Collection for Judy--Brent's defense

[editor]

My message was to long, then it got lost in cyber space.  Read here later today.

You don't want to miss it.  Time for football now.

Brent

Entertaining guests now.  My son's team won the superbowl, they are 11-0 and the team they beat is now 10-1.  It was a great game, and I am so proud of Stephen!

I am going to respond to the utter nonsense that is on the Seagull's site, regarding Judy, Money, and me.  Again, you don't want to miss this.

I had a beautiful response all prepared, and then the message was too long, when I clicked the "back" button it was all gone.  Warfare I guess.

Check back later

Brent

[editor]

Please read the following posts on the Seagull's:
http://www.soaringwiththeeagles.com/yabbse/index.php?board=14;action=display;threadid=109;start=msg271#msg271and http://www.soaringwiththeeagles.com/yabbse/index.php?board=14;action=display;threadid=113;start=msg272#msg272

I had this whole response typed up earlier today, as noted below.  Again, I thank God for critics.  I have been meticulous, since day one, to make sure that everything I said and did was above board, honest and accurate, including and especially with regard to the topic at hand.   Now, knowing that foolish people are getting bold enough to besmirch my reputation publicly, insinuating that I mishandled up to 15,000.00 dollars, I am even happier that I can stand tall, and answer my critics loudly and clearly. I have a clear conscience, and am only too happy to answer the following questions, but in answering them, I must also adopt a position of strong rebuke and admonition towards the one that "called me out."

From the Seagull's

So I think it would be reasonable to expect that the 'Judy money handlers' should give full disclosure......

Not to defend the assy practices, but at least I never heard anyone get up in front of God's people and paint a real sad story falsely and then collect money for someone who they knew was well taken care of.  You'll have to sue me on this one I guess.  Brent, what about the money you took?  Did you or did you not collect money for Judy?  Yes or No.  Simple to answer.  

Yes this is simple to answer.  No, I never collected a dime, penny, or nickel for Judy, at any time.  Did you understand that simple answer?  Never, not once.  Your assumption in this matter is based on third-hand, incomplete and inaccurate information.  You should have checked this out with 2 people before you posted it, Judy and myself.

What may be confusing you is the fallacious conjecture made by some about something that was done in the SLO Assembly, shortly after we were reconciled, and George was excommunicated.  At that time, the full weight of how the leaders had utterly failed Judy was beginning to be appreciated by the SLO leadership.  Because David had been getting monetary support, up until the end, and Judy had been cut-off, and David was a scoundrel, and Judy had told people and tried to get help for years, the brethren realized that the right thing to do was to support Judy financially, instead of David.

After the excommunication,  the SLO leaders kept financial records, in which they disclosed, for the first time, where the money was going.  After paying expenses, including Danny Edward's living expenses, they gave Judy what was left in the box.  They did this in the form of a US Postal money order, which Nancy Lehmkuhl delivered to me in person, and which I mailed to Judy, proof of service.  I mailed it, because she did not want the "ministry," to know where she lived, because she was afraid.  

I did not look at the money order, I merely addressed the envelope and sent it to Judy.

Happily, I have witnesses to all of this.  Jeff Lehmkuhl, Roberto Sanchez, Danny Edwards, Nancy Lehmkuhl, and Judy Geftakys.  If someone wanted to know how much Judy received, they can ask Jeff, Danny, or Roberto, as the finances were handled honorably during the short time the SLO Assembly met after the excommunication.

This arrangement happened exactly twice.  I don't know the exact dollar amount, but I understand the total was less than 1000.00 dollars.  (one thousand)

I not only have the witnesses as noted above to totally corroborate the veracity of my story, but I also have a letter that they sent to Judy, that includes my signature in which they tell her what they propose to do, knowing full well that it was too little too late.  Even so, it was the right thing to do, and they conducted themselves honorably in doing it.

As for the stocks,  this can be explained in a manner that is entirely different than the silly inferences that we see over on the Seagull's.  However, as this matter is NOT ministry related, being the dissolution of a marriage, it is not my place to comment here, and it certainly isn't anyone else's.  Nevertheless, if someone is too crude to understand the difference between public, church finance, and the financial arrangements of divorce, I will communicate with you privately, after you have spoken to Judy.  


More in the next post....

[editor]

This quote, from the Seagull's really burns my blood:

but at least I never heard anyone get up in front of God's people and paint a real sad story falsely and then collect money for someone who they knew was well taken care of.

