The Lars Liebeler “Independent” Investigation of Sexual Abuse at Covenant Life

Church Finally Exposed as Corrupt Based on Transcripts Never Before Seen

Friday, November 29, 2019

C.J. Mahaney, the Covenant Life pastors, and Sovereign Grace leaders and pastors have
always argued they were vindicated by the Lars Liebeler investigation but they have
never quoted his reports or produced his reports. Why? Because the reports reveal his
bias, corruption and incompetence. Liebeler distorted evidence and withheld evidence
in what he reported to CLC members. That is one reason why transcripts of his oral
reports have never seen the light of day until now.

Here’s the background. After a 17-month “independent investigation” of sexual abuse

and its coverup at Covenant Life Church by the law firm, Thaler-Liebeler LLP; Lars
Liebeler gave two oral reports to CLC members in conjunction with Mark Mitchell, the
former executive pastor on October 12 & 26, 2014. No transcripts of the oral reports
were ever provided to the members. Liebeler also produced written reports for the
pastors but they refused to make them available to anyone else including C.J.
Mahaney’s lawyers. Sovereign Grace Churches, Inc. has never been able to get their
hands on them.

Therefore, I produced verbatim transcripts from recordings made by a CLC member in

attendance. I hoped to have completed these transcripts and added commentary years
ago in order to help the members who were being deceived by Lars Liebeler, Mark
Mitchell, Joshua Harris, and the other governing pastors. My personal circumstances
are difficult now, but I’ve managed to get it done by the grace of God. If I had more
time, I would improve upon the commentary.

Why is this so important? Because Liebeler’s supposed “independent investigation”

and “findings” have been used by Mahaney and SGC, Inc. to argue there is no need for
a second investigation since they were exonerated by the first investigation.

For instance, here is what Dr. Albert Mohler (President of the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY) said about Mahaney’s deceitful representation
of the investigation to him.

Statement from R. Albert Mohler Jr. on Sovereign Grace Churches

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Friday, February 15, 2019
http://news.sbts.edu/2019/02/15/statement-r-albert-mohler-jr-sovereign-
grace-churches/

In 2013 I was part of a statement supportive of CJ and dismissive of the

allegations and concerns raised regarding SGC’s handling of sexual and
domestic abuse claims. This was motivated by several factors. At the time the
allegations surfaced, I did request that CJ and the ministry participate in an
independent investigation, and I was pointed to the investigation that Covenant
 Life Church had commissioned. I did not realize until this past year that SGC
and its leaders had not participated in that investigation, nor was I equipped to
know the shortcomings of how that investigation was conducted. I wrongly
believed that an investigation had been done. …

When this issue resurfaced a year ago [2018], I was made painfully aware of my
serious mistakes. I immediately urged that an independent investigation be
conducted and agreed that CJ needed to step down from public ministry until
that took place. This resulted in a severing of all personal and ministry ties, and
I have had no relationship with CJ or SGC since that time.

Mahaney told Mohler that Sovereign Grace Churches and its leaders participated in the
investigation. That was an unmitigated lie. Mohler also didn’t know about “the
shortcomings of how that investigation was conducted” by Liebeler. On both counts,
this was due to his obstinance. Mohler refused to talk with me or read the evidence I
was sending to him. He foolishly believed Mahaney.

Liebeler’s investigation was strictly confined to Covenant Life Church. It never

included SGC but it must be pointed out that C.J. Mahaney, John Loftness, and Gary
Ricucci were former pastors at CLC. Regardless, they did not participate. Mahaney
told Mohler, they did participate and were vindicated. Loftness and Ricucci are alleged
in the lawsuit to have committed sex crimes in CLC. For more in-depth coverage read
this article

The Inside Story: Al Mohler Severed All Personal Ties With C.J. Mahaney &
Sovereign Grace Churches Because Mahaney Deceived Him Into Believing An
“Independent Investigation” of Abuse Was Done
Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:54PM

Hundreds, if not thousands of leaders around the nation, have been told the same set of
lies by Mahaney and his surrogates (e.g. Mark Prater, Mickey Connolly, Rich
Richardson, Bob Kauflin, et al.). So have all the members in all the Sovereign Grace
churches. It is wicked. SGC pastors claim Mahaney and SGC participated and were
vindicated. Neither is true.

The oral reports are extremely hard to follow and understand since names, details, and
coherence are absent. I think this approach was intended to confuse and obscure. I
have filled in what was lacking to a significant degree.

I’ve also added underlining and subheadings so subjects can be identified more easily.
I’ve included time markers after each paragraph. I tend to comment on what is
underlined. I produced this verbatim transcript. It has taken years to finish due to so
many other demands. I regret the delay. My comments are in blue.

Remember, the Leadership Team of Sovereign Grace Churches, Inc. and the pastors of
Covenant Life have used these reports to defend themselves, condemn victims, and
vindicated sex abusers, but no one has had transcripts to study in comparison to the
truth. I believe these fraudulent reports actually reveal guilt and deceitful scheming
upon examination.

Covenant Life Church Members’ Meeting

October 12, 2014
Report by Lars Liebeler
Part 1

Opening Scripture & Prayer

Minutes 0:00-1:40

I didn’t transcribe opening.

Mark Mitchell – Executive Pastor

Minutes 1:40-11:37

Grateful to Talk about the Details of the Lawsuit

We are grateful to the Lord to finally have this moment where we can talk with you
about the details of the lawsuit. Before I get into that though, I want to begin with a few
administrative items right off the bat. 1:54

This oral report doesn’t begin to discuss the details of the lawsuit. That is readily
apparent to anyone who actually compares the lawsuit to this oral report which was
given to Covenant Life Church on October 12, 2014 and a second that followed on
October 26, 2014.

The Original Complaint (i.e., lawsuit) was filed on October 12, 2012 with three plaintiffs.
The First Amended Complaint was filed on January 11, 2013 with eight plaintiffs. The
Seconded Amended Complaint was filed on May 14, 2013 with 11 plaintiffs. For two
years, the Covenant Life pastors were largely silent about the allegations in the lawsuit
on the counsel of their lawyers.

Original Complaint
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/970485/22706864/1368737527397/Doc+1+-
+Original+Class+Action+Complaint+Oct+17+2012+1.pdf?
token=tyg15OgsY1nWLs3Y8OmKXaPdvD4%3D

First Amended Complaint

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/970485/27984345/1536456535893/
F i r s t + A m e n d e d + C o m p l a i n t + J a n + 1 1 + 2 0 1 3 . p d f ?
token=nxjxSeEhFqCWQp34Ixmv4iTjp8Q%3D
Second Amended Complaint
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/970485/22689936/1368570306447/
second+amended+sgm+lawsuit.pdf?token=qUnV6nomrWOr9iZnxU4cpCSaAcw%3D

First, I expect that we arrive her tonight with many different viewpoints and
perspectives. We are a diverse congregation with lots of different experiences and a
wide variety of viewpoints. And no matter what your disposition we are glad that you
are here and we sincerely hope you that you find tonight’s meeting helpful. 2:17

CLC was torn by “many different viewpoints and perspectives.” The meeting could
have been helpful if the report had been unbiased, impartial, and in-depth.

Restrain Feelings, No Recording or Transmitting, Posting Comments & Questions

I would like to make a request. And I would like to respectfully ask each of us to
exercise restraint as you listen to what we share tonight and as we express our
perspective. I am asking for restraint in expressing our feelings. Applause or emotional
outbursts can at times have the effect of making those who may have a different
perspective feel awkward or perhaps wonder how they should respond in that moment.
And our heart tonight is really for everyone to intelligently and prayerfully process the
information they hear without distraction and without discomfort. And that is going to
take time. You are going to hear a lot of information tonight and we don’t expect that
you are going to be able to process it all in one evening. So again, I just want to ask all
of us to exercise restraint in expressing ourselves. Thank you for considering this. 3:16

If the pastors really wanted “everyone to intelligently and prayerfully process the
information” then everything in the oral report, and so much more, would have been
made available to the church in a written report.

Second, I want to ask that no one record, in attendance record, this meeting either in
part or in full. And this is at least for a couple of reasons. First, it is in keeping with the
sensitive nature of the information that we are sharing. We are sharing this with you as
members of our church family and it is also to protect the privacy of any victims and
families that may be referenced in the things that we share. Our production team is
recording the meeting and we will make arrangements for members to have access to it
later. We want all of our members, including those who could not be here with us
tonight, to hear the updates that we are going to be sharing. 3:57

Mark Mitchell says he doesn’t want any information getting out to the public because of
its “sensitive nature” and “to protect the privacy of any victims and families that may
be referenced.” Let’s be clear, Mitchell has no interest in protecting the victims and
families referenced in the lawsuit against Covenant Life Church (i.e., Heather
Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Dara Sutherland, Renee Palmer-Gamby,
James Roberts, and Olivia Llewellyn).
All of these persons went public and used their full names in the lawsuit with one
exception. Olivia Llewellyn went by Grace Goe, but later asked me to write an article
on her behalf and reveal her identity. In this oral report, Mitchell will soon claim the
lawsuit is full of their lies.

In his comments above, Mitchell is referring to the three victims NOT found in the civil
lawsuit. Those that concern convicted felon Nathaniel (Nate) Morales. That is, Sam
Bates, Brian Wolohan, and Jeremy Cook.

In their case, however, each man testified openly in court. Their testimony is available
to the public on court recordings and in court transcripts because it is important for the
public to have access. That testimony is far more detailed that anything shared by
Mitchell or Liebeler.

Mitchell and Liebeler should have used the victim’s names. By not using names, they
confused people. They should also have quoted the victim’s testimony and that of
witnesses in the Morales trial. They did not and it was thereby distorted. Furthermore,
they should have told everyone in Covenant Life Church how to get the court audio or
transcripts and encouraged them to do so.

Mitchell and the pastors claim they didn’t want the CLC audio or video getting out
because it contained sensitive information and in order to protect the privacy of victims
and families. I don’t think those are legitimate reasons given it was all public
information; nor do I think they are the real reasons.

At the end of the meeting, Mitchell gives a third reason. I think that is the compelling
reason. He doesn’t want the audio/video getting out so it could be used against them.

“We want to communicate that this information is for your personal use as a
member of Covenant Life and not for distribution or publication in any form.
Our legal counsel has advised us that future civil litigation is possible. And
therefore, we don’t want to carelessly hand out information that could be
twisted and used against the church and others.”

I find this reason bordering on the absurd. If all you are saying is truthful and provable,
then you don’t have to fear it will “be twisted and used against the church and others”
in “future civil litigation.” Just the opposite is true. You want to release your proof as
widely as possible. You don’t want to contain it. You want to reveal it.

Joshua Harris said the same thing as Mitchell six weeks later at a small Members’ Only
“Coffee & Conversation” meeting on November 23, 2014.

“The reason that we asked just members to get CDs and DVDs at those
meetings is that we are still dealing with the realities of legal issues.”

There you have it. The real reason and the only reason provided by Harris.
Harris and Mitchell don’t have to fear the oral reports will be twisted. They have to fear
the oral reports will be tested for the truth. It can only be “used against the church and
others” if they are found to be biased, partial, misleading, or untruthful. I don’t fear
anyone reading my materials. The CLC pastors do.

If you wanted a recording you had to go to the CLC office, fill out a confidentially form,
and pick up a recording. Few people took advantage of this arrangement. Here’s what
Harris had to say about that.

“I think one of the things that I am learning in all of this is it’s just like our
government. It is an amazing to have a democracy where everybody can vote.
But what is the percentage of Americans that show up, especially on non-
Presidential years, to vote. There is just a certain reality that we are coming to
grips with. … But then we are also dealing with the fact that even when you
make it [the CDs & DVDs) available, even when you make announcement, and
put it in the weekly [announcements] for three Sundays, and you do all these
different type of things, people are just busy and then there are just people who
don’t care. So that is part of the reason that we are not a totally congregational
church.” (Coffee & Conversation, Nov. 23, 2014)

In the same vein, I also want to ask that no one in attendance use their cell phones
during any portion of the meeting to transmit audio or video to those who are not in
attendance. We do not give permission for anyone to do this for the same reasons that I
just mentioned. 4:14

The phrase “we do not give permission” is the language of lawyers normally
communicating legal action if violated.

Finally, as I just mentioned, there will be a lot of information to take in tonight. We have
provided index cards for you. I believe they were on the table as you walked in this
evening. And those are there so you can jot down comments or questions, thoughts that
come to your mind as you are listening to the various things that we are going to be
sharing. Tomorrow via email, we will provide a way for you to submit those comments
and questions to us. We’ll plan to post them to the member area of our website so that
you can see as well what others have submitted. We will then take time as a team to
collate those questions and make plans to answer as many of them as possible when we
gather again for another Members Meeting two weeks from tonight. 4:58

Now Eager to Share Many Things

We know that the last few years have been extraordinarily difficult for many of you. It’s
been frustrating and we understand that. The civil lawsuit has been a significant
burden for our entire congregation. The decision by the pastors to not disclose details
while the suit was on-going tested the patience of many. In the absence of hearing
directly from the pastors about details that were being made public in the media caused
many to question, “Well what was true and what wasn’t?” And this was a very difficult
test for our church community where openness and love and humility and trust are
values that form the foundation of our relationships together. Thank you for being
patient with us. We are grateful the civil suit has come to an end because we are now
eager to share many things with you. 5:54

Covenant Life Church was first named a Defendant in the lawsuit on January 11, 2013.
As Mitchell points out, “The decision by the pastors to not disclose details while the suit
was on-going tested the patience of many.” For nearly two years, the pastors refused to
answer any questions from church members regarding the allegations of fact found in
the lawsuit. Now, subsequent to the report, they are blaming their decision to be silent
on the bad counsel they received from their insurance lawyer(s) but they have no one to
blame but themselves. I repeatedly warned them not to follow the counsel of lawyers
but they persisted. They scorned God’s word.

“Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way
of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on
his law he meditates day and night.” (Psalm 1:1-2)

Furthermore, the oral report by Liebeler and Mitchell does not begin to address, “What
was true and what wasn’t [true]” with “openness and love and humility and trust.”
Mitchell claims the pastors “are now eager to share many things with you” but
compared to the whole, they share very little and, in fact, withhold many vital details.
It is not a transparent report.
The Reality of Sexual Abuse

It is important to say, however, that while we are grateful that we are no longer under
the shadow of a lawsuit, we are acutely aware that the backdrop for the civil lawsuit is
the reality of sexual abuse. A devastating evil that is growing in its prevalence in our
society. And given our size this evening, there are no doubt many people here who
have suffered from being sexually abused themselves personally, or because someone
you know and love have experienced the horrific effects of this sin. For those of you
who have suffered in this way, we want you to know that we are deeply sorry. We are
deeply sorry for what you have experienced. And we have prayed, and we certainly
hope, that nothing that is shared this evening will add any difficulty to your pain, the
pain you have already suffered. We pray that the Lord will have mercy on you and
bring you relief and healing and peace to all. 7:06

These are empty words for the victims of sexual abuse that occurred in the context of
Covenant Life Church. In fact, they are exceedingly hurtful words because the pastors
did not involve law enforcement and they did not care for the victims. Later, Joshua
Harris, Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, and Corby Megorden will
apologize because they “failed to love the victims of abuse by not pressing to care for
them.”

Mitchell refers to “the reality of sexual abuse” as “a devastating evil that is growing in
its prevalence in our society.” He should say, “The reality of sexual abuse” is “a
devastating evil that is growing in its prevalence in the church because pastors like us
did not report suspected abusers to law enforcement or warn families in harm’s way.”

A Brief Timeline over the Past Two Years

In just a few minutes, I am going to invite Mr. Lars Liebeler, the independent
investigator, to come up and share his report; but before he does I want to take a few
moments to back up and help us all get oriented by walking through a brief timeline of
what we have experienced as a church over the past two years. 7:26

This is Mitchell’s first reference to Lars Liebeler as “the independent investigator.” He

was neither! I’ll explain later.

In December of 2012, we ended our affiliation with Sovereign Grace Ministries, the
family of churches with whom we’ve had a 30-year relationship, and in the year and a
half leading up to that moment and since, we have seen many dear friends leave our
fellowship. 7:41

Approximately 2,000 people left CLC between July 2011 and October 2014 – the time of
this oral report.
In January of 2013, Covenant Life Church was added as a Defendant to a civil lawsuit
that was initially filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries. The suit was subsequently
amended in May of 2013 to include allegations that some current long-time members
had committed abuse. The details of these allegations were grievous and heart
wrenching to read. This began a very long process of court hearings, decisions and
subsequent appeals that involved Maryland’s two highest courts. And then in May of
this year in a separate matter, Nathaniel Morales, a former member of Covenant Life
Church from more than two decades ago, was tried and convicted of several accounts of
child sexual abuse. 8:30

Mitchell refers to allegations of sexual abuse in the Second Amended Complaint

committed by “some current long-time members.” He is referring to Steve Griney,
Mark Hoffman, and Dave Mayo. He intentionally leaves out the allegations of fact
against former CLC pastors, John Loftness and Gary Ricucci, who left CLC.

This is a glaring omission in the Mitchell-Liebeler report for which there is no excuse.
You can’t promise to answer questions and provide details and then not even reference
the alleged sexual sadism of John Loftness and the alleged aiding and abetting of Gary
Ricucci that was purportedly carried out in conjunction with CLC schoolteacher, Steve
Griney.

Everyone should read the following posts regarding Loftness and Ricucci. They are
extremely important for the information they contain.

John Loftness in Focus – Former Chairman of the SGM Board & Alleged
Sexual Sadist
Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 5:32PM

Gary Ricucci & the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David Adams

Friday, August 2, 2013 at 8:11PM

When Mitchell says, “We are grateful the civil suit has come to an end because we are
now eager to share many things with you,” - he does not have in mind the “grievous
and heart wrenching” allegations that two pastors were involved in a conspiracy to
commit and cover up child sex abuse. That is utterly unacceptable. He later claimed
they ran out of money.

The “Independent” Investigation of Sexual Abuse at Covenant Life Church

Didn’t Include Talking to the Victims of Abuse – Incredulously, Executive
Pastor Mark Mitchell Says Exclusion Was Due to “Limited Finances”  
Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:50PM

Focus on Two Issues – Allegations in Civil Lawsuit & Issues Raised in Criminal Trial
of Nathaniel Morales
Tonight, we are going to focus on two issues. The allegations of the civil lawsuit against
the church and issues raised by the criminal trial of Nathaniel Morales. They are easy to
confuse but it is important to understand that they are two distinct events. Again, the
civil lawsuit was first filed against Sovereign Grace in October of 2012. Then it was
amended in January of 2013 to add Covenant Life as a Defendant. It was amended a
second time in May of 2013 to add the allegations against several Covenant Life
members [i.e., Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo]. And it was dismissed by the
Maryland Court of Appeals last month. That’s the civil lawsuit. 9:13

Covenant Life Church was added as an institutional Defendant in the First Amended
Complaint, but Mitchell doesn’t tell the members that C.J. Mahaney, Gary Ricucci, John
Loftness and Grant Layman were individual Defendants in the Original Complaint in
October of 2012.

The vast majority of “the allegations of the civil lawsuit against the church” are never
addressed in the Mitchell-Liebeler report. Nor are some of the most critical “issues
raised by the criminal trial of Nathaniel Morales.”

Once again, Mitchell references “several Covenant Life members” but leaves out the
two former Covenant Life pastors – Loftness and Ricucci.

Mitchell doesn’t tell CLC why the lawsuit was dismissed. He should have made clear it
was solely dismissed on legal technicalities and then added the merits of the lawsuit
were never argued or refuted in court.

Number two, the criminal trial of Nathaniel Morales took place in May of this year
[2014]. He was tried and convicted in Montgomery County Circuit Court of multiple
counts of sex abuse against minors. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison. He is also
mentioned by name in the civil lawsuit. 9:33

Morales is “mentioned by name” 12 times in Complaints 36-39 and 55. Mitchell, like
Liebeler, passes over these allegations of fact in the lawsuit as though they amount to
nothing when that is not at all the case.

The State’s Attorney Office for Montgomery County, Maryland indicted Morales on July
18, 2013 for the allegations found in Complaint 36 and charged him with sex offense
third degree. This charge was scheduled for trial on May 21-22, 2014 but was cancelled
when Morales was found guilty on seven counts in the two preceding trials on May
12-15, 2014 and May 19-20, 2014 for which he was sentenced to 40 years. All of this
should have been explained by Mitchell and Liebeler.

Here are the allegations of fact found in Complaint 36 related to Morales that Mitchell
and Liebeler totally disregard.

Victim: James Roberts

Complaint: 36
 Location: Covenant Life Church (Magruder High School) - Dressing Room off
Stage
Timeframe: 1986/1989
Age: 12/15
Alleged Abuser: Nathanial Morales

36. During 1986/1989 timeframe, during Plaintiff Roberts’ middle school years,
Plaintiff Roberts was molested again on church premises, this time by a man
named Nathanial Morales who was involved in youth ministries. At that time,
the CLC church services occurred at Magruder High School. Morales pulled
Plaintiff Roberts into one of the dressing rooms off the side of the stage, and
began to profess his love for Plaintiff Roberts. Morales began hugging Plaintiff
Roberts and manually manipulating his penis. Plaintiff Roberts escaped but
did not initially report the molestation because he feared being forced to sit and
“reconcile” and “forgive” Morales for the molestation.

Allegations in Lawsuit Regarding Conspiracy Are Completely False – Period!

Now the civil lawsuit alleged, that number one, Covenant Life Church participated for
decades in a conspiracy to allow sexual molestation of children; and number two, that
Covenant Life sought to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past sexual abuse
of children. We want you to know that these allegations are completely false. Period!
10:01

This angers me. Mitchell offers no proof for his universal condemnation of the lawsuit.
He does not refute specific allegations like the one above by James Roberts. He has
talked to none of the victims in the lawsuit. He did not attend either of the Morales’
trials. He has not engaged law enforcement on their findings. This is pure
demagoguery.

We must understand the all-encompassing scope of Mitchell’s condemnation. The

lawsuit alleges two basic things. A conspiracy to commit child sexual abuse and a
conspiracy to cover up child sexual abuse. Here are just two examples of the former –
there are many more in the lawsuit.

Victims: Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Heather Thompson-Bryant, Third Unnamed

Girl
Complaint: 90
Location: Covenant Life School (Aspen Hill) – Empty Room
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Ages: Jessica – age 7, Heather – age 5
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Stephen Griney, Gary Ricucci

90. During the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness, Griney and
Defendant Ricucci brought Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas into an empty room with
 two other girls. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas recognized the girls, one of whom
was Plaintiff Thompson. (The other is not being named here to protect her
privacy.) Defendants directed the girls to strip off their underwear, and lay
across desks. Defendant Loftness beat Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas on her bare
buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas heard the unnamed girl crying, and saw
Griney hitting her on her bare buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas turned over
her shoulder to look for Plaintiff Thompson, and realized Defendant Ricucci
had taken her out of the room. Defendant Loftness continued to beat Plaintiff
Roberts-Thomas’ bare buttocks, and then he inserted his fingers into her vagina.

Victims: Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, Third Unnamed

Girl
Complaint: 59
Location: Covenant Life School (Aspen Hill) – Room in School
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Age: Heather – 4/5, Jessica – 7/8
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Steve Griney, Gary Ricucci

59. On one occasion during the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness,
Griney and a third person [Gary Ricucci] isolated Plaintiff Thompson along
with two other girls [Jessica Roberts-Thomas & Third Unnamed Girl] attending
the school. Defendants took the children to a room within the school, and
directed them to take off their underwear. Defendant Loftness pulled a plastic
rod along Plaintiff Thompson’s left leg and through her vagina. He then began
to hit her bottom.

These three victims, Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, and a Third

Unnamed Girl (whose identity I know) all claim John Loftness, Gary Ricucci and Steve
Griney conspired to commit crimes against them. Mitchell condemns their accounts as
“completely false.” He is absolutely certain but he offers not one shred of evidence and
he does not address any of their specific allegations in the lawsuit – he just makes a
blanket statement. These victims are nothing but liars to him and the CLC pastors on
whose behalf he is speaking. It is sickening beyond description!

Do you realize what this entails if Mitchell is correct? It means these three ladies would
have had to interact with each other before contacting Susan Burke and Bill O’Neil (the
lawyers who filed the lawsuit) in order to concoct these fanciful and wicked accounts.
Then they’d have to meet with Burke and O’Neil and totally deceive them into
believing their outrageous lies. But that is not at all how it happened! These three
victims had absolutely no contact with each other about the matter before the lawsuit
was filed. They conveyed their stories to Burke and O’Neil independent of one another.
I know because I was working with Burke and O’Neil. But I cannot stop there –
Mitchell not only condemns them; he condemns everyone in the lawsuit.
Mitchell is saying every allegation dealing with the conspiracy to commit and cover up
child sexual abuse is completely false and to this he adds an emphatic, “Period!” He
has spoken. End of discussion. Not a single allegation is true. Not even partially true.
So, Covenant Life Church that is the end of the matter.

There are six plaintiffs in the lawsuit that allege a conspiracy to commit and/or cover
up child sexual abuse at Covenant Life Church. They are Heather Thompson-Bryant,
Jessica Roberts-Thomas, James Roberts, Dara Adams-Sutherland, Renee Palmer-Gamby
and Olivia Llewellyn-Graham. According to Mitchell, all of them made up their stories
of a conspiracy and four of them (Thompson-Bryant, Roberts-Thomas, Roberts, and
Llewellyn-Graham) made up their stories of sexual abuse.

Put a different way - according to Mitchell, all of the alleged crimes in the lawsuit
committed by John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Dave Adams, Nathaniel Morales, Stephen
Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo and Charlie Llewellyn were made up by their
accusers. Only two things are true in the lawsuit pertaining to the sexual abuse of
children according to Mitchell. Dave Adams abused his daughter (but not James
Roberts) and a teenager abused Renee Palmer-Gamby. Adams went to jail and the
teenage offender was convicted. Otherwise, everything else in the lawsuit is a lie. That
literally encompasses hundreds of factual allegations.

But there is more to be said, and I want to make at this point, three things very clear.
Though the lawsuit is full of false allegations, we see the Lord’s good purposes in it.
There is much we’ve learned, and much we will continue to apply as a result of walking
through this over the past two years. It has heightened our sensitivity to the realities of
sexual abuse and its devastating effects on individuals and families. And it has helped
us to tighten our policies and our action plan whenever reports of abuse arise. That is
the first thing. 10:41

Mitchell repeats himself, “The lawsuit is full of false allegations.” Not that it contains
some false allegations. It is full of them. Yet, he never bothers to cite them or present
any evidence proving their falsity. He makes a pronouncement without proof. That is
the SGM/CLC way of refutation. If Mitchell wants to denounce the plaintiffs, victims
and their families as liars, then he must go through their allegations one by one and
present compelling evidence showing how they are false. Otherwise, he should shut his
mouth. Period!

Moreover, Mitchell has the audacity to claim the lawsuit “has heightened our sensitivity
to the realities of sexual abuse and its devastating effects on individuals and families”
while he condemns all the victims and families named in the lawsuit. There is nothing
more devastating for a victim or their family than to be totally discounted and called a
liar in practically every respect.

The Failed Handling of the Nathaniel Morales Situation

Second, you are going to hear us tonight acknowledge that we failed in a significant
way in our handling of the Morales’ situation. You will hear more details about that
later. 10:51

Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco, Grant Layman, and Corby Megorden
will acknowledge they “failed” in their “handling of the Morales situation” but nothing
more. They will acknowledge no failure in relation to the victims in the lawsuit and no
failure in relation to any other victims of child sexual abuse in Covenant Life Church
over the past 35 years. The long line of pastors in CLC are blameless. That’s the
message from Mitchell.

And then finally, tonight is about making a clear and specific apology for the ways we,
your pastors, have failed. And tonight is about providing as much information as we
can. 11:05

Harris, Boisvert, Maresco, Layman, and Megorden offer an apology but they do not ask
forgiveness for sinning or for breaking the law. Everyone in CLC knows you don’t
apologize for sin, you ask forgiveness for sin. No forgiveness is sought because no sin
was committed in their minds.

Liebeler and Mitchell could have presented much more information and far more
pertinent information.

So in just a moment, the independent investigator who was retained by the church, will
come to share a report of his findings. When he’s finished I’ll come back up and I’ll
follow that report with some reflections; then you will get a chance to hear directly from
the pastors who were involved in 2007 in the handling of information relating to Nate
Morales. And then finally I’ll conclude with some remarks about where we go from
here. So, I’d like Mr. Lars Liebeler to now come and share his report. 11:37

The big moment has finally arrived! The “independent investigator” is finally going to
“share a report of his findings” after his 17 months of investigating. Everything
promised by Joshua Harris will be now put on the “table.” Every detailed covered.
Nothing will be withheld even if it makes the pastors look bad.

