Lourdes Torres-Manteufel vs Doug Phillips Lawsuit Informational Resource Page

74 thoughts on “Lourdes Torres-Manteufel vs Doug Phillips Lawsuit Informational Resource Page”

1. I read the law report. Just wow. How can he think he’ll get out of this one?

   LikeLike

2. Brad:

   You can access the court info at http://apps.bexar.org/search/search.html The case # is 2014CI05999. (It’s called a cause #)

   LikeLike

3. I don’t see how any jury could take a position that a man masturbating and ejaculating on a young lady is not a sex act, it clearly is. Doing so against her will is as a matter of law RAPE. Actual Penetration is not required in most states for someone to be convicted of RAPE. There was a case out of Florida were two drunk women held another woman down as some drunk ( idiot) guy removed her clothes kissed her genitalia. All three were convicted of rape and sentenced to very long prison sentences. If everything claimed in the filing is 100% factual I believe Doug will eventually be charged with rape.

   That being said conviction and even a civil victory is going to be tough. There doesn’t seem to be mention of any third party witnesses, which surprises me since it was reported that her family and Doug’s wife and children caught them several times in acts of an intimate nature. If true I would call his kids and her family members as witnesses. Only a spouse can refuse to testify against someone in a criminal matter. Anyone could be called in the civil side of litigation. I’m also very concerned about the incident in the Phillip’s kitchen that is alleged in the complaint and how that will play to a jury. I can imagine how rough the cross examination on that is going to be. When Doug’s kids where in the dining room and he allegedly went into the kitchen and committed an act against her will, resulting in ejaculation while she was attempting to make lunch. It is going to be very difficult to get a jury to envision that even being possible without immediately being discovered by those in the next room. Create one bit of doubt in the jury’s mind and the whole case collapses.

   LikeLike

4. Does anyone have a clue as to when this will actually get into a courtroom? If this was a Law and Order episode, court would start in 10 minutes, after a brief commercial break for Colgate and Wheaties. But in real life, this could take years, could it not? Just wondering.

   Ed

   LikeLike

5. Thanks for your hard work. May God fully expose and judge evil swiftly.

   LikeLike

6. I suspect that the plaintiff attorneys will submit discovery requests (actually demands!) for documents, depositions, etc., fairly soon, to each of the entities and people. Most complex or hard fought cases in TX start with paper discovery, followed by depositions, etc. The statements of the theory of the case in early paperwork will be interesting. Then the depositions. There may be settlement discussions off and on. There is a standing order in civil cases in Bexar County that require mediation and a goodly number of highly qualified mediators there, as a result. Of course, the mediation is confidential unless an agreement is reached.

   I suspect discovery will start within a few weeks and be followed by depositions beginning in a couple of months, possibly occurring over several months. A trial before 2015 is unlikely. I suspect that the insurers, if any, will be pressing for settlement.

   One interesting part of the paper discovery is likely to be disclosure of financial assets of the defendants, under oath! That may be protected for individuals, but not likely for the entities. Hiding assets and getting caught will generally turn the judge and any jury against the party so acting.

   LikeLike

7. Thanks BD for the lead to the Bexar County Court Records Site. I’ve added a section with that link and instructions for finding updates on the official status of the case and developments. That will be a great help as things progress!

   chapmaned24 – One of the articles I read suggested it might be a year before the case comes to trial. That would make sense, given the amount of time needed for discovery and depositions, court schedules, the complexity of the case, etc. With the 2012 BGBC lawsuit in Oregon where Julie Anne was a defendant, the case was put on an expedited court schedule because an Anti-SLAPP motion was filed — and it still took about six months from filing to finish.

   Thanks for the comments and positive feedback. If you have additional links or suggestions for how to make this reference page more helpful, please note them in the comment thread. We’ll work on them as soon as possible.

   LikeLike

8. Thanks for chiming in with details, An Attorney. That’s helpful information on the specific situation in Texas and with this case.

   LikeLike

9. Thanks An Attorney. That gives a realistic look. I just have one more question, tho. At what point does this turn from a civil trail for monetary damages, to a criminal charge for jail time? Or, is it all wrapped into one here? Based on what I am reading, this is criminal stuff here, so why the civil trial at this point? Me, being a couch potato, arm chair quarter back thinks that a criminal trial usually comes before the monetary damages. I think I am confused.

