (or had arrangements with him) that as a
religious entity, closely patterned after the Church of Rome, your tortuous
actions could be hidden behind the protection of the First Amendment.
You have chosen to throw down the gauntlet.
I am responding. It has been
said that the “pen is mightier than the sword”.
From personal experience I can testify that the personal damage inflicted
by character assassination is more hurtful than physical assault.
For the present, however, I shall limit my efforts to use of the pen. When Robert S. Folkenberg tendered his unprecedented
resignation as President of the General Conference on February 8, 1999 his
mother was quoted as saying that his ignominious fall from such a high position
of church leadership, for moral and financial corruption, was more difficult for
her to bear than the then recent death of her husband.
I was present for the beginning of his tribunal at the Marriott Hotel
near the Dulles Airport that cold January day.
I could sympathize with his mother’s hurt, for I know how his actions
in orchestrating the false accusations against me some seven years ago brought
pain to my own dear mother who, as a loyal church member, will soon celebrate
her 99th birthday. While
there are many similarities between our terminations from church office, the
differences are striking. Folkenberg’s closest friends from around the world gathered
to review the documents shared by his comrade, James Moore. The documents and
testimony were reviewed with the group he had selected to compose his panel of
judges. I recalled the sham meeting that was set up to hear the charges against
me, in December, 1994, assembled by his good friend Walter Carson, together with
his Gestapo-styled associate, K. G. B. Mittleider, who still seems to be in
charge of the open slander campaign against me. They were anxious to force me from an office I had held for
more than 18 years. At my hearing
the group was carefully chosen for the “kangaroo court” without my input and
I was denied the presence of an attorney. In
stark contrast, Folkenberg had two attorneys flanking him at the Marriott.
I met them. Another distinction between Folkenberg’s treatment and mine
is the generous financial provision he has received. Full salary and benefits have been continued until an
appropriate position is found for him. He
has not missed a single pay period. He
has received full service credit toward retirement. All this in addition to the undisclosed sums which he
appropriated to himself from the church coffers. In my case I was fired just before Christmas.
I received an official letter advising that I was “terminated
immediately”, but my salary and health care coverage would continue for an
added ten days, through the end of December, 1994. A rather penetrating article appeared in Spectrum
magazine, Vol. 27, Issue 3, 1999 detailing Walter Carson’s collusion with
ex-president Folkenberg in his financial shenanigans. Mr. Raymond Dabrowski, was another of Folkenberg’s
hand-picked comrades at the GC. You
worked with Dabrowski in Europe. You will recall that Dabrowski was considered a
communist sympathizer in cold war East Europe. He now serves as the director of
General Conference Communications. In
the Spectrum article, Dabrowski was asked to comment on the “wet
noodle” punishment of Attorney
Carson. He stated that “we prefer to err on the side of
‘mercy’.” I certainly did not
feel “mercy” when I was cruelly and publicly maligned by top officials of
the Adventist organization. A number of articles, likely ghost-written, have
appeared over your name in the Review in which you advocate loving
treatment of others, with mercy and forgiveness.
Clearly you do not practice what you preach. After the allegations presented in my original legal brief
relative to Folkenberg and many of his associates’ corruption, had been proven
true, I spoke with Robert Rawson, a former friend and co-worker in the mission
field, and now Treasurer of the General Conference. Rawson denied that he had been aware of Folkenberg’s
pilfering. I offered to meet with
you and other new officers to resolve my long-standing legal case.
Rawson promised to get back to me, but he did not.
Rather, I learned of slanderous statements he had made about me to his
fellow GC officers. Then I realized
he, as chairman of the Risk Management committee, which had permitted the raid
on GC insurance monies to cover up Folkenberg’s embarrassing criminal
activities with James Moore, still felt beholden to Folkenberg.
Naturally, both you and he would feel politically obligated, since he had
personally chosen both of you as his close confidants. Some have suggested that had I resigned I would have been
treated more kindly. That, of
course, is open to speculation. It
is curious that I was told that if I would resign I could retain my credentials.
When I was fired, however, these credentials were taken away.
Why? It is a fact that most
people believe a resignation, regardless of the duress imposed, is an admission
of guilt. For example, the fact
that Folkenberg resigned caused most observers to believe he was guilty.
