Civil Legal Case Synopsis
How Solid Rock Church Was Stolen!
|Item||Commentary||Civil Case Documentation|
|How to understand the theft of Solid Rock Church||To understand the church theft simply requires the examination of corporate meeting minutes and comparing those minutes against what was filed under oath with the Secretary of State.||Timeline & Events|
|Theft Discovery 1998||Palmer discovered the church theft upon receipt of state documents during April 1998. At that time he filed the first civil complaint seeking justice for the souls in the Elk River community and for the fraud imposed on his personal property.||Complaint#1 (PDF)|
|Judge Lorette||Judge Lorette was assigned. He saw the civil issues in Palmer's first complaint and engineered a settlement agreement. That settlement agreement was reneged on by SRC attorneys and Judge Lorette was forced to recuse himself from the case.||Judge Lorette's Letter|
|Judge Alan Pendleton||Case was reassigned to Judge Alan Pendleton, who ignored the theft documentation that was presented and ruled that the complaint lacked the elements of fraud "as required by the rules." Injustice was dished out by the Court and crime was allowed to continue in the Elk River Community. In addition to ignoring legal documentation in the form of SRC corporate meeting minutes and state filings, Judge Alan Pendleton also ignored filed Court Affidavits from 10 other eyewitnesses who corroborated what Palmer presented concerning the fraudulent filings.||First Court Order|
|MN Assistant Attorney General David Aafedt||Still lacking funds, Palmer sought input from the Attorney General's Office and other attorneys as to whether the case could be refiled if the elements of fraud were fully presented. Assistant Attorney General David Aafedt suggested Palmer proceed. At least six other attorneys were consulted in the matter. One attorney, presently a Federal Administrative Court Judge, took Palmer to the State's law library and helped him do research to refile a new civil complaint.||Assistant Attorney General David Aafedt's Letter|
|Second Complaint||The legal advice Palmer received led to the filing of a second civil complaint. However, in order to cover all aspects of the elements of fraud, a more detailed complaint was constructed.||Complaint#2 (PDF)|
|Judge Hancock||Case was assigned to Judge Karla F. Hancock, who ignored the corporate fraud evidence and its impact on Palmer's property. Instead, like the rules oriented Pendleton, Hancock dismissed the suit based on res judicata, which means the matter was already settled by the law. This time however, the Court fined Palmer $17k and claimed he was harassing Matthews and his privies.||Second Court Order|
|The Perverse and Unfair Courts of Judge Alan Pendleton and Judge Karla Hancock.||The Minnesota Tenth District Court was unfair and perverse in judgment. Only one of three judges saw the civil issues and took action. He was forced to recuse himself by the legal manipulation of the Lindquist & Vennum Law firm in Minneapolis.
By Pendleton & Hancock Court logic, the following is the way the Minnesota fraud laws should operate:
1. When the fraud complaint doesn't contain all 11 elements of fraud under the "Rules", it should be thrown out, even if corporate documents proving fraud is present in Court filings and exist at the MN Secretary of State's Office.
2. When the fraud complaint was fixed to include all 11 elements of fraud, it should also be thrown out, because a pro se litigator should have got it right the first time. Again, even IF the Judge is in possession of the actual corporate meeting minutes and state filings that document the fraud.
3. In addition, since the pro se litigator had the audacity to come back a second time seeking justice for the community and himself, he should be fined for harassment and be restricted from any further legal action in the matter (see "Second Court Order" for the $17k fine and Judge Karla F. Hancock's litigation restrictions).
4. In the eyes of Judge Alan Pendleton and Karla F. Hancock, crime pays if it is done in the name of religion and is located in Sherburne County.
5. In the eyes of Judge Alan Pendleton and Karla F. Hancock, a pro se litigator doesn't belong in the Court room. Only licensed lawyers. How else can you explain the fact that two judges blatantly ignored written documents and other evidence of corporate fraud in sworn statements to the Court and in State filings? Got an answer?
