craig portwood2
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2007
Posts: 5
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Did James Lloyd Lie Under Oath?
PART I
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
JAMES LLOYD dba CHRISTIAN MEDIA NETWORK, and SUSAN LENOX
Plaintiffs,
V.
CRAIG PORTWOOD, an Individual
Defendant
Case No.: 042174L4
Consolidated with:
JAMES LLOYD dba CHRISTIAN MEDIA NETWORK, and SUSAN LENOX
Plaintiffs,
V.
LINDA KRISTICH, an Individual
Defendant
Case No.: 05-0971-L7
DECLARATION OF JAMES LLOYD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, James Lloyd, declare as follows:
1. I am one of the Plaintiffs in the above captioned matter and I make this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. I am over the age of 18 and I have personal knowledge of and am competent to testify to the matters stated herein.
2. Glen and Josette Leyendecker of Greenwood, Delaware, were aggressive and enthusiastic financial supporters of Christian Media beginning in October 2002 when they sent us their first financial gift. They began sending money approximately every two weeks with dozens of checks averaging $200 and several as high as $300. This continued throughout 2003, and 2004. The Leyendeckers were key members of Christian Media's online Internet fellowship then consisting of over 300 supporters of Christian Media. Shortly after the Beacon of Truth lawsuit was filed, the Leyendeckers wrote a letter of resignation to and e-mailed it to every member. They urged all Christian Media Internet members to go the Beacon website and told them they should cease all support of Christian Media because they claimed the Beacon information was true. Over the next few months, the ministry lost numerous members over that debacle.
3. Mike Phillips of Redding, California, received my foundational book on Bible prophecy in early 2000. He continued to receive materials from us and made additional purchases later on in that same year. After reading our materials, Phillips issued an invitation to me to come and speak at his church in Northern California. After the Portwood conflict began, Phillips' name was seen on Portwood's Forum. Mr. Phillips ceased all purchases and support of Christian Media after his exposure to the Beacon Of Truth ministry.
4. Tammy Jones of Fresno, California, began receiving our materials in mid 1999. She also operated a Low Power FM radio station carrying my radio program to Central California. In the e-mail below she "States she "has supported" the Christian Media ministry. Shortly after being exposed to Beacon Of Truth, she e-mailed me asking for an explanation. About the date of the e-mail she abruptly stopped supporting Christian Media, and stopped broadcasting my radio program. [her e-mail follows]
-----Original Message------
From: Todd/Tammy Jones
Sent: Friday, August 19,2005 4:37 PM To: James@christianmedianetwork.com Subject: Beacon of Truth
James,
I have listened to you for some time now and thought you to be a very blunt but truthful man; however, 1 recently discovered some very disturbing information. I visited the sight Beacon of Truth and was shocked at what I was viewing. I didn't want to believe what I was seeing but court documents obviously don't lie. It would be different if someone was just saying things about you that couldn't be proven, but this information was somewhat incriminating. Could you please explain the information contained on this website? As someone who has supported and re-broadcasted you, I feel like you should explain!! Please respond ASAP. Thanks.
Tammy Jones
5. Wayne Michaels of New Orleans, Louisiana, has a prophecy newsletter called Avenue Of Light. My contacts with Michaels go back to 2002 when he would frequently promote my periodicals and cite from my various essays to his reader base. On 02/15/2003 he posted some of the Portwood accusations from the Beacon of Truth website. Since that date, he has never mentioned Christian Media in his Internet periodical.
6. Steven Taylor of Borrego Springs, California, began receiving prophecy materials from Christian Media in March 2005. His first contribution came on 05/02/2005, when he began sending funds to the ministry on a monthly basis. In late July, I received an e-mail telling stating "1 did a search on the net for Christian Media and got a site" quoting” and providing sound recordings of a number of false prophesys from you." His financial support of Christian Media abruptly stopped at that time.
7. Kathy Camarata of Montclair, New Jersey, began receiving our materials in the summer of 2004. She operates an Internet Forum called Apostasy-Discernment. She received the Beacon Of Truth accusations, and posted them on her Internet Forum where they were viewed by her 97 members. When I became aware of this I contacted her and asked her to allow us to present data indicating the falsity of the Beacon accusations. She refused, so the accusations went unchallenged to her members.
|
|
3/14/2007, 8:41 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to craig portwood2
Send PM to craig portwood2
|
craig portwood2
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2007
Posts: 5
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Did James Lloyd Lie Under Oath?