   LikeLike

10. Wow! Thanks for your work! This is exactly the kind of thing I have been needing to wrap my head around the events, and to see how they compare to other situations with which I am more familiar (to get a handle on what similarities–and differences–exist).
    Thank you again!!

    LikeLike

11. “There doesn’t seem to be mention of any third party witnesses,”

    Why this insistence on witnesses? I don’t get this. This is not a criminal proceeding where the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil proceedings just ask “Did the plaintiff prove her case BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE”.

    LikeLike

12. So much to read, sooooo little time… At least I know I’m caught up with what JA has written.

    Well done, Brad. Thank you for all your hard work.

    LikeLike

13. Pingback: Lourdes Torres, Alleged Victim in the Doug Phillips (Vision Forum) Sex Abuse Scandals Files Lawsuit | Spiritual Sounding Board

14. Great compilation of resources – thank you! Two suggestions:

    I think the Geoff Botkin family should be added to your “Key Individuals” list, given their inclusion of Ms. Torres-Manteufel in their Patriarchy/SAHD-lauding “Return of the Daughters” DVD.

    Katie (the sane) Botkin has posted a second essay about this, “Let’s Talk About Something Real,” on her blog.

    LikeLike

15. Brad, look what I just found (and tweeted) (click on the image a few times and it will eventually enlarge so you can read it):

    Vision Forum Board releases statement April 17 http://t.co/F8FqgoZKOE pic.twitter.com/fNmHupwykm

    — Julie Anne (@DefendTheSheep) April 18, 2014

    LikeLike

16. Katie (the sane) Botkin, indeed. Thanks for the suggestions, Marian.

    LikeLike

17. It appears the April 17, 2014, statement of Vision Forum Ministries (VFM) board may be in part a response to the plaintiff’s Petition, page 15, paragraph #54. That paragraph states the following (and notice that the last sentence mentions the VFM board).

    54. On October 3, 2013, Ms. Torres received an e-mail from Beall Phillips threatening her if she did not keep silent about what happened to her, i.e., her abuse:

    During the last ten weeks, and ultimately for the last nine months, you have been lighting bombs all across the country. Right now, you may have a perception of peace, but what you don’t know is that these bombs are about to explode in a manner that will change all of our lives forever. It will affect your life, your marriage prospects . . . your parents . . . and thousands of other people. It is far worse than you imagine.

    The VFM board has encouraged me to let you know about these and to work with you to give you an opportunity to stop impending destruction.

    Two observations.

    (1) The threatening email attributed to Beall Phillips implicates the VFM board in attempts to silence Ms. Torres. In my opinion, the main point of the April 17th announcement from the VFM board is to counteract the notion that they are in any way responsible for suggesting Ms. Phillips attempt to silence Ms. Torres.

    (2) There is probably “bad blood” between Douglas Phillips and the VFM board for his apparently leaving them unaware of his adulterous relationship until September 2013, and potentially for other actions. VFM is a defendant in this case, and as far as I know as of yesterday (April 17) their legal counsel has not yet been announced – but their absence from announcements about Jason Jakob serving as counsel to Doug and Beall Phillips and Mr. Phillips’ business, Vision Forum, Inc., may be telling. We may see additional attempts by VFM to separate itself from Mr. Phillips and VFI, and contradict statements that appear from Mr. Phillips, Ms. Phillips, and/or their attorney.

    LikeLike

18. “It will affect your life, your marriage prospects . . . your parents . . . and thousands of other people. It is far worse than you imagine. ”

    This is the part that galls me. Marriage prospects? Now there is an insight into their deranged thinking concerning women, marriage, etc. Think of what Beall is really saying here. She will have to get out of the patriarchal ghetto thinking for a real clue.

    But think of where Beall is coming from. In her mind, Lourdes is still the malleable girl who can be manipulated into believing her silence will save many people. And she is trying to put the burden of other peoples lives on Lourdes. So her silence will “save others”. From what? Truth?

    Lourdes is the one putting herself out there to be trashed by those stuck in the ghetto by speaking up. She has left the “hood” and they will pull out all the stops to shut her up. She is the one with real courage.

    Boy,when you stop being the lackey they cannot handle it. And their wrath reigns down. I have seen it over and over. But they are really stupid when you think about it. It is their “normal” so they don’t think about what such words sound like outside their ghetto. Because it sounds natural and normal to them. That tells us all we need to know.