And guilty he was! I was not guilty of the nasty charges and the lies brought
against me. I refused to resign.
Early in the process of my termination I stated that if Folken-berg had
simply asked me to resign because he did not wish to work with me I would have
proffered my resignation immediately, but I could not do so on the basis of the
false accusations brought against me. If I had pandered to certain leaders they would not have
attempted to have me ousted from office at the Indianapolis Session in 1990.
If I had ignored corruption, including Folkenberg’s taking of illicit
funds from the Columbia Union in 1991, I likely would have enjoyed peace and
harmony to a normal retirement. Because
of his personal animus against me, Folkenberg was unwilling to meet with me
after the charges had been leveled against me, and, in writing refused to allow
me a policy-provided Grievance Committee to resolve this within the confines of
the church structure. I was not
then, nor am I now, prepared to sell my soul for a mess of potage.
The job was not worth the sacrifice of my personal integrity and dignity. In Montgomery District Court proceedings, GC-engaged
attorneys convinced the judge that the Director of GC Auditing was considered a
“high ranking officer” of the church. Former
GC Secretary, G. Ralph Thompson, testified that the Adventist organization is
patterned after the Church of Rome. And former President N. C. Wilson, who has
known me for many years but who would not acknowledge a friendship with me,
stated for the Court records that I received this ill treatment because I
“lacked people skills”. Is that
another way of saying I was “not political”?
If so, I am proud to say I have never been political! Much has been said to publicly defame me.
A great deal of this, of course, I have not even heard.
Details have been twisted, stretched and magnified beyond all reason.
That’s the nature of gossip. I
have been slandered, in a methodical and continuous way, before the world church
in writing and on the internet. Some
have solicited speaking appointments and met with workers and members of the
church solely to try to destroy me and any credibility I might have once
enjoyed. Folkenberg and his allies have gone to the public media.
They have interviewed with the Washington
Times and the Los Angeles Times.
The belief seems to be that if I can be vilified badly enough it will
take the focus of the guilt off church leadership. In spite of years in court, and a startling decision in our
favor by the highest court in the State of Maryland, we were never able to
proceed to a jury trial. With the
help of millions of tithe dollars the GC repeatedly delayed the judicial process
and blocked the discovery phase to keep from us documents we had requested
showing to some degree the depth of corruption within the leadership of our
church. The deposition of the
guilty parties under oath was, likewise, circumvented. Rather than try to speculate about information we never
received, let’s look at a few of the known facts. High Level Corruption. For starters, GC spin doctors and attorneys have “strongly
denied” the allegations made in my original law suit, filed in February, 1995.
Folkenberg’s ouster from office for abuse of power and moral and
financial corruption came as a shock to many people.
Strangely, I had gone on record exposing much of this same information
years before. Church leaders could
have spared considerable embarrassment by a proper and timely investigation of
those charges. By contrast, the
investigation of James Moore’s charges were much more quickly reviewed.
In the Moore case, I suppose, it was not possible to hide under the
protection of First Amendment. I
had pointed to some of the same personal business ventures in which Folkenberg
and his close friends were involved, such as the personal deals with ADRA
concerning the computer sales operation, the MCI fund raising, and the serious
collusion with ADRA Vice-President, Ray Tetz.
Still further was the personal financial benefits Folkenberg and his
brother had arranged through Global Mission.
Folkenberg was not anxious
to have his brother’s rip-off land deal of the Sun Belt Health System opened
to public view. Many are still
asking how much money was required to compensate the attorneys for making
certain the Los Angeles Times did not disclose that deal.
Most of these ventures still beg for openness. Surprisingly, many church members fail to comprehend the
meaning of the immediate resignation of Robert S. Folkenberg’s brother,
Donald, as the CFO for Global Mission, when he was deposed as the SDA world
president. I had pointed to the deal Folkenberg had worked out with Ron
Wisbey, in payment for his efforts to launder money through the Columbia Union
for his personal financial benefit. There
were those who chose to ignore this strong charge.