PART II:
8. Karen Huf of Eagle Nest, New Mexico, began supporting Christian Media back in 1999. She is the moderator of the Glory To The Lord Internet Forum. Karen gave Christian Media $104 on 4/26/99, $20 on 7/23/99, $35 on 3/8/00, $35, $40 on 8/10/00, $40, $80 on 9/18/00, and $30 on 2/20/01. She had contact with Craig Portwood from the very beginning of his association with Christian Media. Shortly after her last check was received, an association with Craig Portwood began as we saw several posts from Craig Portwood on the Glory board. Some time later, Karen herself acknowledged in a post the Beacon of Truth information was comprised of "facts" and convinced her to turn against Christian Media ,and cease support.
9. Karen Huf convinced others to review the Beacon accusations. On February 3, 2004, she wrote to all Forum members concerning Christian Media:
"if you need info on specific actions and behavior id suggest the best place to go would be the ww.beaconoftruth.com site. craig give a very detailed outline of events that would be helpful to come up to date. for me, i guess youd say the light went on in my dim brain after reading some of his stuff and thinking back on some experiences that i knew personally and just put 2 and 2 together. i did defend james for quite a long time and i did it out of a sense of loyalty and not out of paying attention to facts."
Karen Hufs support of the Beacon Of Truth became so aggressive the Beacon website posted an Internet link leading their readers to the Glory Forum throughout 2004.
10. Gina Burnett of Kingsport, Tennessee, was an enthusiastic supporter of Christian Media. She began support of the ministry 2/27/01 when she donated $50. Four months later, she also gave us $50, and 6 months later, on 2/4104 another $50. Then she was exposed to the Beacon Of Truth. Gina saw a posting from Craig Portwood on the Glory To The Lord Forum moderated by Karen Huf in February 2004. Two days after the date of her last gift to Christian Media Karen posted the following note to Karen Huf, the moderator, on the Glory To The Lord Internet Forum: "Karen, Thanks for the info...! went to beacon and read the whole book...makes for very interesting reading...and don't doubt anything written..."
11. Ronda Zeoli of Sparta, New Jersey, was a regular supporter of Christian Media through her posts of our material on her Internet Forum Set The Captives Free. After having the Beacon Of Truth accusations emailed to her by an anonymous party, on 12/14/2004 she wrote me the following:
"I heard about you from someone named Rosemary La Vingne who said you did an expose' on the Prophecy Club that she has some concerns about. She referred me to your site. She referred me to you as someone she thought was credible. Then someone else posted that site which is a site mainly against you saying that you use New Age symbols and music and there were posted some copies of
complaints about you from a woman claiming to have lived with you. This is what the site seems to say. I don't know if the allegations are true and I won't assume they are as it's innocent until proven guilty. But, it did however make me want to pass by the ministry."
Zeoli has resisted all contact with Christian Media since that time, and all favorable posts from her Forum have ceased.
12. Ben and Monica Piersma of Leroy, Michigan, were avid supporters of Christian Media making regular donations beginning in November 2001, with four separate significant donations in 2002. They attended the Clifty Falls event where they met Linda Kristich and Craig Portwood and were closely exposed to the Beacon of Truth activities. All support of Christian Media abruptly stopped shortly after their exposure to Kristich and Portwood in 2002.
13. John and Diane Hinton of Chillicothe, Ohio, have the same story as the Piersmas. They were enthusiastic supporters of Christian Media until they attended the Clifty Falls Conference where they met Linda Kristich and Craig Portwood who they associated with Christian Media. They abruptly stopped all correspondence with Christian Media shortly thereafter.
|
|
3/14/2007, 8:41 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to craig portwood2
Send PM to craig portwood2
|
craig portwood2
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2007
Posts: 5
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Did James Lloyd Lie Under Oath?
PART III
14. John Brogger of Northfield, Minnesota, was so enthusiastic over Christian Media, he used to call the voice mail with encouragement messages monthly. He began sending donations in April 2000 and continued until mid 2002 when he became embroiled in the Portwood controversy. Bragger was a member of the Glory Forum where sentiments were so sharply against Christian Media that when he sought to post a defensive statement, the owner and several others sharply rebuked him.