    LikeLike

19. Yea, I was thinking they might be trying to publicly defend themselves, Brad. I wonder if they have legal counsel yet. It seems an odd statement to make out of the clear blue.

    LikeLike

20. Brad and JA –

    If I was a board member of VFM I wouldn’t share an attorney with Phillips. No way. As far as the email is concerned (I’m assuming it does exist), if Beall didn’t write it, she can say so. One way or another, if it came from her email account, it’s a piece of evidence that could cause severe trouble.

    LikeLike

21. Bridget – It is my understanding that VFM is not real happy with Phillips. I don’t think they would consider sharing an attorney with him.

    LikeLike

22. Some thoughts and questions.

    At this point, I think it’s appropriate that many notes should still be labeled as “apparently” and “allegedly.” At this point, they are opinions — and this is why I said, “The threatening email ATTRIBUTED to Beall Phillips …” — or they are reasonable presumptions of fact. For instance, I find it difficult to believe that such an email document as referenced in the Petition doesn’t exist. It is too specific, and presumably there’s an electronic version available. And for Ms. Torres to make up such a statement would be incredibly damaging to her case. But eventually it will likely become known — presumably under oath — who actually wrote and who sent the email.

    I think VFM hiring a separate lawyer totally makes sense. The question I have is — if this goes to trial — can the jury find two of the three defendants (i.e., Mr. Phillips and his VFI business) responsible and the third defendant (VFM) not responsible? Or responsible for damages, but at significantly differing levels?

    LikeLike

23. “VFM is a defendant in this case, and as far as I know as of yesterday (April 17) their legal counsel has not yet been announced – but their absence from announcements about Jason Jakob serving as counsel to Doug and Beall Phillips and Mr. Phillips’ business, Vision Forum, Inc., may be telling. ”

    Maybe they did not pay the board member protection insurance premiums. Or maybe they did not have any insurance. In my experience the non profit carried the insurance and pays the premiums. But VFM was disolved/closed, right? This is a tricky business with non profits.

    LikeLike

24. I am so greatful for sites like this! We will have to come back often to “cleanse our brains” once Phillips starts talking. His first tactic will probably be victim shaming and no one wants to hear that nonsense from his mouth. If this does go to trial, Lourdes and Nolan will need all the spiritual and emotional support they can get. Phillips loves the spotlight and is use to manipulating his image as a great leader. He won’t be able to control “public opinion” as easily and hopefully, this same spotlight will expose the pain and abuse caused by his actions.

    LikeLike

25. Can someone please answer why Lourdes would offer to settle for 10 million of her objective is to get the word out and protect others from going through a similar thing? I believe she is telling the truth, but the money aspect of this is throwing me for a loop. Is she just brave for telling her story or does the 20 million she is hoping to get from winning a lawsuit have something to do with her talking?

    LikeLike

26. Information about the offer to settle for $10 million only comes from Phillips’ side. And since mediation is required, the other side has to say what they would settle for to avoid court.

    But I cannot say this strongly enough, I don’t care about Lourdes asking for money. AT ALL. Why is is that abusive pastors and malignant organizations can cause all kinds of damage but the victims are expected to be so saintly that they should never ask for money? We live in a highly materialistic capitalistic society and having to shell out money for civil wrongdoing is about the only deterrent that will work. Doug Phillips would apologize from here to eternity to get out of this and enjoy crafting the verbiage. And organizations and corporations will happily apologize to avoid affecting the bottom line. But they won’t change.

    LikeLike

27. And, I am sure that a settlement would include a clause of some sort, barring Lourdes from ever publicly speaking about it, that way, Doug can get on with his life, and reemerge as the next greatest thing since the Messiah.

    No, I say to let the court decide the amount, and not to settle out of court. Get this as public as possible, and let there be a criminal investigation that would put him in jail.

    Ed

    LikeLike

28. Let’s be real here. Doug Phillips was the board of VFM, everyone else was just eye candy. It is laughable that Scott Brown and company would retain the same legal councel as Doug. That is just not going to happen. I don’t exactly think Doug is Scott’s favorite person right now 🙂

    LikeLike

29. NmGirl: I’m hoping that their are in fact witnesses to atleast one incident , otherwise I believe Doug Phillips will prevail in court. With respect to evidence, what evidence are you referring to ? All the facts that have been laid out thus far could just as easily support Doug Phillips claim that it was a consensual “relationship” and that she was actively encouraging it.