It was only when the Washington Post revealed Wisbey’s compensation of $446,000 in a single
year that many were shocked to suddenly realize that what I had said in my
original complaint, some five years earlier was, indeed, an understated truth. The Plot Wishing
to spare himself any political embarrassment at the General Conference Session
in Utrecht in 1995, and using the power of the office of the president,
Folkenberg assigned vice-president Mittleider to find something (anything!)
against me and thus force me to resign before the General Conference Session in
Utrecht in 1995. Mittleider had
been given this assignment more than a year earlier. “Moles” had even been brought into the auditing offices
to assist in this diabolical task. Mittleider
correctly prophesied that if I refused to resign it would “get nasty”. The Court never allowed any free exchange of information as
to what inspired and motivated a lady, Elizabeth Heisler Olson Adels, who we
understand now resides somewhere in Oregon, to bring these lurid accusations.
She had come to live with us for a short time when we resided in Singapore in
the early 1970’s. She had
suffered from psychological maladjustments and her teacher and parents were
unable to deal with her. In the
early threatening stages of this orchestration, contrary to the counsels of
Matthew 18, my wife and I were not permitted to meet with her.
There are many questions only she can answer. Why did she go into psychological therapy in Ohio?
What really happened at her alleged rape on the Oregon campground?
What are the actual truths behind her declaration that she had been raped
on various occasions? What is known
of her present life-style? Since we
have never been able to meet with her we are not able to make any educated
judgment as to her real problems or motives, nor can we anticipate any further
assistance from the Court, since the facts are obscured by the First Amendment
ploy. Contrary to the charges leveled at me, I have been faithful
to my marriage vows. I have not
been guilty, as publicly charged, of sexual misconduct. I read a statement to the GC Committee, declaring
unequivocally my innocence of the charges Folkenberg had brought. After reading
the statement, which the executioners chose to totally ignore, I was ushered
from the committee room. I was not
allowed to answer, nor even hear, the eloquent and lengthy presentations of
Folkenberg’s chosen hatchet men. While I have no knowledge of the letters to or from Chris
Seek Baerg, who is presently living with her third husband in Long Beach,
California, we know they were provided by Folkenberg’s personal bodyguard,
Melvin Seard. Some years ago he was investigated by a special committee at the
GC for having a sexual liaison with Ms. Baerg. We know that another of
Folkenberg’s business associates, Ben Maxson, was the first to bring him the
story that Ms. Adels, who was in psychological therapy in Ohio, was prepared to
share her filthy story. For those with whom her sordid document has not been
shared (Walter Carson has published it on the internet), it seems worthy of note
that the imagined events took place some twenty years in the past. Since, at
heavy legal costs, you have been able to shield Ms. Adels behind the First
Amendment, the real truth about Ms. Adels remains obscured. Charlotte and I remain loyal to the message of Adventism and are church members in regular standing. Hopefully Carson will not bring one of his “trademark lawsuits” against us for using the name. We continue paying a faithful tithe. We have no intention, however, of paying it into the coffers which are used to fund the lawsuits against us and other committed SDAs. You will have a difficult time, I fear, twisting the Biblical command of Malachi to prove that the “storehouse” is the conference office. I guarantee, if sincere Adventists really knew how funds were mishandled in church offerings, such as to ADRA and Global Missions, they would stop the “channel” approach to their giving. I should know—I was, after all, the director of auditing for over 18 years. This is the reason Folkenberg wanted me out of his way and
wanted to destroy my name and reputation. It
didn’t matter that, in the process, he was willing to destroy the credibility
of the Auditing Service and thus prove the church incapable of monitoring
itself. How can the auditor be
independent if he is a recognized “officer” of the church—a real case of
the “fox guarding the hen house”. Unless
one is familiar with the political processes it would otherwise seem odd that
the new Director of the Auditing Service, Eric Korff, would appear in Court to
confirm that he is an “officer” of the church.
No wonder my successors in auditing were willing to overlook
multi-millions in losses to the Family Enrichment Resources (FER) organization
in the very next audit of that entity. Folkenberg knows, and I know, and he knows that I know just
why he wanted me out of his way! You,
as his successor accomplice will never allow disclosure of the total costs of
this long legal battle. Certainly,
you will never allow a truly independent investigation, such as the earlier
promised “blue ribbon group”, to report on the facts presented in my
original lawsuit. You and I both
know that millions in tithes (and other church offerings) were expended just to
keep full disclosure out of Court, and from the knowledge of honest church
members. Adventist Leaders and Sex. I was terminated and publicly defamed in the nastiest
possible way, based on phony statements, false evidence, suspicions and trumped
allegations. The prosecutorial approach was that I was guilty until I could
prove my innocence! Tell me, Dr.
