BGBC Defamation Lawsuit – Events Timeline
- Overview of BGBC Defamation Lawsuit Events Timeline
- Events Timeline (Embedded Dipity Version)
- PDF of Most Recent Version of Events Timeline
- Events Timeline (At-A-Glance Version)
* * * * * * *
This page shares the Dipity timeline of events for the defamation lawsuit ofBeaverton Grace Bible Church v. Smith. It covers January 2012 through January 2013.
* * * * * * *
~ Overview of BGBC Defamation Lawsuit Events Timeline ~
In February 2012, I began blogging after I noticed that the Google Reviews I had posted in 2009 about my former church were being removed. Just days later, I received a legal summons notifying me that I and three others were being sued by the former pastor and church for defamation, for $500,000. This timeline documents what happened leading up to the lawsuit, the anti-SLAPP motion, the judge’s decision to dismiss the case, and the aftermath. It chronicles key events in our story of surviving spiritual abuse, seeing the defamation lawsuit dismissed, and subsequent events in its aftermath.
* * * * * * *
~ Events Timeline (Embedded Dipity Version) ~
At this link, you can view the Dipity BGBC Defamation Lawsuit Timeline.
An embedded version of the timeline will be available later.
The purpose of this particular timeline is to track key court dates, documents, and decisions – as well as out-of-court events, media, and controversies of significance – related to the Beaverton Grace Bible Church v. Smith defamation lawsuit of 2012.
Please note that there are occasionally huge numbers of timeline “cards,” crowded into short timespans. These include spikes around May 14-22 (around the first court date) and July 13-26 (around the second court date and when the decision was publicized). To see all the “cards” at such times, you’ll need to click on the “plus sign” box along the bottom edge of the timeline, in order to spread out the items for viewing. Or, select a card and then navigate with large angle bracket buttons on the middle of the card to move to one item left (“<”) or right (“>”).
* * * * * * *
~ PDF of Most Recent Version of Events Timeline ~
Forthcoming [LINK HERE].
* * * * * * *
~ Events Timeline (At-A-Glance Version) ~
Intro-1: The BGBC Defamation Lawsuit Archive
Jan 1, 2012
This Dipity timeline was created as part of the BGBC Defamation Lawsuit Archive. The Archive was established in January 2013 to capture important details, analysis, and commentary on the lawsuit and its aftermath.
The Archive includes Dipity timelines on important events and on media/blog responses. It also includes PDF documents, online website versions of material, and blog posts for comments from the public.
For details of the BGBC Defamation Lawsuit Archive, see Julie Anne Smith’s site at Spiritual Sounding Board.
* * * * * * *
February 2012
Plaintiffs File Defamation Lawsuit
Feb 22, 2012
Co-Plaintiffs Pastor Charles O’Neal (as an individual) and Beaverton Grace Bible Church (as an Oregon non-profit organization) file a civil lawsuit against four defendants: Julie Anne Smith, her daughter Hannah Smith, Kathy Stephens, and her son Jason Stephens.
COURT DOCUMENT – The complaint [Oregon court document C121174CV] alleges defamation, and asks for $500,000 in damages. (8 pages)
* * * * * * *
COURT DOCUMENT 01
Feb 22, 2012
COMPLAINT (8 pages)
Filed by Plaintiffs – Charles O’Neal (individual) and Beaverton Grace Bible Church (non-profit)
* * * * * * *
Smith Starts BGBCSurvivors Blog
Feb 24, 2012
Julie Anne Smith begins her blog, bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com. The first post also notes that she had opened a related gmail account. Other early posts explain what the BGBC Google Reviews and subsequent changes to them had to do with why she started her blog.
Although much of the initial era focuses on the lawsuit, Julie Anne soon moved into a wide range of issues of concern to the online community of spiritual abuse survivors.
* * * * * * *
Smith Posts Initial Response to Threat of Lawsuit
Feb 25, 2012
“Chuck’s Reviews of Me on Google and Threat of Lawsuit for Defamation.” This is the second post on Julie Anne Smith’s BGBC Survivor blog. The electronic time stamp notes the time of posting as 12:33 PM.
* * * * * * *
O’Neal Posts Google Review
Feb 25, 2012
Pastor O’Neal posts a Google Review. It says he is suing for defamation and that a member of the pastoral staff at Grace Community Church (pastored by John MacArthur) had heard him read excerpts from Julie Anne’s “endless defamation” and recommended filing a lawsuit.
The Review states that “the lawsuit has been filed in the Washington County [Oregon] courthouse,” and that the defendants would be served within the week. The Review stated that Julie Anne “was Biblically put out” of the church. It pointed readers to Pastor O’Neal’s 2009 response to her in previous reviews. [This Review was reportedly edited one or more times, and at some point was removed.]
* * * * * * *
Smith Makes Initial Contact with Grace Community Church
Feb 27, 2012
Julie Anne Smith makes initial contact with Grace Community Church, after reading the Google Review which states that Charles O’Neal’s lawsuit was in progress.
* * * * * * *
Smith Talks with GCC Staff Representative
Feb 29, 2012
Julie Anne talks with Grace Community Church’s “pastor of the day” who is handling phone calls. She asks if there is any way to determine if in fact Charles O’Neal had indeed been told by one or more pastors at GCC to sue her. The pastor checks their record-keeping system and finds no record of Mr. O’Neal calling any GCC pastor regarding the lawsuit. He says that if Mr. O’Neal had a personal phone number of a GCC pastor, then it is possible that he did hear from another pastor.