    Winning this case isn’t going to be a walk in the park and the plaintiff will no doubt get called to the stand and cross examined by an experienced litigator. Sympathy, regardless of how heart felt and deserved isn’t going to win a jury trial. The defense will present the victim in a certain light and that isn’t going to be a pleasant experience. If I was defending Phillips ( and that would never happen because I can’t stand the guy and believe he is a sexual predator ) the plaintiff would be reframed as the patriarchal World’s MONICA Lewinsky. A selfish person that was having a multi-year adulteress relationship so she could benefit by being taken on trips she could never afford, have jewelry she could never afford and enjoy a lifestyle far above the mobile home she lived in with her family. The defense will do everything they can to make her look like a manipulative slut, guaranteed. Once that thought is in the jury’s minds it’s game over because it really comes down to her word again this, unless there are other witnesses. Hopefully she taped phone calls, video taped him Or something of that nature to support her claims.

    The first question the defense is going to ask her is why didn’t you tell your parents before Mr. Phillips was caught outside your window ? If you were being subject to such vile conduct why didn’t you contact the police ? Seek out help from a domestic violence hotline, abuse shelter etc. How is it that the scene in the kitchen even occurred without other members of the home ( that were in the next room) noticing what was occurring. I would have the jury on a field trip to the home and point out how unbelievable that claim really is. All the I was in a cult and religious bla bla in the complaint is going to be tossed aside, guaranteed. The average prospective jury member doesn’t have a clue about the patriarchal movement and the jury will be asking all of the above questions in their own minds they deliberate.

    Personally I don’t believe the plaintiff’s attorney plans on this case ever going to trial. I believe it was filed, to be settled out of court. He is probably already talking to the insurance companies and we will never know the total truth of what really occurred.
    I bet this is settled before thanksgiving and Doug Phillips is busy remarketing himself as some sort of Job like character deserving of our sympathy.

    I wonder how many gullible, home school drones will fall for that AGAIN and jump right back on the crazy train for a connecting flight to the titanic.

    LikeLike

30. Oppsy, typo.
    her word against his

    LikeLike

31. “Fake Someone Happy: A true story of the damaged daughters of American patriarchy and their emotional abuse.” This is an EXCELLENT book.

    If you want to understand how deeply the Patriarchy system damages people, especially girls, read this book. I could not put it down.

    Here is a review:
    http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2013/11/01/the-true-story-of-the-damaged-daughters-of-patriarchy-a-memoir/

    LikeLike

32. Barbara, I read it, too, and it’s pretty obvious it’s about the Vision Forum culture. I didn’t care so much for the writing, but if you want to understand how the culture affects you emotionally and relationally, it is good and important because you can see how everyday conversation and living in Patriarchy manifests itself – especially as a woman.

    I will continue to say that women and ladies living under Patriarchy are living in a type of cult. They are being controlled by a system and culture. They lose all autonomy, individual thinking, etc.

    LikeLike

33. Scott @ APRIL 18, 2014 @ 1:30 PM

    May I gently caution you about making such strong assertions about how the case will go and what a jury is likely to think or do. Remember this is a civil case (at this stage) not a criminal case, and the burden of proof is different. While your speculations may be right (or wrong) I don’t think it is very helpful to Lourdes for people to be speculating about how the case will go. Let her attorneys advise her on that. They are the experts and they have a lot more information than we do.

    Let’s not say things that may unduly frighten or panic Lourdes. As a victim of abuse myself, I know how easy it is for me to be thrown into a minor spin of panic, my mind racing on thoughts of what might occur — especially when I”m tired or run down. And we can all be tired or run down sometimes.

    Let’s remember that Lourdes, for all her amazing courage and tenacity, is still likely to be easily triggered. She seems to be making a great recovery from the multiple forms of abuse she’s suffered, but no one is made of titanium, and recovery is an iterative process that takes time. My suggestions is: let her attorneys advise her, and keep our own speculations to a minimum. For her sake.

    Bless you Lourdes if you are reading this. (hugs)

    LikeLike

34. Julie Anne:

    Re: the 10 million dollar thing.

    The defendants would have received a letter of intent some time ago (that a civil suit would be filed).

    The lawyers get together and the defense asks what it will take to make it go away.

    The plaintiff lawyer throws out a ridiculous amount – say 10 million – because their intent is not to make it go away, their intent is to go to court.