Liebeler took 43 minutes on October 12, 2014 and 34 minutes on October 26, 2014 to
present his findings. That comes to 1 hour and 17 minutes and it only cost the members
of Covenant Life Church $100,000. Frankly, I could not have been more concerned
about his unjust reporting. It disparaged the victims and vindicated the perpetrators
without putting forth evidence. Nor did the Liebeler report make any attempt to
address the vast majority of specific allegations in the lawsuit as promised by Joshua
Harris and the CLC pastors. This oral report by Liebeler was just like the written report
produced by Ambassadors of Reconciliation on its findings regarding Sovereign Grace
Ministries in April 2010. A complete whitewash! The AoR coverup cost over $400,000.

[Pause: 11:38-11:53]
Lars Liebeler
Minutes 11:54-55:26 (43 mins. 32 secs.)

Introduction, Background to Findings, & the Morales’ Situation

Good evening everyone. My name is Lars Liebeler as Mark Mitchell had mentioned
and I been retained some time ago by the pastors and the church to conduct an
independent investigation covering a variety of different topics and so I am here to
report on a portion of what I have done in that investigation this evening. 12:16

You can’t be retained as a lawyer for CLC and do a truly independent investigation of
CLC at the same time. It is impossible. I agree with this statement.

Boz Tchividjian @BozT Mar 24, 2018

Labeling an investigation “independent” doesn’t make it so. When the
motivation for an investigation is self-preservation, it will often be labeled as
“independent” and “transparent”, when in fact it is it “internal” and
“classified”.

At this juncture in time, I have prepared two written reports and submitted those to the
pastors to provide them with information. I am here tonight to summarize and present
my findings with respect to one of those reports. I will only be making an oral
presentation and I will not be publicizing the written report. The reason for that is, as
Mark had mentioned, that there are several details, many details in there that are
somewhat confidential with respect to the victims and their families. And it makes it
very difficult to redact portions of it and then people are trying to guess who people are.
12:59

Liebeler focuses on issues related to the CLC pastors and Nathaniel Morales in this first
report.

Here’s what I’d like to ask. What are the “several details,” oops, ”many details” that are
“somewhat confidential” and what does “somewhat confidential” mean? Actually, it
doesn’t matter. None of the details regarding Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan or Jeremy
Bates and their families were confidential because they all came out at the trial of
Nathaniel Morales. Nor are all the allegations of fact in the lawsuit. These details
should have been included in the oral report. They were not confidential. They were
public. From my perspective, this is just an excuse to withhold vital and specific
information that would enable members to research and investigate for themselves.
They are being kept in the dark.

An unredacted written report should have be made available to the members of CLC in
keeping with the promises made by their pastors. Liebeler argues against this by
claiming, “And it makes it very difficult to redact portions of it and then people are
trying to guess who people are.” In other words, he doesn’t want people reading a
redacted written report because people will end up guessing at identities.

Yet this claim makes no sense because Liebeler proceeds to give a heavily redacted oral
report that has people guessing who is talking about throughout his presentation. The
withholding of names and details made the report very difficult to follow and
prevented people from being able to follow up on assertions or findings by Mitchell and
Liebeler about which they had concerns or questions. It was all part of their plan to
obscure the truth.

I’ve tried to get as much information and specific detail to answer your specific
questions with respect to the pastors and their knowledge about the Morales situation
and I am going to provide that to you orally tonight. 13:13

Liebeler claims he “tried to get as much information and specific detail” about the
pastors’ knowledge of Morales’ history of sex abuse. Well, he was unsuccessful in some
critical respects! The lawyers for C.J. Mahaney, John Loftness and Gary Ricucci refused
him access to their clients. They all had knowledge of Morales’ abuse.

It also appears Grant Layman, Robin Boisvert and Chris Glass refused to answer and/
or answer truthfully some of his questions. Or, it is possible they provided Liebeler
incriminating information that he intentionally withheld since he was retained as their
lawyer. Liebeler literally worked for them. He was their legal counsel.

A truly independent investigator is obligated to report on his interactions with such

individuals. Liebeler should have told CLC exactly what he asked each man and
exactly how each man answered. Nothing like that kind of investigative reporting is
found in his report.

As background, my firm is called Thaler Liebeler LLP. It is a small law firm in

Washington D.C. and I was retained in July of 2013. I am the chief investigator. I’ve
had a couple of my colleagues help me on this but I am chiefly responsible for the work
of the report and I’ve reviewed all of the report. 13:38

Liebeler had no experience in the investigation of child sexual abuse. He was a bad
hire. I’d like to know what criteria Joshua Harris, the pastors, the Financial Advisory
Committee (i.e., Jim Wilson, Dave Dassoulos, Eric Newquist, Robert Rashford and Pat
Ennis) and CLC lawyers like Chip Grange used in their selection process. In fact, I’d
like to know who recommended Liebeler. He didn’t appear out of thin air. Liebeler
now has his own firm, Lars Liebeler, P.C. at https://www.lhl-lawfirm.c om/.

I am not saying he is a bad person or a bad lawyer. He appears to be an experienced

civil litigator with “expertise in the areas of antitrust and trade regulation, contracts,
and constitutional law.” I am simply pointing out he has no expertise in dealing with
sex abusers or their conspirators and that is vitally important for an effective
investigation.  
Joshua Harris wrote CLC about the hiring of Liebeler on August 28, 2013.

“After sharing our intention with the congregation on June 23, we proceeded to
retain the nationally recognized, independent law firm of Thaler Liebeler LLP
to do this work. This Washington, D.C. firm is an impartial third party with no
prior connection to our church or the matters the lawsuit references. As we
prayed and sought counsel from the Financial Advisory Committee and the
church’s attorneys, we concluded that an investigation could help provide an
added measure of clarity and closure over and above what the legal process
provides, and serve to reassure both our church and the wider community.”

Harris claims Liebeler was “an impartial third party” but I see no reason why he would
be hired to do work that is out of his field unless there is some connection to someone.
In fact, I see no reason for him to accept work that is unrelated to his practice of law. I
wonder if Liebeler has a personal and/or professional relationship with Chip Grange.
They both practice Constitutional Law – maybe that is the connection. I don’t know but
Joshua Harris or Mark Mitchell should have told CLC why and how they chose Lars
Liebeler.

Liebeler says the practice is “a small law firm. Harris says it is a “nationally
recognized” law firm. I guess you can be both.

If you want “an added measure of clarity and closure” in order “to reassure both our
church and the wider community,” you hire someone like Boz Tchividjian of G.R.A.C.E.
(Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment). Here is his resume.

“Boz Tchividjian founded GRACE in 2003. He is a former assistant state

attorney, who served as chief prosecutor in the Sexual Crimes Division, where
he gained experience in cases involving sexual abuse, and later served as the
attorney for the Child Advocacy Center in Daytona Beach, Florida. Boz has also
spoken extensively on the subject of child abuse at various events including the
conferences sponsored by the American Association of Christian Counselors
and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA).  Boz
currently serves as a law professor at  Liberty University School of Law
and  currently writes a blog for Religion News Service entitled, “Rhymes with
Religion” that focuses on the intersection of abuse and faith communities.  His
blog can be found at  boz.religionnews.com. Boz recently published a book
entitled Thank You Billy Graham (Barbour). He has also authored numerous law
journal articles related to the issue of child sexual abuse and is also the author
of a new mini-book entitled,  Protecting Children from Abuse at Church: Steps to
Prevent and Respond (New Growth).”

Mr. Tchividjian was readily available to help but the pastors of CLC chose not to use
him or someone like him. There were many experts in the field of child sexual abuse
that could have been chosen to do an investigation but they were all passed over in
favor of Lars Liebeler. Why? Members should demand a clear-cut answer.

http://www.netgrace.org/

Mark provided you with some background but I think it is helpful to walk through just
a bit of it again. A civil suit had been filed against the church and various others
alleging a cover up of child sex abuse by CLC members and the failure of the pastors to
report child sexual abuse to state authorities. Based upon my review of information
available to me at the outset of the engagement, I proposed the investigation be
organized into separate sections or modules. 14:17
How the Investigation Was Organized into Five Modules or Sections

The first module that I suggested was one in which I would review and analyze the
church’s current child protection policies for activities occurring on church grounds or
activities that are directly sponsored by the church. 14:33

No offense to Mr. Liebeler but this is where you want experts in the field of child
protection and sex abuse prevention to “review and analyze…child protection policies.”

Liebeler refers to “the church’s current child protection polices for activities occurring
on church grounds or activities that are directly sponsored by the church” but no such
polices were ever made public if they existed. Moreover, CLC needs policies for
activities occurring off “church grounds” or not “directly sponsored by the church.”

For example, child protection policies for the small group ministry in people’s homes
called Care Groups. Dave Mayo is a Care Group leader in CLC today. He is also
accused of sexual molestation in Complaint 82 in Second Amended Complaint
(lawsuit).

https://covlife.churchcenter.com/groups/small-groups/dave-mayo-small-group

CLC did not “revise” their child protection policies until August 19, 2016 which was 22
months after Liebeler’s report. Those revisions were woefully inadequate and
primarily dealt with Discovery Land (the Sunday morning children’s ministry).

In the second module, and it is closely related, I would review and analyze the
implementation of these policies and that is, there are many organizations that have a
wonderful set of written policies, they put the policies in a file drawer, they don’t read
them and they don’t follow them. So module two was, does the church follow its own
policies. 14:55

Furthermore, Liebeler can’t “review and analyze the implementation of these policies.”
He is giving this oral report in October 2014 near the end of his “investigation” because
CLC could afford him no longer. He was not around to make sure the polices were
revised or implemented. This is a totally false assurance.

Module three, I proposed that I review and analyze the pastors’ present or current
handling and understanding of their obligations with respect to child abuse, including
child sex abuse, and the receipt of information that would lead them to a suspicion that
that was going on in the church or by members or whoever it came to them. 15:21

Unfortunately, Liebeler does not understand the law as it pertains to “their obligations.”
According to him, it is against the law for the pastors to report child sex abusers who
confess their heinous crimes in the context of “seeking spiritual advice or consolation.”
That faulty understanding is extremely dangerous and could easily lead to justifiable
lawsuits against CLC or the criminal prosecution of pastors if a suspected or confessed
child abuser abuses other children.

Module four was designed to review and analyze the allegations regarding the current
pastors’ past handling of information regarding child abuse including child sex abuse.
That’s the part I am going to focus on tonight and specifically with respect to Nathaniel
Morales. 15:45

Liebeler should have reviewed and analyzed how every current and past employee of
CLC handled the reporting of suspected child abuse when it first came to their attention
and put the results in a chart. For instance, how did former pastor Chris Glass handle
the reporting of abuse brought to his attention by Rachel Bates-Paci in 1991 and by
James Roberts between 1990-1994. Glass was a critical player during those years and
Liebeler-Mitchell leave him completely out of their reports. That is totally
disingenuous!

Module five, I proposed that I would review and analyze allegations regarding the
handling of information; regarding child abuse including allegations by [against]
former pastors [John Loftness & Gary Ricucci] and by [against] members of the church
[Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo, Dave Adams, & Charlie Llewellyn]. That
module is under way, I’ve completed some of my investigation. I am nearing
completion of that and expect that I may be able to report to you on that in two weeks
when I appear again before you. 16:16

Liebeler reports on Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo in two weeks. He
does not report on “child abuse” allegations against John Loftness and Gary Ricucci.
Joshua Harris promised a full and complete reporting on all the allegations in the
lawsuit against these two pastors. Why is this excluded from Liebeler’s investigation
and/or report? An explanation is required.

For example, did Loftness and Ricucci threatened legal action against Liebeler if he said
anything to CLC about these allegations? Or, did Liebeler find incriminating evidence
but withhold it because he was representing the legal interests of Covenant Life
Church? In addition, Liebeler barely addresses the allegations against Dave Adams and
Charlie Llewellyn. This is wrong and contrary to every promise made to CLC that there
would be a full and complete independent investigation. There was nothing of the
kind.

Concentration on Civil Suit Allegations Regarding Failure to Report Nathaniel

Morales

As you know and as Mark had mentioned, Nathaniel Morales was convicted of
multiple counts of child sexual abuse in Montgomery County Circuit Court. It was a
criminal trial on May 15, 2014. His sentencing occurred just recently on August 14th and
he was sentenced to 40 years in prison. 16:40
It was not a one-day trial. It was a four-day trial. Furthermore, Liebeler doesn’t
mention the second Morales trial that was held or the third Morales trial that was
cancelled. I don’t think he wanted CLC members to know the full extent of evidence
against Morales and the CLC pastors who conspired to cover up his crimes.

My remarks are mostly going to concentrate on those events with respect to the civil
suit allegations and I think Mark did a good job of describing the difference between the
two. The criminal proceeding was simply the State against Nathaniel Morales. The
civil suit, or at least this segment of it, is aimed at the church with respect to allegations
that it failed to act and take action when it knew about Morales’ sexual abuse. 17:13

CLC pastors “failed to act and take action” when they “knew about Morales’ sexual
abuse” of boys from Rachael Bates-Paci in 1991, Sam Bates around 1992, Brian Wolohan
around 1993, James Roberts between 1990-1994, and Morales himself in 2007.. That is a
matter of fact. Read C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up
the Sexual Abuse of Children (Feb 13, 2018). They were clearly obligated under the law
in three of the five cases (more later).

Personal & Professional Background & Attorney-Client Privilege

Let me give you a couple of moments on some background that I think is helpful for
you to know about me. I did appear before you a couple of months ago to tell you that I
was engaged in working at that juncture in time. I wasn’t able to share any of the
substance of the work that I had done at that point, so this [is a] review for some of you
who were there but I think it is important. 17:39

I am a lawyer. I’ve been practicing in the metropolitan area for approximately 25 years.
My practice encompasses a wide variety of types of cases. Mostly trial work and
litigation and investigations as well which combine many of the same elements of
trying to dig into the facts and get to the truth of the matter. 17:59

From my perspective, Liebeler gives the impression he has investigated sex crimes
when he says, “my practice encompasses a wide variety of types of cases.” To the best
of my knowledge, however, he has never been retained to investigate sex abuse cases,
prosecute abusers or represent victims. I asked him about this but he refused to answer.
If he had experience with child abuse cases, I think he would have mentioned it as part
of his “background.”

I have been retained and I do have an attorney client relationship with the church but
within the scope of my engagement, it is my full independent decision about what
documents I want to see, who I want to talk to, for how long, it is my choice about what
I do in this investigation. So I’ve taken input originally from the church on what they
asked me to do, but once I started, it was my choice about what to do. 18:33
The implications of the “attorney client relationship” should have been fully explained
to Covenant Life Church in July 2013 when Liebeler was hired. They were not. This
legal arrangement rendered a truly independent investigation impossible. It doesn’t
matter that it was Liebeler’s choice “about what I do in this investigation” including the
people he met with or the documents he requested. Why? Because Liebeler could not
share any incriminating evidence regarding the actions of past or present pastors or
employees of CLC. He was forbidden from doing so because of his attorney client
relationship with Covenant Life Church. This was not an independent investigation in
any way, shape or form.

And prior to this engagement, I had no prior knowledge or connection with Covenant
Life Church or its members. I am a Christian. I am a member of an Anglican Church in
Arlington, VA but my church has no affliction with Covenant Life or with its former
parent organization, Sovereign Grace Ministries. 18:52

This begs the question, who recommended him and on what basis? He claims to have
no connection with any member in the church including longtime CLC lawyer, Chip
Grange. If Mr. Liebeler had agreed to talk with me, I would have asked him about these
matters. He professes to be a Christian and is therefore accountable to the ethical
standards of Scripture. He doesn’t explain how he came to be hired for such a critical
task. For instance, through the Yellow Pages or signage on a D.C. bus? Hardly. The
arrangement leading to his employment is concealed.

I am not a part of the litigation team that was handling the defense of the case in the
civil action and I will not become a part of that team. I have been compensated for my
work. My compensation for this work represents a relatively small proportion of the
overall revenues of my firm. 19:13

The “litigation team” was composed of many lawyers and at least seven law firms
including those from the insurance carriers representing the 13 Defendants.

I have been afforded full access to any person within the church that I wish to interview.
I’ve been provided full access to any document. The church has agreed to cooperate
fully and I have found that they have done so. They have cooperated fully and made
everything available to me that I have asked. 19:34

“Afforded full access” doesn’t mean anything unless a person is willing to meet and
then be completely open and honest when interviewed. Also note that Liebeler
qualifies the scope of his access to “any person within the church.” There are so many
vital sources and witnesses outside the church to whom he had little to no access – like
the three Montgomery County detectives who investigated Morales, or the two
Assistant State’s Attorneys who prosecuted Morales and believe the CLC pastors
covered up his crimes.

Liebeler should have listed everyone with whom he met and reported on the content of
their conversations. He should have done the same with every document he requested
and received. That would have gone a long way in showing the extent to which his
report was partial or impartial. Unquestionably, Liebeler’s investigation was largely
one sided in favor of CLC.

Liebeler also claims he was “provided full access to any document” that he requested.
What about those documents about which he knew nothing? For example, did he know
about the emails between Charlie Llewellyn’s daughters and Joshua Harris regarding
the abuse of their father? Did he ask Harris for these emails? Did Harris give him the
emails? They are damning and incriminating, yet Liebeler makes no mention of them in
his report.

Lastly, Liebeler claims “the church” fully cooperated. In context, however, the
cooperation appears limited to accessing official documents in the possession of CLC
staff. He should have defined the word “church.” I think it means church office and his
discovery is limited to official minutes, financial reports, etc. I find these kind of
nebulous statements unhelpful. He should be much clearer.

For instance, Liebeler should tell us if Joshua Harris, Robin Boisvert, Grant Layman,
Kenneth Maresco, and Corby Megorden turned over their computers so a search for
vital and potentially missing documents could be undertaken by a forensic computer
analyst.

In addition, Liebeler should tell us if he requested and was granted access to their hard
copy files and pastoral notes related to all cases of alleged child abuse in CLC. He
should also have included in his report whether any computers or hard drives were
replaced after the lawsuit came out in January 2013.

Lastly, Liebeler should make clear if and how individuals like Grant Layman and Robin
Boisvert “fully cooperated” with all aspect of his investigation. He says little about his
interaction with these two men. We don’t know what he asked them or how they
answered him on a great many subjects. For instance, did Liebeler ask Layman if he
ever told Mahaney anything about the abuse of boys by Nate Morales? The same for
Boisvert. These are the most basic and obvious of questions but Liebeler provides no
information on these vital subjects. That is due to corruption or incompetence.

Executive Summary – No Evidence to Support or Suggest a Conspiracy

I am going to present an executive summary of some of the allegations that I

investigated in the Second Amended Complaint. And then when I have completed that
executive summary I will go into some of the specific details about that. 19:47

Joshua Harris and the pastors promised a detailed report on all the allegations, not “an
executive summary on some of the allegations” when they hired Liebeler in June 2013.
Their promise was broken with malice.
As Mark had mentioned on May 14, 2013, the Plaintiffs in the civil suit had filed a
Second Amended Complaint. They added allegations that Covenant Life pastors had
actively conspired in a cover up to protect former member Nathaniel Morales and
others and to evade their legal responsibility to report suspected child abuse to state or
local authorities. 20:17

That is exactly what they did with Morales. They protected him, knowing full well he
was a serial child abuser, by agreeing not to report him. That agreement constituted a
conspiracy to cover up crimes.

Nathaniel Morales does not appear in the Original Complaint or the First Amended
Complaint. He shows up for the first time in the Seconded Amended Complaint for his
abuse of James Roberts. Liebeler-Mitchell never address Roberts’ factual allegations in
the lawsuit. Nor do Liebeler-Mitchell reference the fact that Morales was indicted for
“sex offense third degree” against James Roberts in a separate criminal case. They pass
over all this information in the civil suit and the criminal case as though irrelevant.
Absolutely reprehensible.

The introductory paragraphs of that document specifically state and I quote, “That there
is a conspiracy, it has existed for decades, and the object of the conspiracy is to permit
sexual deviants to have unfettered access to children for the purposes of predation, and
to obstruct justice, by covering up ongoing and past predation, in addition the church
failed to follow laws regarding the reporting of child abuse and known sexual predators
to have access to children during school, church, youth ministry, home group and other
church sponsored activities.” 20:56

This is not an exact quote. It is part quote, part paraphrase. Taken together it comes
from paragraphs one and two in the lawsuit.

Based on my review of the historic documents that I’ve been able to review and access
including an extensive set of the pastors’ Board meeting minutes - I’ve looked at emails,
letters, I’ve looked at personal notes, files regarding church volunteers, personnel
records. I’ve interviewed a variety of different persons including pastors, including
Covenant Life members, former members, victims and their families. I report at this
time, that I have found no evidence to support or suggest that a conspiracy has existed,
or now exists for any purposes related to any allegation in the amended complaint.
21:40

This sounds impressive but exercise caution. Board meeting minutes, files regarding
church volunteers, and personnel records are not going to contain information about
sexual predators or any decisions reached by the pastors not to report sexual predators.
You may find this kind of information in emails, letters or personal notes; provided all
such notes are discovered and turned over. This kind of evidence may easily have been
destroyed.
Liebeler should post all “the historic documents” he reviewed. What is missing will
probably tell you more about the effectiveness of his investigation than what is
included. For example, does he have a copy of the unpublished book written by Olivia
Llewellyn about her experience of physical and sexual abuse that is in the hands of
investigators? Or does he have a copy of her formal deposition that is likewise full of
evidence? Or does he have the email correspondence between Olivia’s sister Margaret
and Joshua Harris that also contains evidence regarding physical and sexual abuse? Or
does he have the letter from Grant Layman to Olivia promising the pastors would
report Charlie Llewellyn to law enforcement (see Complaint 160) but then failed to do
so?

Once again, Liebeler should tell us which CLC pastors, members, former members,
victims and their families he met with. That would also tell us who he did not meet
with. I find his claim misleading that he interviewed “victims and their families”
because it implies a large group. That is not the case. For example, he did not meet
with the five victims in the lawsuit against CLC. Nor did he meet with Jeremy Cook
who was one of the victims that testified at the Morales trial. I think Liebeler is
referring to just the two other victims who participated in the Morales trial – Sam Bates
and Brian Wolohan. That is all.

I find it profoundly disturbing that Liebeler made no effort to present Covenant Life
Church with specific evidence in order to support his conclusion that all the allegations
in the lawsuit were completely without merit - all 46 pages pertaining to 11 plaintiffs in
Maryland and Virginia. Making vague references to “evidence” is not evidence.
Liebeler’s oral report to CLC was totally unlike a closing argument in a court of law
when you re-present your evidence and then drive home your conclusions.

Furthermore, there were no checks and balances upon him. He had some limited
assistance by staff but no group of peers to challenge his work, findings, biases, or
ethics. He acted unilaterally and without accountability. Moreover, his conclusions
cannot be checked against his evidence because it has all been withheld.

I report at this time, that I have found no evidence to support or suggest that a
conspiracy has existed, or now exists for any purposes related to any allegation in the
amended complaint.

This means ALL the evidence contained in the lawsuit is nothing but rubbish. It should
be rejected and thrown out like trash. Nothing in the lawsuit even suggests the
possibility of a conspiracy. Once again, Liebeler gives his summary judgment but
provides no specific evidence in support of it. Neither does he provide any refutation of
the allegations of fact in the lawsuit. His finding is alarming because it is unsupported!
Liebeler never makes clear that he did not meet with the victims in the lawsuit and
therefore never heard their horrendous accounts or the additional evidence not
included in the lawsuit that further supports their allegations of fact.
I found no evidence that any person, or group of persons, took any action designed or
intended to permit sexual deviants to have unfettered access to children for the
purposes of predation. I have found no evidence to support or suggest to me that any
person or group of persons took action designed to obstruct justice by covering up
ongoing and past predation. I have found no ongoing predation of children at the
church. 22:12

Several comments are necessary. First, Liebeler “found no evidence” because he has no
power to depose people under oath, execute search warrants, arrest people for lying to
him, do wire tapes, impound evidence or property, do digital forensics, etc. He is not
law enforcement. He is not a detective. He is a lawyer and he works for CLC, not the
criminal justice system!

Second, he “found no evidence” because he doesn’t accept as evidence the ton of

evidence that exists in the lawsuit regarding the alleged conspiracy to commit child sex
abuse! I wrote the following in August 2013 based upon my careful study of the
allegations.

Gary Ricucci and the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David

Adams
Friday, August 2, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Brent Detwiler

The Ultimate Answer to “Why a Conspiracy?”

Here’s the picture that emerges according to the Second Amended Complaint.
Loftness and Ricucci conspired with Adams and Morales in concealing their
crimes. Loftness and Ricucci conspired with Griney in committing crimes.
Griney conspired with Hoffman in committing crimes. Hoffman and Mayo
molested Plaintiff Heather Thompson.

There are many more dots that could be connected to illustrate the alleged
conspiracy at Covenant Life Church but that is enough for now. Loftness,
Ricucci, Adams, Morales, Griney, Hoffman, Mayo and others could easily have
been working together to conceal and commit sex crimes according to the
factual allegations.

Liebeler is free to disagree with my summary, but he is not free to dismiss all the
evidence in the lawsuit as though it does not exist without providing compelling proof
that it is nothing by lies. I go through the allegations and show how I arrive at my
hypothesis. He does nothing of the kind. He must demonstrate the allegations are false
based upon concrete evidence. That must include interviews with the victims and their
families which he did not do.

Go back and read the allegations of fact in Complaints 59 and 90. Certainly, Liebeler
knows the testimony of these three victims is admissible as evidence in a court of law.
Nate Morales was convicted primarily on the testimony of Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan,
and Jeremy Cook. No one ever saw Morales abuse these boys, yet their accounts are
considered evidence in a court of law upon which he can, and was, found guilty. The
same is true of these three women.

Liebeler cannot reject these factual allegations as “no evidence.” They are evidence. He
can seek to disprove them but he cannot dismiss them. He must prove they are false.
Liebeler didn’t even talked to the victims. Had he done so, I believe it would have
resulted in a completely different outcome except for the fact he was CLC’s lawyer and
had to withhold all incriminating evidence he discovered. There was nothing
independent about his investigation.

Third, he says “I found no evidence to support or suggest to me that any person or

group of persons took action designed to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and
past predation.”

I totally disagree. If you have reason to believe or know sex crimes are being committed
by predators like Nate Morales and you do not report them to law enforcement and
impede others from reporting, then you are obstructing justice. That is exactly what
was done by CLC pastors both as individuals and as a group for at least 20 years. It
doesn’t matter whether that was their design or intent. The court is not interested in
motives. It does not allow for questions like “Why didn’t you report?” It only allows
for questions like “Did you have a legal responsibility to report?” or “Did you in fact
report?”

Don’t get me wrong, I believe CLC pastors intended to cover up child sex abuse because
they did not want police investigations and they feared financial harm, reputational
harm and the loss of members. Nevertheless, their motives behind their actions are
irrelevant in a criminal case. The judge and jury only concern themselves with actions,
not the reasons for those actions.

All Marylanders are required to report sex crimes. No one may interfere with this
obligation. When they do interfere, they are obstructing justice. When they decide not
to report as a group, they are guilty of a conspiracy.

Liebeler claims he did not find one shred of evidence that even suggests a single person
ever “took action designed to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past
predation.” Again, the lawsuit is replete with evidence that “suggests” John Loftness,
Gary Ricucci, Dave Adams, Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo, and Charlie
Llewellyn covered up their alleged crimes. He simply doesn’t deal with the evidence.
He just dismisses the evidence.

In addition, did Liebeler study the Montgomery County detectives’ reports from the
Morales investigation? I believe the evidence shows Grant Layman obstructed justice
by lying to them when interviewed. Or, did Liebeler carefully study Layman’s
testimony at the Morales trial? I believe the evidence shows he obstructed justice when
he lied during his sworn testimony. Or, did Liebeler investigate John Loftness for
obstruction of justice when he told Dominic and Pam Palmer, “do not call the
police” (Complaint 96) after their three-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted?

Furthermore, the information he gathered regarding the non-reporting of Morales by

Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco and Megorden in 2007 clearly “suggests” a
conspiracy to cover up crimes and thereby obstruct justice. I could go on and on.

Remember, Liebeler’s all-encompassing statement emphatically asserts he found

absolutely no evidence to SUGGEST a cover up, conspiracy or obstruction of justice by
anyone at any time throughout the history of CLC and SGM. I find that conclusion
absurd because an overwhelming amount of evidence “suggests” (and “supports”) the
exact opposite conclusion!

Fourth, he says “I have found no ongoing predation of children at the church.” That’s
great and I hope he is right, but here’s what I want to know. Did Liebeler find any past
predation of children at the church? If so, he is not telling.

Keep in mind, Covenant Life Church has always denied any children were sexually
abused “at the church.” Is that untrue? What is Liebeler not telling us? The question is
simple. Has anyone ever been sexually abused in the CLC building or at a CLC event?
If so, the pastors should set the record straight.