* * * * * * *
March 2012
Defendants Begin Receiving Subpoenas
Mar 1, 2012
Defendants begin being served with subpoenas, a process which often takes about a week after the complaint is filed. Julie Anne Smith’s husband Steve receives her subpoena on March 1. The other defendants receive theirs within days of that. The defendants have 30 days to file a motion in response and submit it to the court clerk.
* * * * * * *
GCC Pastor Shannon Contacts Smith
Mar 6, 2012
Bill Shannon, Pastor, Discipleship Counseling, and Staff Elder at Grace Community Church, phones Julie Anne Smith to ask questions and hear her side of the story. The Caller ID says “Grace Community.” Mr. Shannon states that Charles O’Neal had requested counsel, and that the two of them planned to meet later in the week when Mr. O’Neal would be at the GCC Shepherds’ Conference (March 7-11). He also asked what it would take for Julie Anne to remove her BGBC posts off the internet.
NOTE: According to GCC’s website leadership page, Bill Shannon has been on staff at GCC since 1989 – 23 years.
* * * * * * *
Smith Sends Letter to Shannon / GCC
Mar 7, 2012
Information to be added.
* * * * * * *
Second Shannon / Smith Phone Call
Mar 7, 2012
There is a second phone call between Bill Shannon and Julie Anne. Julie Anne has already drafted a letter to Bill about the BGBC situation and says it will be sent soon. She mails it later that day.
Julie Anne later realizes that she failed to ask Mr. Shannon if he could confirm or deny that any Grace Community Church pastor had encouraged Mr. O’Neal to file a lawsuit.
* * * * * * *
Defendants Hire Their Attorneys
Mar 12, 2012
The defendants must respond within 30 days of the subpoenas, or automatically default to the plaintiffs and be liable for the $500,000.
On this day, Julie Anne Smith and Hannah Smith hire Linda K. Williams of Portland, Oregon, as their legal representation. Ms. Williams later serves as counsel for Meaghan Varela, whom the plaintiffs later add as a defendant.
Around this same time, Kathy Stephens and Jason Stephens hire Herbert G. Grey of Beaverton, Oregon, as their legal representative for the lawsuit.
* * * * * * *
BGBCSurvivors Blog Milestone: 5,000 Hits
Mar 28, 2012
By this day, Julie Anne Smith’s BGBCSurvivors blog has received a milestone total of 5,000 hits.
* * * * * * *
April 2012
O’Neal Creates Impostor BGBCSurvivors Domains
Apr 17, 2012
Three domain names that mirror and compete with Julie Anne Smith’s BGBC Survivors blog are purchased and registered. According to the “Whois” internet tools, the three specific domains created and the dates are as follows, with all three registered in the name of “Chuck O’Neal.”
- bcbcsurvivors dot com was created April 17, 2012.
- bgbcsurvivors dot net was created April 17, 2012.
- bgbcsurvivors dot org was created April 18, 2012.
Please note that the dot com site name has been spelled correctly, according to what was purchased and registered.
It is b-C-bcsurvivors, not b-G-bcsurvivors. Also, according to “netorginfo” tools, all three sites were recorded as registered on April 19, 2012.
The dot org site would not be activated until December 2, 2012. Please note: It is the policy of this timeline not to provide links to Mr. O’Neal’s impostor site(s).
* * * * * * *
BGBCSurvivors Blog Milestone: 10,000 Hits
Apr 19, 2012
By this day, Julie Anne Smith’s blog has received a milestone total of 10,000 hits.
* * * * * * *
Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
Apr 26, 2012
Plaintiffs file an amended complaint adding Meaghan Varela to their list of defendants.
* * * * * * *
Defendants File Anti-SLAPP Motion
Apr 26, 2012
Defendants file a “special motion to strike,” using Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute. This in effect “freezes” the civil litigation process so that there is no discovery, deposition, jury trial, or examination of witnesses unless a judge determines there is grounds for proceeding.
In layman’s terms, basic consideration on grounds for defamation involves two parts:
- Did the defendant(s) knowingly lie (or merely express an opinion)?
- If the defendant(s) did lie, did they do so with malice?
* * * * * * *
Legal Background: SLAPP and Anti-SLAPP
Apr 26, 2012
LEGAL BACKGROUND: SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. These are civil suits whose purposes are generally designed to silence or intimidate opponents. SLAPP suits are often frivolous and insidious, used by individuals or entities with “deep pockets” – ample funds to outlast and outlawyer their opponents.