    I’d like to ask An Attorney if throwing out 10 million is a kind of, ‘see you in court we’re in this for the long haul’ statement. Perhaps 10 million isn’t unreasonable for a Texas former ministry…

    Since civil settlements involve finances, the amount requested by Lourdes Torres-Manteufel will be on court docs down the road.

    As an aside, I read over at Free Jinger that a private detective hired by Phillips was contacting people – before this suit was filed. The person mentioning that was letting people know they were under no obligation to talk with him.

    Did any of you watch Doug Phillips body language in the tv interview?
    He was nodding yes when he was saying no, etc. Opposite of his words.

    LikeLike

35. “Did any of you watch Doug Phillips body language in the tv interview?
    He was nodding yes when he was saying no, etc. Opposite of his words.”

    As in one of the “Liespotting” clues? Good catch.

    “As an aside, I read over at Free Jinger that a private detective hired by Phillips was contacting people – before this suit was filed. The person mentioning that was letting people know they were under no obligation to talk with him.”

    Ugh! I know exactly how this works — more behind-the-scenes manipulations that people not involved in the situation will never see.

    LikeLike

36. Barbara, I’m quite familiar with the standards of evidence, what constitutes proof in a court of law and what a jury is even allowed to hear. If this case doesn’t get tossed before trail, I will be shocked as there is just no evidence here at all. The plaintiff making a series of allegations does Not a case make. It is a basic he says, she says type of case and under this system of jurisprudence that doesn’t fly.

    There is a reason counsel clouded the complaint with lots of general information about patriarchy etc. All the religious chatter in the complaint about this strange group will not win a lawsuit. It’s a press release seeking a settlement. Its was filler, lots of filler where there is no provable facts, or anything close to evidence. With respect to the plaintiff reading this biog, I find that unlikely. She is of course a witness in a case and the attorney has of course advised her to avoid discussing or reading about the matter. Regardless, once you file a lawsuit Its a very public matter and will be discussed all over. I’m not convinced that she is 100% a victim and Phillips 100% guilty of what is being alleged. In our zeal to protect victims of abuse we can’t create another partial victim by assuming that charges in a lawsuit are true when ZERO in the way of evidence has been offered.

    In the interest of fairness and accuracy:

    It has been mentioned that the plaintiffs attorney was also involved in the Jack Schapp case in Hammond Indiana, that is not true. His father from an entirely different legal practice was involved after being brought in by the church.

    On this resource page it states that Jack Schapp is currently in Federal prison for having sex with a minor. That is FALSE. Under Indiana law she was of the age of majority. Jack Schapp was charged, prosecuted and convicted in Federal court for violation of the MANN ACT, in that he took a woman under the age of 18 across State lines for the purpose of sexual relations. The age of consent is 16 in Indiana, so the incidents of sexual contact at the church or within the state were perfectly legal. Mr. Schaap ran afoul of the MANN Act by driving the woman across state lines. That is why he is in Federal Prison.

    LikeLike

37. The sexual contact with her in Michigan was also legal as the age of consent there is also 16. The offense was the transportation across state lines.

    LikeLike

38. Scott — thank you for the correction on Jack Schaap and the Mann Act. I’ve just made the correction on that, and added a link to a description of the Mann Act. I do what I can to be accurate but I make mistakes.

    LikeLike

39. Scott — I’ve also added in the above page a notation about the differences between David C. Gibbs, Jr., (the father, who was attorney for Jack Schaap) and David C. Gibbs III (the son, who is the attorney for Lourdes Torres-Manteufel). I’ve run into some online links that didn’t distinguish between the two.

    LikeLike

40. Scott, did you forget that Phillips himself confessed to an inappropriate relationship with a woman that involved some kind of sexual contact? They both agree that no intercourse took place and now his lawyer says he never touched her in a sexual way (she says otherwise). What does that leave then? And how do you know what kind of evidence they have? Phillips himself says that there were many exchanges over the Internet. Do you know what he wrote to her? Phillips also confessed to his former interns and another minister. Do you know what he said to them? We know he named the woman but we don’t know what he said his role was. And we don’t know what people witnessed. There may be witnesses who heard or saw incriminating things who haven’t volunteered to testify and are not in the complaint but would tell the truth in a deposition.

    LikeLike

41. Brad,

    Under April 15, 2014, the link to this article: Michael Farris, Patriarchy, and Doug Phillips: An Expose by Libby Anne is broken. It brings you to a page that says “not found- error 404.” Just thought you’d like to know. It’s an excellent article.