Fifth, Liebeler qualifies his comment when he says he has “found no ongoing predation
of children at the church.” That doesn’t mean he didn’t find predation in any number
of other venues including sleepovers in members’ homes. The question is simple. Did
he find ongoing predation by anyone, anywhere? If so, did he report it to police? These
are the kind of issues that should be clearly addressed in an independent report.

Reporting Child Abuse & Clergy Privilege in Maryland

With respect to the allegations that the church failed to follow the laws regarding the
reporting of child abuse, the answer to this question is complicated. It is intertwined
with facts that neither the pastors nor the victims of Mr. Morales can recall with 100%
clarity. Largely because the events occurred nearly 20 years ago. 22:36

Liebeler makes it complicated but it is not.

No one “can recall with 100% clarity” events that happened in their lives 20 years ago,
but “the victims of Mr. Morales” can, and did recall, in great detail the facts of their
abuse. Only “the pastors” suffer from selective amnesia and claim to have forgotten
major events related to the reporting of Morales’ sexual abuse to them by victims and
witnesses.
The answer to the question of whether the church violated the law with respect to the
reporting obligations is dependent on an interpretation and analysis of the Clergy
Privilege in the State of Maryland. I am going to provide a summary of some of the
factual information that I think is relevant and I am going to provide you with an
explanation now of the Clergy Privilege: what it is, how it operates and why it is
relevant to this question. 23:05

Liebeler concludes that none of the pastors “violated the law” based upon his faulty
“interpretation and analysis of the Clergy Privilege.”

The Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Statute was enacted in 1987. Under the law all
persons are mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse including child sex abuse.
And under the law, all means all. It means teachers, coaches, bus drivers, parents,
neighbors, it means everyone, everyone in this room. 23:31

This is an extremely important point with which I fully agree. Under the law, everyone
in Maryland is required to report “suspected child abuse.” That includes the parents of
victims. At no time did the pastors of CLC direct parents or anyone else to report in
keeping with the law as it pertains to the abuses noted in the lawsuit or in relation to
Nate Morales. That was their duty as pastors. This law was enacted in 1987 and yet the
church was never taught or held accountable to obey the law. In fact, the pastors
repeatedly enabled congregants to break the law.

Grant Layman believed he had a legal obligation to report child sex abuse in 1993. He
said so at the first Morales trial in May 2014. He also knew members in the church had
a legal obligation to report and yet he never directed anyone to do so. The same is true
of all the pastors. And yet, Joshua Harris told Greta Kreuz from WJLA-TV in
Washington D.C. in October 2012 that “We are very committed to involving the
authorities.” That was not true. He lied in order to save face.

If the statement by Harris was true, Liebeler as Harris’ lawyer, would have said
something like, “Based upon my investigation, I found an abundance of evidence that
proves the CLC pastors were dedicated and determined to immediately report the
suspicion of child sex abuse to Child Protective Services or law enforcement. Therefore,
I wholeheartedly agree with Joshua Harris, the pastors of CLC were ‘very committed’ to
involving the authorities and here’s the evidence.” In fact, Liebeler cites no evidence
that child sexual abuse was ever reported to law enforcement. Nor does Mark Mitchell
or anyone else.

The following month, Harris also assured CLC at a Members Meeting saying, “Our
church has had for many years a robust child protection policy.” This too was an empty
boast. During those “many years” the pastors were not reporting suspected child
sexual abuse. Nor were they directing members to do so. A “robust child protection
policy” begins with a commitment by the pastors and people to report child abuse in
keeping with the law.
Harris, Mitchell, Liebeler, et al. have never produced evidence that any pastor in the
history of Covenant Life Church ever reported child sexual abuse, or directed a member
to report child sexual abuse, before these grandiose claims were made by Harris.

Pastors have a responsibility to teach the church to obey the laws of the land unless
those laws are in clear violation of Scripture. The reporting laws in Maryland are plain
and simple and have been in existence for over 30 years. For decades, sex crimes were
not reported at Covenant Life Church.

Romans 13:1-5 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no
authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established
by God. [2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has
instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [3] For rulers hold no terror
for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in
authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. [4] For he is God’s servant to do you
good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s
servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore, it is necessary
to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of
conscience.

The CLC pastors violated their consciences, broke the law and rebelled against God and
his delegated authority. They should be justly punished. Their disobedience
unquestionably led to the sexual abuse of other children.

The reporting requirements to report child abuse is triggered if, quote “A person has a
reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect.” There is no
requirement that a person have absolute or definitive proof. It is simply “reason to
believe.” It is a relatively low standard under the law. Similar to reasonable suspicion.
24:00

Liebeler is correct. The statute reads, “A person in this State … who has reason to
believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect shall notify the local
department or the appropriate law enforcement agency.”

It is a relatively low standard and not the one followed by the pastors at CLC.

Corby Megorden, the administrator for Covenant Life Church, laid out the pastors’
practice for reporting child sexual abuse at a church-wide meeting on August 17, 2011.
Liebeler makes no mention of this long-standing practice which was clearly contrary to
the law and motivated by a desire to avoid various harms including financial harm due
to lawsuits. Liebeler should have exposed and condemned this practice in the strongest
possible terms. That is the work of an independent investigator.

Here’s what Megorden said.

 “Whenever a report comes, it comes as a report of potential abuse because we
need to confirm that.  It can either be confessed by an individual, it can be
reported by someone else, or it can be discovered and seen by someone else.  In
any case, here is what we will try to do.

“First, we will first try to determine the validity of the report.  Has there
actually been abuse?  The next thing we do is contact our legal counsel to get
their assessment.  Every case is unique, every case is different.  Every time we
call them and say, “What are our obligations as a church?”  And at times, yes,
we want to protect [against various harms].  That is our responsibility to protect
the church.  It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that
includes a lawsuit against the church.  So we want to make sure we are doing
this wisely and well.”

You don’t do an internal investigation when someone confesses, reports, discovers or

sees child abuse. You report it immediately. Not the CLC pastors. First, they
investigate and thereby interfere with law enforcement. Second, they decide guilt or
innocence. Third, they call lawyers to determine liability if they report the abuse.

As a matter of practice, C.J. Mahaney and the CLC pastors did not report the sexual
abuse of children even when they concluded there was guilt. The same was true of
sexual assault as in the case of Charles Schmitt who preyed upon young men. Read
Charles Schmitt Is a False Shepherd, Predatory Homosexual, & Divisive Deceiver - He
Is Starting a New Church & Must Be  Stopped! (Sep 22, 2017). This illegal and
reprehensible policy dates back to Mahaney’s tenure as senior pastor beginning in 1980.

Megorden makes it clear, the “obligation” to report known or suspected child molesters
is not as great as the “responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a
lawsuit.” The highest priority is protecting against harms to the church - not protecting
against harms to children. This was the “wisely and well” reporting policy of the CLC
pastors in August 2011.

This is precisely what happened in 2007. Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco, and
Megorden knew Nate Morales was a serial child predator but they feared a lawsuit
based upon the “assessment” they received from “legal counsel.” Legal counsel is a
reference to Chip Grange and his law firm, Gammon and Grange, P.C. According to
Liebeler; Gammon and Grange did not inform the pastors of their obligation to report
because the law firm was concerned Morales would file a defamation suit against the
church if they did. More later.

Now there are two exceptions to the mandatory reporting requirement. Lawyers and
pastors. If a lawyer learns of suspected child abuse from a client in a confidential
attorney client meeting, the lawyer is not required to report that information to the
police. Lawyers are required by law to keep information that their clients tell them in
confidence, confidential. 24:31
Here is a working definition of the attorney-client relationship like the one Liebeler had
with Covenant Life Church and its pastors. By law, he could not share any confidential
or incriminating information with anyone including CLC or the police. I understand
the relationship but that is the very reason you don’t retain a lawyer as a client if you’re
interested in an “independent investigation.” Anything, anyone from CLC told Liebeler
“in confidence” went unreported and could not be shared. You will never know about
it!

The law also includes an exception for information received by a minister or a

clergyman in the course of communications with a member of the congregation. Quote,
“In a professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church.” This
exception covers communications made to clergy for the purposes of spiritual advice or
consolation. So that is the operative term that covers the Clergy Privilege. “Spiritual
advice or consolation.” 25:07

There is “an exception” for clergy but not a legal requirement as with lawyers. The
distinction is huge and lost upon Liebeler. Clergy are not prevented from reporting the
sexual abuse of children like lawyers are in an attorney-client relationship.

Here is the statute dealing with the clergy privilege or exception (underlining is mine).

2013 Maryland Code

FAMILY LAW
§ 5-705 - Reporting of abuse or neglect -- By other persons
h t t p : / / m g a l e g . m a r y l a n d . g o v / w e b m g a / f r m S t a t u t e s Te x t . a s p x ?
article=gfl&section=5-705&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including a law on privileged
communications, a person in this State … who has reason to believe that a child
has been subjected to abuse or neglect shall notify the local department or the
appropriate law enforcement agency. …

(3) A minister of the gospel, clergyman, or priest of an established church of any

denomination is not required to provide notice under paragraph (1) of this
subsection if the notice would disclose matter in relation to any communication
described in § 9-111 of the Courts Article and:

(i) the communication was made to the minister, clergyman, or priest in a

professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to
which the minister, clergyman, or priest belongs; and

(ii) the minister, clergyman, or priest is bound to maintain the confidentiality of

that communication under canon law, church doctrine, or practice.
Here is the statute dealing with “any communication described in § 9-111” (underlining
is mine).

2013 Maryland Code

COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
§ 9-111 - Privileged communications -- Minister, clergyman, or priest
http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2013/article-gcj/section-9-111

A minister of the gospel, clergyman, or priest of an established church of any

denomination may not be compelled to testify on any matter in relation to any
confession or communication made to him in confidence by a person seeking
his spiritual advice or consolation.

Let me summate. A minister, clergyman or priest is “not required” to report and “may
not be compelled to testify” in a judicial proceeding if the three conditions above are
met. That doesn’t mean a clergyman is forbidden from reporting or providing
testimony if he voluntarily decides to do so. No law prevents a clergyman from
reporting child abuse to the authorities or testifying against child abusers in a court of
law.

What this means is, if you are a pastor and a member of your church comes to you
seeking spiritual advice or consolation then everything that the church member says to
you is confidential. It has been the historical tradition of most churches, including
Covenant Life, to keep communications between a congregant and its pastor seeking
spiritual comfort, confidential. If you are a pastor, and you don’t have permission from
who you are speaking to, to break the bond of confidentiality, then you may not reveal
what you have been told. And under Maryland law this includes information
regarding suspected or known child abuse. 25:51

This is an egregious error! Why was Liebeler asked to do this investigation when he is
not a sexual abuse attorney? Either he doesn’t know what he is talking about or he is
purposely deceiving the church.

Nothing under Maryland law forbids a pastor from reporting “suspected or known
child abuse” if such information is disclosed to him by an abuser, victim or witness
while “seeking spiritual advice or consolation.” A pastor may ask their permission, but
he doesn’t need their permission, in order to report the physical or sexual abuse of a
child.

There is a place for confidentiality, but confidentially has it ethical and legal limits. For
example, sex crimes must be reported to law enforcement in keeping with Roman
13:1-5, unrepentant sin of a serious nature must be reported to the church in keeping
with Matthew 18:15-17 and elders who continue in sin must be publicly rebuked in
keeping with 1 Timothy 5:20.
Liebeler is dead wrong when he says a clergyman “may not reveal [i.e. report]…under
Maryland law…suspected or known child abuse” if it is shared with him in confidence.
God forbid any pastor in Maryland believes or follows this unsound legal counsel!

Pastors everywhere should read this article by Boz Tchividjian entitled, “When sex
offenders confess to clergy: Three mistaken beliefs.”

http://boz.religionnews.com/2014/08/01/perpetrators-confess-clergy-three-mistaken-
beliefs/

I thank God, he has used the lawsuit against C.J. Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries
and Covenant Life Church, to teach the Body of Christ that pastors must immediately
report the suspicion of child abuse to civil authorities! This story has received a ton of
coverage around the country. As a result, books have been written, along with
innumerable articles in magazines, newspapers and on blogs. That will continue and
may even increase. Praise the Lord! The church is being educated and pastors who fail
to report are being called to account.

Why does such a rule exist? The rule exists to encourage both victim and perpetrators
to come to their church and to seek advice from a pastor or minister without fear that
what they say will be immediately revealed to the world. 26:09

The “rule” as Liebeler understands it does not exist. The actual clergy exception may
have been well intended but it was not helpful. Protestant pastors and Roman Catholic
priests still use it to cover up abuse for corrupt and misguided reasons. The provision
provides a temptation to do so.

Biblical pastors want victims and perpetrators to come and get help, but they should
not promise absolutely confidentiality when they do. That is a disservice. They will
help a victim to report and direct a perpetrator to turn himself in as part of his
repentance. That is far from all they do, but it is a necessary part of what they do.

The legislature has made that policy decision that it is better to encourage people to
come to their pastors or their lawyers because pastors and lawyers would traditionally
be giving people advice that would be helpful to them and hopefully would end up in
the stopping of such conduct. 26:32

First, that is not the purpose of the “rule” for lawyers. Second, the “advice” of lawyers
doesn’t “end up in the stopping of such conduct.” Defense lawyers for client sex
abusers don’t direct them to plead guilty, make restitution to their victims, or accept the
just consequences for their crimes. Godly pastors do and more. They also preach the
gospel, command repentance, and assure forgiveness to the sincere penitent.

I will tell you that some states are like Maryland and they do not require a pastor to
break that bond of confidentiality when a pastor receives information about child abuse.
And some states do not recognize an exception on these grounds and they say that there
is a duty to report child abuse no matter what. 26:51

Maryland law states a pastor must report child abuse like everyone else unless specific
criteria are met. But even when those criteria are met, a pastor is not bound to remain
silent. Clergy in Maryland should work to change the existing law so “there is a duty to
report child abuse no matter what.”

There is sort of a split amongst all the 50 states. There are people who have studied this
and said “What are the policies behind that? Do we want to have this rule? Do we
want to have an absolute rule of saying everything should be reported?” And there is a
lot of controversy about it. That is the law in Maryland though. There is a Clergy
Privilege and pastors are obligated to obey that privilege. 27:15

It is NOT the law in Maryland. It is a privilege - an exception - but not a legal obligation
that must be obeyed as a matter of law. There is a huge difference. Once again, this is a
horrendous error by Liebeler!

Here is a link that delineates differences for Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child
Abuse and Neglect in all 50 states.

h t t p s : / / w w w. c h i l d w e l f a r e . g o v / s y s t e m w i d e / l a w s _ p o l i c i e s / s t a t u t e s /
clergymandated.pdf

No Penalties for Non-Compliance & Legal Immunity

There are two other relevant parts of the Child Abuse Statute which I need to tell you
about. First, there are no stated penalties for failure to comply with the statute. In most
statutes it says, “It is either a misdemeanor or a felony, here is the penalty.” It is an
oddity in that respect, there is no provision for fines or imprisonment and no
enforcement mechanism. I am personally not aware of any person being prosecuted
under the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Statute for failing to make a report. 27:50

Everyone has a legal obligation to report in Maryland. This all-inclusive category is

broken down into two subcategories. “Mandated Reporters” (i.e., health practitioners,
educators, human service workers, police officers) and “Other Persons.”

Mandated Reporters must make an oral and written report. Other Persons are not
required to report in writing.

Reporting Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/?page_id=3973

You should report suspected abuse or neglect to the local department of social
services or to a local law enforcement agency.
 

If you are a health practitioner, educator, human service worker or a police
officer, you are required to report both orally and in writing any suspected child
abuse or neglect.

Click here for a list of addresses and phone numbers of social services offices
across the state.

Oral reports should be made immediately and written reports must be made
within 48 hours of contact which disclose the suspected abuse or neglect.


A report must include:

• The name and home address of the child and the parent
or other individual responsible for the care of the
child;
• The present location of the child;
• The age of the child;
• Names and ages of other children in the home;
• The nature and extent of injuries or sexual abuse or
neglect of the child
• Any information relayed by the individual making the
report of previous possible physical or sexual abuse or
neglect.
• Information available to the individual reporting that
might aid in establishing the cause of the injury or
neglect;
• The identity of the individual or individuals
responsible for abuse or neglect


If reporting abuse or neglect of a child involving mental injury, a description of the
substantial impairment of the child’s mental or psychological ability to function that
was observed and identified and why it is believed to be attributable to an act of
maltreatment or omission of proper care and attention.

All reports of abuse must be made to the local departments of social services
and the appropriate law enforcement agency. To initiate prompt handling of the
report of suspected child abuse or neglect, employees of a local department of
social services must make a report to the protective services unit.

Liebeler is correct, “there is no provision for fines or imprisonment and no enforcement

mechanism” for Mandatory Reporters or Other Persons who fail to report. Mandatory
Reporters, however, “may be subject to professional sanctions by licensing boards.”

Mandated Reporters
http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/?page_id=3992
 You are a mandated reporter if you are one of the following:

• Health Practitioner
• Educator
• Human Service Worker
• Police Officer

This does NOT require PROOF that abuse or neglect has occurred before reporting.
Incidents are to be reported as soon as they are suspected. Waiting for proof may
involve grave risk to the child and impede services to the family. Proof may be long
in coming, witnesses to child abuse and neglect are rare, and the child’s testimony
may be disbelieved or inadmissible. [CLC policy should follow, not diametrically
oppose, Maryland law for mandatory reporters for the very reasons given.]

If you knowingly fail to report suspected abuse of a child, you may be subject to
professional sanctions by licensing boards. Anyone that makes a “good faith” report
is immune from civil liability and criminal penalty.

A possible “professional sanction” is too weak. There should be penalties for

Mandatory Reporters and Other Persons who do not report. Especially for Mandatory
Reporters. Consider this article from 2011.

After Penn State, Md. may examine strengthening child abuse reporting law
State lacks criminal penalty for those who don't report abuse as law requires
November 15, 2011|By Childs Walker, The Baltimore Sun
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-11-15/news/bs-md-abuse-reporting-
criminal-20111115_1_report-abuse-child-abuse-reporting-laws

Educators, health practitioners, social service workers and police officers are
required under Maryland law to report suspected child abuse to local
authorities and to their bosses. But the state has no power to prosecute when
the law is not followed.

That puts Maryland out of step with the majority of states, most of which
classify failure to report abuse as a criminal misdemeanor. Arizona, Florida and
Minnesota treat failure to report more serious abuse as a felony.

Following the scandal that has devastated Penn State University, some
Maryland lawmakers and child advocates want to establish criminal penalties
for failing to report child abuse. Reporting laws are being examined after
revelations that alleged sex abuse by a former assistant football coach [Jerry
Sandusky] at Penn State had gone unreported to law enforcement for years. …
Unfortunately, the law has yet to be changed in Maryland to my knowledge. Here is an
excerpt from an article in 2017.

Only 2 states have no penalties for failing to report child sex abuse. Md. is
one of them
by Nathan Baca/ABC7
Wednesday, November 15th 2017
https://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/only-two-states-have-no-penalties-
for-failing-to-report-child-sex-abuse-maryland-is-one-of-them

“There is no penalty if you fail to report,” said Maryland Senator Susan Lee (D-
Bethesda).

“I think we’re letting down the children that we’re trying to protect against
abuse and neglect.”

Only Maryland and Wyoming have no laws penalizing failure to report child
sexual abuse according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.

I was shocked. I didn’t realize that we were only one of two,” said Maryland
Senator Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore).

As an aside, I attended the first and second trials of Thomas Chantry in Arizona in
August 2018 and May 2019. He was found guilty on two counts of aggravated assault
against two children and four counts of sexual molestation of a third child while a
pastor in the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA). In his
case, three outside pastors, Tedd Tripp, Rich Jensen, Marcus “Mike” McKnight,
“investigated” the assaults in 2000 but did not report them to law enforcement as
mandated. It is a felony not to report in Arizona.

Far more seriously, they designed a plan whereby they covered up the crimes and
withheld evidence from the parents. So did all the top officials in ARBCA. This did
great harm to the victims and their families. Thank God, Chantry was sentenced to 23
years and is facing a third trial on additional counts of molestation. And thank God,
ARBCA has been exposed and on the verge of collapse. All its top leaders like Earl
Blackburn and David Dykstra have been disgraced. I covered this monstrous story for
three years. Read An Overview of My Ten-Part Series on the Abuse of Children by
"Pastor" Tom Chantry & Its Cover-Up by the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches
of America (May 19, 2019).

When you don’t report child sex abusers you enable them to go on and commit heinous
crimes against other children. There should be enforceable laws with penalties in
Maryland for not reporting and the clergy privilege should be ended.

While “there is no provision for fines or imprisonment” for not reporting; there is a
provision for fines and/or imprisonment for interfering with the making of a report.
This is extremely relevant because that is what happened in Covenant Life Church and
Sovereign Grace Ministries. It should have been included in Liebeler’s report. This
critical provision exists in order to prosecute anyone who attempts to stop or discourage
a person from reporting suspected abuse or neglect.





2013 Maryland Code
FAMILY LAW
§ 5–705.2.  
h t t p : / / m g a l e g . m a r y l a n d . g o v / w e b m g a / f r m S t a t u t e s Te x t . a s p x ?
article=gfl&section=5-705.2&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

(a)  An individual may not intentionally prevent or interfere with the

making of a report of suspected abuse or neglect required by § 5–704 or § 5–
705.1(c)(2) of this subtitle.

(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on

conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not
exceeding $10,000 or both.

Let me share several examples. This happened when John Loftness told Dominic and
Pam Palmer not to report the molestation of their three-year-old daughter to police.

Second Amended Complaint

Complaint 96
May 14, 2013

On or about March 18, 1993, Dominic and Pamela Palmer, Renee’s parents,
learned of the assault and immediately called the police and reported the
assault. They then called Defendant Loftness, who immediately advised them
“do not call the police.” When the Palmers told Defendant Loftness that they
had already called the police, he expressed his displeasure (stating “that is
going to be a problem”), and explained that such matters were handled
internally by the church leadership, not by secular authorities.

It also happened when Joshua Harris and other CLC pastors told members that sexual
abuse was handled by the church, not by law enforcement. These quotes are found in
the article by Michelle Boorstein in the Washington Post entitled “Pastor Joshua Harris,
an evangelical outlier, heads to mainstream seminary” from January 30, 2015.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/long-an-outsider-popular-evangelical-pastor-
h e a d s - f o r- t h e - m a i n s t re a m / 2 0 1 5 / 0 1 / 3 0 / 3 1 8 2 7 3 6 4 - a 8 8 1 - 11 e 4 -
a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html
 “In an interview, Harris said the isolation of Covenant Life, and of a small
cluster of churches of which it was a part, may have fed leadership mistakes,
including the decision of pastors — himself among them — to handle a child
sexual abuse case internally instead of going to police.

“A former Covenant Life member [Nate Morales] who helped with the youth
group was convicted last year of molesting three boys in the 1980s. Trial
testimony showed that the victims or their families had gone to church leaders
for help and that the church officials did not call police. Harris said the
thinking of the church was that such allegations should be handled as an
internal, spiritual issue.”

We also see interference to report by all the people who told Rachael Bates-Paci to drop
the subject and not report sexual abuse because it did not happen to her and was
therefore none of her business. This came out in her testimony at the Nate Morales trial
when cross-examined by Defense Attorney Alan Drew.

Rachael Bates-Paci
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Drew: Okay. Did you ever become aware that Thurlow Switzer notified the
Montgomery County Police Department about sexual abuse?”

Paci: No. No sir.

Drew: Okay. Did you inquire at any point of Mr. Switzer?

Paci: No. He was my principal. I was 17. I didn’t have that relationship where
I could go pester him about that [about reporting Morales]. And I was basically
told by many people that I wasn’t the one who was abused so it wasn’t my
problem basically.

We also see a lawyer referenced by Liebeler later in this oral report who tells either Sam
Bates or Brian Wolohan to “forgive and forget” and not involve law enforcement. This
is probably a reference to Chip Grange, the longtime lawyer for CLC.

“One victim was referred to a family friend to discuss the subject of this abuse,
this person was a lawyer, who knew or should have known of the obligations to
report suspected child abuse to the authorities. He did not report the abuse, or
advise the victim to report the abuse, but his advice to the victim was
essentially to forgive and to forget.”

And of course, there is every reason to believe that CLC pastors sought to “intentionally
prevent or interfere with the making of a report of suspected abuse or neglect” by one
another.
In the end, Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco and Megorden all conspired (i.e. agreed)
not to report Morales in 2007. Of that there is no question. But did any of them suggest
or recommend they report Morales during their discussions but were deterred when
met with objections. If so, that is seeking to prevent or interfere with reporting.
Liebeler doesn’t deal with the matter.

The pastors should have helped victims to report. For instance, Sam Bates and Brian
Wolohan. I believe they would have reported if they had received a little instruction
and encouragement.

Samuel Bates
Direct Examination by State
Monday, May 12, 2014

Michalski: Now did there ever come a time when you spoke with anyone in the
church about what happened?

S. Bates: I spoke to my pastor [Grant Layman]. After I spoke to my parents

about it, I spoke to my pastor.

Michalski: And who was your pastor at that time?

S. Bates: Grant Layman.

Michalski: Okay. And at that time did you ever go and speak with the police
department about the abuse?

S. Bates: No.

Michalski: And why not?

S. Bates: I was directed more to the people in the church to kind of talk to them
about it and was never really swayed from speaking to the police, but I didn’t
really want to be a lone ranger on it. I didn’t want to talk to the police by
myself and just go after it by myself. I wanted to have several people involved.
 Brian Wolohan
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2013

Michalski: Other than 2010 did you ever report this matter to the police?

B. Wolohan: No.

Michalski: And why didn’t you report it to the police?

B. Wolohan: Um. I mean I thought about it a couple of times, but it is obviously

a big thing to do and something that was very uncomfortable to think about.
Even though I was only a child it is a very embarrassing situation and I kept
kind of putting off doing it.

Brian Wolohan
ReCross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Drew: One of the things you just mentioned in your response to Ms. Michalski
is that, in the questions to you, is that in 2010 you decided that you wanted to
come forward because you wanted to protect children. Correct? From similar
harm?

B. Wolohan: Uh huh.

Drew: So between 89 and 2010 you didn’t have that degree of concern for
children then?

B. Wolohan: Look, I said I procrastinated. I continued to think about whether I

should do it [or] whether I shouldn’t and when I was invited to participate in
the case I decided that that was the right path. It forced my hand. I had been
procrastinating and weighing it.

Second, there is another provision in the law which I think is relevant. It states that any
person who does make such a report in good faith of suspected child abuse is entitled to
legal immunity. That is, they cannot be sued for defamation if their report caused a
person to undergo an investigation for suspected child abuse. Again, the legislature has
made the decision that we would rather have people making reports, so the police can
investigate them. That we don’t want people being sued for defamation if they just
turned out to be wrong. So there is an immunity provision. 28:37

Liebeler is correct. You cannot be sued or prosecuted for making “a report in good faith
of suspected child abuse” even if you “turned out to be wrong.” Here is the statute. All
plain as day.
 Maryland Code
Article - Family Law
§5–708.  
h t t p : / / m g a l e g . m a r y l a n d . g o v / w e b m g a / f r m S t a t u t e s Te x t . a s p x ?
article=gfl&section=5-708&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

Any person who makes or participates in making a report of abuse or neglect

under § 5–704, § 5–705, or § 5–705.1 of this subtitle or a report of substantial risk
of sexual abuse under § 5–704.1 of this subtitle or participates in an
investigation or a resulting judicial proceeding shall have the immunity
described under § 5–620 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article from
civil liability or criminal penalty.

The concerns for lawsuits by lawyer Chip Grange and administrator Corby Megorden
were totally unfounded.

Who Was Nathaniel Morales?

I’m going to jump to the next topic which is the question, “Who was Nate Morales?”
Nathaniel Morales was born on November 16, 1957. At the time he was tried in
Montgomery County Circuit Court in 2014 he was 57 years old. I was able to gather
information from a variety of different sources, those sources indicated that he began to
attend Covenant Life and form friendships with various individuals in or around 1983.
29:10

Morales was excommunicated from the New Testament Church in the spring of 1981 for
the sexual abuse of boys there. He came to CLC in 1981 or 1982.

Reports are that he was very outgoing and personable man. He was active in
volunteering. He began working in a college outreach program. He then migrated to
some youth activities and participated in, and later led, informal Bible study groups for
youth. 29:32

Liebeler is withholding important information. He doesn’t tell the church that Morales
led their “college outreach program” for Grant Layman. Morales was also able to lead
informal Bible studies for the youth because he was well-known and well-respected by
the pastors – not just parents. He was a volunteer but he was also paid staff for nine
months.

