2. “He will continue to do so in the future.”
David Cartledge has never been slow to claim omniscience for himself,
frequently prophesying convenient “words” to the assembled masses.
My personal favourite was the time when God allegedly whispered in his ear
that the 1990s would be a “Decade of Harvest.” Of course, the reverse
happened and the AOG slipped into a state of slow decline.
(I have often wondered what happened to all the money that the National
Executive collected, allegedly to help with the massive
influx of new Christians, who we never saw…)
My other favourite was Cartledge’s solemn declaration that his willingness
to take the Southern Cross Bible College ever deeper into debt constituted
a “miracle.”
According to David Cartledge, taking on unnecessary, crippling
debt is right up there with the parting of the Red Sea!
3. “The National Executive does not intend to respond individually to
Mr. Sheppard's ridiculous allegations. They do not warrant it.”
I admire the technique. Just call the allegations “ridiculous” and flatly
state that you will not respond to them and, hey presto! — nothing up my
sleeves…, the problem disappears.
Or, at least, it does with appropriately submissive cult members.
And, if you don’t fit into that category, the next instruction will sort you
out.
4. “If any AOG member is genuinely concerned by the allegations made by
Mr. Sheppard then that member should approach his or her Pastor who will
either provide an explanation or arrange for that member to be given an
explanation about the matter.”
Actually, most of the ‘Pastors’ have been at some pains to ensure that
they were never troubled with the facts. [There are a few genuine
pastors left in the ranks; unfortunately they are a small and ineffective
remnant.]
But, by approaching them, you will alert the Executive that you are
a potential trouble-maker. Asking the wrong kinds of questions will
end any hopes you may have for ongoing acceptance within the AOG.
If you have a genuine interest in learning the truth about the AOG National
Executive, try asking one of them for a copy of the allegations against
Greg Sowerby that they paid a lawyer to lodge with the South Australian
Police Force.
Ask them for a copy of the Police Report on the results of their
twelve month investigation into the AOG’s claims.
You will receive truck loads of double-talk, but you will never receive
a copy of either document from the AOG.
5. “In Mr. Sheppard's publications on the Internet he has referred to
a book called "The Evidence" that he wrote and arranged to
be published. The book concerned a dispute that existed between the
National Executive and Greg Sowerby.”
A) I did not write The Evidence so much as compile it. The bulk of
the book is a collection of the AOG National Executive’s own letters and
faxes, along with the relevant Police reports. I simply put the documents
together in chronological order and explained the relevance of each one.
David Cartledge and his mates love to pretend that The Evidence is
a novel containing a list of unsubstantiated complaints and allegations.
On the contrary, it is basically a collection of documents that they
either prepared directly, or caused to come into existence.
The nature of their work is such that they are terrified you will read
it and discover the truth for yourself.
B) The dispute in question involved Henry Sheppard, as well as Greg Sowerby.
Again, they love to pretend that I was neither sacked nor had the wages
owing to me wrongly withheld.
They love to pretend that I was never there, but just stumbled onto some
stranger’s problem and launched into a mindless crusade on behalf of that
stranger.
Read the Police Report of their investigation of the false accusations
that the AOG National Executive made against Greg Sowerby and you will find
— surprise, surprise! — that Henry Sheppard was rightfully employed
by the then Manager of the AOG Insurance Agency.
6. “Last year, the parties to that dispute were reconciled in accordance
with Scripture. They are trying to put it behind them. Unfortunately
this has not satisfied Mr. Sheppard. In fact, to the contrary, Mr.
Sheppard has continued to try to publicise the dispute and has now
tried to attack the good faith of the reconciliation.”
During 1996, Greg Sowerby — who survives by operating a business providing
services to churches — succumbed to the economic duress being applied
to himself and his family by the AOG National Executive, and surrendered
his fight to have the truth concerning his experiences made known.
You only have to read the “Reconciliation” document to see that it is a
declaration of victory by the AOG.