    Mod note: JA fixed it. Thanks, BTDT!

    LikeLike

42. FWIW, I have not come to a final conclusion about how to interpret the plaintiff’s Petition – I expect to re-read it multiple times before settling in on that. But I do have one tentative conclusion that I can’t shake, and I offer it here for consideration.

    I do understand that this is a CIVIL LAWSUIT, not a criminal case. However, since it is taking place in Texas, the PENAL [criminal] CODE may have relevance to the logic behind the plaintiff’s Petition and the mention of patriarchy, etc. Here is a link to and quotation from what I see as the potentially relevant section, which is Texas Penal Code, Title 5 (Offenses Against The Person), Chapter 22 (Assaultive Offenses), Section 22.011 (Sexual Assault), Subsection (b)(10):

    (b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if: […] (10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser; […]

    So – are patriarchy (and all those other related beliefs) and the “total institution” concept relevant or irrelevant to this civil suit? And if they are relevant, how so?

    As best I can see it so far, it seems to me that they are. Patriarchy, plus exceptional strong versions of gender complementarianism, family-integrated churches, authoritarian hierarchical church leadership structures, teachers and organizations that promote “multiple umbrellas of authority” doctrines, etc. etc. actually *ALL* deal with the central theme of spiritual authorities in a person’s life.

    That boils it down to its essential character. Imagine trying to live in a system where each and all of those subsystems are woven throughout the culture! To give some detail, these systems teach that women are subject to the authority of men, children to the authority of parents, younger people to the authority of elders, employees to the authority of employers, congregants to the authority of elders/leaders, etc. In a “total institution” where submission is expected/required to a gridlock of such authority structures, Ms. Torres-Manteufel would find herself at the bottom of the pyramid: young woman, daughter of congregants, volunteer and employee – subject to the authority and advise and teachings of older men, congregational elders, supervisor and employer.

    So, is it potentially relevant to the above section of the Texas CRIMINAL code to make the case in a CIVIL SUIT where discovery may disclose more details, that Lourdes (then) Torres would have not just an emotional-relational connection with Doug Phillips, but would be under his spiritual authority and advice? After all, she was subject to his authority in multiple ways since she was a younger woman whose family members were then in the congregation where Mr. Phillips served as elder – and she sometimes served in the Phillips household as nanny – and that she sometimes was employed to work for the Vision Forum, Inc., business that Mr. Phillips owned.

    This all seems to add to the conclusion I make that Mr. Phillips was indeed a “clergyman” in her life, in addition to his other multiple roles. And so, he is potentially subject to the criminal injunctions of 5.22.011(b)(10), isn’t he?
    And I don’t think it really works when those taking the defense of Mr. Phillips suggest he was NOT Ms. Torres’ pastor because he was out of town so much on Vision Forum activities. Certainly, had he not wanted the title, role, or responsibility of elder at Boerne Christian Assembly, he could have declined taking on the position or could have resigned from it to devote himself to other things – and not waited until he apparently felt pressure to resign in January 2013, a month after he was reportedly caught at night trying to enter the Torres family residence via Ms. Torres’ bedroom window. But, as long as he was an elder, wasn’t he legally responsible and accountable to lead and advise and oversee the congregation? Wouldn’t he therefore be considered a clergyman for all that time until he resigned his eldership role?

    So, there’s my initial take on the Petition and some of the responses, after Week #1.

    LikeLike

43. The civil suit under the rules has a different status vis a vis a subpoena to Beale to force her to give a deposition and to testify. Certainly that would be interesting testimony. She cannot be forced to testify against him in criminal court, but testimony in a deposition in a civil case has the potential to be used, and could force DP’s attorneys to put her on the stand and subject to questioning by the plaintiff’s attorneys. I also believe that plaintiff’s attorneys should name her as a defendant either in this suit or another for her threats.

    More states are adopting the standard that a person under the “authority” of another is disabled from giving consent, making a sexual relationship between them sexual assault. I do not have access to the Michigan, Indiana or Illinois statutes at present, but if any of them have such a provision, Schapp could be prosecuted in state court as well, perhaps getting a stacked sentence.