|Unanswered Questions||There are many unanswered questions, which are discussed at length in the "Book of Edward" at http://www.edwardtheapostle.org.||Solid Rock Church|
|Pendleton & Hancock Courts Denied Discovery Requests||Both the Pendleton and Hancock Courts denied discovery in the above matter. As a result, there are many unanswered "crime" questions that would have been made plain had discovery been allowed to proceed. Examples of detailed discovery requests that were denied are at the right. Should another party decide to litigate the fraud against them, that this church has wrought, these documents may serve as a guide or starting point of which items to ask for. No doubt an attorney would have been more skillful at extracting discovery information. No doubt, a pro se litigant is at a serious disadvantage in the Tenth District Court in Sherburne County.||Admissions|
|Statute of Limitations||The Statute of Limitations for FRAUD is six years from the discovery of the fraud. Therefore, people who are now just discovering the fraud have six years in which to take legal action.||See MN Statutes|
|Church Theft Witness List||Over four hundred thirty (430) individuals have been identified as potential witnesses to the church theft and/or are actual victims of this corporate fraud (white collar crime) who unknowingly and/or unwittingly were disenfranchised of their corporate voting rights by a con man who presented himself as an Assemblies of God licensed "righteous pastor." Who were the owners of this Minnesota non-profit corporation organized and operated under Minn. Stat. §317A? All of the members with voting rights owned it! Before the theft, all members had an equal vote. After the theft, only Matthews and his cronies had the right to vote. Ergo, the church was stolen first from the Assemblies of God denomination using a ruse of affiliation change and then from its own voting membership via fraudulent Articles filings coupled with activities designed to eliminate any dissent and known voting members. Because Judge Pendleton and Judge Hancock shut down almost all discovery requests, none of the eye witnesses identified were ever summoned to testify about a clearly documented church theft that left a verifiable "public" paper trail.|
|The Victims||In 1993, the Elk River Assembly of God was still reeling from the 1992 sexual scandal of Pastor James Hoogenboom. Members had elected William Neal Matthews in September 1992 as their new senior pastor to replace Hoogenboom. He was a "licensed" Assemblies of God minister. Matthews' had family members inside the church that vouched for him as an honest man of God. Little did the membership know that this (Matthews) replacement pastor would steal the church from underneath them (by disenfranchising them of their voting rights through illegal articles filings with the Secretary of State). Many of the people who voted Matthews into office remain clueless even today to the crime that was wrought against them.
A nineteen page "victim list" link is at the right and is viewable from within your browser. There is also a download link to a 3.9 Mb Acrobat PDF file if you'd like to download this information. The "victim list" is in the form of the 1993 Church Directory issued just a few weeks prior to Matthews' FIRST illegal and fraudulent Articles filing in July. These victims are the people who were "taken-in" by William Neal Matthews. Hundreds of people in the Elk River area have been victimized by a crime that some people still think is either victimless or non-existent. They are wrong. Just view the faces of the people or download the "List of Victims" and look at the families who placed their trust in a Pastor who turned out to be a con man. A Pastor that would take advantage of the members' trust and emotional distraught during a time of a big church crisis. These people were the remnant left in the Elk River Assembly of God Church after Pastor Hoogenbooms' huge sex scandal. After the sex scandal, most people left the church and did not want to be associated with it anymore. This remnant hoped to rebuild their ministry, which was a Minnesota non-profit §317A corporation, wherein every member had equal voting rights. The Pastor stole the church by taking away those voting rights. He had no corporate authority and the filings he made with the Minnesota Secretary of State were fraudulent. They were not the actions of the voting membership!!!
|List of Victims|
An honest analysis of the corporate meeting minutes and sworn state filings can only conclude that the Courts of Alan Pendleton and Karla F. Hancock were not interested in justice in this church theft and that they were, in fact, biased against Palmer as a pro se litigator in the matters. It is hard to come to any other conclusion given the unfair legal process they imposed as described above and the documents in their possession at the time of their Court Orders that were prima facie proof of fraud. Fraud that was imposed not only on Palmer, but on hundreds of others who misplaced their trust in this Assemblies of God Minister. The Courts of Pendleton and Hancock manifested injustice by their rulings; they did not serve the cause of justice!
|Assemblies of God|
|Letter To Attorney General||
Minnesota Attorney General
|Attorney General's Response||On December 23, 2005, Keith Sugisaka, Assistant Attorney General responded to the confidential letter sent to Mike Hatch. The general tone of his response is that the Attorney General has no authority to take action. However, that is incorrect!|
|Minnesota Law Gives Attorney General The Authority To Take Action||In fact, Minnesota law gives Mike Hatch authority to take action to remedy this crime. The Attorney General's authority when corporate Articles are obtained by fraudulent means is Minn. Stat. § 317A.751 Subd 5. His authority to take action when the State has a clear public interest is Minn. Stat. §317A.903. The Attorney General's authority to ensure corporate compliance with the non-profit corporate law is Minn. Stat. §317A.813.||
January 4, 2006
News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Dean or Jackie Mattila
$6 Million Theft Disclosed In The “Book of Edward” by JVED Publishing Ignored By Attorney General Mike Hatch!