The following paragraph from wikipedia is very instructive about the SLAPP type of defamation lawsuit. All court documents, blog posts, blog comments, news interviews, and any other primary and secondary sources of information about the O’Neal / BGBC defamation lawsuit should be carefully evaluated with this information in mind:
“Other widely mentioned elements of a SLAPP are the actual effectiveness at silencing critics, the timing of the suit, inclusion of extra or spurious defendants (such as relatives or hosts of legitimate defendants), inclusion of plaintiffs with no real claim (such as corporations that are affiliated with legitimate plaintiffs), making claims that are very difficult to disprove or rely on no written record, ambiguous or deliberately mangled wording that lets plaintiffs make spurious allegations without fear of perjury, refusal to consider any settlement (or none other than cash), characterization of all offers to settle as insincere, extensive and unnecessary demands for discovery, attempts to identify anonymous or pseudonymous critics, appeals on minor points of law, demands for broad rulings when appeal is accepted on such minor points of law, and attempts to run up defendants’ costs even if this clearly costs more to the plaintiffs.” (wikipedia, “Anti-SLAPP”)
Typically, an anti-SLAPP motion is filed to counter SLAPP defamation lawsuits, and protect defendants from frivolous lawsuits. As of 2012, there is no national anti-SLAPP law in place. However, many states have some version of an anti-SLAPP statute. One of them is the state of Oregon, where this lawsuit was filed.
Filing an anti-SLAPP “motion to dismiss” would be considered a routine legal response in a defamation lawsuit like this. Therefore, the plaintiffs, Mr. O’Neal and the members of BGBC, should have known and anticipated that the process would likely be “frozen” by an anti-SLAPP motion. They would therefore not have discovery, depositions, and on-the-stand questioning and cross-examination unless a judge ruled in their favor on the anti-SLAPP motion. Yet, Mr. O’Neal continually refers online in his own blog posts and in blog comments on other websites to this normal procedure of filing an anti-SLAPP motion as “legal maneuvering” by Ms. Smith and Ms. Varela. He laments that their “legal maneuvering” deprived him of his day in court. He also often mentions this “legal maneuver” when talking about why the O’Neals and BGBC members have continued their fight to “protect their families and church.”
COURT DOCUMENT 02
Apr 26, 2012
AMENDED COMPLAINT (10 pages)
Filed by plaintiffs Charles O’Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church
* * * * * * *
COURT DOCUMENT 03
Apr 26, 2012
MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTIONS TO STRIKE [Anti-SLAPP] (54 pages)
Filed by defendants Julie Anne Smith, Hannah Smith, Kathy Stephens, and Jason Stephens
* * * * * * *
May 2012
Defendants File Memo on Amended Complaint
May 1, 2012
Defendants file second special motion to strike, as a supplement to their first motion and in response to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint of April 26.
COURT DOCUMENT: Memo Regarding Amended Complaint (24 pages).
* * * * * * *
COURT DOCUMENT 04
May 1, 2012
MEMO IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTIONS TO STRIKE REGARDING AMENDED COMPLAINT (24 pages)
Filed by defendants Julie Anne Smith, Hannah Smith, Kathy Stephens, and Jason Stephens
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: KATU Video Interview and Article
May 11, 2012
A late-night KATU news video shares an interview with Julie Anne Smith and posts a related print news article: “Beaverton church sues family after they criticize it online,” by Anita Kissée KATU News and KATU.com Staff.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: FBCJaxWatchdog and GCC
May 13, 2012
FBC Jax Watchdogs posts, “Mother and Daughter Being Sued by Their Former Pastor – Pastor Claims He Was Told to Sue by John MacArthur’s Church” (electronic time stamp shows 6:02 AM).
This appears to be the first blog outside of BGBC Survivors post of February 25 to highlight the connection between Pastor O’Neal’s defamation lawsuit and the alleged recommendation by Grace Community Church.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: KATU Report Goes Viral and Global
May 13, 2012
The KATU video interview and news story goes viral and global, literally circling the world with news outlets picking up the story in such countries as the Philippines and South Korea, and from Australia to the UK in less than a day. Julie Anne Smith’s BGBCSurvivors blog receives approximately 7,000 hits on May 13 – up from 5,000 hits the day before and only 322 hits just two days before on May 11. The hit rate increases dramatically to 17,000 hits per day on May 14, 15, and 16; and then drops to 10,000 hits on May 17. From there it drops again to 4,000 hits on May 18 and gradually slides back down to about 1,000 hits daily by May 28.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: Bene Diction Blogs On and GCC
May 13, 2012
Bene Diction Blogs On posts, “Beaverton Grace Bible Church pastor sues former parishioner for Google reviews.”
This is one of two postings that appear to the first blogs to mention the “Streisand Effect” and relate it to the BGBC lawsuit. (The Streisand Effect happens when something that someone wants to keep quiet or private becomes noticed and broadcast – usually on the internet – leading to the opposite impact, i.e., exceptional publicity.)
Both quote the KATU article of May 12, quote from Charles O’Neal’s February 25 Google Review, and mention of the alleged recommendation to sue given by someone on pastoral staff at Grace Community Church.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: “The Streisand Effect”
May 13, 2012
Because of the alleged involvement of Grace Community Church staff in encouraging Charles O’Neal to file the defamation lawsuit, bloggers in the online “spiritual abuse survivors” community began talking about “the Streisand Effect.” GCC seemed to want to keep their name out of the press, Mr. O’Neal seemed to want to publicize their alleged involvement, and so it ended up being far more talked about than it might have been, had no one attempted to minimize the connection and/or publicity.
The following is from the Wikipedia article on “The Streisand Effect”:
The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. The term is a modern expression of the older phenomenon that banning or censoring something often makes that item or information more desirable, and leads to it being actively sought out to a greater extent than it would have otherwise been.