Paulsen, did you ever try to prove a negative?
Church records are filled with allegations of moral falls of ministers
and church leaders. We received
statements from family members of an acknowledged open adulterer, who had served
in high denominational leadership. Yet
he was not terminated. He was not
suspended and his ordination was not revoked. His salary and service records were not interrupted.
Today he pastors a nearby SDA church and is teaching the youth at our
Columbia Union College. He is often considered a favorite camp meeting speaker.
Why, I ask, was my case “different”, as stated by Thomas Wetmore, a
GC Attorney assigned to defend his legal colleagues. What about the individual who was discovered by local police
to be sexually involved with a student in California? Rather than punishment and public humiliation, he was
promoted to the presidency of a North American Adventist College. Remember Folkenberg’s own body guard? What about the supervisor in the offices of Risk Management
who took unto himself another’s wife? Do
you recall the case of the pastor who had sex with a female colleague?
Court documents in my possession show that the conference defended him in
the ensuing litigation, even after he acknowledged his guilt.
He is presently pastoring a California church.
Folkenberg had a close personal ally, a CPA who was an adulterer and
Folkenberg knew it. Over my
objections he sent him as a “missionary” in financial matters to the world.
He esteemed his accounting counsel so highly that he continues to serve
on many high level committees of the church.
You may have heard of the retired minister, who was accused similarly as
in my case, and Mittleider, ran for legal help to defend his friend from the
allegations? What about the recent
appointee to leadership at the GC, whose past has been checkered by adultery?
We shall all be watching, with interest, how all of you will try to cover
up the recent high-profile sex
scandal at Southwestern College. Have
you looked lately into such matters in the law offices? There are many many
others, which I shall address in future responses. Why I Chose to Call for Secular Justice A question many sincere hearts have asked over the years, is
why, even after repeated efforts to resolve this conflict within the confines of
the church, I brought a suit in the secular courts?
First, and of high importance, is the matter of my name.
The Scriptures say “a good name is rather to be chosen than great
riches”. It was impossible, not to make every effort to silence those
who were publicly assassinating my character and that of my family.
Nevertheless, my human efforts, like the David for whom I was named,
seemed pathetic and inadequate against the might and millions of church dollars
you threw, in Goliath-like fashion, at the escalating number of lawsuits with
which the denomination is involved. We
still look back in amazement that you found it necessary to engage three of the
most expensive law firms in Washington, D. C. to represent you against our small
claim for simple justice, mercy, understanding, and honesty! Secondly, was a sincere desire to see the corruption cleaned
up in the General Conference and within many of its subsidiary organizations.
In the nearly two decades of my association at the headquarters of the
church I could see how the organized church is slowly being strangled by its own
bureaucracy. My study a few months
before my dismissal, which showed that the administrative overhead for just
operating the structures of union offices in North America, is costing the
church nearly forty million tithe dollars each year, though greatly
unappreciated, is most revealing. I
am convinced change within the church can only come from two sources:
(1) lay people, through voice and financial boycott making their concerns
heard and demanding a greater level of accountability; and (2) the political
timidity, which currently frightens church employees away from speaking out,
will have to give way to an internal revolt, demanding change.
Where were church leaders, yes GC officers, during my long struggle?
The silence was deafening. Finally, the most pervasive reason for bringing the legal
complaint was a sincere attempt to bring disclosure to the continuing cover-ups
of high level fraud within the denomination.
There must be open clarification of the FER scandal that personally
benefited many church officials. There
should be a full disclosure of the personal deals Folkenberg had with the
likes of Carson, Watts, Wisbey, Tetz, Maxson, McClure, and Moore. The Tragedy of This ExperienceMany unfortunate results will and have accrued from this
experience. For example, this was
treated as a “test case” to see how brutal you could be to an employee of
the church and still hide behind First Amendment protection.
Therefore, what incentive will there be for young people to commit
themselves to the service of the church, if, at the whim of an offended leader,
the employee can be terminated, the contract of service broken, unemployment
compensation unavailable, his retirement benefits arbitrarily reduced or denied,
and then publicly humiliated before the world church? Such experiences, as in the Piankowski and Oxentenko cases,
continue. Mike Piankowski, one of
this generation’s brightest young ministers in the denomination, was fired
from his post as pastor of the Takoma Park Church in 1995 because he paid his
tithe (a double-tithe) into the local church.
