Saturday, June 1, 2013


    Ralph Ovadal of Pilgrims Covenant Church. Monroe, Wisconsin, has an excellent audio of his review of Refo 500
    This documentary is the result of hundreds of hours of research and sifting through Refo500 documents in order to present a thorough, fact-filled report on Refo500, from its launch in the Netherlands, then also in North America, and up to the present time. I know you are all so very busy, but please try to find the time to listen to this documentary. Refo500 is a major, well thought-out, well organized, well oiled ecumenical offensive of Rome. Refo500 is a clear and present danger to the Lord's blood-bought church, as well as billions of unsaved souls.
The audio is on Sermon Audio at:

Refo 500 is described as:
"Refo500 is the international platform for knowledge, expertise, ideas, products and events, specializing in the 500 year legacy of the Reformation. On the platform all kinds of partners from all over the world work together, to offer a program for a wide audience and to show the relevance of the reformation. Refo500 participants include Protestant and Catholic organizations, universities, seminaries, museums and so on. The platform is open to every organisation that agrees with the goal of Refo500."


Based on a Maryland law which allows for a seven year statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases instead of the normal three years, attorneys for the plaintiffs have filed a motion to reconsider with the court. Brent Detwiler reports here and below:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Filed with Court
Friday, May 31, 2013 at 12:44PM
Brent Detwiler
The Motion to Reconsider was filed on Tuesday, May 28 and served on Wednesday, May 29.  The full title reads, “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the Application of Maryland’s Statute of Limitations to Conspiracy Claims of All Plaintiffs and to Reconsider the Application of Courts and Judicial Proceeding §5-117 and Allow Certain Plaintiffs Seven Years from the Age of Majority for Filing of Their Action.” 
The argument invalidating the statute of limitations, since the conspiracy was only discovered in August 2011, is put forward in more detail.  The Judge may reject it again.  That doesn’t mean it has no merit.  If rejected, the Plaintiffs lawyers will appeal the ruling.  The entire appellate process will probably take around two years.  It is an uphill battle but the Plaintiffs’ are willing to fight on in the cause of justice.     
The argument that the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs Renee Gamby and Donna Doe should be 7 years from the age of majority (18), not 3 years, is a new one from what I can tell.  It looks sound from my limited perspective especially in the case of Gamby since the alleged crimes against her occurred in Maryland.  I hope it succeeds. 
The complete Motion to Reconsider is available under SGM Lawsuit / SGM Class Action Lawsuit Documents.  Here are some highlights.  
Factual Background 
“As alleged in the SAC [Second Amended Complaint], discovery of the conspiracy occurred in August 2011.  Until that date, plaintiffs were not aware of the concerted efforts by Church leadership to suppress reporting of child abuse, to interfere with the prosecution of child abuse, and to prevent other church members from learning of past reported child abuse.” 
Civil Conspiracy Claims Are Timely Filed as Such Claims Accrued at the Time of Discovery of the Conspiracy 
“Under the discovery rule, a cause of action for conspiracy accrues when the plaintiff learns of the conspiracy or with reasonable inquiry should have learned of the conspiracy.  Courts applying the discovery rule to civil conspiracy claims have reached the same conclusion - the crucial factor is the discovery of the conspiracy, not the discovery of the underlying tort injury…   
“To hold otherwise means that a plaintiff is barred from bringing a claim before she ever discovers or could have discovered the factual predicates for the claim, a direct contradiction of the discovery rule… 
“Like other states, Maryland recognizes that different causes of action may have different accrual dates, and the time of learning about the injury arising from negligence is not the same as the time of learning about the conspiracy.  The timeliness of conspiracy claims should be judged by the discovery of the conspiracy, not the discovery of the underlying injury associated with other causes of action.” 
Claims of Certain Plaintiffs Are Timely Filed Within the Requirements of §5-117 
“In October 2003, Maryland law was amended by passage of Courts and Judicial Proceeding Section 5-117, which increased the time allowed for bringing claims “arising out of” an alleged incident of “sexual abuse” that occurred while the victim was a minor.  Rather than the standard three year statute of limitations, the new law allowed a victim seven years after reaching the age of majority to file suit, if the claims fall within the scope of the law.  The claims of Renee Gamby and Donna Doe both “arise out of’ alleged incidents of sexual abuse that occurred when they were minors.  In addition, both Gamby and Doe were the victims of “sexual abuse” as defined under Maryland law, because both were abused by persons specifically included within the scope of §5-177.  Meeting the requirements of §5-117, each plaintiff should be allowed 7 years from the date of majority, and thus the claims of Renee Gamby and Donna Doe are timely filed within the requirements of the Maryland law.” 
“The application of the discovery rule to civil conspiracy claims dictates that such claims accrue at the time the plaintiffs discover or should have discovered the facts establishing the elements required to bring a conspiracy claim.  Under this rule, Plaintiffs civil conspiracy claims are timely filed.  Moreover, based on the allegations in the SAC, the allegations by Renee Palmer Gamby and Donna Doe arise out of alleged incidents of sexual abuse that occurred when the plaintiffs were minors.  As such, the applicable period of limitations is seven years from the age of majority, and claims by both Gamby and Doe were filed within the allowable limitations period.”