His role as a Bible study leader appears to have been informal and largely based on the
trust that he personally developed with several families and adolescent boys in the
church. It was not something that was directly done under the direction and leadership
of the pastors themselves. 29:53
That appears to be true in relation to CLC, but it was not true in relation to Montgomery
County Covenant Academy. He held a formal teaching and leadership position in the
school which included Bible teaching and worship leading at the mid-week chapel
service.

Now there have been many news reports, I am sure some of you are aware of them, and
some comments at the criminal trial, suggesting that Mr. Morales was a respected leader
in the church. The prosecutor used that in her opening statement at the trial. 30:08

He was a respected leader in the church. Liebeler should not imply otherwise, nor
should he impugn the description of Morales by Assistant State’s Attorney Jessica Hall.
I was a member of CLC in 1982-1983 and I remember the public commendation of
Morales by C.J. Mahaney on Sunday mornings. He was looked up to by the pastors and
therefore the members.

There was a close relationship between Covenant Life Church and Montgomery County
Covenant Academy. CLC did not have a high school at the time so many of its youth
went to the independently operated MCCA. Mahaney was friends with the Founder
and President of MCCA, Thurlow Switzer. I also knew Switzer. MCCA was supported
and promoted by the CLC pastors.

Morales was a teacher and the Vice Principal of MCCA. He was considered the
spiritual leader of the school. He was esteemed in CLC because of his role in MCCA.
Liebeler takes no time to describe Morales’ position in MCCA and the bearing it had on
his recognition at CLC. He leaves out the vital connection between MCCA and CLC.

Morales was also a recognized leader in Covenant Life Church. He worked for Grant
Layman and headed up the International Student Ministry at Montgomery College in
Rockville, MD as part of the Lifeline ministry to junior high, senior high and college
students. This was a well-known fact! Layman wrote about it in the “April 1988 Family
News – Covenant Life Church.”

“Nate Morales is overseeing our International Student Ministry and is doing a

great job!  Starting from scratch this past year Nate is now meeting regularly
with approximately twenty international students.  Valentine’s Day will always
be a memorable day for Nate as he proposed to Miss Pam Bassett after a
romantic dinner in Annapolis.  They are planning to be married on August 20. 
By the way, Layman, April 1988 Family News - Covenant Life Church)

Grant Layman perjured himself at the Morales trial when he covered the fact Morales
was paid employee and overseer during the time he was abusing boys. He was not
“just a member.”

Direct Examination
ASA Amanda Michalski
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
 Michalski:  What is the first time you can remember having contact with him
[Morales]?

Layman:  It would be hard for me to say.  I would guess back in the mid-80s
somewhere.

Michalski: And what was his role at Covenant Life.

Layman: He was just a member.

The information that I’ve acquired indicates that he was not a pastor. Morales was
never a full-time employee. There is no indication that he was a part time employee or
held any formal job responsibility or title. He was never a Care Group leader and there
is no evidence that he received actually any training from the pastors at the Pastors
College or from any pastor here at the church. 30:38

Morales was not a pastor in CLC but he was an employee. He also had an official title
and formal responsibilities. Liebeler is going out of his way to play down Morales’
influence in Covenant Life Church. I am shocked by his inaccurate reporting, but I also
realize he is working with deceitful men like Layman who are withholding evidence
from him.

Here are the facts. Morales was popular and well connected to top leaders. He was a
featured vocalist in the worship group led by Layman. He was the Vice President of
Montgomery County Covenant Academy where many CLC youth attended. He did
informal Bible studies and mentored boys in CLC. He oversaw the International
Student Ministry. He was promoted and recognized by Layman. He had a formal job
description and title. He was on the payroll.

Liebeler further asserts “there is no evidence he received any training at the Pastors
College or from any pastor here at the church.” He received no training at the Pastors
College because there was no Pastors College when Morales attended CLC. There was
a School of Ministry in 1987-1988 and 1990-1991. The Pastors College started in 1997.

Liebeler also asserts “There is no evidence he received any training…from any pastor
here at the church.” That is absurd. Layman trained in him in the worship group and
trained him in Lifeline In that capacity, he discipled Morales. Layman knew all about
Morales and was deeply involved in his life. That is evident in the newsletter.

“Valentine’s Day will always be a memorable day for Nate as he proposed to

Miss Pam Bassett after a romantic dinner in Annapolis.  They are planning to be
married on August 20.  By the way, since October Nate has lost over fifty
pounds!  Congratulations!!!”
I did review a historical record of all the persons entered into the Covenant Life payroll
accounting system. It does show that Nathaniel Morales was in that category, in an
undesignated category with a hire date of July 1, 1987 and a termination date several
months later of April 1, 1998, 1988 excuse me. Now there are many people on this list
and most of them indicate an either part time or full-time designation and what their
job title is and in some of them it indicates what their salary is. For Mr. Morales it is
simply blank. It only has those entries. 31:20

The fact that Morales was on the payroll speaks volumes about how Mahaney and the
pastors viewed Morales in 1987. No one was put on payroll without their knowledge
and approval. The church was relatively small and tightly run. Layman would have
sought their approval before hiring Morales. That’s how things worked.

Morales’ job title may not have been entered into the payroll accounting system but the
fact that he was hired by CLC is extremely significant. The entire pastoral staff thought
very highly of Morales. And if he was hired and entered into payroll then he must have
been paid during the nine-month (not several months) period indicated. Liebeler
minimizes this and implies he was not paid.

Morales job title was well known throughout the church – under Layman, he headed up
the International Student Ministry as its overseer. The “April 1988 Family News” was
sent to everyone in the church and everyone read it. And yet, Liebeler didn’t receive it
from the pastors, staff or members; or he didn’t disclose it in this report.

Take note that Morales was terminated on April 1, 1988. Liebeler doesn’t tell us why he
was terminated. That is such a basic question to ask given what Layman has just told
the church in the newsletter.

“Nate Morales is overseeing our International Student Ministry and is doing a

great job!  Starting from scratch this past year Nate is now meeting regularly
with approximately twenty international students.”

Given this outstanding commendation, why was he fired the same month? Liebeler
doesn’t tell us. He should have asked Layman this crucial question, “Why did you
terminate Nate when he was doing such a great job leading the outreach to
international students?”

There is no doubt in my mind Morales was motivated to head up this outreach in order
to strike up homosexual relations with these college students. That was his mode of
operation. As noted by Layman, Morales was “meeting regularly with approximately
twenty international students.” That is a frightening statement.

Morales not only preyed upon boys, he sought out homosexual men. I have no
evidence to prove it, but I’d not be surprised if one or more of these international
students told Layman about Morales’ homosexual proclivities or activities and Layman
fired him as a result. That would have resulted in his termination. We must also bear in
mind that Morales was actively and aggressively molesting numerous boys in the
church while employed by CLC from July 1, 1987 until April 1, 1988. These are the
crimes for which he was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

All of this should have been covered by Liebeler in his investigation. There is no excuse
for not pursuing this line of questioning. Layman terminated Morales. We should be
told why. Something major came up that caused Layman to fire him the same month he
highly commended him. Liebeler doesn’t tell us what it was. Liebeler was retained by
CLC as its lawyer during the investigation. He had an attorney client relationship with
the church. That must be why he doesn’t share any incriminating evidence regarding
Morales’ termination.

So there is no indication of a salary information or payment of any type. As I talked to

people who had some historical knowledge of the accounting records and employment
materials, no one was able to recall whether Mr. Morales ever received any payment
from the church for work performed. One person close to him described him as an
unpaid intern at one point but no one claimed or stated that he had an official position
with the church. 31:46

Liebeler says “there is no indication of a salary information or payment of any type.”

That may be true but Liebeler has already told us the same was true for most of the
people on payroll. Quote: “Now there are many people on this list…and in some of
them it indicates what their salary is.” I have no confidence in Liebeler’s reporting of
this matter. I’d like to see the “historical record of all the persons entered into the
Covenant Life payroll accounting system.”

But here is the point. You don’t put people on payroll unless you plan to pay them!
And you don’t remove them from payroll unless you plan to stop paying them!
Liebeler is going to great lengths to make sure no one thinks Morales was an employee
of Covenant Life Church while he was sexual abusing boys in the church. All the
evidence indicates otherwise. Here are the facts. Morales was a paid employee. He
had a titled. He was hired by Layman. He was sexually abusing boys while an
employee. He was fired by Layman. Liebeler doesn’t tell us why. That is no way to do
an investigation.

Nearly all the people who I interviewed and talked to stated at some point in time in
the mid to late 80’s that Mr. Morales was on the worship team. Now this appears to be
a sort of nontechnical term for a volunteer that might play at least some role in the
worship service. There is no evidence that he led or directed a worship team. He was
musically gifted and he shared that gift by volunteering to be on stage during Sunday
services either singing or sometimes playing an instrument. 32:24

Liebeler plays down or fails to understand the significance of Morales’ role on the
worship team. As SGM people know, you didn’t get onto the worship group unless you
were believed to be above reproach and a sincere worshipper of God. Being a lead
singer on the worship team like Morales was a very public commendation of your
character.

Morales was also Mahaney’s favorite singer and often honored by him for his solo
performances. All of this gave Morales tremendous credibility and influence in the
church. If he were exposed for sex abuse, it would have had a huge impact on the
reputation of the pastors, Covenant Life Church, and Montgomery County Covenant
Academy. It would also have shocked and alarmed parents and youth throughout the
church.

Here is what one qualified source said on SGMSurvivors.

2244
Blues0080 
September 11th, 2014 at 10:01 am

I was at CLC until 1990, and then moved to the Pasadena church for the next 6
years. While at CLC, Nate Morales was a housemate for a few months. Nate
was an incredibly gifted singer who was featured and honored on a regular
basis. CJ regularly talked about how Nate was his favorite singer…. CLC
covered up Nate’s problems to save face and not embarrass CJ because he had
“commended” Nate to us. At this time we were “the best” and could not
tolerate anything that would put CLC in a bad light…. like so many that failed
in CJ’s eyes…it was hoped that Nate would slip into obscurity and it would all
go away….

No. CLC pastors did not approve of molestations, pride was the issue as they
tried to cover up and protect the reputation of the church.

Given his relative youth at the time that he was active as a member in the church, his
lack of connections to anyone with any political influence in the church, his lack of
financial contributions, I find that there is no significant evidence to suggest that there is
a motivation for the church to specifically protect this man by covering up or hiding or
tolerating his molestation of young boys. 32:57

First, we were all “relative youth at the time.” That’s a totally irrelevant point. I am
three years older than Morales.

Second, Liebeler doesn’t understand the situation or else he misrepresents the situation.
Morales was connected to those with “political influence in the church” – the pastors!
He was friends with them and even worked for them. Grant Layman was his boss yet
Liebeler claims he had no connections whatsoever. Oh my, what an egregious error!
Morales was also connected to church officials like Dick Wolohan (comptroller for CLC/
SGM) and regional leaders like Thurlow Switzer.
Third, the evidence about Morales being on payroll and being terminated is “significant
evidence.” He writes it off as insignificant.

Fourth, Nate Morales was one of the best known and well-liked individuals in the entire
church. The pastors had a thousand reasons to protect, cover up, and hide his
molestation of boys and that is exactly what they did. Not once but repeatedly. They
tolerated his sexual abuse for over 20 years. That’s why they never reported him to law
enforcement and never publicly exposed him. They even let him remain a pastor in
another denomination in 2007 when he confessed sex crimes to Layman. Why? They
did not want to be sued!

Fifth, Montgomery County Covenant Academy was a well-known Christian school in

the area that the CLC pastors supported. Exposing Morales would also have done great
harm to the school. Mahaney and Switzer were friends. Switzer was President of the
school. He learned about Morales’ abuse no later than June 1991 during his meeting
with Rachel Bates-Paci, Grant Layman and Chris Glass. Like the CLC pastors, he did
nothing. I’d not be surprised if Switzer asked Mahaney to not report the abuse or
publicly discipline Morales.

Sixth, Liebeler claims he found no significant evidence. Yes, he did! He just explains it
away. On the other hand, there was evidence to be found but he did not go after it. For
example, there is no mention in Liebeler’s report that he ever attempted to interview
Switzer. And of course, he never requested copies of the monthly Family News
published during the years Morales attended CLC.

Seventh, Liebeler never references Layman as a source of information. Layman quit as a

CLC pastor in March 2014. Liebeler reported to CLC in October 2014. One of three
things happened. Liebeler interviewed Layman and Layman lied to him. Liebeler
didn’t interview Layman because his lawyers forbid it. Liebeler interviewed Layman
but held back incriminating evidence in his oral report. In any case, an independent
investigator would explicitly state what he learned from Layman.

There are no documents that I’ve reviewed that indicate that there were any discussion
or consideration of, by the pastors for any favors [or] favoritism in any way toward
Morales or a reason to give him some sort of favored treatment. 33:19

Of course not! The CLC pastors are not going to create documents for posterity that
record conversations about covering up Morales’ crimes. Again, Liebeler misses the
mark. I doubt Morales asked for favors. He didn’t need them. If anything, Morales
knew the pastors would not report him because of reputational harm and financial
harm done to them as a result.

Two Relevant Segments: When Pastors Became Aware & Abuse Did Not Take Place
on Church Property
There are two segments that are relevant. The first one is a time period in or around
1991 and 1992. This is when pastors at Covenant Life first became aware of Nathaniel
Morales’ abuse of children. The evidence presented in the Morales trial in Montgomery
County, in the criminal trial, showed that Morales has abused a number of young boys
who were between the ages of approximately 10-15 years old between the years of
approximately 1983 to about 1990. 34:00

The evidence at the first trial showed the abuse of boys in CLC occurred between 1983
and 1991 when they were 12-17 years of age. Pastors at CLC first became of aware of it
in 1991.

The evidence at the second trial showed the abuse of boys in the New Testament
Church occurred between 1979 and 1981.

The abuse did not take place on church grounds or property. Nor did any abuse occur
at any church organized and sanctioned event such as a picnic or a Care Group meeting.
The abuse took place in private homes of CLC members, typically in the late night, or
early morning hours of a sleep over where several boys would be in attendance. My
investigation indicates that this evidence that was presented at trial is valid. 34:31

The abuse of Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan and Jeremy Cook did not take place on church
grounds or at official church events according to their testimony. The abuse of James
Robert did according to the lawsuit (cf. Complaint 36). We don’t know all the places or
occasions other boys from CLC were abused.

Sam Bates, Gary Ricucci and Grant Layman

There were three victim witnesses who testified at his criminal trial. Two of these
witnesses or their families either directly told pastors at Covenant Life that their boys
had been sexually abused or provided sufficient information that the pastors should
have or did know that there was a reason to believe that some kind of inappropriate
contact or abuse of a sexual nature had occurred. 34:57

The three victims who testified were Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan, and Jeremy Cook. A
fourth victim, Daniel Bates, was set to testify at the criminal trial but became ill and had
to be hospitalized.

Liebeler leaves out a fifth victim, James Roberts. He also told a pastor about his abuse
with others at a youth meeting.

Let me talk about the two families [the Bates and Wolohans] that came forward. Initial
contact with one family [the Bates] was likely made through Pastor Gary Ricucci who
was the family pastor for this family. And the contact occurred in either 1991 or early
1992. I’ve not had access to Mr. Ricucci because he was a named Defendant in the suit
and his legal counsel did not make him available to me. And as you know he is no
longer a pastor in the church. 35:32

The initial contact was with Grant Layman, not Gary Ricucci, according to the sworn
testimony of Charrie Bates (mother) and Sam Bates. Scott Bates, the father, did not
testify at the trial. Ricucci is C.J. Mahaney’s brother in law. Liebeler makes repeated
mistakes when it comes to the reporting of factual details regarding dates, ages, etc.

Like Mahaney and Loftness, Ricucci has steadfastly refused to openly answer questions.
Access to these men has always been blocked by their lawyers. Innocent men don’t act
that way. They welcome the light because they aren’t hiding anything in the dark.
Sovereign Grace Churches, Inc. continue to refuse a real, not rigged, independent
investigation. Read A Fourth Sovereign Grace Church Reproves Leadership Team for
Refusing Independent Investigation. Denhollander Responds. I Put Focus Back on SGC
Leader John Loftness for Alleged Sexual Sadism of Children (June 19, 2019).

Dick Wolohan told Robin Boisvert not to report in 1992. Apparently, Scott Bates told
Gary Ricucci not to report in 1993. Mr. Bates regrets his decision. In 2007, however,
Bates contacted Layman in order to have him contact Morales to make sure he was not
sexually abusing children as a pastor in Nevada. There was no request not to report.
His intention was to investigate and stop Morales. Scott Bates was not “seeking
spiritual advice or consolation.”

Sometime shortly thereafter, the victim [Sam Bates] who had been molested by Morales
when he was a minor was referred to Pastor Grant Layman for pastoral care. And at
this point in time, the victim had reached the age of majority. So, he had been
victimized for a significant period of time but he didn’t tell anyone. He finally told
someone [Jeremy Cook] when he was approximately 20 or 21 years old and that is when
the information came to the church. 36:03

Sam Bates was victimized from 1983-1991. He and Jeremy Cook talked to each other
about their abuse in 1993. Bates talked to Layman in 1993 or 1994. He was 22 or 23
years old according to his sworn testimony. Jeremy Cook testified that it occurred in
1993.

One assumes, Ricucci referred Layman to Bates but Liebeler does not explicitly tell CLC.
It could also have been Mahaney. Liebeler must have asked Layman who directed him
to meet with Bates. This should have been made clear in his report. It is possible
Layman refused to tell Liebeler which pastor referred Bates to him. This much is clear
to me, Ricucci and Layman would never be dealing with the sexual abuse of Sam Bates
without Mahaney’s knowledge and involvement.

Liebeler is mistaken when he says “the information came to the church” via Sam Bates.
No, it first came to Grant Layman and Chris Glass via Rachel Bates-Paci in 1991. Her
brother Sam and two other boys confided in her that they had been abused by Morales.
That was the reason for her meeting with Layman, Glass and Switzer. She wanted
Morales reported and stopped.

The indications are that he was referred for pastoral care to Grant Layman because
Pastor Layman was the singles’ pastor at that point in time. Pastor Layman did provide
pastoral care to this victim. Any and all communications between the victim, his
parents and Pastors Ricucci or Layman were protected by the Clergy Privilege. Because
this family and victim came to the church and to the pastors for the purpose of spiritual
advice or consolation. 36:40

The chain of command was being followed. Job descriptions were being executed. This
was official church business. I have no doubt, it was reported up to Mahaney and down
to Layman by Ricucci.

Because the information that was provided to the pastors was protected by the Clergy
Privilege it was therefore exempt from disclosure under the Maryland Child Abuse and
Neglect Law. I also note that the parents and the victim at that time specifically stated
that they did not want to report the abuse to the police because a public prosecution,
would have in their judgment, caused additional emotional stress and trauma to the
victim. 37:08

The Clergy Privilege may have applied to Ricucci’s and Layman’s meetings in 1993
though I am not certain all the criteria were met. Furthermore, Rachael Bates-Paci told
me her mother, Charrie Bates, wanted the abuse reported to police in 1993. Her desire
was likely interfered with by Ricucci and Layman given their policy of not reporting to
police but instead handling things internally. The Bates now regret not reporting in
1993.

In 1993, neither Ricucci nor Layman were familiar with the Clergy Privilege. Layman
repeatedly stated on the stand that he had a legal responsibility to report and purposely
chose not to do so. Liebeler should have made this clear.

Special care is exercised by the court, prosecutors, Child Protective Services and law
enforcement when working with children and juveniles who are victims in order to
minimize their “stress and trauma.”

I have now interacted with and counseled many victims over the past seven years.
They wish they had reported and not waited. They suffered tremendous “stress and
trauma” during their years of silence. Confronting their abuser brought tremendous
relief. That was clear in the case of Sam Bates, Brian Wolohan, and Jeremy Cook.

Samuel Bates
Direct Examination by State
Monday, May 12, 2014
 Michalski: Okay. And did there come a time when you did actually go and
make a report to the police department about the sexual abuse.

S. Bates: It was about four years ago.

Michalski: And do you recall the circumstances that led to the decision to do
that?

S. Bates: Speaking with some of my friends and my wife, it kept coming up

every so often.

Michalski: What kept coming up?

S. Bates: I’m sorry. The abuse from Mr. Morales. His name would come up or
someone would talk about him and it would kind of just come back into my
mind and it was tough to hear that – what was going on with Nate, whether it
be at a church or somewhere else. I just always kind of felt like I need to deal
with this. So finally, I was, a buddy of mine [Jason Huff] works for the FBI, he
had spurred me on to really pursue it. He gave me a name in Rockville for
Sally Magee [the detective]. And from there we just went after it. Whether it be
going after Nate himself or contacts of Nate. And it took really about two, two
and half years, for them to actually find him and here we are.

I think more stress and trauma is experienced when victims, or their parents in the case
of children, fail to report. Just one example. The guilt of not reporting often takes a
psychological toll upon the victim and family knowing the abuser is likely abusing
others when he could have been stopped. That one thought deeply affected Rachel
Bates-Paci for nearly 20 years. That’s why she continually tried to persuade others to
take action.

I specifically find that no pastor from the church attempted to discourage the victim
[Sam Bates] or his family from reporting the abuse to the police. With respect to this
victim, I find that no pastor encouraged the victim or his family to report the abuse to
the police. 37:35

That may or may not be true. For example, Rachel Bates-Paci testified that people
discouraged her from reporting or trying to get others to report. Here’s what
important. The pastors should have helped and encouraged the Bates to follow the law
and report for their own good and the good of others.

Furthermore, Boisvert and Layman had already confronted Morales in the spring of
1992 for the abuse of Brian Wolohan. Layman knew Morales was a serial predator
when he met with Sam Bates in 1993. And remember, Rachel Bates-Paci told Layman
(and Glass) about the abuse of her brother and other boys in 1991. If Layman knew,
which he did, so did others and they did not encourage reporting or report themselves.
Lastly, I don’t trust Liebeler’s account that Sam Bates didn’t want his abuse reported to
law enforcement. Liebeler’s version is contradicted by Assistant State’s Attorney Jessica
Hall.

Jessica Hall
Assistant State’s Attorney
Opening Statement
Monday, May 12, 2014

And Sam ultimately did not keep quiet. He did unfortunately wait until he was
an adult and when he told people about the abuse as an adult he went to the
church [in 1993] and he brought the abuse forward to the church and laid it on
the doorstep and asked them to do something about it. He assumed the church
would do the right thing. That they would report the abuse to the authorities.
That they would go to the police so that Mr. Morales would be held accountable
for his actions. But the church did not. You will hear from witnesses in the
church and from Mr. Bates himself that the church covered it up. The church
protected Mr. Morales.

Brian Wolohan, Robin Boisvert & Grant Layman

Victim number two [Brian Wolohan]. At or about the same time frame, another family
[Dick Wolohan] contacted their pastor, Robin Boisvert, regarding Mr. Morales’ contact
with one of their sons [Brian Wolohan]. This contact is independent of the contact that
came through to Pastor Ricucci. 37:59

Liebeler is confused about the timeline. It wasn’t “at or about the same time frame.” It
was a year earlier.

The father of this family requested that Pastor Boisvert accompany the father to a
meeting with Mr. Morales to discuss inappropriate contact reported by the man’s son.
Pastor Boisvert met with the father and Mr. Morales at a park in early 1992 to discuss
the contact. 38:35

Bob Rosencrantz told Dick Wolohan his son Brian had been sexually abused by Morales.
Boisvert told detectives Layman was also part of the meeting. This was recorded in
official police offense reports. Liebeler leaves it out. They didn’t “discuss inappropriate
contact. They confronted Morales on sexual abuse.

The participants’ recall of the exact nature of what was said at the meeting is unclear.
My assessment is that the meeting was somewhat inconclusive. After the meeting,
Pastor Boisvert specifically asked the father of the victim if there was anything more
that he wanted to do with respect to Morales and the father said no. He specifically
said he did not want to go to the police. His son, at that point in time, was just
straddling the age of majority. It is very difficult to pinpoint the exact time when this
occurred, but he was either 17 or 18 years old in my judgment at the time this occurred.
39:07

It is very easy to pinpoint the exact time if you listen to the testimony of Dick Wolohan.
He was explicit. It was the spring of 1992. Brian was 17.

If Boisvert or Layman had helped Brian, he would have reported. The pastors
abandoned him after 1993. Dick Wolohan told me at the Morales trial in May 2014, that
NO ONE ever followed up with Bryan or himself after 1993. Liebeler leaves out this
part of Bryan’s testimony.
 Brian Wolohan
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2013

Michalski: Other than 2010 did you ever report this matter to the police?

B. Wolohan: No.

Michalski: And why didn’t you report it to the police?

B. Wolohan: Um. I mean I thought about it a couple of times, but it is obviously

a big thing to do and something that was very uncomfortable to think about.
Even though I was only a child it is a very embarrassing situation and I kept
kind of putting off doing it.

Brian Wolohan
ReCross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Drew: One of the things you just mentioned in your response to Ms. Michalski
is that, in the questions to you, is that in 2010 you decided that you wanted to
come forward because you wanted to protect children. Correct? From similar
harm?

B. Wolohan: Uh huh.

Drew: So between 89 and 2010 you didn’t have that degree of concern for
children then?

B. Wolohan: Look, I said I procrastinated. I continued to think about whether I

should do it [or] whether I shouldn’t and when I was invited to participate in
the case I decided that that was the right path. It forced my hand. I had been
procrastinating and weighing it. And like I said, I kind of, you know as a
Christian, you wrestle to what extent you leave things in the hand of a
sovereign God and to what extent you use the judicial system. And I kind of
leaned towards the former throughout those years. And I didn’t know for sure
whether future abuses were occurring or not. He was out of my life. I didn’t
have information as to whether he was continuing this activity. Then, you
know when it came up, it struck me as somebody had made a decision and I
was going to go along with it.

Pastor Boisvert did provide pastoral care for the father. As I said the family expressly
stated they did not want to report the matter to the police for the same reasons that the
first family did. They felt that it was going be an event that would cause more trauma
to their child. They had already gone through enough. 39:26
Boisvert should have instructed Dick Wolohan in the law regarding reporting and then
helped him to follow it. Not reporting causes more trauma than reporting from all I
have observed in working with victims of abuse.

Liebeler is dead wrong about Boisvert. He did not provide “pastoral care for the
father.” After the meeting in the park, he never talked to Dick about it again.

At some point thereafter, this victim was also referred to Pastor Layman for pastoral
care given that he was near the age of majority and Pastor Layman again, at that time,
was the singles’ pastor. 39:40

Layman worked for and reported directly to senior pastor C.J. Mahaney as the singles
pastor. Layman was also Mahaney’s brother-in-law. Brian would never have been
“referred to Pastor Layman” without Mahaney’s knowledge. In fact, Mahaney
probably ask Layman to meet with him. Liebeler withholds all this information.

Any and all communications between the victim, his parents, and Pastors Boisvert and/
or Layman in this instance were also protected by the Clergy Privilege because this
family and the victim came to them principally for the purposes of spiritual advice and
consolation. 39:59

Remember, according to Liebeler’s faulty understanding of the law, “protected by the

Clergy Privilege” means it was illegal for the pastors to report the crimes to law
enforcement. That was totally not the case! Furthermore, not every “communication”
occurred in the context of seeking “spiritual advice and consolation.” For instance, with
Rachael Bates-Paci in 1991, John Roberts between 1990-1994, Scott Bates in 2007, etc.
Those communications indicated they wanted Morales stopped!

Although it is not entirely clear from a legal perspective whether the actual meeting in
the park amongst Pastor Boisvert, [Pastor Layman], the father, and Mr. Morales was for
the purpose of spiritual advice or consolation, there is as you know biblical precedent
for such a meeting and it was preceded and followed by meetings seeking spiritual
advice or consolation. Therefore, I conclude that the Clergy Privilege does apply to all
the communications that are associated with this victim at this time. 40:32

This is ridiculous! The meeting in the park was to confront Morales on the report that
he had molested Brian. Again, the pastors didn’t even know about “the Clergy
Privilege.” As Layman clearly testified in the Morales trial, he knew was obligated by
law to report Morales. So did Boisvert and Ricucci. All these men were knowingly
breaking the law and they were not instructing anyone to follow the mandatory
reporting law.

Because the information was protected by the Clergy Privilege, it was therefore exempt
from disclosure under the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect Act. Consequently in the
1991, 1992 time period, I do find that the pastors complied with their legal obligations
under Maryland law. 40:53

In June 1991, Rachael Bates-Paci asked three pastors - Chris Glass, Grant Layman and
Thurlow Switzer - to stop the sexual abuse of Nate Morales. They scandalously
violated “their legal obligations.” I cover all of this in detail in C.J. Mahaney, Covenant
Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children (Feb 13, 2018).