Elk River, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 4, 2006- In a stunning statement from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, the $6 Million church theft disclosed in the “Book of Edward” and heretofore ignored by the authorities charged with investigating the crime has also been declared of no interest to Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch. Assistant AG Keiko Sugisaka who responded to a private letter the author wrote directly to Mike Hatch discussing the theft stated: “This Office [of the Attorney General] has no authority to investigate criminal wrongdoing.” If this corporate theft is of no concern to the Attorney General, then one must wonder who represents Minnesota’s interests when perjury is committed in Secretary of State filings to obtain fraudulent Articles of Incorporation. If the Attorney General’s Office doesn’t care about corporate fraud against the State, what does that say about corporate crime in Minnesota? Criminal manipulation of Articles pays in Minnesota? Church crimes are ignored?
Rev. Edward G. Palmer [author] said: “I sent a confidential letter to Mike Hatch detailing the $6 million crime. Since Hatch violated this confidentiality, I placed the letter and Sugisaka’s reply on the james417.org web site. The letter cites Minn. Statute 317A.751 Subd 5. It gives the Attorney General his authority to take action when a non-profit corporation obtains fraudulent Articles. Minn. Statute 317A.903 gives the Attorney General his authority when the State has a clear interest. It seems manifestly obvious that when lies are made under oath in filings with the state and fraudulent Articles are obtained as a resultthat the state does have a vested interest. Minn. Statute 317A.813 gives the Attorney General his powers ‘to supervise and investigate non-profit corporations … to secure full compliance [with the law].’ I believe Hatch’s decision to ignore this corporate crime is political and motivated by his upcoming gubernatorial race.”
Documentation of the Elk River church theft can be found at http://www.james417.org and the “Book of Edward” found at http://www.edwardtheapostle.org. JVED Publishing, “Book of Edward” publisher is located at http://www.jvedpublishing.org.
# # #
Does Crime Pay In Minnesota?
Authorities in Minnesota have ignored a $6 Million church crime that is now well documented in State public records. And, if the Attorney General Mike Hatch refuses to simply protect Minnesota's interests, does that now mean corporate crime pays in Minnesota? In this case, public documents prove that lies were made under oath to the Secretary of State to obtain fraudulent Articles. Those fraudulent Articles disenfranchised the congregation of their voting rights. The Rev. Edward G. Palmer believes that Mike Hatch's refusal to get involved was motivated by his gubernatorial campaign in Minnesota.
|Solid Rock Attempts to Silence the Rev. Palmer||
Solid Rock Church Attempts To
|Attorney's Full Settlement Letter||The Rev. Palmer rejected Solid Rock's attempt at eliminating his first amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. He requested a total payout amount as required by law to settle the judgment. SEE the attorney's full settlement amount in this letter.|
|Unrighteous Judge Karla Hancock's Court Judgment Settled in Full||After rejecting the demands of Solid Rock Church aimed at silencing the Rev. Edward G. Palmer from disseminating this information on how the church was stolen, the family paid the judgment in full to settle the matter. SEE the attorney's judgment satisfaction and paid in full letter.|
Who Protects Minnesotans Against Sophisticated White Collar Crime?
Who protects the citizens of Minnesota from white collar criminals posing as righteous ministers of God that violate Minnesota law by making fraudulent filings with the Secretary of State and stealing a church? Who protects the innocent from unrighteous court fines when they provide the court with conclusive evidence? Why do courts ignore criminals and opt for dismissing cases on technicalities? Does God have something to say about this lack of justice in Minnesota? Indeed, is there justice in Minnesota or do we just let a criminal steal $6 Million in property? I wonder, what's next and do William Neal or Mary Beth Matthews actually sleep at night knowing their theft is fully disclosed and documented online?
|Governor Pawlenty Ignores Crime||
Conclusion: White Collar Crimes Pay Off Big In Minnesota!