It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters, to suppress numbers, files and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.
Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand’s mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs. Adelman maintained that he had photographed beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the government-sanctioned and government-commissioned California Coastal Records Project. Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, “Image 3850″ had been downloaded from Adelman’s website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand’s attorneys. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month.
* * * * * * *
GCC#1 – MEDIA: The Wartburg Watch and GCC
May 14, 2012
The Wartburg Watch posts, “Pastor Makes International News by Suing Blogging Critic-Is John MacArthur’s Church Involved?” This appears to be the second blog, after the May 13 post by FBC Jax Watchdogs, to focus on the alleged recommendation by Grace Community Church to Charles O’Neal to file the lawsuit.
Later this day, Phil Johnson, an elder at GCC, comments on this post at 9:53 PM: “I just learned about this story for the first time at noon today. I couldn’t locate your e-mail address, bit (sic) if you’ll e-mail me, I’ll send you an official statement from Grace Church and John MacArthur that you can publish. If you want to talk further by phone, I’ll tell you what I learned about this situation this afternoon. I’ll give you my cell # by e-mail.” [It is unknown how Mr. Johnson heard of Julie Anne’s situation, whether from from her email letter to Pastor Shannon earlier that day, or perhaps from action on the internet.]
* * * * * * *
GCC#2 – Smith Attempts to Contact Johnson of GCC
May 14, 2012
Julie Anne sees Phil Johnson’s comment on The Wartburg Watch post. She posts a comment that states: and “left this comment on Phil’s blog since I couldn’t find a place to e-mail him.” The comment said, “Sorry, Phil, I see no other way of contacting you. Can you please have someone contact me regarding the situation with Beaverton Grace Bible Church lawsuit against 5 former members? I’m one of the defendants named in the lawsuit and most likely the primary reason Chuck O’Neal had a meeting with Bill and another pastor. I would like to have this information since it pertains more to me and friends (former church member) than anyone else. Bill Shannon has my e-mail and phone number. Or else you may contact me at bgbcsurvivors@gmail.com.” (Electronic time stamp shows 8:40 PM, May 14, 2012. NOTE: The time discrepancy may be because TWW time clock is EDT and Julie Anne’s is PDT.)
* * * * * * *
GCC#3 – Smith Asks Shannon If GCC Staff Involved
May 14, 2012
Julie Anne sends a follow-up email she’d drafted to ask Pastor Shannon if he or any other pastor at Grace Community Church had indeed recommended to Charles O’Neal that he file the lawsuit.
* * * * * * *
Plaintiffs File Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion
May 14, 2012
Plaintiffs file a response in opposition to the motions to strike; this is their memorandum related to the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The memorandum also includes a declaration from a congregation member regarding the allegation that Beaverton Grace Bible Church had allowed a known sex offender to have access to children.
COURT DOCUMENT – Memo Regarding Opposition to the Motion to Strike (13 pages).
* * * * * * *
COURT DOCUMENT 05
May 14, 2012
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE (13 pages)
Filed by plaintiffs Charles O’Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: The Wartburg Watch; Phil Johnson Responds for GCC
May 15, 2012
The Wartburg Watch (TWW) posts, “Phil Johnson Responds for John MacArthur and Grace Community Church.” Posted in the afternoon, Eastern Standard Time, it appears to be the only official statement of explanation from Grace Community Church on the subject. It primarily states the GCC doctrinal standards on relevant questions about civil authority and lawsuits. It neither confirms nor denies that anyone on staff at GCC recommended to Charles O’Neal that he should or would be free to file a lawsuit.
As of the end of 2012, no other known official statements or explanations have been posted by GCC directly, or on their behalf. Members of the blogging community eventually post questions, such as wondering why GCC posted an official response on TWW and not on any of their own official blogs, why this was done by Phil Johnson on behalf of GCC, and whether their treatment of Julie Anne Smith in their communications was forthcoming enough.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: Purpose Drivel and Johnson / GCC
May 15, 2012
The Purpose Drivel blog posts, “Phil Johnson Responds for John MacArthur and Grace Community Church regarding Chuck O’Neal and Beaverton ‘Grace’ Bible Church” (electronic time stamp shows 11:04 AM).
While this post mostly quotes from The Wartburg Watch posts of May 14 and 15, it brings in Julie Anne Smith’s chronology of events from her BGBC Survivors’ “Anticipation” post. The author states that Ms. Smith’s chronology is interesting, in light of Phil Johnson’s response.
This appears to be the first blog to ask a key question explicitly about GCC and Bill Shannon’s role in events: “Will [GCC Pastor] Bill Shannon publicly recant for overstepping his authority and dragging their church into this mess?”
* * * * * * *
Plaintiffs Drop Jason Stephens as Defendant
May 16, 2012
The defendants’ lawyer informs them that the plaintiffs’ attorney notified her of changes to the lawsuit. They are dropping four of Julie Anne Smith’s defamatory phrases from the complaint. They are also dropping the only claim against Jason Stephens, so he is no longer a defendant in the case.
* * * * * * *
Johnson Posts on Facebook and Twitter
May 16, 2012
Since the whole situation broached many theological topics, Phil Johnson happened to post aFacebook thread with a link to an article on lawsuits and church discipline. He also responded on the thread to comments of others and said on May 16, 9:24 pm:
Phil Johnson Those are some good observations and great questions. If time permits, I’ll deal with this issue in a blogpost next week.