Nathaniel Morales, Dick Wolohan & Teen Challenge

Now almost immediately after the meeting in the park between Mr. Morales, Pastor
Boisvert, and the father of the victim; Mr. Morales left the Maryland area. He traveled
to Michigan and voluntarily checked himself into a program called Teen Challenge.
Teen Challenge was set up to address issues of alcohol abuse and homosexual
attraction. That is why he checked himself in. 41:25

He may have been forced to enter the program by the CLC pastors under the threat of
being reported to law enforcement. See the article just referenced.

The father of the second victim traveled to Michigan later in the summer of 1992 to
personally visit Mr. Morales at Teen Challenge. The purpose of the visit was for the
father, was concerned about his progress and wanted to check on him. During their
conversations the father told Mr. Morales that he forgives him for what he had done.
41:52

Dick Wolohan was seeking to be gracious but he was really being taken advantage of by
Morales and some bad theology. Morales needed to be held to account in a court of law.
Wolohan later found out Morales had abused another family member. Morales never
told him.

Morales Never Reported in 1990’s Due to an Unfortunate Combination of Events

From a point no later than approximately the early spring of 1992 then, Mr. Morales had
no further connection with Covenant Life Church. To summarize this time period then,
there were a number of opportunities for Mr. Morales to have been stopped right then
in 1992 but it didn’t happen. The reason that he was not brought to justice at that time,
however, was not because of a conspiracy designed to protect him, instead it was an
unfortunate combination of events. 42:37

Nonsense. Yes, there was a conspiracy to protect him. All the pastors believed that had
an obligation to report under the law but none of the did never did. The CLC pastors
learned of abuse by Morales on numerous occasions concerning multiple individuals in
from 1991-1994. They never instructed the parents to report and they never reported
themselves though mandated by law as stated by Grant Layman.
First, as you might imagine, the victims themselves were adolescent boys were terribly
ashamed and embarrassed of what had happened to them. And Mr. Morales was an
extraordinarily manipulative person and they were fearful of the consequences of
reporting his conduct. Even when they reached the age of majority, the prospect of
reporting his conduct to the police and potentially undergoing a public trial was a
severe deterrent to them reporting. 43:08

Per their testimony in court, the boys were also fearful of the consequences meted out
by the CLC pastors and Thurlow Switzer at the Montgomery County Covenant
Academy if they came forth and made accusations against the popular and high-
standing Morales.

Second, the parents of the victims had a duty under Maryland law to report what had
happened to their children but they did not. But the reason why they did not was their
own desire to protect the children that they love. They wanted to protect them from
further embarrassment and from further mental anguish. The incidences of public
outcry, excuse me of abuse clouded their judgment and I believe in retrospect the
parents realize that they should have reported this information. 43:33

The parents did not report because the pastors did not help them to report and did not
want them to report. Furthermore, if the parents “should have reported this
information,” how much more the pastors should have reported.

Third, one victim [Sam Bates] was referred to a family friend [Chip Grange] to discuss
the subject of this abuse, this person was a lawyer, who knew or should have known of
the obligations to report suspected child abuse to the authorities. He did not report the
abuse, or advise the victim to report the abuse, but his advice to the victim was
essentially to forgive and to forget. I believe the lawyer should have reported the abuse
himself or counseled the victim and his family to report the abuse themselves. 44:18

In my opinion, Chip Grange is guilty of covering up the sexual abuse of children in

Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries contrary to the law.

Fourth, the pastors were not under any legal duty to report Morales to the police. And
to the contrary, their legal duty was to maintain the confidentiality of what they had
been told for spiritual comfort and healing purposes. And as I stated before the parents
had stated they did not want to go to the police. There is a certain risk to a pastor that
he may be subjected to legal liability for revealing confidential information entrusted to
him by a congregant. 44:50

Liebeler is wrong on all counts! First, the pastors were under legal duty to report when
approached to stop him. Second, there is no legal duty to maintain confidentiality.
None. Third, you are immune to “legal liability” for reporting suspected or known sex
abuse that comes to your attention as a pastor even if the person asks you to keep that
information confidential. On this latter point, Liebeler contradicts himself. Liebeler is
misleading all of Covenant Life Church in the most egregious manner!

Should Pastors Insist on Reporting by Victims or Parents or Report Themselves?

I am going to ask the question that many of you may have on your minds now, but I
don’t think I can answer it. Should the pastors have forcefully insisted that the victims
of the Mr. Morales abuse go to the police themselves? Should the pastors have
disregarded their confidentiality obligations to those whom they were ministering and
gone to the police themselves over the objection of the families? I don’t know the
answers to these questions. And I think that anyone who tells you that these are easy
questions is badly mistaken. These are very difficult questions. 45:28

This is shocking! The State of Maryland provided clear cut answers to these questions
in 1987. Yes, the CLC pastors should have helped and directed (not “forcefully
insisted”) the victims and their parents to report in keeping with the law. I am not
suggesting this is an easy thing to do, but it is a good and necessary thing to do. And
yes, the CLC pastors should have reported the crimes if they were unable to persuade
the families to do so. Nothing prevented them. Reporting is not a matter of
disregarding their confidentiality obligations. They have no such obligations under the
law and they are commanded in Scripture to report such crimes. I am confident the
families in question back in 1993 (i.e. the Bates’ and Wolohan’s) would have returned to
thank them later. Instead the victims lived in unresolved misery and Morales went on
to abuse large numbers of children including two stepsons.

I love the testimony of Jeremy Cook – one of Morales’ victims. This was posted on
SGMSurvivors.

Another SGM Survivor 

May 14th, 2014 at 9:59 pm

Now that the trial is in the hands of the jury, I have decided to break my silence.
That’s why I gave the interview today to the local news that I linked earlier.
Yes, I am Jeremy Cook, one of Nate Morales’ victims, and one of the key
witnesses in the case against him. I posted a few times a year or so ago but had
to remain silent in order to not jeopardize the trial.

Brent and others have certainly captured many of the important parts of my
testimony, so I don’t need to re-hash that here, but I wanted to say to everyone
here that I am grateful for the support and for this community. I have been a
regular reader here for quite some time, and reading the stories, comments and
conversations here have given me encouragement through this process.

Ultimately, my purpose in pursing this trial was first and foremost about
preventing a known predator from continuing to victimize others, and to
hopefully encourage others to come forward with their own stories of abuse,
and pursue their own justice, and to get these predators off the streets. I have
been blessed the past few days to meet some of the regulars here on this board,
and I want to say thank you to each of you.

I think the biggest surprise to me through this entire process was how amazing
I felt after I testified. I was incredibly nervous in getting ready, and the walk
through that courtroom up to the witness stand seemed like the longest walk of
my life. But after I sat down, and stared down my abuser, and got over the
initial rage at seeing him, I began to have a new perspective. Suddenly, I
realized that he had no power over me anymore. I was in the position of power,
not him… and then I began to speak. Difficult at first, but then the words and
the story started flowing. And let me tell you all, it was liberating! Suddenly, I
didn’t want to stop talking, I just wanted to share everything I could. And
when it was done, I felt amazing. It felt like a giant weight had been removed
from my shoulders, one that I didn’t even realize was there. The walk back
from the witness stand and out of the courtroom felt like a walk of pride and a
walk of strength. Once I left the courtroom, I wanted to jump for joy!

I now feel relieved, freed, unburdened, and like I can face the world fresh. I
had no idea how much this had all weighed on me for so many years. The
shame is nearly gone. The fear is certainly gone. No matter the verdict, I am
free, for I told the truth. I told my story. No longer am I hiding in the shadows,
but I am free!

So all of my rambling aside. If nothing else can come of this, if just one other
victim can hear my experience, and have the courage to come forward from my
experience, then all the hard work to bring this to trial was worth it.
The 2007 Governing Board & Nathaniel Morales

Jumping ahead from this timeframe approximately 15 years to 2007. No action was
taken by the church or any pastors with respect to Mr. Morales in the 15-year period
from 1992 to 2007. During that time, none of the Covenant Life victims themselves or
their families had any contact with Mr. Morales or reported his prior activities to the
police. He moved far away, and he was not in this area. 46:07

After 15 years, God moved in his providence to expose the CLC pastors and help the
CLC victims.

In the spring of 2007, the father [Scott Bates] of the victim [Sam Bates] who had initially
come to the church through the family pastor, Gary Ricucci, in 1991, contacted pastors
on the Board to report that one of his family members [Rachael Bates-Paci] had recently
searched the internet and had learned that Nathaniel Morales was a pastor in a church
in Las Vegas, Nevada. 46:33

The pastors on the Board were Joshua Harris, Kenneth Maresco, Grant Layman, Robin
Boisvert, and Corby Megorden. Harris is apostate, Maresco left CLC, Layman and
Megorden resigned from ministry, only Boisvert remains and should be removed.

It is not entirely clear what the father’s objective was in bringing this information to the
attention of the pastors. But the communication does not appear to have been for the
purpose of obtaining spiritual guidance or comfort and therefore would not have fallen
under any exception to the mandatory reporting requirements of the Maryland Child
Abuse and Neglect Statute. 46:58

This is a huge admission by Liebeler! Scott Bates did not contact the pastors for
“spiritual guidance or comfort.” That is true. There was no “exception” not to report.

It appears as though the motivating force for the communication from this family was
that another family member, a sibling of the victim, had held an offense for what
Morales had done years ago. The pastors knew this and they were informed that this
was the motivation and that is the reason they were contacted. The father told them
this information. 47:21

I hate this wretched propaganda by Liebeler contrary to all the facts. This is purposeful
misinformation intended to discredit a key witness – the heroine in the whole story –
Rachael Paci-Bates. She was the one who went to Glass, Layman and Switzer as a 17-
year old and reported the horrible abuses being committed against boys by Morales.
She also testified to all of it under oath at the 2014 Morales trial. Unlike Liebeler and the
pastors, she is trustworthy and commendable.

Rachael was NOT carrying a sinful “offense” though she had reason to be righteously
angry at Morales for abusing two of her brothers and several of her friends. In fact, she
was carrying an extraordinary burden that Morales was stilling abusing boys but now
as a false shepherd. She told me so in a two-hour interview. And she was right! What
does Liebeler know? Nothing. He never attempted to talk with her. It is a lie that her
father, Scott told the pastors he contacted them because his daughter was “offended.”
He contacted them because she discovered Morales was a pastor and wanted to make
sure the CLC pastors looked into the matter.

The Board of Governing pastors discussed the issue at a Board Meeting on March 7,
2007. There were five pastors in attendance. The pastors discussed the question of
what obligation the church had with respect to this matter. The Board decided it would
obtain guidance from legal counsel. Legal counsel was consulted in July regarding a
proper course of action. 47:48

They were contacted by Bates in March. They sat on it. They contacted “legal
counsel” (likely Chip Grange) in July. Robin Boisvert was not in attendance according
to Mark Mitchell. John Loftness must have been the fifth pastor in attendance. Once
again, Liebeler is not forthcoming with information. He is protecting his clients. These
men had no interest in “a proper course of action.” They are about to break the law
again!

Records indicate that there were two separate telephone calls involving two pastors and
one legal counsel. The total time of the consultation on this issue was approximately 45
minutes between the two calls. 48:03

He provides no names because he wants no accountability for the “two pastors and one
legal counsel.” Nor does he want this information used in a civil or criminal case. Once
again, he is protecting his clients. I worked with Chip Grange as the “one legal
counsel” from 1982-2007 while on the SGM Board of Directors. I never talked to, or
communicated with, anyone else. Thank God, I never asked for his counsel on the
reporting of sexual abuse.

Legal counsel advised the pastors that there was a possibility of liability for defamation
if colleagues or superiors of Mr. Morales in Las Vegas were contacted and alerted to
Morales’ prior conduct. Two pastors reported this information back to the Board in
August of 2007 at the Board Meeting. 48:28

The Covenant Life pastors and their legal counsel have always been preoccupied with
potential lawsuits against them; not doing what is right even when you are dealing with
a sexual predator like Morales or Charles Schmitt.

The Board Meeting minutes state, quote “That Grant suggested that he call Nate
directly and ask if he, Nate, has made those sins known to those whom he is
accountable?” The elders agreed that Grant would call or email him and pursue this
avenue. After that Board Meeting, Grant Layman contacted Mr. Morales by email and
by phone and made this inquiry. 49:02
Grant Layman is the point man. Mahaney’s brother in law. Mahaney is still training
Joshua Harris as sr. pastor and is the apostle over CLC at this time.

Mr. Morales stated to Pastor Layman that he was suffering from memory loss and that
he had no clear recollections from the time of being in Gaithersburg during the period
of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. 49:16

This is all a lie by Morales. He did not suffer from memory loss. He tried to use this
ploy leading up to his trial but was tested by court appointed doctors and they
discovered no such condition. This is one reason why pastors like Layman should
never investigate perverts. Leave it to the professionals.

Pastor Layman reported this information back to the family and no party took any
further action at that point. 49:25

Layman also reported back to the Harris, Maresco, Boisvert, and Megorden that
Morales confessed to him on the phone that he sexually abused Sam Bates and Brian
Wolohan. “No party took any further action.” That’s right. Layman and the rest of the
governing board of pastors had an admission of crimes and they did nothing! This was
also conveyed to Scott Bates by Layman in an August 31, 2007 email.

I find that because the purpose of the contact with the church from this family was no
longer principally related to spiritual advice or consolation that the information was no
longer communication that was protected by the Clergy Privilege. 49:45

No kidding!

Although there was no new information with respect to whether or not Mr. Morales
was engaged in any child abuse, the context of the contact from the family, and their
renewal of the previous assertions that Morales had previously engaged in the child
abuse of their son, acted to remove the protection of the privilege. 50:07

This is a damnable lie by Liebeler. He should have been confronted in public by Joshua
Harris or Grant Layman for his extraordinary deceit. The testimony below from
Layman comes from a transcript of Morales’ first trial. “Michalski” is the Assistant
State’s Attorney and lead prosecutor.
 Grant Layman
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Michalski: And did you ask him [Morales] another question, a specific question
about whether or not he’d ever followed up with the Bates or Wolohan family
to ask for their forgiveness and seek reconciliation? [for the sexual abuse]

Layman: I did.

Michalski: And what did he say in response, in regards to any [sexual] abuses
that had been committed?

Layman: He acknowledged abuse but could not remember any details.

Michalski: And what did you do after you spoke with the Defendant [Morales]
in regards to that email if anything?

Layman: I reported back to the pastoral team about the conversation and I sent
that email to Scott Bates.

Michalski: And at that point in time when you received those statements from
the Defendant, did you report it to the police at that time?

Layman: No.

Michalski: Okay. And to your knowledge did anybody on your pastoral team
or anybody in the congregation report the matter to the police?

Layman: Not to my knowledge.

This testimony by Layman occurred on May 14, 2014. Liebeler gave his oral report on
October 12, 2014. He knew all about Layman’s testimony that Morales had confessed to
crimes and that no one on the pastoral team reported those crimes to law enforcement.

Morales’ confession of sexual abuse to Layman was “new information.” This is a

blatant lie by Liebeler. He is putting forth a fake narrative and knowingly withholding
incriminating evidence. This deception tells you everything you need to know about
his investigation. He is protecting his clients like a defense attorney without ethics.

The context of the communication indicates that the family was requesting that the
pastors actively do something in relationship to Morales or a third party, his superiors.
The purpose of the communication was not principally to facilitate spiritual advice or
consolation. 50:27

It had nothing to do with spiritual advice or consolation.

I do think the pastors made a correct decision to consult legal counsel regarding their
obligations. In reconstructing those communications with counsel [Chip Grange], I
don’t find that there is any indication that legal counsel advised the church to report
Morales to the police or raise this issue for discussion during the consultation to
determine if there was an obligation at that point in time to report him even though it
had been 15 years since he had been in this area and he was out of state. 15:01

Liebeler is protecting his clients once again. He claims the pastors asked about “their
obligations” to report but never got answers from their “legal counsel.” Therefore,
Liebeler puts all the blame on the law firm of Gammon and Grange, P.C. (he obviously
does not like the lawyering of Chip Grange) because they never advised the pastors to
report Morales or to even discuss the matter. That exonerates the feeble-minded pastors
who didn’t know better. Ha! Anyway, Liebeler adds, it was 15 years ago and Morales
lives out of state. Why report? This is so insipid and insidious. All the pastors knew
they were required to report Morales in 2007 especially after he confessed to crimes.
Layman knew it in the early 1990’s and he was a very young pastor. He said so under
oath at the Morales’ trial.

Grant Layman
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Drew: So you knew about Sam Bates and allegations of being sexually abused.
Correct?

Layman: Yes.

Drew: And you knew about Brian Wolohan being sexual abused. Correct?

Layman: I knew there was abuse. I didn’t know details.

Drew: And you had no duty as a pastor, or one of the pastors at that church, to
report that to the police department? Is that what you are telling me?

Layman: I am telling you that there were plenty of people involved and I had
no. [Drew interrupts]

Drew: I am asking about you! I am asking about you!

Layman: Right. I did not.

Drew: Did you have a responsibility as a pastor, when you become aware of
sexual child abuse, did you have a responsibility to report that to the police
department? That is a yes or no!
 Layman: I believe so.

Drew: And you didn’t do it.

Layman: No sir.

Liebeler is cunning. He leaves this admission by Layman out of his reporting.

As a technical matter, the Board failed to comply with the mandatory reporting
obligations because there are no time limits set forth in the statute at all. It is silent on
that issue. So, technically they failed to comply with the statute. 51:18

The last sentence should anger everyone reading this account. Joshua Harris, Grant
Layman, Kenneth Maresco, Robin Boisvert, and Corby Megorden knew Nathaniel
Morales was a serial sexual predator going back to 1979. In 2007, he confesses to
Layman that he abused Sam Bates and Brian Wolohan. Liebeler retorts, “So, technically
they failed to comply with the statue.” That is why sexual abusers prosper and victims
pile up.

Whether the Board’s reliance on its legal counsel was reasonable or not is difficult to
determine. By 2007, all the pastors had a great deal more familiarity with their
obligations to report suspected child abuse. The law firm had briefed them on a
periodic basis on those obligations and there had been instances before where there
were abuse situations that the church had reported to Child Protective Services. So the
pastors knew about the obligation and had complied with that obligation in other
unrelated matters. 52:00

There are NO instances of the Covenant Life pastors ever reporting the sexual of
children to law enforcement. That is why they have never cited a single example. There
have been occasions when they reported the physical abuse of children. There are also
occasions when they did not report physical abuse of children. The same is true for the
battering of women. Liebeler is being crafty when he uses the phrase “abuse
situations.” It only includes physical abuse.

The complicating factors in this analysis include the lengthy duration of the time since
the last suspected event of child abuse and the fact that Morales was in a distant
location. 52:16

Liebeler is making excuses. Time made no difference. All the victims had vivid
recollections. I heard their testimonies in court. And Grant Layman could easily have
flown to Nevada to talk with Morales or his denominational leaders. Distance was not
a factor either but here is what I find most entertaining. Liebeler’s firm was in
Washington D.C. The two Morales’ trials were held in Rockville, MD. That is 25 miles
away. During these trials, Liebeler only showed up for one day. I guess they were too
far away!
I do find that the concern regarding defamation was not warranted. As I noted earlier,
the Maryland Child Abuse Law contains a very specific provision that anyone who
makes a report of suspected child abuse to Maryland authorities shall be immune from
a prosecution in a civil or criminal action. Had the church reported Morales to the
authorities it could not have been sued by Morales or by any other person for making
this report. 52:47

That is so clear under the law and so easy to find in the law. What is wrong with Chip
Grange?

Maryland Code
Article - Family Law
§5–708.  
h t t p : / / m g a l e g . m a r y l a n d . g o v / w e b m g a / f r m S t a t u t e s Te x t . a s p x ?
article=gfl&section=5-708&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

Any person who makes or participates in making a report of abuse or neglect

under § 5–704, § 5–705, or § 5–705.1 of this subtitle or a report of substantial risk
of sexual abuse under § 5–704.1 of this subtitle or participates in an
investigation or a resulting judicial proceeding shall have the immunity
described under § 5–620 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article from
civil liability or criminal penalty.

Though he is correct, Liebeler contradicts himself when he says, “Had the church
reported Morales to the authorities it could not have been sued by Morales or by any
other person for making this report.” Previously he said, “There is a certain risk to a
pastor that he may be subjected to legal liability for revealing confidential information
entrusted to him by a congregant.” Reporting “confidential information” (i.e., crimes)
to law enforcement posed no legal liability given the statute above.

I do conclude that the decision of the Board to authorize Grant Layman to make direct
contact with Mr. Nate Morales in 2007 to inquire whether he had made his sins known
to others who he reported to was unwise. I do not find that the Board had any intent to
warn or tip off Morales in any way but the unintended consequence of contacting him
about past sins could have done just that. 53:20

Morales’ “past sins” were also heinous crimes and they were continuing. Liebeler
should have made this crystal clear. Layman and the rest of the Board (Harris, Boisvert,
Maresco & Megorden) didn’t involve the police. They took matters into their own
hands. Layman is authorized to make direct contact with Morales to see if he told
denominational leaders about his “sins.” Of course, that is precisely the way sexual
abuse was handled in CLC. Let the pastors handled it without notifying law
enforcement. Liebeler calls this “unwise.” It was also illegal. They are content to
coverup Morales’ crimes.
Sexual predators are always sociopathic liars. You never trust anything they tell you.
Interestingly, Liebeler doesn’t tell us how Morales answered their question. That is, did
he tell his superiors about his history of sex crimes. Once again, Liebeler is withholding
information.

Two years later in 2009, an adult who was victimized by Morales during his time at
Covenant Life did make contact with the police and this report eventually led to the
arrest of Mr. Morales in Nevada, his return to Maryland and his eventual conviction on
charges of sex abuse. 53:39

The “adult who was victimized” was Sam Bates - the son of Scott Bates and brother of
Rachael Paci-Bates. Liebeler refuses to say he was sexually abused. Pathetic! The CLC
pastors did nothing to stop Morales. Therefore, Sam finally resolved to report him on
Oct 20, 2009. After a three-year investigation, Morales was arrested on Oct 15, 2012 in a
Wal Mart parking lot. From 2007 to 2012, he continued to sexually abuse boys because
the CLC pastors conspired to cover up his crimes which C.J. Mahaney first learned
about in 1991.

A very brief conclusion. There is no question that Nathaniel Morales was and is a very
deceptive and immoral man. People in this church were not the only people who were
deceived by him. He deceived people both before and afterwards. 54:01

This is a critical admission by Liebeler. He knows Morales was “a very deceptive and
immoral man” before coming to CLC (1982) and after leaving CLC (1991). He doesn’t
explain himself, however. Once again, he refuses to call Morales a sex abuser – instead
he calls him immoral. This is after Morales was in already in prison serving a 40-year
sentence. Liebeler knows Harris, Layman, Boisvert, Maresco, and Megorden knew
Morales was a serial predator in 2007, but of course, he makes no mention of it in his
report.

One other note, I do believe based on what I’ve said here that you’ll note that some of
the press coverage with respect to the trial has been a little bit incomplete and
inaccurate. And particularly the questioning of Grant Layman at the criminal trial. No
one raised the issue of whether there was confidentiality associated with his initial
understanding of these reports. And so the only thing I would say in addition to my
report findings is, is that the overall, the press doesn’t know really as much, and they
have made some inaccurate statements about that. 54:44

This is a bunch of malarkey intended to besmirch the States Attorney’s Office in

Montgomery County, MD and also the excellent press coverage by Eric Tucker of the
Associated Press. There was nothing “incomplete and inaccurate” about his reporting
and that of others.

And Liebeler complains about “the questioning of Grant Layman” but that questioning
was done by Alan Drew, Morales lawyer! Drew didn’t raise “the issue of whether there
was confidentially” because there was no legally binding confidentially. Liebeler has
made up a law that does not exist.

Liebeler also falsely contends “the press…have made some inaccurate statements”
about pastoral confidentiality. Of course, he doesn’t cite any examples. Why? Because
they don’t exist.

I do conclude in that 1991 and 1992 there were no laws were broken with respect to the
reporting requirements. I do believe that in 2007, there were some errors in judgment
that were made by the pastors and by legal counsel. I do not know whether they arise
to the level of violating the law or not. But as I have described to you, I do believe that
there were errors in judgment made. I know the pastors are going to want to address
that. 55:11

Reporting laws were clearly broken in 1991 when Rachael Paci-Bates met with Chris
Glass (her senior high youth pastor at CLC), Grant Layman (the overall youth/singles
pastor at CLC) and Thurlow Switzer (her school principal where Morales worked) and
told them about Morales’ abuse of multiple boys. Rachael wanted him stopped! They
covered it all up and did not report his abuses to law enforcement. That was an explicit
violation of the law. She testified to this under oath at Morales’ first trial. Liebeler
knows the law was broken.

In 2007, Morales confessed to Layman in a phone call that he abused two boys. That
was documented in his August 31, 2007 email to Scott Bates which was used as
evidence in the trial. ASA Amanda Michalski said she could have arrested Layman in
the courtroom for conspiracy. All of this is known to Liebeler. It is pure deception
when he says, “There were some errors in judgment. … I do not know whether they
arise to the level of violating the law or not.” Yes, he does.

Joshua Harris, Mark Mitchell and the CLC pastoral staff did not want an independent
investigation in 2013 when they hired Liebeler. He was simultaneously being paid to
“investigate” them and defend them as their lawyer. His top priority was to keep them
out of lawsuits and prison.

Thank you very much for your attention. And as Mark Mitchell had said, if you have
any questions, they can be written down on the cards and if I am able to I will be back
in two weeks to answer as many of these questions as I can. Thank you. 55:26

[Pause: 55:27-55:37]

Mark Mitchell
Minutes 55:38-1:02:26
Thank you very much Lars. We are very grateful for all the work you have put into
your investigation for the last several months and for coming tonight and your
willingness to come back in two weeks to answer questions. 55:49

Liebeler began his investigation in July 2013. It continued until November 2014. It was
18 months long, not several months long. The investigation was not completed because
CLC ran out of money. People were leaving the church in droves.

Folks, I know that that was a lot of information to absorb so what I want to do is go
back briefly and highlight a few things from what Mr. Liebeler mentioned in his report.
56:00

It is important to note what Mitchell is about to highlight. In a nutshell, that there has
never been a conspiracy to commit or cover up child sexual abuse in Covenant Life
Church.

First with regard to the civil lawsuit. Mr. Liebeler reviewed the allegations of the civil
lawsuit that involved our church. The lawsuit alleged that there had been a long
standing conspiracy here to allow sexual deviants to have access to children in order to
prey on them. The lawsuit also alleged that the church covered up this conspiracy and
continues to do so. 56:24

You “allow sexual deviants to have access to children to prey on them” when you refuse
to report deviants to Child Protective Services or law enforcement and don’t inform
families in harm’s way. CLC pastors have failed to do these things going back to at least
1991. Furthermore, a host of people continue to cover up the conspiracy to commit
child sex abuse. More evidence will come out in 2020. Liebeler doesn’t deal with
existing evidence supporting these claims.

Now when the civil lawsuit went to trial, the court simply didn’t get into the issues of
whether or not the allegations were true. The case was dismissed on other grounds. So,
we are grateful that as a part of his work in reviewing our church practice and policy,
Mr. Liebeler also was able to independently look into the allegations. And as he
mentioned he found no evidence to substantiate allegations of any conspiracy to give
predator’s access to children or to cover up a conspiracy at Covenant Life Church. 56:55

The first point by Mitchell is critical. None of the allegations in the lawsuit have ever
been tried in a civil or criminal court. They have never been proven true or false in a
formal court proceeding. Therefore, Mitchell is “grateful” that Liebeler has done what
the three courts did not do – rule on “whether or not the allegations were true.”

This leads to his second point. Mitchell claims Liebeler “was able to independently look
into the allegations.” No, he wasn’t! Looking into the allegations begins with the
ability to talk to those who made the allegations. Liebeler had no such ability. He only
talked to the victims’ alleged abusers like Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo and
Dave Adams. He only heard their side of the story. His investigation was a one sided.
It was not an independent investigation; it was a woefully incomplete investigation
with obvious bias.

Third point. Based on this one sided and incomplete investigation, Mitchell asserts “no
evidence” was found by Liebeler to support a conspiracy to commit or cover up child
sex abuse. According to Mitchell and Liebeler, the entire lawsuit is nothing but a fraud
based on lies and fictional accounts of child sex abuse by the victims with a couple
exceptions.

I have written about Mitchell on several occasions. He is completely untrustworthy.

Last month he was fired as the executive pastor at CLC for patterns of serious sin
including outbursts of angry. I hope he responds to the grace of God. Read Executive
Pastor Mark Mitchell Removed from Ministry at Covenant Life Church for Patterns of
Sin Including Outbursts of Anger (Oct 1, 2019).