To state that Judy was "well taken care of," is the most irresponsible, block-headed, foolish statement I have ever read.  The person who said this hasn't a clue of what she is talking about, and the fact that she is willing to say such things, from the position of being totally without knowledge in the matter is the strongest possible condemnation of her character, ethics and common sense.  Judy, more than anyone else, is living proof of the evil that energized George Geftakys.  Her situation is quite the opposite of being well taken care of.  Notwithstanding, if you found yourself suddenly alone, with no work history, no job for 20 years, and absolutely no money, coupled with medical bills for yourself and your daughter, how far do you think 172,00.00 would get you?  (I am not saying that the stocks were worth that, only showing the stupidity of the Seagull's viewpoint.)

Brent, what about the money you took?

I never took any, what about it?  Talk to two or three witnesses next time, before you spout words of ignorance.

From the Seagull's

Brent is obviously appeasing people.  He seems to be giving some long discourses and tackling hard spiritual/church enigmas to avoid focus on a very important question that has arisen.  It sounds to me that he is expecting concessions that he has not been willing to give to other men who he condemned for money transgressions???

First of all, I have been "giving long discourses," for quite some time.  And I was avoiding this because it is fruitless to have this sort of debate with a person who invents things out of thin air, and elaborates on inaccurate, third-hand hearsay.  You are so far out of reckoning that your "questions," are best met with scornful laughter.

However, when you besmirch my reputation in this manner, suggesting that I am in some way transgressing financially, to the tune of 15,000.00, I am going to respond.  Unlike George Geftakys, I have a strong moral stance here.  I have done what I did in the light, in front of witnesses, and I have a record of the same in the form of signed documents.  The reason George says nothing is because he has none of the above, and the things i said about him are true.  It is quite the opposite in my case.  I ask for no concessions, and need none.  However, I do ask for a public apology from you, immediately.  I do not appreciate a fool telling people that I may have mishandled 15,000.00, with an arrogant tone reeking of false authority.  I did no such thing, and I demand that you retract this statement immediately.  You have no idea where you are, and have gone way past your line on this one.  My reputation is my livelihood, and I will not stand for this.  This is no threat, or hyperbole, I mean to bring an action against you forthright, unless you publicly clarify your libelous remarks made against me.

read on......

[editor]

From the Seagull's

Somthing stinks alright.  Brent is conspicuous by his silence on this???  I will be very happy if he is innocent, but I think the questions are good ones and are warranted.  The obvious double standard allows him to remain in good standing without having to answer questions.  A case that cannot weather questions is no case at all.  The facts presented sound good, but the reporter or messenger's credentials are in question - which taints the facts themselves.  So much has been presented on the basis of "trust me."  The point has been driven home too hard and often that Christians should not be expected to trust on money issues, but should be accountable and use open and honest methods where money is involved.

Be happy for me, be very happy.  I am totally innocent of the foolish conjecture made about me here.  The only double standard here is that you haven't aplogized and corrected your foolish words, whereas you expect your betters to do so.

Open and honest methods were used with regard to the "collection," for Judy.  However, my critic wasn't there to see the honorable way in which this matter was handled.  She is too foolish to check her imaginings out with people who were there.  She did not contact me, didn't talk to Judy, didn't talk to people from SLO....no, being in the spirit notwithstanding, she totally ignored the scripture with regard to having multiple, reliable witnesses in matters like this.  Had my critic not been so keen on printing anything at all that in her mind made me look bad, she would not have exposed herself even further.  Her conduct is shameful, irresponsible, and malicious.  On top of that, the mere premise of her questions are false.  Anyone who thinks I am bluffing need only call the men I mention above.  I'll be happy to provide the phone numbers.

Yet again, from the Seagull's

There is a need for trust somewhat when, by deduction based upon all surrounding evidence, assumptions can be established.  Also by elimination, through deduction, facts can be somewhat established.  When truths and facts that are known by a "friendly" source - they can simply enter testimony as to the facts.  When the person who is reporting has become a part of the case by involving himself in collecting money for some of the supposed victims - His testimony is very relevant.  There's no need "to put a puzzle together" when questions by involved persons can be answered.  Simple answers to simple questions are all that's being requested here.  

This drivell is not easy to get a grip on.  First of all, you don't establish assumptions.  Secondly, if my testimony was relevant, why didn't you get it before exposing your folly for all the world to see?  I daresay you will ignore what I am saying above, but do so at your peril.  I mean every word of it.

By the ongoing silence and avoidance of the question - guilt is being substantiated and born out.  In the absence of spoken testimony, the incriminated person weighs known and spoken guilt against unspoken and unsubstantiated guilt.  The latter is always a better option if given a choice especially when there is certain guilt that would, if the facts were brought out, be very incriminating.