15. Chuck Moreland of Nashport ,Ohio, sent Christian Media financial support in 2000, and continued to read our materials until he joined the Glory To The Lord Forum where he began to correspond with Craig Portwood and Linda Kristich. Shortly thereafter ,he demanded Christian Media remove him from our mailing list. He has since posted numerous posts that are highly critical of Christian Media on the Glory board, pointing new members to the Beacon of Truth website.
16. Tracy Hamilton of Cave Junction, Oregon, was an enthusiastic supporter of Christian Media who has sent the ministry hundreds of dollars. She also has family members that are current supporters of Christian Media that have sent money to us since 1999. After being exposed to the Beacon accusations last December; in January of 2007, Tracy e-mailed me demanding I respond to the Beacon accusations. I responded that I will not comment on the materials until after the matter is adjudicated. Tracy was so angry with that response she joined another Internet forum that consists exclusively of people that are critical of Christian Media -including Craig Portwood. This is an interesting example as it shows the damage to Christian Media is ongoing.
17. Because we also receive numerous anonymous donations on a cash basis, we cannot possibly measure the full impact of the Beacon slander on all donations, but the preceding likely represent many other unknown decisions to cease support of Christian Media. There are also multiple instances of people that were not previous supporters, but showed an interest in our work, but where their interest was pre-empted by the Beacon of Truth. There are dozens of such examples.
I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief,
and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in Court and is subject to penalty for perjury.
DATED: February 26, 2007
James Lloyd.
You can read the The Declaration Of James Lloyd in PDF
Or listen to the broadcast by
CLICKING HERE
|
|
3/14/2007, 8:42 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to craig portwood2
Send PM to craig portwood2
|
craig portwood2
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2007
Posts: 5
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Did James Lloyd Lie Under Oath?
It is now almost one year after that filing by James Lloyd doing business as CHRISTIAN MEDIA NETWORK.
He lost that Motion and the lawsuit.
What follows is my response to that filing with which the Court agreed:
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
JAMES LLOYD dba CHRISTIAN MEDIA NETWORK, and SUSAN LENOX
Plaintiffs,
V.
CRAIG PORTWOOD, an Individual
Defendant
Case No.: 042174L4
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND; AND MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Official Court Recording Requested
Oral Argument Requested
Estimated Time : 10 Minutes
MOTIONS
COMES NOW Defendant, Craig Portwood, and Responds to PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and DECLARATION OF JAMES LLOYD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and moves the Court pursuant to ORCP RULES 47 and 64, as follows:
1. OBJECTING to, and moving the Court to Strike, plaintiffs’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and DECLARATION OF JAMES LLOYD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, as untimely, supported only by hearsay, and not allowed by ORCP 47 C, D and ORCP 64 D.
I.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
a) Defendant Objects that plaintiff Lloyd’s declaration is based upon hearsay. ORCP 47 D provides in pertinent part, that declarations in opposition to a motion for summary judgment:
…shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein…
Every quote from another person in plaintiff Lloyd's declaration - and nearly every paragraph contains one - is hearsay. Not one of these people has actually said that anything defendant did or said, caused them to do or not do anything. Plaintiff Lloyd's declaration is not made on personal knowledge, the facts are not admissible as evidence because they are hearsay, and the declaration does not show that he is competent to testify to other persons' states of mind. Defendant maintains that plaintiff Lloyd is not so competent.
b) Plaintiffs’ motion and declaration are untimely. ORCP 47 C further provides that:
The motion and all supporting documents shall be served and filed at least 60 days before the date set for trial.
The time to respond to the motion for summary judgment has expired. ORCP 47 C. There is no reason why declarations by these actual witnesses referred to in Mr. Lloyd's declaration, could not have been furnished in a timely manner, if in fact they actually exist and would say these things.
c) Plaintiffs’ motions under ORCP 64 B (1), (5), and (6), are not supported by plaintiffs’ declaration in support thereof.
ORCP 64 D states;
Specification of grounds of motion; when motion must be on affidavits or declarations. In all cases of motion for a new trial, the grounds thereof shall be plainly specified, and no cause of new trial not so stated shall be considered or regarded by the court.
(Emphasis added)
No grounds have been stated in plaintiffs’ declaration in support of their pleading. ORCP 64 D further states;
When the motion is made for a cause mentioned in subsections (1) through (4) of section B of this rule, it shall be upon affidavit or declaration setting forth the facts upon which the motion is based.