As I said earlier, though the lawsuit is full of false allegations we see the Lord’s good
purposes in it and it has helped to heighten our awareness of the reality of abuse and its
devastating effect on individuals and families. And it has helped us to tighten policies
that were already in place and our action plan whenever reports of abuse arise. 57:22

If the “lawsuit is full of false allegations” then Mitchell has a responsibility to prove it.
So does Liebeler. You can’t call the victims of sex abuse liars unless you are willing to
prove they are liars by presenting compelling evidence. Otherwise, you slander them
and worse! Mitchell and Liebeler never provide such evidence. If it were possible, they
should be confronted by Covenant Life Church and asked to go back through each
allegation and show how and why it is false. Otherwise, no one should accept their
unsupported conclusions.

I have never charged C.J. Mahaney, Sovereign Grace Ministries, or others with lying
without putting forth the evidence to support the charge. That’s because truth and
integrity matter to me. If I can’t, or won’t, provide evidence for my accusations, then I
should keep quiet!

Here is another article I’d recommend about Mitchell. The “Independent” Investigation
of Sexual Abuse at Covenant Life Church Didn’t Include Talking to the Victims of Abuse
– Incredulously, Executive Pastor Mark Mitchell Says Exclusion Was Due to “Limited
Finances” (April 28, 2018).

What Did the Pastors Know & When?

After the civil lawsuit, the investigator also looked into the actions of Nathaniel Morales
and how his situation was handled by pastors at Covenant Life Church. And in light of
the press coverage of his criminal trial many people understandably had a lot of
questions. So I want to go over a few things that the investigator discovered relating to
Morales and the goal of this brief review is to attempt to clearly answer the question,
“What did the pastors know and when?” 57:52

People didn’t have questions because of the press coverage, they had a lot of
understandable questions because of Grant Layman’s testimony and admission in court
that he and others did not report Morales’ abuse in the early 1990’s and 2007 despite
their understood legal obligation to do so. The press coverage wasn’t the problem. The
court testimony and transcript was the problem.

In the 1980’s, Morales attended CLC from approximately 1982 to around 91 or 92. He
was about 25 years old when he first became involved. From approximately 1983 to
1990 Morales committed numerous acts of sexual abuse. Some of his victims and their
families were members of Covenant Life Church at that time. During this time, no one
beyond Morales and the victims knew of the abuse. 58:20

I know of nine victims from Covenant Life Church. There were probably more. That
doesn’t include other victims who were not members of CLC. From 1979-2012, Morales
abused scores and scores of boys in at least five states and two countries.

In the early 90’s, around the 91, 92 timeframe, victims reported the abuse to their
families. The father of one victim [Scott Bates] informed a CLC pastor [Gary Ricucci],
who left the church several years ago [Oct 2010]. This pastor met with the father and
the victim [Sam Bates]. And the victim’s family indicated that they did not want to
report. 58:40

Mitchell is mistaken. Sam Bates never talked to Gary Ricucci. He only talked to Grant
Layman and not just once.
 Sam Bates
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Monday, May 12, 2014

Drew: When was the first time you talked to Grant Layman about this?

S. Bates: When I was 22 [1993] or 23 [1994]. This was much, much later. After
we got back from Florida [Jan 1990] and after I talked to Bob Rosencrantz
[1993].

Drew: So between the ages of 12 to 22 you never spoke to Grant Layman about
this incident.

S. Bates: No.

Drew: Now there would have been, I don’t know, another 9 to 11 pastors who
were still in the church?

S. Bates: At least. Yes.

Drew: Which of those pastors if any did you talk to about any of this?

S. Bates: None. Zero.

Moreover, it is not accurate to say, “the victim’s family…did not want to report.” Rachel
Bates-Paci wanted to report and she told me her mother, Charrie wanted to report but
deferred to her husband, Scott and son, Sam. It is more accurate to say that Scott Bates
and Gary Ricucci didn’t want to report because “There was concern about reputations
being tarnished.” Not just Sam’s reputation, but the reputation of the pastors and the
church. Scott came to regret his decision not to report.

Detective Sally Magee included the following in one of her reports.

“On 12-02-2009, the writer and Det. R. Toner met with Bates’ parents, Scott
Bates and Grace [Charrie] Bates. … When Scott talked with the pastor [Gary
Ricucci] about the situation, there was concern about reputations being
tarnished. Scott lamented that the incident had a profound effect on his family
and he didn’t handle the situation as well then, as he might handle it today.”

Grant Layman, who was the singles’ pastor at the time, met once with the victim [Sam
Bates] for pastoral care. And Grant is a former pastor, but he remains a member here at
Covenant Life Church.

I don’t trust the information Layman provided Mitchell and Liebeler. Rachael Bates-
Paci told me her brother Sam met with Layman on numerous occasions.
Also, as you were told in the early 90’s, the father of another victim [Brian Wolohan] of
Morales came to Robin [Boisvert]. The father [Dick Wolohan] asked Robin to
accompanying him to a meeting to confront Morales and afterward Robin asked the
father if he wanted to take further measures. He did not. 59:10

Notice the purpose of the meeting. It was to confront Morales on his sexual abuse of
Brian. It was not for “spiritual advice and consolation.” Mitchell contradicts Liebeler
who said, “It is not entirely clear from a legal perspective whether the actual meeting in
the park amongst Pastor Boisvert, the father, and Mr. Morales was for the purpose of
spiritual advice or consolation.” It was perfectly clear.

Morales left the area shortly after this meeting and Robin had no knowledge of any
other victims. Grant Layman met once with the victim [Brian Wolohan] that Robin was
aware of for pastoral care but neither Grant nor Robin were aware of the information
each other had. That is very important to understand. 59:34

If true, then who did Robin tell about the sexual abuse of Brian Wolohan? It is clear,
Robin did not keep the information to himself. He reported it to someone else.
Furthermore, Robin did not ask Grant to meet with Brian for “pastoral care.” Someone
else asked Grant to meet with Bryan about his abuse.

Lars Liebeler knows the answers to these questions. So do Robin and Grant but they
are covering up. A truly independent investigation would tell us who Robin informed
and who gave Grant the assignment of meeting with Brian. Of course, all this clearly
points to C.J. Mahaney. He ran a tight ship and would have insisted all this information
come to his attention. Layman, Boisvert and Ricucci would never have dealt with
sexual abuse cases without C.J.’s oversight and direction.

People should also keep in mind that Gary Ricucci was alleged to have conspired to
commit and cover up sex crimes in the lawsuit in conjunction with John Loftness by
three witnesses. Read Gary Ricucci & the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon,
David Adams (Aug 2, 2013). I know these witnesses and believe them.

Lastly, Layman and Boisvert “were aware of the information each other had.” For
example, they confronted Morales together with Dick Wolohan in the park according to
police reports.

Between 1992 and 2007, during this period neither the victims nor their families nor any
pastors had any contact with Morales or the authorities. Nothing was known about
Morales’ life or whereabouts. 59:47

They should have been tracking him and following up on him. They didn’t care he left
CLC as a sex abuser and would inevitably prey upon new victims.

In 2007, the father [Scott Bates] of one of the victims contacted pastors at Covenant Life
Church to report that Morales was currently pastoring a church in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The issue was brought to the Covenant Life Governing Board which was a subset of the
pastoral team, that had governing authority for the church. Four pastors who were on
the Board at that time remain on staff at Covenant Life. That is Joshua Harris, Corby
Megorden, Kenneth Maresco and Robin Boisvert. But Robin was not present at this
meeting. 1:00:22

Lars Liebeler says five pastors were at the March 7, 2007 meeting. The fifth pastor was
John Loftness. Mitchell doesn’t mention him by name because he is an alleged sexual
sadist. Read John Loftness in Focus – Former Chairman of the SGM Board & Alleged
Sexual Sadist (July 14, 2013).

The governing Board discussed information reported by the victims’ father. The Board
discussed it and decided to seek input from the church’s legal counsel. In the
subsequent meeting, the Governing Board discussed their biblical responsibility and the
legal advice they had received. Legal counsel had raised concerns that notifying the Las
Vegas Church about Morales’ past could make the church liable for character
defamation. 1:00:49

“The church’s legal counsel” is a reference to Chip Grange. That has always been the
case. They “discussed their biblical responsibility and the legal advice.” Instead of
obeying the Bible they followed Grange. Being “liable for character defamation” was
more important than reporting a confessed, serial, child abuser and sexual pervert.
Money has always been the pastors’ primary concern. In another article, I’ve pointed
out that Grange should be church disciplined and called upon to make a public
confession of sin. To my knowledge, he is still a member in good standing at CLC.

Grant was tasked by the Governing Board to make contact with Morales to find out if
his past abusive behavior was known. In August of 2007, Grant exchanged emails with
Morales and spoke to him via phone. And in September of 2007, Grant reported back to
the Governing Board about his communication with Morales. 1:01:12

This is when Grant Layman told Harris, Maresco, Boisvert, and Megorden about his
confession of sexual abuse.

He then followed up with the victim’s father [Scott Bates], that was Grant, and shared
about his communication with Morales. They did not want to talk with Morales or do
anything further at the time. 1:01:23

Scott and Sam did not want to do anything further; but Charrie (mother) and Rachael
(sister) did. Regardless, the CLC pastors had a legal, ethical and biblical responsibility
to report his crimes to law enforcement. The coverup of Morales’ sexual abuse began in
1991, it continued in 2007.

Now we fast forward to October of 2009. The victim [Sam Bates] reported Morales to
the Montgomery County Police who then began an investigation. Both Robin and
Grant made themselves available to investigators to answer questions. 1:01:38
They were not truthful with detectives when interviewed. That is evident in the police
offense reports I cite in C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-
up the Sexual Abuse of ChildrenC.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy
to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children.

In May of this year [2014], Grant testified at the Morales trial and press coverage of that
trial and Grants’ testimony raised questions about how the CLC pastors handled the
situation. All the while the civil lawsuit was under appeal. 1:01:54

Mitchell is pulling the same stunt as Liebeler. The press was at fault.

In August of this year, Morales was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
Again, I know that is a lot of information to process but we are hopeful that it helps you
to understand the history relating to Morales. 1:02:09

It doesn’t help with anything of substance.

At this time, I am going to invite the men who were involved in the 2007 Governing
Board and are still in this church to come forward. As I mentioned Josh, Robin,
Kenneth, and Corby will come. And Grant will also join them as well. You will hear
directly from them. 1:02:26

“Still in this church” excludes John Loftness. He left CLC in a rage with Mahaney,
Ricucci, and others. What follows now are repetitive, scripted, and superficial
apologies.

[Pause: 1:02:27-1:02:36]

Joshua Harris

I would like to read a statement on behalf of all of us, the five of us, we are speaking as
members of the Board back in 2007 to respond to the findings of the independent
investigation and our actions regarding Nathaniel Morales. We are communicating
together because we made the decisions together. At the conclusion of this joint
statement, we would each like to ask your forgiveness individually. 1:03:11

“We made the decisions together.” That is a conspiracy under the law. At the
conclusion, no one asks forgiveness for sins or breaking the law or allowing a sexual
pervert to continue as false shepherd and abuse more boys; they apologize for making
mistakes.

Before we share we want to say that we understand that you will need time to process
what you’ve heard tonight. It is understandable if you are disappointed with us. We
are disappointed with ourselves. As you heard from the independent investigation in
2007, it was brought to our attention by the parent of a victim that Nathaniel Morales
was serving as a pastor in Las Vegas, Nevada. The parent asked if we would consider
making contact with Mr. Morales’ church with the goal of inquiring about his current
accountability, what he had disclosed regarding his past, evidence of repentance, and
possibly facilitating a meeting with their family. 1:03:54

“We are disappointed with ourselves.” That is a typical Josh phrase. Not we are
convicted of sin including a preoccupation with financial harm, not future victims. Get
ready for what they discovered about his accountability, disclosing the past, and
evidence of repentance.

The two elders who had been involved in the 1990’s, Grant and Robin, informed us that
sexual abuse had occurred but even they were not aware of the details or the extent of
the abuse. We spoke with our legal counsel to seek advice on how we should proceed.
The Board then decided to honor the family’s request and try to make contact. After
making contact, we learned that Morales was the only elder in his church. He said he
was willing to meet with the family to seek reconciliation but ultimately the family
decided not to meet with him. 1:04:29

At least five elders, not two, were involved in the 1990’s (Mahaney, Layman, Boisvert,
Ricucci, and Glass).

Layman is lying for certain. He was aware of “the details” and “extent of the abuse.”
Rachael Paci-Bates laid it out for him in June 1991. So did John Roberts and “other
boys” around the same time. This is Complaint 37 from the Second Amended
Complaint (i.e. lawsuit). It is never addressed by Liebeler in his report – how’s that for
an investigation that took 18 months and cost 100k.

“During 1990/1994 timeframe, as Plaintiff Roberts reached high school, he

continued to engage in self-help by avoiding Morales. He knew others had
been molested by Morales, as his molestations were well known. During one
youth group discussion group about being “pure,” some of the teenage boys
expressed dismay that it was “too late” for them to be “pure.” Plaintiff Roberts
then openly referred to Morales’ ongoing molestation of boys, stating words to
the effect, “yeah, Nate got me too.” This discussion group was headed up by
Chris Glass, who reported directly to Defendant Layman. After Plaintiff
Roberts was questioned about what he meant, and disclosed that Morales
molested boys, Chris Glass cautioned him and the other boys against talking
about the facts. Plaintiff Roberts learned that Chris Glass informed Defendant
Layman about what had transpired immediately after the discussion closed.”

Furthermore, Layman learned from Morales during his August 2007 conversation, that
Morales had a history of sexual abuse before coming to CLC in 1982. This information
comes from the second trial of Morales. Don Spires was head of the New Testament
Church and denomination.
 Grant Layman
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
9:44:39-9:46:29 AM

Michalski: When did you meet Mr. Morales?

Layman: I believe it would have been some time in the mid-80s.

Michalski: And did there come a point in time where Mr. Morales came to you
to serve on the worship team at Covenant Life Church?

Layman: Yes.

Michalski: Following that did there come a point in time in 2007 when you
spoke with Mr. Morales about his conversations with a man by the name of Don
Spires regarding allegations of prior sexual abuse?

Layman: Yes.

Michalski: What if anything did he tell you about his conversation with Don
Spires?

Layman: He related to me that Don Spires was his mentor and that he
acknowledged to him everything from his past and that Don Spires had died I
believe three years prior.

Michalski: Okay. And did he say anything in regards to whether or not Mr.
Spires had held him accountable for the sexual abuse.

Layman: Yes. …

Without getting into all the details, here is what we learn. Layman discovers
Morales has a history of sexual abuse before he arrived at CLC. Liebeler, Mitchell,
and Harris never divulged this fact. Why is it so important? Layman and the
pastors know in 2007 that Morales was non-stop abusing boys from at least 1979-to
1991when he fled CLC. They know he is a serial sex abuser.

Harris also tells us, “We learned that Morales was the only elder in his church.” In
other words, he had no accountability. This implies he had not disclosed his past. And
of course, there was no evidence of repentance. How do I know? He would have
turned himself into law enforcement.

During all this time the family did not ask us to report him to the police. Nor did we
urge the family to do so. 1:04:36
Scott and Sam Bates did not ask them to report. Charrie and Rachael wanted him
reported. They were gravely concerned he was abusing children by using his position
as a pastor. Actually, he was called a bishop.

The bottom line for us is that we now see this as a huge mistake. It was a serious failure
of judgment and leadership on our part. We failed to press for more information about
the nature and the extent of the abuse. We failed to press into caring for the victims and
to make sure they had received the ongoing counsel and support they needed. We
didn’t ask enough questions of our legal counsel. We failed to seek the help of a wider
circle of counselors who might have helped us make a better decision. And we did not
pay sufficient attention to the Bible’s instruction to honor the role of the State in
enacting justice on wrong doers. Romans 13:1-6 instructs us to do this. 1:05:31

This is a legally safe and watered-down acknowledgement. There is no admission of

fault. Harris describes it as “a huge mistake “and “a serious failure of judgment and
leadership.” He confesses no sins of commission. They just fell short and didn’t do
enough.

Let me focus on this phrase, “We failed to press into caring for the victims and to make
sure they had received the ongoing counsel and support they needed.”

Even after this superficial apology, the CLC pastors did not “press into caring.” Here
are a couple examples. In June 1994, Nate Morales married Marcia Jo Griffiths. She did
not know he was a pedophilic monster. Soon after, he abused two of her sons from a
previous marriage. Marcia and I became friends. The CLC pastors have never asked
her forgiveness or her sons’ forgiveness for not reporting Nate.

The same was true with Jeremy Cook.

From: Brent Detwiler

To: Jeremy Cook <jeremy.d.cook@live.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:13 AM
Subject: Anyone Ask Forgiveness

Hi Jeremy,

I think I've asked in the past but did any of the CLC pastors ever follow up with
you after the trial to ask forgiveness for not helping you or reporting Morales.

Hope you are well.

Thanks

From: Jeremy Cook 
Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: Anyone Ask Forgiveness
To: Brent Detwiler
 

Brent,



No one from CLC ever even acknowledged what happened to me, let alone
making any amends whatsoever.

I would say that you are the only “person from CLC” who has had any contact
with me on this subject.

Jeremy

From: Brent Detwiler 
Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Anyone Ask Forgiveness
To: Jeremy Cook


That is beyond grievous!  They should have expressed great sorrow, asked
forgiveness, cared for your soul, and commended your efforts in prosecuting
Morales.  Not reaching out to you proves their public apology was totally
insincere.   I am so grieved for all you have suffered because of their hypocrisy,
selfishness and hardness of heart.   May the Lord bless you with his peace and
presence. 

We should have alerted civil authorities so that past wrongs could be prosecuted. It has
never been our intent to conspire to protect child abusers as the civil lawsuit alleged.
But it was a serious error in judgment and we want to fully own this. We are ready to
receive whatever consequences the Board of Elders in cooperation with you the
congregation believe are appropriate in light of our failure. 1:06:07

Harris claims, “we want to fully own this,” but then insists, “It has never been our
intent to conspire to protect child abusers.” Harris is owning nothing. Going back to
1991, CLC pastors decided not to report Morales. They did the same with other abusers
like Charlie Llewellyn in 2008, 2010, and 2012. In so doing, they protected known
abusers and allowed them to continue abusing. Intent is irrelevant in the eyes of the
law but Harris never explains why they didn’t report.. Furthermore, as pastors they
knew abusers also most never stop. Therefore, they allowed them to continue. That
was intentional. They should have been fired but “the Board of Elders” did absolutely
nothing. After all it was just “our failure.”

In the clarity of 20-20 hindsight, we see that we wrongly analyzed the problem which
led to a flawed process of decision making. And the independent investigation has
helped us to see this. 1:06:22

What a bunch of hooey! Harris is a con artist. This is fully owning in “Josh-world”
only. Harris knows Liebeler’s report is corrupt but he plays along. He had neither the
courage nor the integrity to expose it. Josh was about saving Josh. It is no surprise he
renounced Jesus Christ, divorced his wife, and separated from his children, to embrace
homosexuality earlier this year.

Since that time, we have received more training and grown in our awareness of sexual
abuse, knowing what we know now, related to the extent of Mr. Morales’ abuse, and a
heightened sense of our duty to report, we would handle it very differently. We should
have aggressively pursued the details of the abuse and then walked the family through
the principals and the reasons for reporting. 1:06:48

The con continues. Grant Layman knew it was “our duty to report” in 1991. He
expressly said so at the Morales trial in 2014. Harris and the pastors were plenty aware
of “the extent of Mr. Morales’ abuse.”

We would now like to each share a statement of apology. We know that it might seem
cumbersome for each of us to repeat the same words, but we would ask that you bear
with us. 1:07:02

“A statement of apology,” not a confession of sin for covering up the sexual abuse of
children and breaking the law.

It is important for us to be able to say these things directly to you and to express our
sorrow to all those whom our failure has affected. We have been entrusted with
leadership and you have placed your confidence in us. We have tried to honor the Lord
and do what is right before him as pastors, but we see in this instance how significantly
we have fallen short. Robin if you would come first. 1:07:30

They did not express their “sorrow” to any of the victims in the lawsuit like Heather
Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, James Roberts, and Olivia Llewellyn. They
called them liars and claimed they made up their stories for the money. The pastors did
not try to honor the Lord or do what is right. This is self-justification with evil intent.

Robin Boisvert

I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of
Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the part that I
played in them. 1:07:44

He, like the others after him, confess to no sin and no law breaking, and therefore, asks
no forgiveness. All you will get is an apology for coming up short.

Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law
but in this instance we failed. Specifically, failed to effectively love the victims of abuse
and their families by not pressing in to care for them. Failed to pursue further
information from the victims and their families to effectively understand the risk that
Mr. Morales posed. 1:08:10
This kind of lying takes nerve. None of them tried to do what right in the sight of Lord
or the law. Where do we seen any evidence of the same? Nowhere. For example, I
talked to Dick Wolohan at the May 2014 trial. He told me Boisvert never talked to him
after their confrontation of Morales in the park in 1993. There was literally no pastoral
follow up or care by him or anyone else. “Not pressing in to care for them” doesn’t
begin to describe the sin committed by Boisvert. Yet, Boisvert has the audacity to say,
“Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right.” From my perspective, there was
little to no attempt to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law. At every
point they disobeyed Scripture.

Failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully
understand the best course of action. The overall effect was a failure to make every
effort that I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry, I am sorry
for the way these failings have affected you. And I ask your forgiveness. 1:08:34

Again, the CLC pastors did not fail to ask questions, etc. They chose not to do what
they knew was right and required by the law. It was not a failure to make every effort;
it was a failure to make any effort. “For these failings, I am deeply sorry.” Boisvert and
the rest only acknowledge shortcomings. There is nothing about deceit, selfishness,
hardness of heart, and disobedience to God.

Grant Layman

As you know I am no longer a pastor here at Covenant Life but given my role in 2007
and earlier, I asked the men if I could participate in this statement tonight. 1:08:54

I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of
Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the part I played in
them. 1:09:09

I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law but in this
instance, we failed. Specifically, I failed to effectively love the victims of abuse by not
pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the victims to
effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:09:32

I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully
understand the best course of action. The overall effect was a failure to take every step I
could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the way
these failings have affected you. Please forgive me. 1:09:58

Kenneth Maresco
I also like to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the members of
Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the part that I
played in them. 1:10:21

Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law
but in this instance, we failed. Specifically, I failed to love the victims of abuse by not
pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the victims to
effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:10:45

I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully
understand the best course of action. And the overall effect of this failure was to take
every step that I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am
sorry for the way these failings have affected you. And I ask you to forgive me. 1:11:13
Corby Megorden

As well, I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to you the
members of Covenant Life Church for the events that we have just reviewed and the
part I played in them. 1:11:32

Collectively, I do believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the
law but in this instance, we did fail. Specifically, I failed to love the victims of abuse by
not pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the victims to
effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:11:54

I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully
understand the best course of action. And the overall effect was a failure to take every
step I could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the
way these failings have affected you. Please forgive me. 1:12:15

Joshua Harris

Covenant Life Church, I want to personally express my sorrow and sincere apology to
you the members of this church for these events that we reviewed and the part that I
played in them. 1:12:34

Collectively, I believe we tried to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord and the law
but in this instance, we failed. Specifically, I failed to effectively love the victims of
abuse by not pressing to care for them. I failed to pursue further information from the
victims to effectively understand the risk that Mr. Morales posed. 1:12:59

I failed to ask more questions of legal counsel and other authorities to more fully
understand the best course of action. The overall effect was a failure to take every step I
could to protect children. For these failings, I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the way
these failings have affected you. And I ask that you would forgive me. 1:13:23

Speaking on behalf of all of us, we want to close by expressing our sorrow for the
suffering of all the victims and their families, Mr. Morales’ terrible crimes of abuse. We
are grateful that justice has been served in his sentencing. Sexual abuse especially
against children is wicked.

Justice should have been served in 1991. “Sexual abuse especially against children is
wicked” but that did not matter to C.J. Mahaney and his staff in 1991 or Joshua Harris
and his staff in 2007.

Harris is making this “apology” in October 2014. Six months earlier, Morales was found
guilty. None of the pastors attended the May trial to express any sorrow to any of the
victims or their families or friends. That was left to people like me.
Additionally, we desire to express our deep sorrow for the suffering of any victims of
abuse, either or sexual. May the Lord comfort you and may we as a community
continue to learn to effectively minister to victims of abuse. Thank you. 1:14:08

“Deep sorrow.” Then reach out to them to ask forgiveness, make restitution, and stop
lying and calling them liars.

[Pause: 1:14:09-1:14:23]

Mark Mitchell
Minutes 1:14:24-1:31:33

Over the past few months, and most recently at our Pastors’ Retreat, the elders and the
non-staff elder candidates together have taken time to review the details from the 1990’s
as well as 2007, as well as look into and consider carefully the independent
investigator’s findings. We took time to interview each of the men, who just spoke to
you, the 2007 Board Members individually and then spent time in discussion. Grant
was not with us for that time. 1:15:02

If the elders reviewed the details and interviewed the pastors, they should have written
a detailed report regarding their findings with proofs. Not a chance! This was a
worthless enterprise. None of these men can be trusted. Sovereign Grace Churches,
Inc. and Covenant Life Church still need to do an authentic independent investigation
by a team of professionals with expertise in family crime, not a single individual
retained as their lawyer.

Our goal was to make our own assessment as elders about whether there was anything
in their actions that would say they are not above reproach. And would immediately
disqualify them from continued ministry. 1:15:18

Mitchell and the other elders conclude they are “above reproach.” What a surprise!

Our discussion would affirm what you just heard from these men directly; that is, we
don’t believe there was any conspiracy to protect a sexual predator or to obstruct justice,
but we do believe that it was a significant failure to not report Morales and to not
provide better care for the victims and their families. 1:15:41

What else would you expect from these men? This is executive pastor Mark Mitchell
talking. Remember, there are six plaintiffs in the lawsuit against CLC. The CLC pastors
have stated four of those plaintiffs (Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas,
James Roberts, and Olivia Llewellyn) made up their sensational stories of sexual abuse.
And they say all six plaintiffs (add Dara Sutherland and Renee Palmer-Gamby) are
wrong in alleging a conspiracy based on their interaction with the CLC pastors.
Now while we do see this as a significant failure, we do not believe that any of their
actions disqualify them from ongoing ministry. We took significant time to carefully
consider a variety of Scriptures. The places where Scripture indicate the biblical
qualifications for an elder in Titus 1, 1 Timothy 3. We carefully considered 1 Timothy 5
where it talks about assessing and evaluating charges that are made against an elder -
the applicability of that Scripture. We considered other Scriptures as well. 1:16:24

“We do not believe that any of their actions disqualify them.” Nothing disqualified C.J.
Mahaney either in the eyes of these elders in 2011 despite 600 pages of evidence in The
Documents. Joshua Harris even told CLC that C.J. was qualified to plant a church.

And what I want you to hear is that though we recognize this was a significant failure,
as you heard from these men, not only do we not believe that they are disqualified, but
we affirm these men, as in our perspective, biblically qualified ministers of the gospel.
And we would commend them to you. 1:16:48

A total whitewash. “We affirm these men…we could commend them to you.” Their
“significant failure” is not significant and it is not sinful.

Now we recognize that given all that you’ve heard this evening, you may need some
time to process that and we understand that, and that is a key reason why we’ve set up
the next Members’ Meeting two weeks from now to take your questions and then take
time to answer them. 1:17:05

The next meeting is worse. Mitchell and Liebeler justify sex abusers and libel victims
without ever contacting the victims.

Tonight, the goal has been to give you the relevant information, to express our sincere
apology for the failures that took place and to give you time and space to process this
information. And we want you to know that we are eager for your feedback. I’ll share
more about how you can do this at the end of the meeting. 1:17:27

Mitchell and Liebeler withheld a ton of “relevant information.”

But before I transition, I want to proclaim to these men, these brothers, we love you and
we do respect you. Thank you for sharing humbly tonight. Thank you for taking
responsibility before the Lord for what you believe was a significant failure. We respect
you for that. And we want to proclaim that the blood of Jesus Christ has provided for
your complete forgiveness before God as it has for each one of us. We proclaim that to
you. 1:18:06

The insurance lawyers clearly demanded the pastors acknowledge nothing more than
“a significant failure.” That is the operative word. Mitchell proceeds to honor Joshua
Harris, Grant Layman, Kenneth Maresco, Robin Boisvert, and Corby Megorden. That
is true to the history of honoring leaders who have acted dishonorably like C.J.
Mahaney. These men never confessed any sin but Mitchell absolves them like a high
priest.

With our remaining time, I want to answer two additional questions and then share
some concluding remarks about what we are learning and how we are seeking to grow.
1:18:20

Apparent Contradiction in February 2013 Statement Regarding Knowledge of

Morales

The first question is how do we explain the apparent contradiction between the
church’s public statement that was made in February of 2013 and the details that were
revealed during the Morales criminal trial. 1:18:34

It wasn’t an apparent contradiction; it was a lie that Mitchell will attempt to explain
away..