More than a year ago a story, similar to my case, was circulated that
Mike Oxentenko, of the Sligo Church, and his wife were abusing their children.
He was forced from office. Rather
than allow the judicial system to litigate, you hid behind the First Amendment
and refused to allow discovery of the truth.
I wonder how widely these abuses of the First Amendment are known, since
Adventists have been taught to treat the separation of church and state as a
“freedom”. Frankly, the church
has treated me and unknown others to injustice far greater than I have ever
suffered from the state. Now,
apparently, you and your corrupt associates, heirs to an
“old buddy system”, will enjoy unlimited immunity from any secular
justice. Frankly, it came as a surprise to my family and me to learn
that the self-acclaimed “Caring Church” practices shunning.
I have spoken to many who have left the roles of Adventist employ who
confirm that once you fail to meet the expected level of obedience and political
control of certain church officials, you are totally cut off from the love and
support of those you once thought of as friends and brothers.
Remembering how we joined the world church in praying for you and your
family after your son’s tragic accident it seems incongruent that you have
never reached out a hand to us, knowing of the estrangement we feel after having
spent 34 ½ years in service to the
world church. During those years I was never accused of “conduct unbecoming to
an ordained minister”. Rather,
under your leadership, Folkenberg’s message continues to get published by
official GC media. Where Do We Go From Here? Folkenberg’s future, of course, is secure.
He will continue receiving full pay and benefits from the very coffers he
corrupted, while proceeding with his real estate and fund raising ventures in
Virginia and elsewhere. He has
stated that he is working under your supervision. Recently he was featured in a
union publication peddling high tech equipment around the world.
In due course, he will be offered another high level position with the
denomination. It is reported, with
a degree of credibility, that his name was suggested for the presidency at a
recent conference constituency. For me things are different. God has blessed me with the
ability to hold a real job and work for a living. It had been our plan to retire in August this past year, with
40 years of denominational service. Purely,
as a matter of stubborn and hateful revenge, I was refused a request to allow
use of my “severance” pay to extend my service six months to provide the
required credit of 35 full years and, thus, I was cheated out of this
significant retirement benefit. One
of the things we had looked forward to, in retirement, was the opportunity to
serve the church as volunteers. The
doors to most such possibilities have been closed to us.
Ron Watts, president of the Southern Asia Division, and a close
Folkenberg ally, refused our offer to help with the work in India. I feel quite certain but few expected, with our meager
resources, we could keep our case alive for nearly seven years.
At a mediation meeting sometime ago the arbiter told me that your paltry
offer for a settlement was limited by your “constituents”.
If as they should be, members of the church, what input did they have in
the decision to expend millions just fighting to keep the case out of court? We will have to accept your unwillingness to address our
case, on its merits in court, as a strange sort of exoneration.
Much we would have preferred an honest exchange of the evidence before an
unbiased jury, rather than simply allowing you and your spin doctors the use of
church assets and legal immunity to share your defamatory message to the world. Charlotte and I do not cherish bitterness or hatred.
We will not allow you or your predecessor to steal our crown.
We pray God will forgive you for what you have done to our family and for
your salvation. We rest our case in the hands of the righteous Judge, who knows
not only our actions, but the motives of every heart. David D. Dennis The Slippery Slimy Cover-Up of Adventist Leaders August
2002 {Corruption is not limited to Enron, Worldcom, Anderson, etc.} David Dennis Case: was dismissed in court in 2001. Concerned SDA Church members still want David's allegations investigated by an independent committee and reported back to the church members. General Conference President, Dr. Jan Paulsen cannot stand investigation. He has refused the request of SDA Church members for a "blue-ribbon" investigation of the allegation made by David Dennis. After the SDA Church spent millions of dollars (estimated at 5 million dollars) over a six-year period to keep David's case from being heard in court. Now the General Conference President, Dr. Jan Paulsen has continued the CHURCH COVER-UP to keep church members in darkness to the facts of the guilt or innocence of David Dennis. Dale Martin A 46 Year Concerned Church Member Wrote Tue 7/23/2002 imatexan@swbell.net Robert, Dear
Robert, You
forwarded to me a note from Dale Martin, in Texas, enquiring as to whether or
not Dr. Paulsen had responded to my six-page letter sent him last October.