(Emphasis added)
The plaintiffs have alleged that there has occurred an irregularity in the proceedings of the Court, and that the Court prevented them from having a fair trial by its Order. Plaintiffs’ have not set forth any facts upon which this motion is purportedly based. There is no statement in plaintiffs’ declaration nor pleading, which would support an allegation that any irregularity occurred in the proceedings of the Court, or by the defendants, or that there was any order of the court, or abuse of discretion, which prevented them from having fair trial. ORCP 64 B (1). Likewise, plaintiff Lloyd has not set forth any facts in his declaration, nor made any statement therein, as to any insufficiency of the evidence suggested by the verdict or other decision, or any law which the Courts’ Order contradicts, to support such a motion. ORCP 64 B(5).
Similarly, there is no statement in plaintiffs’ declaration as would support any motion based upon error in law. ORCP 64 B(6). The plaintiffs’ might argue, defendants previous argument notwithstanding, that ORCP 64 D allows plaintiffs’ declaration, but this is not the case. ORCP 64 D concludes;
If the cause is newly discovered evidence, the affidavits or declarations of any witness or witnesses showing what their testimony will be, shall be produced, or good reasons shown for their nonproduction.
There is no claim that the plaintiffs’ have discovered any “new evidence”, there are no affidavits or declarations of any witness showing what their testimony will be, when it shall be produced, nor any reasons, good or otherwise shown for their nonproduction.
Again, there is no reason why declarations by these actual witnesses referred to in Mr. Lloyd's declaration, could not have been furnished in a timely manner, if in fact they actually exist and would so testify. For these reasons, plaintiffs’ Motions and Declaration in support thereof, should be stricken.
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have alleged that the Courts’ proceeding was irregular and that the Court denied the plaintiffs their right to a fair trial by its Order. This is a very serious allegation which should not be made lightly. Plaintiffs’ have attempted to support this allegation with a declaration in which Mr. Lloyd, using even more conclusionary language, presents hearsay, which is immaterial to any issue before the Court. Plaintiffs have used ORCP 64 as an artifice to replead. In their last Rule 64 Motion against defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs stated:
“ORCP 64 stated and not allowing a person to re-litigate a summary judgment issue stated:
"If that were true, every time a party lost a summary judgment based on the court's determination that there were no disputed issues of material fact, the party would be free to get a 'second bite' by filing a 'supplemental' new trial motion. ORCP 64 does not sanction such subterfuge."
Roe v. Doe, 161 Or App 477, 485-486 (1999); see also United Adjusters, Inc. v. Shaylor, 77 Or App 510, 511, rev. denied, 301 Or 241 (1986).”
This artificial use of ORCP 64 is exactly the type of thing which the Roe Court addressed in the ruling previously cited by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Lloyd’s declaration (OJIN #238) makes no mention of any irregularity in the proceedings of the Court, nor cited any law nor fact which would support such a motion. The only facts cited by plaintiffs’, is their opinion that they have been precluded from receiving a fair trial, and plaintiffs’ take an authoritarian tone in their pleadings (which they should not). No evidence of any impropriety has been introduced, but instead, the “reasons” why the plaintiff’s “opinion” is superior to that already rendered by the Court. The pleading further refers to an affidavit of plaintiff Lloyd (OJIN #123.) which gives the names of ten people, allegedly interfered with by defendant. This is likewise not admissible under ORCP 47 D nor ORCP 64 D, nor does it support any of the Motions before the Court, as it does not set forth any facts upon which the motion is based.
Plaintiffs’ have failed to provide any contract or agreement bearing the signature of anyone, nor any statements of income, itemized or otherwise to support their claims. To date, plaintiffs have not documented so much as ten cents worth of economic damage, claimed to be suffered because of the defendant. The Plaintiffs have further failed to provide any proof of any economic relationship between themselves and their alleged customers nor have they provided evidence of any objectively verifiable monetary losses suffered, nor any damage to reputation that is economically verifiable.
The Court was not hasty in its ruling. Defendant is weary of the plaintiffs’ continually dissimulative pleadings, and is certain that all parties have room to be disappointed that the Court did not rule entirely in their favor. That disappointment soon fades however, in the knowledge that the issues have been simplified and narrowed by the Court.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, the Court should grant DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND; AND MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2007:
Respectfully submitted by:
__________________
Craig Portwood
Defendant in pro per
|
|
1/3/2008, 11:42 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to craig portwood2
Send PM to craig portwood2
|
Add a reply
You are not logged in ( login) –
Board's time is: 5/16/2012, 11:48 pm
|