Bottom line: I don’t approve of abusive styles of leadership OR online nests of disgruntled, emotion-laden but biblically hollow chronic complaint.
To sue a fellow Christian and to post backbiting complaints in public venues both violate the principle of 1 Cor. 6:1-8, it seems to me. However, church leaders who violate that principle will incur stricter judgment (James 3:1).
Abusive and heavy-handed, high-control church leadership is a serious problem among some very conservative churches, and those of us who are conservative should speak out against it. If there were fewer control freaks in church leadership, I think there would also be fewer out-of-control complaint blogs.
The aforementioned blog post he planned to do apparently never got done. However, he did raise questions for some spiritual abuse survivors with his choice of phrases, “online nests of disgruntled, emotion-laden but biblically hollow chronic complaint” and “out-of-control complaint blogs.” Did these include The Wartburg Watch, for instance, where he had requested posting a response on behalf of Grace Community Church/John MacArthur – but then apparently did not post the response on any GCC-related website that I’ve been able to find? Was he just using TWW and other survivor forums for his own purposes? Was he really trustworthy?
* * * * * * *
FBC Jax Watchdogs Analyzes BGBC Press Release
May 17, 2012
This spiritual abuse survivor blog points out how Mr. O’Neal’s press release actually weakens his case by the presence of a new allegation about a false report filed with DHS/Child Protective Services – when this was NOT to be found anywhere in the plaintiffs’ Complaint, though the related incidents happened in 2008.
The blogger states: “By including this new allegation that is NOT in the lawsuit, in a press release explaining the charges of defamation, is to insinuate that the defendants maliciously, knowingly, filed a FALSE police report as a part of their alleged defamation. After all, there is nothing wrong, in fact to the contrary it is noble and brave (and in most cases required by law) when a church member has the courage to report facts or even rumors of abuse by a minister or church members….UNLESS, the person maliciously, knowingly, files a false police report to harass someone. That seems to be what Chuck is saying by putting this information in his press release. In my view, Chuck is treading dangerously close to defamation himself, stating as fact that the people he is suing filed a false police report – which is to commit a crime – about him in order to defame him.”
Analysis similar to this will continue to surface over time, that the plaintiffs could have/should have filed criminal charges on this count. Also, The FBC Jax blogger is correct that this allegation is NOT found in any of the plaintiffs main court documents: not in the original Complaint (filed February 22, 2012) , the Amended Complaint (filed April 26), or the Opposition to Motions to Strike (filed May 14).
* * * * * * *
Their Day in Court
May 21, 2012
This is the first court date, in which Judge Jim L. Fun considered the case.
* * * * * * *
BGBCSurvivors Blog Milestone: 100,000 Hits
May 21, 2012
On this day – the first court date for the case – Julie Anne Smith’s BGBCSurvivors blog went over the milestone of 100,000 hits, sometime between 9:00-9:45 AM (Pacific Time).
* * * * * * *
Plaintiffs Drop Kathy Stephens as Defendant
May 29, 2012
On or about this date, the defendants’ lawyer informs them that the plaintiffs are dropping their claims against Kathy Stephens, so she is no longer a defendant in the case.
* * * * * * *
June 2012
Apprising Ministries Reports on Lawsuit
Jun 2, 2012
“BEAVERTON GRACE BIBLE CHURCH TO SUE EX-MEMBER FOR NEGATIVE BLOG REVIEW?”
Category: Christian Blog
* * * * * * *
July 2012
COURT: Second Time in Court
Jul 13, 2012
All parties meet for the second time in court. Judge Fun announces that he is ready to review the case submissions and write his decision. It will be completed and sent within 10 days.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: Fox12 TV Interviews After Court Hearing
Jul 13, 2012
After the first court hearing date, Fox12 Webstaff posts two news videos with interview clips, along with an online article. Their main interview with Julie Anne Smith was done the night before at The Dalles courthouse, conducted by KPTV. Two other clips come from interviews done during a break, in the lobby outside the courtroom. They interview Julie Anne Smith first, then attorney for the plaintiffs, Erik Syverson. After the hearing concludes, they interview Charles and Tonya O’Neal in the courtyard.
* * * * * * *
Judge Decides: Anti-SLAPP Granted
Jul 23, 2012
The court grants the defendants’ special motion to strike; all defamation claims are dismissed. The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the attorney fees for the Stephens, and the remaining defendants were invited to submit statements for their court costs and attorney fees. The decision is dated July 23 and received July 26 by the defendants’ attorney.
A key section that explains Judge Fun’s overall evaluation process is found on page 6 of the official court decision document: “[T]he court having found that each of the claims of defamatory statements concern a matter of public interest, the burden shifts to plaintiff to present substantial evidence of a prima facie case of defamation. ORS 31.150(3). Plaintiff must present substantial evidence that defendants made defamatory statements that were published; and plaintiff suffered harm as a result. In identifying what words constitute a defamatory statement, several general principles apply. The 9th Circuit Court adopted a three part test to evaluate alleged defamatory statements: 1) The meaning must be evaluated in the full context of the statements; 2) whether the general tenor of the entire work, including the subject of the statements, setting and format negates the impression of a provable fact, and 3) whether the statement is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. …”
This framework supplies the backdrop to another key section of Judge Fun’s decision, found on page 8: “The court finds that the defendant’s internet postings on plaintiff’s website and defendant Julie Ann [sic] Smith’s blog site, were made in a public forum and concern an issue of public interest. The court further finds that plaintiff has not met the burden of presenting substantial evidence the defendant’s statements are defamatory.”