I have not “continued to try to publicise the dispute.” I have continued
to testify publicly to the fact that I have had wages owing to me as at
5 November 1993 wrongly withheld by the AOG National Executive. It is
impossible to tell that story without explaining the full context of
my experiences.
At some point, the AOG National Executive members developed the
weird idea that I am merely an appendix of Greg Sowerby. They believed
that by frightening Greg into “Reconciliation,” I would automatically
go away. They were wrong on both counts.
There is absolutely no connection between any arrangement they might have
made with Greg and the debt they owe to me.
7. “This has resulted in a bizarre situation where the parties to
the dispute have agreed that it is over and have been reconciled in
accordance with Scripture. But Mr. Sheppard - who is not even involved
in the dispute - cannot let it rest and continues to try to attack
the National Executive using the dispute as a vehicle.”
That is a bald-faced lie. I am as much a “party to the dispute” as Greg
Sowerby, and have been “involved in the dispute” since 5 November 1993.
Greg has always understood this and attempted on a number of occasions
to explain it to Brian Houston and the others, but they never listened,
preferring their own fantasy to the facts.
8. “Not only is Mr. Sheppard trying to publicise the dispute by way
of the Internet but he is also planning a video on the subject.”
The omniscient David Cartledge strikes again!
9. “Interestingly, this has led to Mr. Sowerby - the person who was
involved in the dispute - completely disassociating himself from Mr.
Sheppard's actions in this regard.”
“Interestingly” is a good word. What possible connection is there between
an alleged video and any actions by Greg Sowerby?
(Again, Greg was not “THE person who was involved in the dispute,” but
merely ONE OF the people involved in the dispute.)
10. “It is true that some members of the National Executive took
legal action against Mr. Sheppard on account of the defamatory
allegations which appeared in "The Evidence". Action was
only taken after Mr. Sheppard sent a letter in which he threatened
to launch a publicity campaign with the object of seeing 100,000
people leave the Assemblies of God. The legal action was designed
to minimise the harm to the Fellowship caused by Sheppard's accusations.”
Here we have another oft repeated lie.
The AOG National Executive raises the spectre of some fantastic campaign
which will, at any moment, drive 100,000 people away from their churches
and, on the basis of this terrifying possibility, pretend that their private
legal action against me in the District Court of South Australia was really
quite justified.
But there is no rational connection between the two (even assuming I had
the power to invoke such devastation on the AOG).
What did the legal action in the District Court achieve?
Before David Cartledge and friends sued me in the District Court of
South Australia, a book called The Evidence was available by
mail order.
And after that attack fizzled out to nothing, the 5th edition
of the same book was still available by mail order.
Do you really believe that 100,000 people would have left the AOG, but for
these men engaging in their expensively futile legal action?
100,000 did leave, but they were dollar bills which had been donated
for the preaching of the gospel, not for silencing Christians who are
complaining about being ripped off by professional religious leaders.
11. “This attack on the Assemblies of God by Mr. Sheppard failed
dismally. Our Members treated it with the contempt it deserved.”
If the alleged “attack” failed because the people treated it with contempt,
why was the legal action necessary?
12. “Mr. Sheppard has made much of the fact that he could not afford
a lawyer to defend himself. However he refused very strong advice from
a District Court judge that even if he were to conduct his defence on his
own he should get an opinion from a lawyer who specialised in the area.
The judge said that this would not be very expensive at all. To our
knowledge, Mr. Sheppard has not followed that advice.”
What a laugh! What would “not be very expensive at all” to a judge on
$250,000 a year, or to AOG National Executive members (who leave the bills
to the unwitting flock to pay), would be financially devastating for an
average citizen.
For all their light-hearted approach to the question of expenses, the
boys never offered to pay for this allegedly necessary “advice.”
And ask yourself this question: How could I have improved on the final
result with any quantity of legal advice? When it came to the crunch,
Andrew Evans, David Cartledge, Brian Houston and the others went to
water. They could not face the judge’s decision and “discontinued” their
action instead.