Again, we read the words of a grasping, weak intellect here.  Guilt is NOT established by silence.  In fact, our juducial system, which is biblically based, has at its foundation, the right to remain silent.  We have the right to not incriminate ourselves. Can someone tell me what "unsubstantiated guilt is?"  On the contrary, guilt must be substantiated with evidence, not silence.  This is so far out of the realm of rational thought that one can only marvel.  Again, there is plenty of evidence in this matter, all of it exactly confirming what I am saying.  However, my critic didn't bother to inquire about this evidence, and thus has conclusively marked herself as a very foolish woman.

read on.....

[editor]

By the fact that you have worked so diligently to put together an 'iron-clad' - open/shut case against the Assembly, George and Betty and many leading brothers - it would seem to me that you shouldn't be so shy about a few simple questions about your own credentials.  If there truly is no incriminating evidence, why shy away from discussion?  The obvious verbosity on all other subjects with regard to the guilt of others appears extremely inconsistent with your attitude of silence on matters that point to your possible culpability.

How much did you collect, Brent?  $10,000 - $15,000?  How much?

Affirming

If you have any further informations regarding this money collection, please let us know.  You have my word that your identity will be preserved short of extreme torture like pulling out fingernails.  

I put together an "iron-clad" case against George Geftakys and his Assembly based on a simple principle,  The truth in the mouth of two or three witnesses.  On the other hand, your views are only based on your own imaginings, and woven together with substandard deductive non-reasoning and the weak, uninformed third-hand testimony of ONE (1) person.  Furthermore, you didn't bother to check any of this out before printing it.

As for being shy about discussing this, and avoiding it, I have this to say:

I did discuss this extensively with the people who were invovled in it, and you and your boy were not a part of it.  Did you hear that?  It isn't your business.  Nevertheless, the fruit of my discussions about the "collection for Judy," is in the form of written, signed financial records, and six (6) witnesses.  I have no culplability in this matter at all.  In fact, I can stand tall and boast about the honorable way that that the ex-leaders in SLO conducted themselves in this matter, in which I played the role of mailing a letter.

Now, with regard to discussion, I fully intend to "shy away," from discussion with ignorant people who have no idea of what they are talking about.  This is what is known as a foolish and ignorant dispute, and I reject people like this.  I will remain silent on a great many matters that you know absolutely nothing about, even though you and your boy pretend that you do.  However, when my reputation and livelihood is at stake, or you begin to harm a person that is dear to me, you will find that I fight, and always intend to win.  Anyone who knows me, even a little, would be extremely careful if they heard those words directed at them.  Again, this is no threat, it is a promise.  I expect a full, public apology from you forthwith.

How much did you collect, Brent?  $10,000 - $15,000?  How much?

I collected nothing, nada, zip, zero.  Judy was given money from the box twice.  It was accounted for, and witnessed.  You weren't there, I was.

If you have any further informations regarding this money collection, please let us know.  You have my word that your identity will be preserved short of extreme torture like pulling out fingernails.  

I have so much "further informations" about money, and dealing in the Assembly, that you would be shocked.  However, there is no way that I am going to tell everything I know, for the exact reasons listed above, and others.  Rest assured, you only know a third of the story at best.  Also, I have no need for anonymity, and your solicitation of anonymous "informations," in a matter like this is reprehensible.  Any fool could sign on under some silly alias and tell you a wholly made-up lie, and you would print it!  This is a shame to you, and an attack on my reputation, not to mention Judy.

You may comment about what I write, as much as you want.  You may disagree with me, and tell people I am not in the spirit, etc.  However, if you ascribe to me criminal or unsavory behavior, as you have done, I will not stand for it.  I expect a correction immediately.

Now, as to your motive for doing this.  I can only speculate that you did it out of ignorance and a general dislike of who you think I am.  However, if in fact you really believe that you were "in the spirit," when you invented these things, I can only conclude that your "spirit," is a deaf and dumb one.  

Should you do the right thing and apologize, I will drop the matter.  While it may cost you some pride, your reputation will in fact rise, if you do the right thing.  I will not respond to your drivel in public again.  If this is not taken care of, I will bring an action against you Monday morning.

Very Truly Yours,

Brent A. Tr0ckman

[editor]

ONe more thing

I read on another post at the Seagull's that they "heard," that I stood up in front of people and got a collection going for Judy, even though I knew that she had 175,000.00 in stocks.

No such thing ever occurred, and nothing remotely resembling it ever happened.  Perhaps they were "in the spirit," when they heard this.

Their timeline is wrong, their premises are wrong, they have no witnesses, and they are making "A," as we used to say in Hawaii.

Repeat, I never started a collection for Judy, and the financial settlement of her divorce is not a matter for public debate, unless you are a Seagull.

Brent

[editor]

If you want to respond to this thread, do so here:

http://www.assemblyboard.com/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=552

Brent

PS--thanks for the tip Al.