COURT DOCUMENT – Order on Motion to Dismiss (8 pages).
* * * * * * *
COURT DOCUMENT 06
Jul 23, 2012
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS (8 pages)
Filed by Judge Jim L. Fun, Circuit Court of Oregon, Twentieth Judicial District
The court’s decision includes details involving the final three defendants (two of the original defendants, Julie Anne Smith and Hannah Smith; and one defendant added later, Meaghan Varela) and two of the original defendants who were later dropped from the lawsuit (Jason Stephens and Kathy Stephens).
* * * * * * *
Aftermath: Court Costs and Legal Fees
Jul 23, 2012
One consequence of losing the lawsuit is that both Mr. O’Neal and Beaverton Grace Bible Church are legally responsible for paying the court costs plus defendants’ legal fees associated with this case.
Since the plaintiffs dismissed Kathy Stephens and Jason Stephens earlier on in the process, their legal fees were known at the time Judge Fun rendered his decision. Their costs were $16,750.00. In the decision (see page 8), the court invites the remaining defendants – Julie Anne Smith, Hannah Smith, and Meaghan Verala – to submit statements for costs and attorneys’ fees.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: KATU Reports on Judge’s Ruling: Lawsuit Dismissed
Jul 26, 2012
KATU provides an update video news report that Judge Fun ruled that no statements were defamatory and dismissed the lawsuit.
* * * * * * *
Defendants Receive Court Decision
Jul 26, 2012
Judge Jim L. Fun’s decision, dated July 23, is received on July 26 by the defendants’ attorney and initial reactions are noted on Julie Anne Smith’s BGBC Survivors blog.
* * * * * * *
Fracas Escalates with Fred Butler of GCC
Jul 31, 2012
Issues involving Grace Community Church reappear via some rancorous blogging exchanges after the lawsuit is dismissed. On the surface, at issue is whether spiritual abuse “survivor blogs” are anti-biblical, and whether Christians should be making comments critical of pastors and other Christians in authority.
A significant amount of this involved Fred Butler, a GCC employee who coordinates and directs volunteer ministries with their “Grace To You” media programs. In late July and August, there are escalating exchanges on both Ms. Smith’s blog (see the link below to a key post from July 31 with inflammatory comments) and Mr. Butler’s blogs on these topics. Other online community members comment as well.
This escalation eventually halts after Mr. Butler posts false information (i.e., gossip) from a second-hand source about Ms. Smith’s oldest daughter Hannah, who was also a defendant in the case. He is confronted both behind the scenes and on the blogs. He retracts and deletes the comments and apologizes on Ms. Smith’s blog. At the challenge of Julie Anne’s husband, Steve, Mr. Butler posts a public apology on his own blog, Hip and Thigh, on August 3.
Given the very public nature and severity of this offense, some members of the spiritual abuse survivors community wonder why Mr. Butler is not fired by GCC, despite his sincere contrition and public apologies.
* * * * * * *
August 2012
Partial Name Change on BGBC Survivors
Aug 1, 2012
Sometime in early August, Julie Anne Smith changes the banner headline on her blog from “Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors” to just “BGBC Survivors.” This is part of her ongoing efforts to move on, which is now more possible since the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was dismissed in late July.
Almost no readers seem to notice this important and symbolic change, and there are no comments about it on blog posts. But when she posts about it, she receives many suggestions on complete name changes:
“You may have noticed that I changed the name of the blog to BGBC Survivors. Previously, I spelled out the name of my former church and added Survivors with it. You also may have noticed that I write “former church” and “former pastor” an awful lot. I am purposefully not naming names. I’m ready to move on. The blog has been much more general in nature and serves a wider audience now and the name doesn’t really apply to the majority of the readers.”
It will take her another five months to finalize a new name and site …
* * * * * * *
Fred Butler Posts Apology
Aug 3, 2012
Mr. Butler’s apology post has since been removed from his blog, Hip and Thigh. Because of its significance to the post-lawsuit history, the following text is presented in full from a screenshot captured at the time:
Text of Fred Butlers Retraction and Apology:
Friday, August 03, 2012
A Statement to the Smith Family
For the last couple of months or so I have been writing occasionally on the survivor blog phenomenon. And as it is to be expected, I have been engaging the survivor bloggers themselves, as well as their supporters. Probably the main one I have engaged the most has been Julie Anne Smith.
This past week we had something of a heated exchange in the comments of this post. Well… at least I can say it was heated on my part. At any rate, in my rashness, I unwisely asked her about a rumor regarding her daughter that came from a second-hand source. The charge I raised was regarding the personal integrity of her oldest daughter. Without really thinking through the repercussions that could result in raising what honestly is gossip, and as it turned out is untrue, I posted that comment. That was a tremendous fail on my part.