I think I did an excellent job of “conducting my defence on my own.”
13. “Of course "truth is a defence". If Mr. Sheppard could
prove - with or without a lawyer - that any of the many allegations
complained of were true, then he would not be found guilty of defamation
in relation to that allegation.”
Another outrageous lie.
Proving that a hundred million allegations are true is no defence against
being found guilty of defamation.
In the first edition of The Evidence I used the word “crimes” in
its colloquial meaning of “bad things”.
The law, while fully understanding the intention of my meaning, chooses
only to weigh words in their technical, legal meaning.
The result is that the first edition of The Evidence contained a
solitary word that inevitably resulted in the entire book being ruled as
defamatory.
Fair enough. If I had known the rules at the outset I would have worded the
sentence differently, but I cannot change the past.
Once I received the list of complaints by Andrew Evans and the others,
I deleted every single word they identified as being a problem for them
(regardless of my own opinion), and reissued the book as a second edition.
When the judge explained the legal significance of the word “crimes” to me,
I pointed out that the second edition did not contain that word.
The judge said it made no difference. Once the first edition was classed
as defamatory, every other edition was automatically considered to be
defamatory as well.
In other words, if the second edition contained nothing but the King James
Version of the Lord’s Prayer, it would still be considered defamatory!
14. “However, Mr. Sheppard did not try to defend the truth of any of
the statements that he had made.”
What an unbelievably outrageous lie!
On 8 March 1996 I lodged my “Defence” with the District Court of South
Australia. It was done to the best of my untrained ability and occupied
sixteen pages.
On 18 June 1996 David Cartledge's team of lawyers applied to have my
Defence “struck out” on some technical legal grounds.
On 11 July 1996 the judge ruled that my Defence be struck out for
“non-compliance with Rule 46.”
I had lodged a Defence of the truthfulness of all passages complained of,
including my colloquial use of the word “crimes,” but my Defence was not
taken into account for technical legal reasons which I have never
understood.
15. “The members of the National Executive were entitled to an award
of damages against Mr. Sheppard but elected not to pursue it.”
“Damages” are awarded on the basis of the losses involved.
Andrew Evans and friends receive wages. They have suffered no loss from
my telling the truth about them.
So what damages are they entitled to?
The most likely amount is $1 each, but because they lacked the balls to
front up to the judge and hear him pronounce the figure, we will never know.
16. “Now that the dispute between Mr. Sowerby and the National
Executive has ended, no doubt Mr. Sheppard will continue his
attack on the National Executive and the leadership of the AOG.”
I fail to see any logical connection between the two parts of that
sentence. (If you work it out, please let me know.)
17. “Mr. Sheppard will not meet with members of the National Executive
to discuss the issues. He simply takes them straight to the public domain.”
Yet another of the oft repeated lies.
I have met with many of the members and representatives of the National
Executive to discuss the issues.
Robert Palma refused to acknowledge the existence of the issues,
much less discuss them.
Brian Houston and Steve Penny played word games and took
turns at mocking me.
Andrew Evans hated being asked about his lies, false promises and
the cancelled cheques he arranged for Meredith Sowerby to receive. We did
not really get amongst the issues before he stormed out of my house
uttering threats which eventually manifested in the form of his legal
action against me.
Keith Ainge demanded that I appear before him at a Court room,
on less than 24 hours notice.
I explained to him that I was happy to meet with anyone, anywhere,
anytime, but that I would not submit to intimidation.
That has not changed. And, apparently because the average AOG Executive
member only wishes talk to me if I am in a state of suitably abject
submission, they wilfully interpret my resistance as a refusal to discuss
their issues.
As for “taking things to the public domain,” what is the alternative?
The Evidence was published during the third year of the AOG
Insurance Agency scandal. Up until that time I had tried all the
reasonable alternatives and been mocked for my trouble.
I remain enthusiastic for a private resolution to this business, but cannot
obtain such without a genuine response from people like David Cartledge.