The church’s public statement in February of 2013 said, “Contrary to the impression left
by the news reports, Covenant Life Church had no knowledge of such abuse until many
years later after the abuse when an adult who had been victimized as a child came
forward.” 1:18:55

In other words, the CLC pastors are saying the didn’t know about Morales’ abuse of
boys until “many years later” when Sam Bates came forward. That is totally false. Sam
Bates was still being abused in 1991. He came forward in 1992 or early 1993.

That statement was based on Grant’s notes from the early 80’s from a meeting that took
place, I’m sorry, Grant’s notes from a meeting that took place between him and one of
the victims in 2011. Those notes indicated that the abuse started in 1983 and took place
in the early 80’s. The church’s statement was therefore based on the belief that the
abuse had occurred in the early 80’s and the church has learned of it in the early 90’s,
which is why we made the statement “many years later.” 1:19:26

This is a complete lie by Mitchell. Grant Layman knew the abuse started in “the early
80’s.” He also knew it ended in July 1991 when Morales was forced out of CLC. The
month before (June 1991) he learned of the abuse from Rachael Bates-Paci. In other
words, he learned of the abuse when the abuse was taking place, not many years later.

However, during the Morales trial, testimony was shared that the abuse took place
between approximately 1983 and 1990 and this is where the discrepancy came from. In
other words, the church’s February 2013 statement was based on information that we
now know to be incomplete. We had partial information. And so we communicated
what we knew at the time and we learned more during the Morales trial. 1:19:56
The testimony stated the abuse occurred between 1983 and 1991, not 1990. The CLC
pastors did NOT have incomplete or partial information. They knew full-well people
came forward at the time of the abuse and immediately after the abuse.

What we want to share with you, the congregation, is that we are really, really sorry for
the understandable confusion that this caused. We could have and should have been
more vigorous in comparing the information we had with other sources to make sure
that information was accurate and complete. And again, for that we apologize. 1:20:20

Here is what I wrote about this matter in C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the
Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children

They categorically denied all knowledge of any sexual abuse by Nathaniel

Morales “until many years after the abuse when an adult [Sam Bates] who had
been victimized as a child came forward.” Let’s rehearse the indisputable facts
one more time.

Morales abused Sam Bates from 1983-1991. He abused Brian Wolohan and
Jeremy Cook from 1988-1991. Rachel Bates-Paci reported abuse to Chris Glass
and Grant Layman in 1991, Dick Wolohan met with Grant Layman and Robin
Boisvert regarding the abuse of Brian Wolohan in 1992, and Sam Bates and his
parents met with Grant Layman and Gary Ricucci regarding his abuse in 1992
or early 1993.

This much is absolutely certain! Layman and Boisvert knew the denial put out
by the Covenant Life pastors was a lie! There is no way around it.

Furthermore, are we to conclude that Layman and Boisvert never told Joshua
Harris or any of the other CLC pastors about the timeline they had already laid
out for detectives which completely repudiated the “Response to News
Reports”? Remember, their interviews with detectives took place in January
2010. The denial was put out in February 2013. Did Layman and Boisvert
really keep secret for three years what they told the detectives about their
knowledge of Morales’ crimes going back to the early 1990s? I can’t imagine
that is the case.

Moreover, the Covenant Life pastors claimed they learned about the sexual
abuse of Sam Bates “many years” after the fact; not a couple years, a few years,
or several years but many years. Many years is a long period of time. That is a
completely false statement!

What is the clear implication? We didn’t cover anything up! There wasn’t a
period of “many years” when we knew about the abuse but did nothing.
Therefore, the media is wrong to imply we knew. Nothing could be further
from the truth! That was pure spin.
 The purpose of this denial was obvious. The CLC pastors wanted everyone to
think they knew nothing about any abuse for the longest time and that is why
they did nothing for the longest time. In fact, they clearly implied Sam Bates
was abused as a young child and didn’t come forward until many years later as
a mature adult which is when they found out. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Covenant Life pastors knew about the abuse at the time of the abuse
and shortly after the abuse.

Stephen Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo

The second question I want to answer is what about the allegations in the civil lawsuit
that certain members of our church committed abuse. Are those allegations true? Well
based on the information we have at this time; we don’t believe the allegations are true.
Neither the information that we have received through the course of the lawsuit, nor
from the independent investigator’s work, nor our knowledge of the men, supports that
any of the allegations are true. 1:20:48

Translation, the victims in the lawsuit are lying.

Now the investigator’s work on this is not fully complete, so we do await his final
conclusions. But as he said earlier, he hopes to report more on this at our October 26
Members’ Meeting. 1:21:00

“Not fully complete” after 17 months.

It is important for us to state that if indeed these men have been falsely accused, as they
maintain they have, and as the evidence so far suggests, then they have also suffered in
a significant way as a result of this civil lawsuit. And we pray that the Lord would
resolve this quickly and continue to strengthen these men and their families as they
await the results. 1:21:29

Mitchell is rallying behind three men alleged to sex abusers by credible victims. They
are the ones “falsely accused” and ones who have “suffered.” They need to be
“strengthened,” not the victims.

Some Reflections by Mitchell

Now some reflections. First, I just want to express again on behalf of the current
pastoral team our deep sorrow for the suffering and pain the victims and the parents
had to endure because of the evil actions of someone they trusted. We sympathize with
the extremely difficult position the parents were put in and we can easily understand
their reluctance to go to the civil authorities in order to protect their children from
further trauma. 1:22:02
You can’t feel “deep sorrow for the suffering and pain the victims and the parents” had
to endure when you believe they made up their accounts.

We also want to express our deep respect for those whom work directly with the victims
of child and sexual abuse. Whether your work is law enforcement, counseling, or
ensuring their safety and security. Your work is very challenging and we respect the
training, compassion and sensitivity that you employ as you care for victims and their
families and as you seek to bring perpetrators to justice. You are a gift from God to us
and we are grateful for you. 1:22:34

The CLC pastors didn’t respect law enforcement for their “training, compassion and
sensitivity.” That is one reason they did not report to them. They told parents their
children would be traumatized by law enforcement if involved in an investigation. The
CLC pastors never worked with them “to bring perpetrators to justice.”

Finally, I want to take a moment to reflect on our role as pastors. We are called by God
to shepherd his flock - 1 Peter 5. And God tells us in his Word to pay careful attention
to yourselves, to ourselves as elders, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers to care for the church of God which he obtained with his own
blood. 1:23:01

The CLC elders “pay careful attention” to cover up for one another.

People come to pastors during some of the most difficult moments of their lives.
Martial conflicts, the prospect of divorce, parenting challenges, medical crises and the
death of loved ones. And during these times, they understandably look to us for
guidance, support, hope and consolation. And they trust us to do and say what is right
and best. And we are deeply sorry for failing to do this in our care for these families
who have experienced the devastation of sexual abuse. 1:23:44

I’ve interacted with many of the victims or their family members from CLC. Multiple
ones said the betrayal and mistreatment of the CLC pastors was more difficult to deal
with then sexual abuse.

So on behalf of the elders for both what took place in 2007 and in the early 90’s, we are
sorry for failing to involve the appropriate civil authorities for counsel, guidance and
for accountability to the law relating to Morales’ sex abuse. 1:24:04

Mitchell is apologizing to the church not James Roberts, Jeremy Cook, Marcia Jo
Griffiths, or scores of other victims. Mitchell never tell us why the pastor didn’t involve
“civil authorities.”

We are sorry for failing to walk with the families and together with them to report the
incidences of abuse to the civil authorities. And we are sorry for failing to adequately
care for the families both during and after the traumatic experience of abuse. 1:24:24
How can “pastors” not care for victims of abuse or report perpetrators of abuse? Only if
they are covering up and looking out for their own interests. That’s how. Furthermore,
they still have not cared for the victims of abuse in CLC or their families, nor those
outside of CLC.

Now we recognize that this apology cannot undo the pain and the suffering that has
already taken place, but we do hope that you, the congregation, can receive it as sincere.
1:24:37

When will the CLC pastors ever apologize to the victims by name in public? Never.

Now where do we go from here? Well in closing, I said earlier that the Lord has used
the civil suit and the circumstances related Nathaniel Morales to help us grow and
change. I want to take a moment to tell you how. 1:24:50

The biggest area needing to “grow and change” is integrity. Fifteen months after this
oral report, lead pastor P.J. Symth (Joshua Harris’ replacement) would lie to CLC about
his involvement in covering up the sexual sadism of his famous father. I exposed
Symth but once again, Mark Mitchell and the elders, acted with deceit and covered up
his lies and past. It was wretched.

New & Indisputable Evidence Proves P.J. Smyth Knew All About Father’s
Violent Beating of Boys – He & Pastors Continue to Deceive Covenant Life
Church Despite My Appeals
Friday, March 2, 2018 at 2:40PM

P.J. Smyth & Mark Mitchell Refuse to Answer Question at Members’ Meeting
About Reliable Witnesses Calling P.J. a Liar for Denying Knowledge of Father’s
Violent Beating of Boys
Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 5:38PM

Number one, we have strengthened our partnership with law enforcement and other
civil authorities in addition to our legal counsel when it comes to the suspicion of abuse
or the reports of abuse of any kind. For example, we are actively seeking the counsel of
law enforcement officers who attend this church on matters that pertain to who should,
and who shouldn’t, have access to children. 1:25:14

All good but means nothing unless men have integrity. In a time of temptation, only
those living for the glory of God will do what is right.

And we have made and continue to make phone calls to Child Protective Services to get
their counsel, seek direction and make reports about suspected child abuse and or
neglect. 1:25:26

This should be spelled out in detail. When and how often “have [they] made” phone
calls to CPS to report suspected child abuse? Liebeler should have made a chart listing
every occasion when suspected abuse was reported and not reported by the pastors
over the last 30 years. The chart should also have included the nature of abuse reported
(e.g. sexual, physical, neglect, etc.). Names could be redacted.

To my knowledge, the pastors have never reported a case of suspected child sex abuse
to CPS until after the Second Amended Complaint was filed in May 2013. And notice
there is no claim by Mitchell of ever reporting to law enforcement – only to Child
Protective Services.

Number two, we have sought training from law enforcement and other authorities on
how to better handle abuse. For example, in October of last year, we brought in officers
from the Family Crimes Division of the Montgomery County Police Department to train
pastors and key staff on how to best cooperate with civil authorities, to explain what
happens in a typical investigation, and to help us better understand how to better
educate families on the nature and practices of sexual predators. 1:25:55

The pastors should follow the guidelines laid out by civil authorities for Mandatory
Reporters (i.e., Health Practitioner, Educator, Human Service Worker, Police Officer).
That would be a good start.

Here’s what they are required to do. Make “an oral report, by telephone or direct
communication, as soon as possible to the local department or appropriate law
enforcement agency” and make “a written report: to the local department not later than
48 hours after the contact, examination, attention, or treatment that caused the
individual to believe that the child had been subjected to abuse or neglect.”

Here is the “Report of Suspected Child Abuse /Neglect” form used by Mandatory
Reporters in MD.
http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/form180-new.pdf

To my knowledge, CLC has yet to do any churchwide teaching “to better educate” the
church or “families on the nature and practices of sexual predators.” Instead, they have
been focused on defending themselves and all the alleged abusers (i.e., John Loftness,
Gary Ricucci, Charlie Llewellyn, Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo, Dave
Adams, and even Nate Morales in relation to James Roberts; while condemning all the
victims/plaintiffs as liars. The pastors have no clue as to “the nature and practices of
sexual predators.”

Number three, we’ve changed the way that we handled information as a pastoral team
that relates to the protection of children. If any pastor receives information that
indicates a particular individual may pose a risk to children, that information is not
only shared with a direct supervisor and those who oversee Children’s Ministry, it is
also shared with the entire Board of Elders so that collectively we can determine exactly
what to do. 1:26:24
This is bad policy and contrary to the law! Any pastor receiving “information that
indicates a particularly individual may pose a risk to children” should report it to law
enforcement first and do so immediately! “May pose a risk” is a euphemism for a
report of sexual abuse. The pastors have learned nothing. They still want to be in
charge. It could take days to meet with “the entire Board of Elders” but worse it is not
for them to “collectively…determine exactly what to do.” That has been decided for
them. Report the suspected abuser immediately and then follow the lead of law
enforcement in “exactly what to do.” Yikes.

Here is the advice of Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

http://www.russellmoore.com/2015/05/22/what-should-the-duggar-scandal-
teach-the-church/

This means that sexual abuse in the context of the church must be handled in
terms of both authorities responsible—both the church and the state. The state
has been given the sword of justice to wield against those who commit crimes
(Rom. 13:1-7). The church has no such sword (Matt. 26:51-53). This means that
the immediate response to allegations of sexual abuse is to call the civil
authorities, to render unto Caesar the responsibility that belongs to Caesar to
investigate the crime. The church may or may not know the truth of the
allegations, but it is the God-ordained prerogative of the civil authorities to
discover such matters and to prosecute accordingly. When faced with a
question of potential sexual abuse, call the authorities without delay.

And then number four and finally, we are committed to growing in how we care for
victims of abuse and their families. Joe Lee in particular is working with members in
this church to explore ministries and agencies that can train us in this further. We
believe we can do much more than what we have done in some situations in the past.
We want to not only provide sound biblical guidance to those who are suffering the
grievous effects of sin but we also want to come alongside them to share comfort,
healing and the hope of Jesus Christ. These are just a few of the steps that we have
begun to take. 1:27:06

The next month (Nov 2014), Joshua Harris and Mark Mitchell released Joe Lee and Issac
Hydoski from staff. They were dissenting voices in how things were being handled.

We want to keep listening and we want to keep growing and we want to hear from you.
If you’d like to connect with us in person, please contact your pastor. If you not sure of
who to talk to, please call the church office and our receptionist will point you to the
right person. 1:27:23

We want you to hear this that we are eager to meet with you and we are eager to talk
with you about these things in more detail if that would serve you. 1:27:33
Private talks are often used to mislead individuals since there is no public scrutiny or
accountability. I wish I had finished this commentary five years ago so scores of people
at Covenant Life Church could write up questions based upon my work and their own
work and then approach the pastors.

Now as I close tonight, I want to take a few moments to share about next steps. I
mentioned earlier that in two weeks on October 26th at 6:00 p.m. we’ll have another
Members’ Meeting. And the investigator will come and will share a report based upon
his review of our internal child protection policies and procedures. So a portion of the
meeting will be focused on those issues, but the rest of that time will be shaped by your
questions and comments. 1:28:01

That did not happen. There was no review of the policies and procedures. Mitchell and
Liebeler took the evening to defend the pastors and perpetrators and condemn the
victims.

Please send in any questions you have per the instructions that you will receive by
email this week. You know, we are grateful that after such a long time we can finally
say to you, if you have any questions at all, please come talk to us. We are eager to talk
with you. Don’t hesitate to let us know your thoughts or your questions as you are
thinking through these things. And also we want you to know that at the conclusion of
this meeting in just a moment, I will be here, down here at the front, and would be
happy to talk with you if you’d like. 1:28:37

The lawsuit was closed but not on tis merits. This gave cover to the CLC pastors. They
could say anything they wanted in private meetings with no fear it would be used in a
civil case.

Next month, November, we will be having two Coffee & Conversation meetings on
November 9th and the 23rd. Those will most likely be right after Sunday service. And I
mentioned also earlier that we are going to make the contents of tonight’s meeting
available to members. We want every member to have access to what’s been shared
here this evening. But we want to communicate that this information is for your
personal use as a member of Covenant Life and not for distribution or publication in
any form. 1:29:08

This is a subdued threat of legal action intended to contain the report.

Our legal counsel has advised us that future civil litigation is possible. And therefore,
we don’t want to carelessly hand out information that could be twisted and used
against the church and others. 1:29:25

If not for the statute of limitations running out in MD, CLC and the pastors would have
been sued by various parties for damages and the victims vindicated.
If the oral reports were truthful and convincing, you’d want verbatim transcripts out in
the public domain and have no concern they could be “twisted and used against the
church and others.”

We also believe that the best place to work through these issues is face to face in the
context of a church community. In keeping with 1 Peter 2, verse 17, this is a way to
show proper respect to everyone especially the victims and their families and to love
the family of believers. 1:29:44

It is nauseating to hear Mitchell talk about “proper respect” for “the victims and their
families.”

Now the details of exactly how we are going to make the contents of the Members
Meetings known, we still have to discuss. We plan to finalize that this upcoming
coming week. 1:29:54

In the meantime, please be praying about what you have heard. The lawsuit and all the
circumstance surrounding it have been extremely challenging for our church. It has
brought some of the most grievous sins and painful experiences that exist in this fallen
world to the forefront of our minds. We need God’s help to work through all of this
together and to help each other to heal and grow in a redemptive way. 1:30:21

As a result of the Mitchell-Liebeler reports, hundreds of people left Covenant Life

Church.

In 2 Corinthians 4, God’s Word encourages us in the midst of affliction to look not only
to the temporal things that afflict us but also to the eternal things that never change.
These eternal truths give us hope that can’t be taken away. God’s promises remain true
even and especially during difficult times. 1:30:44

God rules over all that takes place in our lives and the life of this church and as Romans
5:8 says, “He has proven his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died
for us.” Nothing can change this fact and nothing can separate us from his love. 1:31:04

“God rules over … the life of this church.” Yes, he does. In his love, he sought to
discipline its pastors but they would not learn from it. The church suffered as a result.

Because we are confident that God is working redemptively through all of this, we want
to embrace all that he has for us as leaders and as a church in this time. Changing and
growing is good. So let’s pray with sober faith that God accomplishes his holy
purposes in us and among us remembering that he who promised is faithful. I’d like
Greg Somerville to come up at his time and pray to close the meeting. 1:31:33

As of this writing, the present-day child protection policies are found in two documents.
They are limited in scope and confined to what happens at the CLC building. They
both focus on Discovery Land which is the children’s ministry on Sunday morning.
Here are excerpts from the introductions.

Child Protection Policy Summary for Covenant Life Church Ministries

Involving Child Oversight
https://www.covlife.org/uploads/articles-and-papers/Discovery-Land-
Policy-Summary-08-19-16_(1).pdf

Revised August 19, 2016

Protection of children attending functions at Covenant Life Church is a responsibility

we take very seriously. The following is a summary of the church’s overall Child
Protection Policy and other procedures that are in place wherever child oversight
exists.
 Security Personnel

Sunday morning Discovery Land security is comprised of several layers of

security that function together. Certain other CLC non-Sunday functions also
utilize these formalized security teams. Security personnel are briefed on
individuals of concern, sex offenders, and other known/potential risks.
Security personnel are briefed on individuals of concern, sex offenders, and
other known/potential risks.

This policy is in place when “children [are] attending functions at Covenant Life
Church.” That is, at the church building. It includes “Sunday morning Discovery
Land” and “wherever child oversight exists” for “certain other CLC non-Sunday
functions.” This child protection policy is limited to functions at the church building.
That is woefully inadequate.

The second document likewise focuses on the Sunday morning children’s ministry.

Reporting Potential Child Abuse and/or Neglect

h t t p s : / / w w w. c o v l i f e . o r g / u p l o a d s / a r t i c l e s - a n d - p a p e r s /
ReportingChildAbuse.pdf

A vital aspect of care for children in Discovery Land is understanding what to

do if you believe a child is at risk of harm. Covenant Life Church (“CLC”) cares
deeply about children and desires to prevent all child abuse and/or neglect.
Any suspected child abuse and/or neglect must be reported immediately to
legal authorities, in accordance with Maryland state laws. CLC believes that it
is the moral responsibility of every CLC employee and Discover Land volunteer
to report to local law enforcement authorities if there is reason to believe that
child abuse and/or neglect has occurred.*

Volunteers should exercise sound judgement in reporting potential child abuse

and/or neglect. If a volunteer has reason to believe that a child has suffered
abuse and/or neglect, that individual must immediately follow a two-step
reporting process:

First, to the local department of social services or to a local law enforcement

agency, and must be given to a CLC pastor.

Second, to the Discovery Land director. If the director is not available, the
report If you’re not a volunteer, you would not know about the policies that
pertain to Discovery Land.

These policies are good but they are confined to official children’s activities at the CLC
bldg. They do they address a host of other important issues.
For instance, are the pastors committed to immediately report any, and all, suspected
child sex abuse to law enforcement or will they continue to investigate crimes for
themselves? Or will the pastors continue to put families in harm’s way by not warning
them of suspected or known sex abusers and thereby allow them to remain
anonymous? Or, will the pastors continue to break the law and not report child sex
abusers like Nate Morales for fear of a lawsuit? Have they renounced this standard
practice as articulated by Corby Megorden?

It doesn’t address functions that include children under age 18 when they participate in
small groups, outings, off site functions like small group meetings, picnics, retreats,
outings, etc.

If the pastors have written policies (which Corby Megorden claimed in August 2011),
they have not published those policies. That is utterly unacceptable and inexcusable.
The lawsuit against CLC came out in January 2013. Liebeler started his work in July
2013. He completed it in November 2014. It is now November 2019 and the CLC
pastors have not produced any policies for the church that spell out exactly how the
pastors and people of CLC will prevent the sexual abuse of children or deal with the
sexual abuse of children. In the same vein, the CLC pastors have done no church wide
teaching or training on the subject. Nor have they had experts come in to equip the
church at large.
 Covenant Life Church Members’ Meeting
October 26, 2014
Report by Lars Liebeler
Part 2

Opening Scripture & Prayer

0:00-2:36

Mark Mitchell
Minutes 2:37-13:57

Answer Questions to the Best of Our Ability

Hello everyone. Thank you so much for coming out this evening. I want to begin by
just sharing a heartfelt thank you for all of the open and honest questions that many of
you submitted. We received 65 different submissions. Many of those contained
multiple questions. And we just appreciate the thoughtfulness and the care that you
demonstrated in submitting those things to us. What this also means is that we have a
lot that we are going to cover this evening. 3:12

Mitchell and Liebeler selectively answered questions in this second oral report.

Now one thing I want to say right off the bat, and I want to emphasize throughout our
evening, is that we want to answer your questions to the best of our ability and we want
you to have every opportunity to share with us the things that are on your heart and the
things that concern you. We are packing as much as we can into this evening but there
is a lot to absorb so we do encourage you afterwards if you have comments and
questions, please do follow up with us. We are eager to sit down with any of you and
interact with you about the things that are on your heart and mind. 3:48

Answering questions means nothing if they are not answered truthfully and backed up
with evidence.

To facilitate that we have planned two Coffee and Conversation meetings. The first one
is going to be two Sundays from now on November 9 and then the second on
November 23. Both will be after church at 12:15. I believe it will be in the Edward’s
Room so we want to encourage you come on out if you’re interested. Now I’ll do my
best to be brief here but I do need to repeat some of the administrative items that I
shared at our last Member’s Meeting so bear with me if you would as I do. 4:17

Read this article to see how Mitchell avoided questions in a different context regarding
the lying of lead pastor P.J. Symth. P.J. Smyth & Mark Mitchell Refuse to Answer
Question at Members’ Meeting About Reliable Witnesses Calling P.J. a Liar for Denying
Knowledge of Father’s Violent Beating of Boys (Apr 5, 2018).
Restrain Feelings, No Recording or Transmitting, Not Posting Comments &
Questions

First, we respectfully ask that each of us would exercise restraint in expressing our
feelings. As I mentioned last time, applauding or speaking out in the meeting in certain
ways can have the effect of short circuiting someone else’s ability to absorb what they
are wanting to hear and taking things in for themselves. So honoring this request is a
way that we can consider each other’s interests above our own. 4:45

Number two, we want to ask that no one in attendance record or transmits any part of
this meeting in any way. We are sharing sensitive information that is intended for our
church family and we want to protect the privacy of any victims and families that will
be referenced, so we do not give permission for tonight’s meeting to be recorded or
transmitted in any way. 5:13

I covered the real reason in comments about the first report – not wanting the
information to be used against them in legal proceedings. And let me add a second.
They did not want bloggers to have the information either. I’m the only one who
managed to get a recording with the help of old CLC friends. Then I made transcripts.
I regret it has taken so long to publish them. I didn’t want them going out without
comment given all the deceptive information put forth by Mitchell and Liebeler.

Three, as with the last Members’ Meeting, our production team is recording the meeting
and members may pick up either an audio CD or DVD at the church office during office
hours. We anticipate that probably by mid-week or so those should be available and so
for your benefit, or if there are other members, you can communicate that to them as
well. 5:32

I assume people had to return these CDs or DVDs.

And then finally, this evening we are once again providing index cards for you to jot
down comments and questions as you think of them. We will be creating another
online form for you to submit questions and comments for the November 9th Coffee and
Conversation meeting. However, because tonight’s content deals specifically with
allegations of the civil lawsuit and members of our church we will not be posting your
questions or comments to the member area of our website; so that is a difference. And I
do think some of the comments we will make later on will help you understand why we
believe this is wise. 6:09

They did not post the questions about the members alleged to be sex abusers in their
midst so you have no idea what they did or did not answer.

Plan Another Time to Report on Child Protection Policies

We announced on October 12th at the last Members’ Meeting that we were going to be
devoting a portion of tonight’s meeting to hearing from the independent investigator a
report on our child protection policies. However, after reviewing all of the questions
and comments that were submitted it was clear that many of the concerns lay
elsewhere. So we will need to plan another time to give you the information from his
investigation with regard to our child protection policies. He is going to be making, I
think, a few remarks on that this evening. But tonight we are structuring our meeting
around the things that you are most interested in hearing about based on the comments
and questions that we received. 6:57

Mitchell repeatedly refers to Liebeler as “the independent investigator” but he is

nothing of the sort. This is brain washing.

The first oral report only stirred up questions because it was filled with misinformation
that was contrary to what was stated under oath at the Morales trial. For instance, the
testimony of Grant Layman and Rachael Bates-Paci. I’d estimate at least 30 members
from CLC were in attendance. What Liebeler reported in his first report did not match
what they heard firsthand.

Four Main Categories & Thoughts to Get Oriented

And the four main categories that we want to cover this evening are: first, the
allegations of the civil lawsuit including the findings of the independent investigator.
Second, our response to your questions about Nathaniel Morales and the pastors’
handling of information about him. Third, our approach to reporting incidence of
sexual abuse in the past and what we are doing now. And then finally, we will answer a
few questions that don’t fit neatly into these three categories. 7:24

Every time Mitchell says, “independent investigator,” read “hired gun.”

Before we get into the allegations of the civil lawsuit, I want to share a few thoughts to
help us get oriented. God is using all the trials that we are walking through as a church
to conform us to the image of his Son. And we believe that God is bringing about his
good purposes and good plans for our church and that he is moving us forward in
significant ways. And we are grateful for this and we are thankful for his mercy and all
the ways he is helping us to grow in a variety of areas through the things we have
experienced. 7:58

This is pure positivism and wishful thinking on Mitchell’s part. Mitchell was fired last
month (Oct 2019) and CLC has gone from 23 full-time pastors to four pastors since 2011
and one is the school principal. The Lord has not allowed them to move forward. He
has opposed them.
The church of Jesus Christ will always face spiritual opposition and obstacles. We are
exhorted in 1 Peter 5:8, “Be sober minded, be watchful, your adversary the devil prowls
around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour.” We will always be up against
our battle with the world, and the flesh and the devil. We will always be in a spiritual
battle and the trials that we have been experiencing as a church are no exception. But
this is not the whole story. 8:32

Mitchell and the pastors always put themselves forth as under satanic attack (“spiritual
opposition and obstacles”). Their paradigm is completely faulty. They are under God’s
discipline.

Our faith has been tested through the things that we have experienced but God is at
work in our test and in our trials to help us to grow. James 1 says, “Count it all joy my
brothers when you meet trials of various kinds for you know that the testing of your
faith produces steadfastness and let steadfastness have its full effect that you may be
perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” We can count it all joy as we meet our
current trials and whatever trials the Lord ordains for us in the future. Why? Because
God’s good purpose is to make us more godly, more mature, and more Christ like
through the things we experience and for that we can be grateful. 9:20

Mitchell interprets all that is happening as a test and a trial. He does not see the
judgement of God upon the church for leaders committing child abuse and covering up
child abuse and then putting forth a corrupt report based upon a spurious investigation.
For him, it is not about what they have done wrong. It is about enduring “trials of
various kinds” to become more mature.

Our posture is summed up in 1 Peter 5, “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty
hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you casting all your anxieties on
him because he cares for you.” Our God is faithful and we can trust him to care for us
no matter what we experience. 9:44

Our God is faithful. He will strengthen the humble but he also humbles the proud.
Mitchell doesn’t quote “God is opposed to the proud” in verse 4.