    LikeLike

44. Brad, good work, brother.

    LikeLike

45. Thanks, An Attorney. I’m doing the best I can to compile primary and secondary sources, and then understand it from a layperson’s point of view. I suppose if that tentative conclusion is what I could reach by reading and reflecting, then maybe jury members could reach similar conclusions if there are additional details. We’ll see …

    LikeLike

46. @An Attorney, 6:59 PM said: “More states are adopting the standard that a person under the ‘authority’ of another is disabled from giving consent, making a sexual relationship between them sexual assault. I do not have access to the Michigan, Indiana or Illinois statutes at present, but if any of them have such a provision, Schapp could be prosecuted in state court as well, perhaps getting a stacked sentence.”

    I spent some time rummaging around the same site I used for citations on Texas law. I found what may be relevant sections re: Schaap and the 16-year-old young woman he took across state lines.

    ILLINOIS — Illinois Compiled Statutes 720 ILCS 5 Criminal Code of 2012. Section 11-1.20.

    Sec. 11-1.20(a)(4). Criminal Sexual Assault. (a) A person commits criminal sexual assault if that person commits an act of sexual penetration and: […] (4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age. (emphasis added)

    http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/11-1.20.html

    INDIANA’s compiliation of laws is a lot longer with little tiny type so that’ll take a while.

    MICHIGAN — Section 750.520b Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; felony; consecutive terms.

    Section 750.520b(1)(iii). (1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists: […] (iii) The actor is in a position of authority over the victim and used this authority to coerce the victim to submit. (emphasis added)

    http://law.onecle.com/michigan/750-michigan-penal-code/mcl-750-520b.html

    LikeLike

47. Scott,

    No evidence? Oh, I beg to differ. Emails are evidence. Statement of guilt of inappropriate physical behavior is another. No evidence, huh?

    Well, we also have another court expert on this blog, aka “An Attorney”, who just may be able to counter you, counselor!!

    Ed

    LikeLike

48. I would guess that there will be testimony about several “confessions” by DP from several witnesses — the girl’s parents, Beale (?), people at BCA, board members of VFM and VFI, various of the “five friends”, etc. And surely DP has aggravated the relationship with many of these potential witnesses such that some will willingly testify — but all will be subpoenaed and have to answer questions under oath. And there is likely some photographic and video evidence that the jury will find indicating an inappropriate relationship between the older and powerful DP with the young and vulnerable victim. Some of that has already been out there in the public domain.

    LikeLike

49. Julie Anne and Brad, thanks so much for doing this. I linked this in my latest blog post here: http://watchtheshepherd.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-patriarchy-scandal-abuse-and-grace.html

    LikeLike

50. Hi Virginia … thanks for the encouragement! I’ve added your post, and Chris Jeub’s, to the media section already. Thanks for what you posted on your blog …

    LikeLike

51. Pingback: Lourdes, Lifeboats, and Bounded Choice: Part III (Raised in a Totalist Institution) | Spiritual Sounding Board
52. Pingback: Which “Attorney David Gibbs” Leads the Lawsuit of Lourdes Torres-Manteufel vs Douglas Phillips – the Father, or the Son? | Spiritual Sounding Board
53. Pingback: Lourdes, Lifeboats, and Bounded Choice: Part IV (The Complicated Process of Exiting Totalist Groups) | Spiritual Sounding Board

54. Looks like this page may need updating. On the court records 7/16/14 there appears this:

    ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE
    KAY ANDREWS -HAWKINS,PARNELL,THACKSTON
    & YOUNG FOR VISION FORUM MINISTRIES INC
    ( & WITHDRAWN-THOMAS C SANDERS, P.C)
    JUDGE: LARRY NOLL
    VOL: 4242 PAGE: 2997 PAGE COUNT: 1

    LikeLike

55. Thank you, maxwell.

    LikeLike

56. Thanks @maxwell for the update, which we’ve gotten incorporated into the post, along with some links and additional history of the legal representation for Vision Forum Ministries, Inc.

    LikeLike

57. Pingback: Insurance Company Files Legal Complaint against Doug Phillips, Vision Forum, and Lourdes Torres-Manteufel | Spiritual Sounding Board
58. Pingback: Is It Time To Tell My Story? | futuristguy
59. Pingback: Most Clicked Links in 2014 | Spiritual Sounding Board
60. Pingback: Farris's Ferris Wheel... - Agenda 21 News

61. While I’m no apologist for Phillips, LTM isn’t the poster girl for all that is good and noble either. She’s quite the opportunist.