Indiana Congressman Stutzman Drafts Letter, to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder: Grant Romeike Family Asylum


Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Marlin Stutzman today led a group of 27 members of Congress in urging U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to honor the United States’ commitment to freedom by granting the Romeike family asylum. The family fled Germany in 2008 to homeschool their children here in the United States but now faces the threat of deportation.
In their letter, Stutzman and his colleagues urge Attorney General Holder to exercise his authority to grant the family asylum. “A decision to deny the Romeikes the opportunity to educate their children freely is a decision to abandon our commitment to freedom,” they write.
Congressman Stutzman, who made the decision with his wife to homeschool their sons for a time, said: “Most Americans don’t subscribe to the European notion that children belong to the community or the state—they belong to their parents. For centuries, this country has always welcomed families who fled their countries in pursuit of freedom. Attorney General Holder should honor our deep and abiding commitment to freedom right now and grant the Romeike family asylum.”
The Romeike family fled to the United States in 2008 after facing persecution in Germany for their decision to homeschool their children. The Obama Administration has fought an immigration court’s 2010 decision to grant the family asylum. On May 14, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama Administration’s denial of asylum.
Congressman Stutzman was joined by: 
Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Steve Daines (R-MT), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Mark Meadows (R-NC), Luke Messer (R-IN), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Alan Nunnelee (R-MS), Stevan Pearce (R-NM), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Bill Posey (R-FL), Phil Roe (R-TN), Todd Rokita (R-IN), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Chris Stewart (R-UT), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Lee Terry (R-NE), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), and Daniel Webster (R-FL).
Below is the text of the letter:
Dear Attorney General Holder,
We respectfully ask that, as the chief law enforcement officer of a nation founded as a safe haven for those who seek liberty, you grant asylum to the Romeike family who fled to the United States in 2008 after suffering persecution from the German government as a result of their decision to homeschool their children.
A decision to deny the Romeikes the opportunity to educate their children freely is a decision to abandon our commitment to freedom. Doing so would put America alongside those countries that believe children belong to the community or state.  A country founded on freedom should stand for the fact that they belong to their parents. As a “city on a hill,” this country has always embraced those who seek freedom. The United States ought to welcome families who suffer persecution for exercising their right to educate their children.
As you are aware, the courts have upheld a common-sense commitment to educational freedom.  The Supreme Court’s decision, Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), held that the right of parents to “direct the education and upbringing” of their children is a fundamental right.
In Germany, the Romeike family experienced persecution for exercising this fundamental right and, on one occasion, officials forcibly removed Uwe and Hannalore’s children from their home. As the family faces multiple fines in their homeland, it is little wonder that they have sought refuge in the United States.
We believe that U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman reached the correct decision on January 26, 2010 when he granted the Romeike family asylum after finding that they had a well-founded fear of persecution because of their membership in the particular social group of “homeschoolers in Germany” and because Germany’s ban on homeschooling frustrated their religious convictions.
Under U.S. law, asylum should be granted to those experiencing persecution aimed at members of a “particular social group,” which possesses an “immutable” characteristic that either cannot or should not be required to be changed. We agree with Judge Burman that German homeschoolers are a particular social group who are being persecuted by their government. Although parents can change their minds about homeschooling, no parent in a free nation should be forced by the state to make that decision.
It is worth noting that the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR), which recognizes that parents have a “prior right” over the government to choose the kind of education their children will have. Other international covenants to which Germany is a party, including the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), explicitly protect the rights of parents to direct their child’s education.
We ask that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), you exercise the authority given to you by Congress to grant asylum to the Romeike family. The legal standard in Section 1101(a) for eligibility for asylum is a “well-founded fear of future persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.” That is exactly what Judge Burman found in his 2010 opinion, upon reviewing the facts of the case and the German government’s official position on homeschooling.
The Romeikes fled to our country, seeking relief from high fines, removal of their children by armed police officers, and threats of prison and termination of their parental rights. If forced to return to Germany, they will certainly face renewed persecution. As Americans, we have an obligation to stand with those who seek freedom. The Romeike family should find a welcoming home in the United States.