Julie Anne and her family were rightly grieved and upset by me raising this charge and I was wrong for posting it. It only served to add wood to an already volatile situation between them and their old church. I gave my apologies at her blog and asked Julie’s forgiveness and then removed the offending comment. Her husband asked if I would be willing to make a more visible apology on the front page of my blog seeing that the comment in question was made in a post from last week and had since been removed.
I said I would oblige. I ask the Smith’s to forgive me for the offense, especially their oldest daughter Hannah. My comment was way out of line, and I was extremely wrong-headed for posting it.
* * * * * * *
Aftermath: Other Defendants’ Costs Submitted
Aug 20, 2012
The court costs and attorneys’ fees for the remaining three defendants – Julie Anne Smith, Hannah Smith, and Meaghan Varela – are submitted to Judge Fun by their attorney, Linda Williams.
* * * * * * *
September 2012
Aftermath: Paying the Stephens’ Court Costs
Sep 8, 2012
According to a note from Kathy Stephens received by Julie Anne Smith, payment has been received for the court costs and lawyer fees (i.e., $16,750) for dismissed defendants Kathy and Jason Stephens.
* * * * * * *
October 2012
Dipity Timeline Created
Oct 21, 2012 1:13 PM
* * * * * * *
November 2012
* * * * * * *
December 2012
Impostor Blog is Activated
Dec 2, 2012
“Impostor “True” BGBC Survivors Blog Site Created by Suing Pastor Chuck O’Neal “
The first posts appear on the impostor bgbcsurvivors dot org site. In the first post there, Mr. O’Neal explains the purpose of his blog as being to protect the church and its families from “ongoing slander and criminal accusations.”
* * * * * * *
Impostor Blog Comments Begin
Dec 11, 2012
The first comments on the impostor BGBC Survivors blog posts begin appearing on this date. Early on, those who attempt to leave comments with views opposing those on the videos and articles find they are not posted.
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: Wartburg Watch Takes Impostor Blog to Task
Dec 13, 2012
The Wartburg Watch, whose founders specialize in research on church and cultural trends, and spiritual abuse topics, post an article about Mr. O’Neal’s impostor BGBC blog.
There is surprising interaction as Mr. and Mrs. O’Neal and at least one church member who does not remain anonymous all post comments, some in response to rather pointed/blunt comments by others in the spiritual abuse survivors’ online community.
There is surprising interaction as Mr. and Mrs. O’Neal and at least one church member who does not remain anonymous all post comments, some in response to rather pointed/blunt comments by others in the spiritual abuse survivors’ online community.
* * * * * * *
BGBCSurvivors Blog Milestone: 300,000 Hits
Dec 17, 2012
“Who’da Thunk It?”
In a flurry of “hits” perhaps due in part to a related post on The Wartburg Watch, the count at Julie Anne Smith’s blog goes over 300,000.
* * * * * * *
Apprising Ministries Reports on Todd Rhoades Post
Dec 19, 2012
“TODD RHOADES ON PASTOR CHUCK O’NEAL’S WEBSITE ATTACKING “CHURCH ATTACKERS””
Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries reports on the post by Todd Rhoades that notifies his readers of the existence of Mr. O’Neal’s “survivors” blog.
Category: Christian Blog
* * * * * * *
MEDIA: Apprising Breaks News: O’Neal’s License Revoked
Dec 28, 2012
Apprising Ministries updates their earlier (December 19) report on Todd Rhoades’ blog post about Mr. O’Neal’s “survivor” blog with a confirmed report that Mr. O’Neal’s license to minister has been revoked.
“[T]oday I spoke on the phone with Dr. Greg Howell who has confirmed to me that Chuck O’Neal’s ministerial credentials are no longer recognized by his now former credentialing body.”
* * * * * * *
January 2013
Smith Closes One Blog, Opens Another
Jan 1, 2013
As part of “moving forward” with her life, Julie Anne Smith closes her original blog associated with the BGBC defamation lawsuit.
As BGBCSurvivors.blogspot.com goes into “archive” mode this day, she also launches her new blog, Spiritual Sounding Board, using WordPress. It contains the entire BGBCSurvivors blog content for historical purposes, but embodies a new direction: “Resonating our thoughts on troubling trends and abuse in church.” (She later removes that caption, as it sounds too much like the caption of “Dissecting Christian Trends” at The Wartburg Watch.)
There is symbolic importance to this date for two reasons. The more obvious one is that it is New Year’s Day, and a fresh start. Less obvious but perhaps more significant is that, since 2009, January has been designated as “Spiritual Abuse Awareness Month.”
* * * * * * *
Aftermath: Appeal Decision Day
Jan 3, 2013
The official deadline for an appeal/payment response from the plaintiffs was January 3, 2013 – 30 days after the final decree was signed on December 4, 2012. They had two options:
1. Appeal the judge’s final decree regarding the award to pay the final three prevailing parties for their court costs and legal fees. If they appealed, Judge Fun’s judgment on the award was still enforceable after this deadline date. So, if the plaintiffs chose to appeal the decree, they would be required to post a bond guaranteeing payment with interest if they were to lose their appeal.
2. Not appeal the decree. If this was their choice, they would be required to pay the judgment award. Failure to pay would mean facing debt collection actions – including accrued interest from the date of the judge’s final decree (December 4, 2012).