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/unhanging-from-last-years-cliffs-dougs-and-dogs/

    LikeLike

62. I could not disagree with you more. I have the following comment on your blog still in moderation:

    You are missing something of grave importance while you speculate Lourdes takes some blame. In the state of Texas where this took place, it legally CANNOT be consensual because Phillips was in a position of authority. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm

    LikeLike

63. That’s not my blog. I see that you’ve already gone there, though.

    LikeLike

64. Oh, sorry about that, but everything else stands 🙂

    LikeLike

65. I am wondering when Doug Phillips goes on trial? I have an interest in this and the whole ATI BG IBLP debacle since we were part of these organizations (I say to my shame) for over 11 years and raised four of our 5 children in these teachings. Thank you.

    LikeLike

66. Julia -thanks for the note. I contact David Gibbs III and see if he can give me an update.

    LikeLike

67. Pingback: Update on Lourdes Torres-Manteufel vs Doug Phillips Lawsuit | Spiritual Sounding Board
68. Pingback: “Do Good and Do No Harm” Project by Brad Sargent aka FuturistGuy | Spiritual Sounding Board
69. Pingback: Capstone 2-4: Trends, Turning Points, and Tipping Points in Spiritual Abuse Survivor Communities (2014) – Part 1: Setting the Stage | futuristguy

70. Based on the court status, the case appears to have been resolved, “dismissed by plaintiff”. Can you confirm or deny this?

    LikeLike

71. Hi, Alfred. It appears the parties reached a settlement — if you go to the expanded records for this docket #, you’ll see that the last few entries before the case was dismissed are settlement-related (plaintiff filed a motion to enforce a mediated settlement agreement on 2/24/16 and there followed a flurry of activity in late February, with a hearing scheduled for mid-March but then dropped). Then nothing at all until the case was dismissed with prejudice in May. So reading between the lines, it looks like the parties reached a settlement but then went into a holding pattern until the settlement was /paid/, only then dismissing the case.

    Hope this helps!

    LikeLike

72. I attempted a prior reply, which seems to have been lost in the woods. If it shows up, perhaps the moderator can delete.

    My sense, enforced by other sources, is that this did not end well for the plaintiff. I suspect that she had defamed Phillips in statements to the press and, when faced with the prospect of a countersuit to that end, a right afforded defendants in such cases as a specific step in the process, she went with the most advantageous conclusion for her. Which involved correcting the public record, accepting a “with prejudice” summary judgement, and a gag order. As many hits as she accepted I cannot believe she got much of a financial settlement, but I have no information on that at all. Meaning the gag order has been observed. I was just curious if there was any more information “out there”.

    Thanks.

    LikeLike

73. Hi Alfred,

    The last comment from you that I have is dated Sept 2016. There is nothing in the spam, so I’m not sure what happened to it.

    LikeLike

74. Thanks for the reply, Alfred! With a couple of caveats (I am not a lawyer, nor have I followed this case very closely at all, so I cheerfully admit I’m missing lots of context), here’s what I’d say:

    I’m not married to the idea that there was a cash settlement. Plainly there was a /delay/ between March and May, and plainly it happened right after a motion to enforce a settlement. So I think my reading was a pretty reasonable one. But if you’re right that Phillips filed a countersuit, then it’s possible the period of inactivity had less to do with cash and more to do with waiting for Phillips to dismiss his claim with prejudice before Lourdes dismissed hers. If you know what jurisdiction the countersuit was filed in, this seems like a very testable hypothesis. So go test it, sez I. 🙂 I would be interested to hear what you find.

    Ultimately we still won’t know the terms of the settlement, but we can at least get a fuller picture of what was going on. I say “fuller” and not “full” because — well, heck, even if we had the settlement itself, AND knew EXACTLY how likely each party thought it was that they’d prevail at trial, we would still want more information (primarily about the finances of both parties, the expected costs of a trial, and the likelihood that any verdict would include attorneys’ fees). And this doesn’t even reach the question of what actually happened! But to the extent that we’re searching for the truth, it’s better to have more information than less.

    Can I ask what your sources are, by the way? I’m wary of chatter — we could, less charitably, call it gossip — that originates in a social circle favoring the defendant and claims he was vindicated. I’m even more wary if the rumors emerge only when the parties can’t speak and the records are no longer available. This is not to say that such rumors can’t be true, just that the odds are against it — certainly, experience has taught me to regard them with a jaundiced eye.

    LikeLike