He has shown no interest in anything other than lies and intimidation.
18. “A possible guide to Mr. Sheppard's motivation occurred in August
1996. Mr. Sheppard threatened to send out another letter which contained
many untruths unless he received an "acceptable offer".”
And here is another disgusting lie.
Their first approach was to deny that I had ever had any role in the AOG
Insurance Agency scandal.
Their second approach was to accuse me of being an irrational crusader
who was interfering in other people’s business, uninvited.
Their third tack was to accuse me of engaging in defamation as some kind
of strange hobby.
And now they infer I am involved in blackmail!
During the first three years of the AOG Insurance Agency scandal, Greg
Sowerby and I went to some trouble to give Andrew Evans the opportunity
to forestall the various exercises we conducted in our search for justice.
He was always informed in advance in the hope that he would render the
action unnecessary. Alas, our efforts were in vain.
The letter I sent Andrew Evans in August 1996 was no different, except that
lawyers were now involved, and they could see some technical legal advantage
to twisting my offer into an attempt at blackmail!
(I never understood the old jokes about 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of
the sea being a good start before the AOG Insurance Agency scandal reached
the lawyer stage.)
I do not “threaten” to send out letters, write books, talk to journalists
or publish Internet web pages. But I have given warnings in the past, in
the (vain) hope of minimising the unnecessary damage to the ordinary people
who make up the AOG.
The purpose of the legal action against me was to frighten me into
withdrawing The Evidence from circulation.
The substance of the threat was that I stood to have massive damages
awarded against me.
Evans and his friends assumed that I, like them, had stored up a
small fortune for myself, a fortune that I now risked losing.
The simple fact is that I am only barely solvent. I would have to go into
bankruptcy even if a minor damages amount were awarded against me, and
I was pressed to find it.
The letter which caused such anguish to David Cartledge, Andrew Evans,
Brian Houston and the others made the point that only possible outcome of
them pushing the matter to its logical conclusion was for me to be forced
into bankruptcy.
They had convinced themselves that I would come cowering to them, begging
to be allowed to keep my imaginery fortune.
This letter, combined with my non-attendance at the last five or six court
hearings, was sufficient for them to finally recognise that they had dug a
pit for me, but were about to fall into it themselves.
19. “When Mr. Sheppard's representative was asked what Mr. Sheppard
meant by an "acceptable offer" (because Mr. Sheppard would not
speak with us directly) we were informed that Mr. Sheppard wanted
$20,000.00 and that if he received this amount of money then he would be
quiet and that he would stop all publications.”
Here we have four more lies.
ONE: I do not have a “representative.” I am a big boy and I
speak for myself. If you cast your mind back a few lines, you will
recall David Cartledge complaining that I could not afford to have a
legal representative. Now he has invented one for me!
TWO: I have spoken with more than enough Executive members. If they
ever had any genuine intention of resolving the matter, we would have
reached a solution years ago. Nonetheless, I remain prepared to speak to
any of them under reasonable circumstances and following some improvement
over their sneering mockery of me.
THREE: Next they invent a demand for $20,000. I am aware that these
men have parted with a sum in excess of $150,000 so far in the AOG Insurance
Agency scandal. If I were here as a blackmailer, $20,000 would be a
pathetically small sum to go after.
FOUR: The suggestion that I would be prepared to “stop all
publications” for $20,000 is extremely insulting. The $150,000 that they
have paid out so far has come as a direct result of those “publications.”
Why would I quit for a mere $20,000?
20. “Discussions in January this year suggest that Mr. Sheppard's
price has increased to $25,000.00.”
I have no idea who those “discussions” were with, but I was not involved.
21. “As stated, it seems likely that Mr. Sheppard will continue his
attacks unless he receives the money that he is seeking.”
I will continue to tell the truth publicly about the AOG Insurance Agency
scandal until it is resolved.
I made my position clear back in February 1994 and have never wavered
from it.