The correct answer is NO. Later
Dale mentioned a letter by Drs. Shankel, Grames and others in California.
The facts are that Dr. Paulsen has not
condescended to favor me with ANY form of reply. His
personal secretary, a former friend, sent me an angry response indicating that
I would hear nothing further on the matter from Dr. Paulsen.
The California doctors are a
stronger force (in numbers and in dollars) and Paulsen tried to soothe them
with the letter that you read. He
has not responded to their reply (and probably never will).
One of the GC-employed attorneys, also an ex-friend, has sent word
out that the GC equates me to Osama bin Laden and called my letter that of a
"vitriolic poison pen".
Sincerely,
Dave Dennis Stewart W. Shankel,
Richard Sheldon and George M. Grames wrote to Elder Jan Paulsen: Dear Dr. Paulsen, We have been very concerned about the allegations of malfeasance by officers of the Church expressed by David Dennis in his lawsuit against the General Conference. On April 8,1996 four hundred and fifty seven individuals petitioned Elder Robert Folkenberg to engage a team of independent, professional investigators to thoroughly investigate all of the allegations of David Dennis. We believe that if these allegations are false accusations, the church officers would be exonerated, and the integrity of the church would be preserved. If the allegations have merit, offenders could be properly disciplined, and again the integrity of the church would be preserved. Elder Folkenberg did not respond to our letter, but
we did receive a letter dated April 17,1996 from Robert W. Nixon, General
Counsel to the General Conference. In that letter
Mr. Nixon stated that, "Elder Folkenberg consistently has supported the
possibility of setting up a blue-ribbon commission to look into all
allegations once the litigation terminates." Now that the David Dennis lawsuit has been
withdrawn we are requesting that Elder Folkenberg's concept of a
"blue-ribbon commission to look into all allegations", be honored by
your administration. Elder Paulsen wrote back: I have given considerable thought and prayer to your
recent letter requesting that the General Conference appoint a blue-ribbon
committee to investigate the allegations made by David Dennis in his lawsuit
against the General Conference. I also have consulted with others concerning
your proposal, and I intend to get additional input on this issue from
international church leadership as I have opportunity. Such allegations concern me too, because like most
church members, I value credibility and
expect responsible church leadership, whether at the congregational,
conference, union, division, General Conference, or institutional level. But
the reality is that the church is made up of humans who from time to time make
mistakes. We must confront those mistakes, deal
with them as we think appropriate, learn what we can from them, and move on
with the work of the church, which is the mission. As I reviewed your letter and thought about the
possibility of a blue-ribbon committee to review the Dennis allegations, I
thought to myself— Would this essentially be a positive step contributing to
the credibility of the church, or would this more likely be a negative step
that could consume countless hours and dollars of administrative time and
church dollars and yield little, if any, information that isn't already in the
public domain and hasn't already been legally and administratively reviewed? It seems to me that our history as a church, together
with personnel changes that have occurred, have moved us past the time that a
blue-ribbon committee would be a positive move for the world church. We have
suffered the pain! I think we have learned some important lessons, and healing
is taking place. I sincerely believe it is time to leave this chapter behind
and move on with the true work of the church, taking the Gospel to the world. Stewart W. Shankel, Richard Sheldon and George M. Grames wrote back to Elder Paulsen: Thank you for your letter of February 25, 2002 in
response to our request for an independent investigation into the David Dennis
allegations. We appreciate that you recognize that we have a legitimate concern
for the credibility of the church, and with you expect responsible church
leadership at all levels of the church. We are
disappointed that you believe that an investigation would not contribute to the
credibility of the church. You are concerned about the consumption of countless
hours and dollars of administrative time that would "yield little, if any,
information that isn't already in the public domain and hasn't already been
legally and administratively reviewed." Certainly little official information has reached the
public domain of the church membership at large. Most of the information has
come through Spectrum and Adventist Today, neither is a church sponsored
publication and neither enjoys wide circulation among the Adventist laity. In
as much as the case has already been "legally and administratively
reviewed," which allegations have merit and which allegations are without
merit? Dennis alleged high‑level corruption involving more than one
individual. If any of these allegations were accurate, what disciplinary action
was taken against church officials involved in corruption? In David
Dennis' open letter to you dated October 30, 2001 he states that former
president Robert Folkenberg remains honest in the handling of them. We do well
to pray for them in this regard.