As co-plaintiffs, Mr. O’Neal as an individual and Beaverton Grace Bible Church as a non-profit corporation were responsible together for paying the full award amount. That meant if one plaintiff did not pay anything, the other was fully liable for the entire amount.
The court-mandated award due for the remaining three prevailing plaintiffs was nearly $44,375 ($2,768.52 in court costs and $41,604 in attorneys’ fees), plus interest accrued from the date the final court decree was signed.
* * * * * * *
Aftermath: 10-Day Payment Notices Sent
Jan 9, 2013
No appeal or payment was received by the defendants’ attorney for nearly a week after the January 3, 2013. So, on January 9, Ms. Williams issued “10-Day Notice and Demand” letters, sent by mail with return receipt. These were sent to Charles O’Neal as an individual judgment debtor in the case; and to Barbara Gilgan and Dale Weaver, two individuals listed as officers for Beaverton Grace Bible Church on their Corporation Division website as an Oregon non-profit debtor.
Signed receipts were received back from the two church corporation representatives. However, none was received from Mr. O’Neal. This necessitated further action.
* * * * * * *
Aftermath: Process Server Sent to Mr. O’Neal
Jan 17, 2013
Because Mr. O’Neal and BGBC filed as co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and they lost their case, both were liable for the entire judgment award. This meant that if one was not able to pay anything, the other was responsible to pay the whole amount. Therefore, it was necessary to ensure that all debtor parties received notice that the award payment was overdue.
The three remaining defendants’ lawyer, Ms. Williams, sent the original “10-Day Notice and Demand” letters to both plaintiffs on January 9. She used return-receipt mail. Signed receipts were received from two officers of the Beaverton Grace Bible Church corporation. No signed receipt was received from Mr. O’Neal.
So, On January 17, Ms. Williams sent a process server to deliver the letter in person to Mr. O’Neal.
* * * * * * *
Aftermath: Payments Received
Jan 19, 2013
On January 19, Ms. Williams received checks covering the full amounts due for court costs and attorneys’ fees for the final three defendants – Julie Anne Smith, Hannah Smith, and Meaghan Varela. Each check also included 46 days of interest, accrued from the date of the judgment (December 4, 2012).
Since the judgment award was now paid in full, serving the notice on Mr. O’Neal was no longer necessary, and was withdrawn.
Also, as payments were received on the 10th day after the “10-Day Notice and Demand” letters were sent, this ended the dealings with the aftermath of Judge Fun’s decision on Beaverton Grace Bible Church v. Smith.
* * * * * * *
Some Post-Lawsuit Analysis
Jan 19, 2013
“BGBC: Chuck Smith’s Counter-Blog Proves Julie Anne Smith is Telling the Truth”
I’m a month behind because I’ve been reading other survivor blogs as well, and there are a ton of them out there. But since Julie Anne Smith won the defamation suit brought against her by her former pastor for her blog, he has now set up a counter-blog: True BGBC Survivors: Surviving Four Years of Hate, Reviling Accusations, and Criminal Slander.
Just perusing a few documents posted there, convinces me that Julie Anne’s charges are not at all “hate,” “reviling accusations,” or “criminal slander.” First is the DHS interview letter. This convinces me of nothing except that Chuck O’Neal convinced the social worker that the report against him was malicious slander and a false, criminal report. That doesn’t mean that it was. In my research, I’ve found that this sort of thing can happen, that a report can be made, but the victim of abuse does not back it up, whether out of fear or a child’s unconditional love for a parent, making the child fear being taken away from home. There is also a case in Madison, Wisconsin in which Social Services was called many times about a family, only to close the case as “unsubstantiated,” until finally the teen-age daughter was found starved, childlike, and wandering the streets. So this letter is not enough proof for me that Meaghan was being vindictive in her report to the DHS.
Another important document is the historical timeline. This is supposed to “prove” through various e-mails that the church was under “attack.” But on the contrary, it proves that the supposed “attackers” were merely trying to voice their opinions, but the leadership tried to force them to sit down, shut up, and change their opinions because the church leadership proclaimed them to be wrong. When the “attackers” and friends objected to this (and to the church leadership telling the whole church about the situation from their side only), tried to get the leadership to see reason, and naturally spoke about the problem to their friends (as everybody in the world does), they were shut down, and accused of trying to spread division in the church. The e-mails are also posted with explanations which are supposed to color how you read them, accusations which do not bear out when you read the actual e-mails. You can see it all for yourself. I also see him as trying to “poison the well” at Tim Varela’s new church, by convincing the pastor that Tim is doing bad things that must be dealt with, that the pastor has the authority to do so. He also keeps insisting to Tim that BGBC is a Bible, Gospel and Christ preaching church, contrary to Tim’s complaints. He proves through his own posted e-mails that he encouraged the members of his church to stop associating with the disgruntled ex-members, though he denies telling them to “shun” the ex-members. I also note that he connects the DHS report with Tim’s receipt of the e-mail–but we only have a time stamp of when it was sent, not when it was received. How do we know that Tim (or Meaghan) even saw the e-mail before she made her report?
Somehow, Chuck O’Neal imagines this will “prove” his point about Julie Anne and others. But it does just the opposite, all posted to the Internet by Chuck himself. It’s amazing that he actually thinks this will prove his point! Instead, it all proves that Julie Anne is telling the truth!
Source