Thank you also for providing the wording of the "Policy on Openness and
Accountability." From David Dennis Wed
7/24/2002 Hi Dale and Robert: While I
direct this to Dale, I am copying in Robert a long-time friend, primarily
because of our mutual interest. Your letter to Robert and copied to me is
greatly appreciated. I am thankful for people with both insight and open
minds. Your points, Dale, which I hope can
someday at least be read by Dr. Paulsen, are direct and insightful.
As far as I know, though I only previously knew Paulsen at a distance while he
was in Europe, Dr. Paulsen is a fine Christian gentleman. He is a
Norwegian (my wife is Norwegian), so that is a start.
But, as with all of us he has some glaring flaws. First, the political
system does not allow him to stray from the status quo. He is totally
beholden to Folkenberg, who engineered his appointment (as a VP) to the GC.
Further, he is subjected to a seething hatred at the GC
against me. In addition to a
general dislike of me over my role in auditing (I considered myself
responsible to the constituents, rather than to management), some say they
hated me because of my lawsuit, which I initiated for two reasons I consider
very valid: It was the only course
open to me to try to clear my name they had so publicly trashed; and I had hoped
to bring change to the church political management structure through disclosure
of shenanigans in Court. If there is ONE thing the GC detests its public
disclosure of their mis-deeds. Rather than a blessing the
misuse and abuse of the First Amendment in their hands becomes a curse in
allowing them to hide their corruption. As long
as it remains hidden it will continue! While I am grateful for the pressures applied and the letters
written, I understand from various parts of the globe, I have serious doubts any
open response will ever be received. Some feel a financial collapse--an
Enron/Worldcom type of disaster (a good possibility)--is the only way change
will ever come. Thanks for your prayers and help! Pessimistically yours,
Dave Dennis HERE
IS HOW YOU CAN HELP END THE DENNIS COVER-UP.
The
Seventh-day Adventist Church is October 8, 2002 Many people e-mail me periodically asking about David Dennis' lawsuit. You would think that after the Seventh-day Adventist Church spent millions of dollars and seven years, keeping Brother Dennis' lawsuit from being heard in a court of law, hiding behind the first amendment they would stop misleading the public. But they are continuing to slander him behind his back. They compare David Dennis with " Osama bin Ladin". David has "authorized" me to publish "An Open Letter", so you will not be misled by misinformation about him from the SDA Church. Please read his letter carefully so as not to miss important information. October 8, 2002An Open Letter Elder
Larry R. Colburn Dear
Larry: Copies
of a letter you posted on September 12, 2002 are being widely Perhaps
more than the inaccuracies of your letter, I find even more Your
letter of September 12 came as a bit of a surprise since you had Clearly,
your attempts to vilify me are designed so that you can ignore Let’s
do a little analysis of your letter. You
state that there is In
fact, the following sentence, an absolute falsehood, states that the Your
letter continues by directing the reader to documents you provide When
I was pressured to resign from the GC, in October, 1994, I was Some
say you (corporately) hate me because I exposed the financial Church
leadership has failed in its commitment to provide a definitive We,
you and I, were once friends (or so I believed) and neighbors.
I read Even
though you will likely choose to carry on your malicious campaign An
erstwhile friend,
David
D. Dennis October 29, 2002 Elder
Larry R. Colburn
From: David D. Dennis Assistant
to the GC President
3413 Olandwood Ct., #204 12501 Old Columbia Pike
Olney, MD 20832
Silver Spring,
MD 20904-6600 Dear
Larry: In
your abbreviated letter of October 16, after acknowledging receipt of my It
is evident that your view of the issues continues to be quite continued focus of your letter, it appears that the church and its to forgive and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. What
a comfort and what an encouragement!
Yours in His service, I
am in full harmony with your statement about God’s forgiveness.
Indeed, You
have not explained why, in your letter dated November 12, 2001, you ·
In your
circular letter of September 12, 2002 you allege that “there
I
shall appreciate receiving your detailed response with more depth than David D. Dennis |