Members’ Meeting Highly Scripted

One or two people commented about our Members’ Meetings and specifically that they
felt highly scripted as I read from my notes. What I hear in these comments is an appeal
for us to get real, to be transparent, and open with you as a congregation. And this
really is getting at something that is very important. Yes, by all means we want to be
real and open and transparent with you and we really are doing our best to do that. But
brothers and sisters we are also working with some very real constraints. Tonight, we
are dealing with very sensitive and private information. Information that affects
people’s reputations, their futures and their livelihood so we must do this responsibly
and with all discretion as Philippians 2 says, “Looking to the interests of others.” Those
others being victims of abuse, people who have been accused, justly or unjustly, church
members as well as the wider community. 10:50

The apologies were highly scripted. In fact, everything was scripted. Liebeler and
Mitchell were also working from prepared remarks. Harris, Layman, Maresco, Boisvert
and Megorden should have confessed their specific sins against specific individuals
with great sorrow; not read an apology approved by their insurance lawyers. There
were no “very real constraints.” That is a lie. All the “sensitive and private
information” was made public at the Morales trial and in the lawsuit. The “victims of
abuse” in the lawsuit used their real names. They didn’t want anonymity. The only
exception was Grace Goe. She used a pseudonym but later gave me permission to write
a blog article about the physical and sexual abuse of her father and reveal her identity –
Olivia Llewellyn. Read The Conspiracy Surrounding Plaintiff Grace Goe at Covenant
Life Church (June 4, 2013). In her case, Joshua Harris, Grant Layman, and other CLC
pastors promised to report the sexual abuse of her father but reneged and broke their
word.

Mitchell, Liebeler and the pastors were never real, transparent or open with the
congregation. They were withholding evidence and putting forth disinformation. That
is why many members left the church after the Liebeler reports. People saw through
their deceit and obfuscation.

We are also dealing with matters of law in the sight of God who says that
“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne” (Psalm 89) and we are
exhorted in Scripture in the book of Ephesians to only use words that are good for
building up as fits the occasion that it may give grace to those who hear. Now all of
these things call for us to speak wisely and precisely and we believe that by doing so we
are also speaking lovingly. And these truths inform why I will be sharing with you
tonight from prepared remarks. So I do want to thank for your patience and your
forbearance in that. And please do hear that we are always eager to sit down and meet
with you and discuss these things in an informal setting. 11:40

What “matters of the law”? In typical fashion, Mitchell doesn’t explain himself.
“Wisely and precisely.” No, craftily and deceitfully. These “prepare remarks” were
about a carefully scripted narrative to cover up guilt and mislead Covenant Life
Church.

Allegations in Civil Lawsuit Regarding Conspiracy to Commit & Cover Up Sex

Abuse Are False

Okay, let me now address our first category, the allegations of the civil lawsuit. Now in
a few moments, Mr. Lars Liebeler, the independent investigator, is going to come and
give his findings relating to the allegations in the civil lawsuit; but I first want to remind
us of the context of the civil lawsuit and clarify some of the terms that we are using. As
it relates to Covenant Life Church, the civil lawsuit alleged that pastors of Covenant Life
had conspired to allow sexual predators to have access to children and obstructed
justice by covering it up. And it additionally alleged that some current long-term
members of Covenant Life perpetrated various acts of abuse. Now one important
distinction we want to make is between the Defendants who are named in the lawsuit
and therefore the target of the main allegations of the lawsuit; we want to distinguish
between them and those who are accused of misdeeds in order to support those main
allegations. 12:44

Keep in mind the “allegations” are allegations of fact the plaintiffs planned to prove in a
civil court. Mitchell misrepresents the lawsuit. It not only alleges pastors “conspired to
allow sexual predators to have access to children” by not reporting; it alleges that pastor
Loftness was a sexual sadist and pastor Ricucci aided and abetted him.

Mitchell does not name “The Defendants.” They were C.J. Mahaney, Gary Ricucci, John
Loftness, Grant Layman and CLC. The “current long-term members of Covenant Life”
alleged to have “perpetrated various acts of abuse” were Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman,
Dave Mayo. Mitchell leaves out reference to member Dave Adams who was a
convicted child abuser (more later).

Only Covenant Life Church as a corporation and individual former pastors as it relates
to this church were Defendants. Now it is also important to distinguish between the
allegations of conspiracy and obstruction of justice on one hand and the allegations
made against members of our church on the other. They are two different things and
we need to speak to them separately. 13:11

Let me summate what is in the lawsuit. It alleges Defendants Mahaney, Loftness,

Ricucci, and Layman covered up sexual abuse. It further alleges two pastors (Loftness
& Ricucci), a children’s ministry director & teacher in the CLC elementary school (Steve
Griney), the overseer of the International Student Outreach (Nate Morales), a pastoral
assistant (Dave Mayo), three prominent members (Dave Adams, Mark Hoffman &
Charlie Llewellyn) and the juvenile son of a prominent member were guilty of child
abuse. Mitchell and Liebeler only address the allegations against Griney, Mayo, and
Hoffman.

At the Members’ Meeting on October 12th, we said that the allegations of conspiracy
and obstruction of justice are false. The truth is Covenant Life Church did not
participate in any conspiracy to allow sexual molestation of children to take place and
Covenant Life Church did not seek to obstruct justice by covering up ongoing and past
sexual abuse of children. And the independent investigators’ findings were entirely
consistent with this. 13:47

Bottom line, Mitchell is calling all six plaintiffs liars for alleging a conspiracy based
upon their personal experience with the CLC pastors in the handling of their abuse.
Read the Second Amended Complaint to understand their charge of a conspiracy.
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/970485/22689936/1368570306447/
second+amended+sgm+lawsuit.pdf?token=wdaTZu5ZiCbfWwYVEKxe2j19nic%3D

In contraction to Mitchell, here is what Assistant State’s Attorney Jessica Hall said about
the CLC pastors at the Morales trial. Of course, what does she know! Believe Mitchell,
he has nothing to hide!

“The church covered it up.  The church protected Mr. Morales. … The church
would cover up for Mr. Morales. … The church would protect a man who
molested children. … The church did nothing. … They ignored the fact that
heinous crimes had been committed.”

ASA Hall also said the following.

Jessica Hall
Assistant State’s Attorney
Opening Statement
Monday, May 12, 2014

And we are here today, ladies and gentlemen, in 2014 that this man sexually
molested three boys, Sam, Jeremy and Brian and when the abuse was occurring
the boys didn’t tell. And several years after the abuse ended and the abuse was
disclosed to church authorities, the church did nothing. They ignored the
abuse. The church pretended the abuse didn’t happen. They [the pastors]
accepted the defendant’s apology and went on with their lives. They ignored
the fact that heinous crimes had been committed against their sons. They
ignored the fact that this man caused irreparable damage to these young men.
Damage that these boys had to live with every day into their adulthood.

Liebeler never mentions or addresses these emphatic statements by ASA Hall. An

independent investigator would cite them and then give his assessment of them.

Read this article for the truth. C.J. Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to
Cover-up the Sexual Abuse of Children (Feb 13, 2018).

And with respect to the members of our church who are alleged to have committed
abuse, I am now going to ask Mr. Lars Liebeler to go ahead and come on up, our
independent investigator, and he is going to address this issue. 13:57

Liebeler is not going to deal with John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Dave Adams, or Charlie
Llewellyn. Only with Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, and Dave Mayo. Notice again
Mitchell’s reference to Liebeler as “our independent investigator.” He beats this mantra
into the heads of CLC members like a cult leader. It doesn’t matter that it is not true.
Liebeler did not act in an independent manner and he did a horribly unjust
investigation.
[Pause: 13:58-14:04]

Lars Liebeler
Minutes 14:05-47:41 (33 minutes, 36 seconds)

The Overall Theme - Is Covenant Life Church & Discovery Land a Dangerous Place?

Thanks Mark. Mark didn’t tell me about the non-scripted part either. He sent me some
other comments to address but not that one. 14:18

There was a theme to some of the [questions]. First of all I thank you for your questions
and it showed me, there were a few people who approached me after the meeting on
the 12th and asked me some very astute questions that showed they were paying
attention and had been following this very carefully and asking very good thoughtful
questions. There were a number of them that were forwarded to me by email as well
through the church but also a couple people independently consulted with me. 14:49

I think I’d like to make a broad statement that addresses a sort of a theme that some of
questions address and that is, “Gee, why have you focused so much on some specific
items to the exclusion of other items that are talked about in the lawsuit or on the blogs
or what not?” And I wanted to at this point, sort of remind you about how we, me in
conjunction with the pastors, had decided to approach the organization of this
investigation. 15:23

As Mark had mentioned, summarizing some of the language in the Second Amended
Complaint, that overall theme, with not respect to specific items, that the overall theme
was that Covenant Life Church was a dangerous place where child predators were
roaming and they were allowed to do so. So that is the overall theme and then there
were specifics. So it makes sense to answer that broader question first. It doesn’t make
sense to talk about what may or may not have happened in the lobby 20 years ago. It
makes sense to answer the question first, “Is this a dangerous place to send your
children?” That is why we organized the modules the way they were so to answer that
question first. We haven’t specifically talked about that but I wanted to just give you a
sort of a preview of that. 16:21

Covenant Life was “a dangerous place” going back to 1980 when Mahaney and Larry
Tomczak determined not to expose long-time homosexual predator and apostle Charles
Schmitt. It continued with Nate Morales. Alleged predators John Loftness, Gary
Ricucci, Steve Griney, Dave Adams, Dave Mayo, Mark Hoffman, and Charlie Llewellyn
were a protected class and “roaming” on Sunday mornings, in the elementary school, at
Celebration events, and in homes. So were juvenile predators. God knows how many
other predators were not reported and how many other children were abused.

Liebeler says, “It doesn’t make sense to talk about what may or may not have happened
in the lobby 20 years ago.” Only the broader question. Is CLC a dangerous place in
2014. But what a minute, I thought he was hired to investigate alleged crimes from the
past. So, what is he talking about? He doesn’t tell CLC. He conceals it and quickly
moves on. It goes over their heads. Well, here’s what he is referencing. This is another
glaring example of Liebeler’s corrupt investigation from my perspective.

Victim: James Roberts

Complaints: 32-35
Location: Covenant Life Church Premises
Timeframe: 1982/1984
Age: 8/10
Alleged Abuser: David Adams
Alleged Conspirators: John Loftness, David Adams & Other Defendants

32. In 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff James Roberts was sexually molested by

David Adams on the CLC premises. David Adams was playing the banjo in
the lobby, and Plaintiff Roberts, a child attending church and Children’s
Ministry, wandered out to listen. David Adams isolated Plaintiff Roberts,
had him sit on his knee, and began to rub his hands over Plaintiff Roberts’
penis while telling Plaintiff Roberts “what a good boy [he] was.” David
Adams tried to push his hands up Plaintiff Roberts’ shorts, and Plaintiff
Roberts pushed him off and escaped.

33. During the 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff Roberts knew Defendant Loftness
as the principal of the School. Sometime after the molestation, Plaintiff
Roberts approached Defendant Loftness and told him that David Adams had
molested him. Defendant Loftness directed Plaintiff Roberts, an elementary
school child, to re-enact the molestation.

34. From the date of this report to present, Defendant Loftness failed to inform
Plaintiff Roberts’ parents of the molestation. Nor did Defendant Loftness
abide by his mandatory reporting obligations to report the molestation or
take any steps whatsoever to prevent David Adams from having access to
children for abusive purposes. Instead, Defendant Loftness required Plaintiff
Roberts, a child, to attend a meeting with himself and David Adams.
Plaintiff Roberts was directed by Defendant Loftness, the principal of his
school, to “forgive” Adams for the molestation.

35. From 1982/1984 to the present, Defendant Loftness conspired with David
Adams and the other Defendants to cover up David Adams’ pedophilia. As
a result of the conspiracy, David Adams had access to and did molest other
children, including his daughter, which is discussed below.

How damnable for Liebeler to report, “It doesn’t make sense to talk about what may or
may not have happened in the lobby 20 years ago.” He is concealing up the sexual
abuse of James Roberts by Dave Adams and its coverup by John Loftness.
The answer is that in that modules one, two, and three; which talked about what are the
policies with respect to child protection. Are the policies being followed? Do people
understand them? Have there been any instances of break downs currently in the
recent history? And the answer to that is that the Discovery Land is a safe place for
children. That there are policies that can be improved in some areas but the polices are
in place. The key people who are involved in childcare and the volunteers understand
what those policies are. Pastors asked me, would I be willing to answer this question.
Would I feel comfortable having my children in Discover Land and the answer is yes.
17:07

Discovery Land is the Sunday morning Children’s Ministry. To my knowledge, all

abuse of children took place in other venues.

So that is why we focused those first couple of modules on those questions. The reason
why we didn’t talk about that specifically is because it is not as important once we
know the answer to that question to go through the question about whether the
childcare protection policy for volunteers should be two pages or 30 pages or back and
forth. The answer overall and generally is that Discovery Land and other child
ministries throughout the church are safe for children and those policies that are in
place are adequate and improving all the time. 17:55

Policies may have improved but the pastors and Liebeler are still deceiving and
covering up in these very reports. Liebeler’s assurance of safety means nothing. The
lack of integrity calls into question any commitment to obey the law or follow the child
protection policies in every case. Further, it is my understanding that CLC still does not
make members aware of suspected, known, or convicted child molesters.

Reaffirms No Conspiracy to Protect Child Predators Including Nathaniel Morales

I did find that there was no conspiracy to try to protect child predators. I talked about
that last week. I am going reaffirm that this week. Once that part of the investigation
was completed about what’s the current state of the child protection policies and their
implementation here, it then made sense to go into some of the historical aspects and
the reasons why we prioritized things the way we did, and that is to talk about the Nate
Morales situation first, was because that did involve some current, those allegations did
involve current pastors. And so I thought it was more important to address that
question about current pastors rather than talking about pastors who are no longer at
the church. 18:45N

How did he “find” John Loftness did not cover up the crimes committed against John
Roberts by David Adams? And how did he find Loftness and Ricucci were innocent of
the crimes alleged against them by three victims? He never addresses these issues. He
never offers proofs. He just passes over them because it is unimportant to talk about
“pastors who are no longer at the church.” How convenient!
And of course, he never talks about the cover up of crimes by the pastors who were at
the church in 2014 in the case of Charlies Llewellyn. He addresses none of the
following.

Victim: Olivia Llewellyn Graham

Complaints: 152-161
Location: Home
Timeframe: 1997-2008 (minimum)
Age: 13-24
Alleged Abuser: Charlie Llewellyn
Alleged Conspirators: Gary Ricucci, Grant Layman, C.J. Mahaney, Other
Defendants

152. As Donna Doe was being subjected to the terror of living with her
pedophiliac father, Defendants were also forcing Plaintiff Grace Goe [Olivia
Llewellyn Graham] to endure constant physical and sexual abuse from her
father [Charlie Llewellyn], a wealthy man who was and remains a prominent
member of the Covenant Life Church.

153. Grace Goe’s father repeatedly beat her on her naked buttocks so harshly
that she bled and bruised. Her father would then submerge her into an ice bath
to hide the physical manifestations of the beatings.

154. Grace Goe’s father also repeatedly sexually abused her, making her rub his
feet, which he then inserted into her vagina. He also molested her on several
occasions by rubbing his hands over her breasts, at times outside her clothes
and at times against her bare skin under her clothes.

155. Grace Goe’s father engaged in the physical and sexual abuse towards the
other children, including the male children, whose penises he repeatedly
fondled.

156. Defendants Ricucci and Layman learned of the ongoing abuse no later than
in or around 1997, when Grace Goe was 13. At that time, a housekeeper named
Mary Burcham reported the ongoing abuse of the Goe children to Defendants
Ricucci and Layman, and discovery will show other Defendants. Defendants
Ricucci and Layman met with Grace Goe and her older female sibling [Brieta
Llewellyn-Allison], who reported the fact of the abuse to the Individual
Defendants [e.g., C.J. Mahaney] and sought protection from their abusive father.

157. Rather than report the ongoing abuse to the secular authorities or take any
steps to stop the abuse, Defendants informed the father that his children [Brieta
& Olivia] had reported the abuse. This led to further abuse by the father. In
exchange for the conspiracy of silence, the abusive father paid to send
Defendants Mahaney, Ricucci and Layman and their families on vacation to the
Kiawah Islands, South Carolina.
 158. On or about September 17, 2008, Plaintiff Grace Goe again reached out the
Defendants, seeking assistance in preventing the ongoing abuse of her siblings.
Defendants failed to report or take any other steps to stop the ongoing and
severe abuse.

159. In May 2010, Plaintiff Grace Goe again sought help from Defendants
Layman and Ricucci, as she was concerned that her father was continuing to
abuse the children remaining in the house.

160. On May 14, 2010, Defendants conspired to mislead Plaintiff Grace Goe into
believing that they would finally assist in ending the abuse. Defendant Grant
Layman affirmatively made misrepresentations in writing to Grace Goe,
assuring her that “[a]fter the pastors discussed this situation, the bottom line is,
we feel a moral obligation to report.”

161. Yet this was a falsehood. Defendant Layman and his co-conspirators again
failed to report the abuse, and instead continue to assist the wealthy father in
avoiding any consequences for his ongoing abuse of his children.

Joshua Harris was the lead pastor in 2008 and 2010. He was also a conspirator in the
coverup. Here is what Brieta Llewellyn-Allison said about Harris. She is Olivia’s older
sister.

Brieta Llewellyn-Allison Calls Out Joshua Harris for Covering Up the Sexual
Abuse of Children at Covenant Life Church Based on First-Hand Knowledge
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 2:02PM

Liebeler and Mitchell never reported to CLC about the case with Charlie Llewellyn. It is
another example of their duplicity.

The Second Amended Complaint Is Very Disorganized

After that module, then there were also allegations in the complaint relating to members
of the church. I will report briefly on those issues today. I hope this gives you a little bit
better understanding about why I’ve chosen to talk about the things that I’ve talked
about in a specific order. If I were to simply pick up the Second Amended Complaint
and go from front to back and answer all those questions one by one about whether
something did or didn’t happened it would be a very disorganized presentation
because the Second Amended Complaint jumps around significantly and I’d be talking
about things that are not as important to you as a congregation now rather than things
that are. 19:30

This is pure poppycock. Liebeler’s report is the “very disorganized presentation”

because he does not “go from front to back” through the Second Amended Complaint
which is what Joshua Harris promised. Liebeler’s oral reports are almost impossible to
follow. He is the one who “jumps around significantly” and he covers so much material
that is unimportant compared to what is actually important in the lawsuit. This is a
diversion tactic by Liebeler designed to skipped over incriminating evidence. He
doesn’t want to answer the allegations of fact presented in the lawsuit. That is his worst
nightmare.

Investigation Not Yet Complete

The fact that I haven’t addressed a specific issue in the civil complaint or on the blogs
that is of a particular concern to you does not mean that it has occurred, it doesn’t mean
it hasn’t occurred. It means I’ve not yet completed that portion of the investigation
relating to that issue. This work takes time and it takes resources. And I’ve worked
with the pastors to create a budget that allows me to do a thorough and complete job so
I can stand here with integrity and give you the answers that I want to. The budget is
not unlimited. But please keep that in mind. 20:13

This is another pathetic excuse for not doing an honest investigation. He had plenty of
time to address every issue in the civil complaint. And I was raising countless issues on
my blog. The CLC members were reading my posts. He totally avoided them. He just
didn’t have the time!

He started his work in July 2013. It is now October 2014 but he’s still not investigated
C.J. Mahaney, John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Charlie Llewellyn or Dave Adams. And he
did not properly investigate Steve Griney, Dave Mayo and Mark Hoffman. He has been
working for 17 months but now he needs more money and more time. He
accomplished almost nothing. I think that was by design. He purposely avoided vital
issues or else he is not telling us what he found.

Liebeler is not about “standing here with integrity.” He is about protecting the guilty as
their lawyer. I sure wish the CLC pastors had given me a budget of 100k to do my
investigation. Instead they cursed my writings and defamed my character

Liebeler Attends One Day of Trial and Listens to Audio Tapes

I am going to spend a few minutes talking about some follow up questions from the last
session that we had. There were several people who forwarded questions asking
whether I had either attended the Morales criminal trial or had listened to the audio
tapes. And I did attend one day of the trial and I did listen to all the testimony that was
recorded on CDs so I’ve listened to that and I am familiar with that. 20:45

This means Liebeler knew Grant Layman testified to breaking the law. He doesn’t say if
he attended or listened to the second trial. That is when Layman gave incriminating
testimony about his knowledge of Morales’ long-term history of sexual abuse pre-
dating CLC.

Additional Reports to the Pastors about Nathaniel Morales

The question that came after that, whether I had seen it or not, was were there any other
people who testified in court that they had made reports about Morales to the pastors.
And there were a couple of other people. I did not address that last week but I will
address it now. 21:02

If he had not been asked, he would have left this vital information out of his report. It
was preposterous that he did not include it in his presentation on October 12.

Jeremy Cook

There was one other victim [Jeremy Cook] who was not a Covenant Life Church
member, who as he originally started to testify said that he reported the fact that he had
been molested to the pastors. His testimony ranged over a course of a period of time.
During additional questioning his testimony changed. And he stated that he didn’t
actually do that himself but he actually discussed with another victim the concept that
they would go and talk to the pastors. So, although there was testimony at one point in
time, saying that he did, he couldn’t remember which pastor he went to, he later
changed his testimony. Based on the evaluation of the totality of that testimony, I
determined that he actually did not approach any pastors to report that he had been
molested. That he had had discussions with another victim in which they had
discussed that probability of whether they should do that and take that course of action.
22:04

Liebeler is out to discredit Jeremy Cook. He didn’t “change his testimony.” He filled
out his testimony as clarifying questions from ASA Michalski continued. And he never
said, “He couldn’t remember which pastor he went to.” That is totally made up by
Liebeler and contradicts his testimony. Liebeler is libeling Jeremy. In reality, Jeremy is a
hero for boldly exposing Morales and the CLC pastors. Here is some of his testimony.

Jeremy Cook
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Michalski: And what if anything happened after you told your parents in
relationship to the church?

Cook: After I told my parents, I worked with Sam to bring it to the attention of
the pastors at Covenant Life Church because they were, again that was the way
we were raised, you take these things to your pastors. So we took it to the
 pastors of Covenant Life Church and we were told that it would be handled. It
would be taken care of.

Michalski: And specifically, did you speak with a pastor by the name of Grant
Layman at that time about the abuse?

Cook: I did not speak with Grant directly. No.

Michalski: And at that time, when you initially disclosed to Mr. Bates and to
your parents, did you ever report it to the police?

Cook: No.

Michalski: Can you tell us why you didn’t report it at that time?

Cook: Well, I believed that when it was reported up to the church that they
would take care of it. I believed that they would pursue it. That they would
handle the situation. That they would do something to stop him.

Jeremy also published this comment on a blog.

Another SGM Survivor 

May 14th, 2014 at 9:59 pm

Now that the trial is in the hands of the jury, I have decided to break my silence.
That’s why I gave the interview today to the local news that I linked earlier.
Yes, I am Jeremy Cook, one of Nate Morales’ victims, and one of the key
witnesses in the case against him. I posted a few times a year or so ago, but had
to remain silent in order to not jeopardize the trial.

Brent and others have certainly captured many of the important parts of my
testimony, so I don’t need to re-hash that here, but I wanted to say to everyone
here that I am grateful for the support and for this community. I have been a
regular reader here for quite some time, and reading the stories, comments and
conversations here have given me encouragement through this process.

Ultimately, my purpose in pursing this trial was first and foremost about
preventing a known predator from continuing to victimize others, and to
hopefully encourage others to come forward with their own stories of abuse,
and pursue their own justice, and to get these predators off the streets. I have
been blessed the past few days to meet some of the regulars here on this board,
and I want to say thank you to each of you.

I think the biggest surprise to me through this entire process was how amazing
I felt after I testified. I was incredibly nervous in getting ready, and the walk
through that courtroom up to the witness stand seemed like the longest walk of
 my life. But after I sat down, and started down my abuser, and got over the
initial rage at seeing him, I began to have a new perspective. Suddenly, I
realized that he had no power over me anymore. I was in the position of power,
not him… and then I began to speak. Difficult at first, but then the words and
the story started flowing. And let me tell you all, it was liberating! Suddenly, I
didn’t want to stop talking, I just wanted to share everything I could. And
when it was done, I felt amazing. It felt like a giant weight had been removed
from my shoulders, one that I didn’t even realize was there. The walk back
from the witness stand and out of the courtroom felt like a walk of pride and a
walk of strength. Once I left the courtroom, I wanted to jump for joy!

I now feel relieved, freed, unburdened, and like I can face the world fresh. I
had no idea how much this had all weighed on me for so many years. The
shame is nearly gone. The fear is certainly gone. No matter the verdict, I am
free, for I told the truth. I told my story. No longer am I hiding in the shadows,
but I am free!

So all of my rambling aside. If nothing else can come of this, if just one other
victim can hear my experience, and have the courage to come forward from my
experience, then all the hard work to bring this to trial was worth it.

This is the man Liebeler discredits and disparages!

The factor that made it difficult for them to do that was, number one, they were
extremely embarrassed about what had happened to them. Number two, they felt that
there was a risk they would not be believed and that there would be repercussions to
them. And that in essence is a part of many people who engage in molestation is that
they threatened the victims with the concept that if they do come forward there will be
repercussions. This is in an attempt to keep them silent. And unfortunately, in this case
that was successful. 22:41

Sam, Jeremy and Brian all came forward in the 1990’s. Though often the case, Morales
never threatened them with “repercussions.” That was made clear at the trial. Liebeler
is making it up. This is another example of his deceit and/or incompetence.

Rachel Bates-Paci & Girlfriend of Victim

There were two other people who testified at the Morales criminal trial. One was the
sister of a victim. The other, actually the sister of the victim testified, there was another
person who I interviewed who was a girlfriend of one of the victims and they had
stated at one point or another that they had approached a pastor here at the church to
report that information of molestations by Nate Morales. I did speak to the pastors who
they stated that they made these reports to. The pastors said that they had received no
such reports. 23:23
This is the most vile and deceptive parts of Liebeler’s report. He leaves out names so
you cannot follow or investigate for yourself. This account also exposes the extent to
which Grant Layman and the pastors were willing to lie. Follow closely. It is extremely
important.

Liebeler says, “two other people who testified.” Wrong. One other person testified –
“the sister of a victim.” That is, Rachael Bates-Paci, the sister of Sam Bates.

Then he says, “There was another person I interviewed who was a girlfriend of one of
the victims.” This is a reference to Marie Molina. She was a girlfriend of Sam Bates in
the 1990’s. She knew of the crimes committed against Sam by Morales from 1983-1991.

Next, Liebeler says that Rachael and Marie “stated at one point or another that they had
approached a pastor here at the church to report that information of molestations by
Nate Morales.” Liebeler plays dumb when he says, “at one point or another.” That is
vital information.

Liebeler doesn’t name the pastors, which is part of the coverup, but “the pastors said
that they had received no such reports.” In other words, the pastors denied Rachael
and Marie ever approached them. The lying is unending.

As an investigator that places me in a situation with nothing else of a person who I

talked to who appears to be telling the truth and says there was a report made. I talked
to the pastors, who I spent a lot of time with, they said they did not recall and did not
receive a report. So the question for me is, “Gee, is there anything else that I can help to
resolve this discrepancy? Are there any documents? Is there anybody who wrote down
in a diary something? Is there any other witnesses who can help me resolve this issue?”
In both of these instances it was very very difficult to do. And so I am really reluctant to
say that one person is a liar, one person is telling the truth. The events that we are
talking here occurred now 22 years ago. Taking that into consideration, I think that
people can have difficulty with remembering certain items in their life and it doesn’t
mean that they are lying. 24:31

What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. First, Liebeler never talked to Rachael. He doesn’t
make it clear. Second, he “interviewed” Marie only because she came to him. He
doesn’t make this clear either. He says Marie “appears to be telling the truth.” But then
he talks to “the pastors, who I spent a lot of time with” (which is very telling) and they
said they “did not receive a report.” He spent no time with Rachael (or any of the
victims in the lawsuit).

So you have Rachael and Marie stating they reported to the pastors and the pastors
stating they never received a report. Who’s lying? Bring on the amnesia defense. No
one. Rachael, Marie and the pastors are just having “difficulty with remembering
certain items in their life.” That is laughable.
Liebeler throws up his arms in exasperation. “Gee, is there anything else that I can help
to resolve this discrepancy? Are there any documents? Is there anybody who wrote
down in a diary something? Is there any other witnesses who can help me resolve this
issue?” What a deceiver. Yes, there is the sworn testimony by Rachael and
corroborating testimony by Scott Bates and Robin Boisvert in police offense reports.

Her testimony suffers from no loss of memory. It is clear, confident and compelling.
She had no “difficulty with remembering.” Liebeler never quotes her testimony.

Rachel Bates-Paci
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 20014

Hall: Now I want to direct your attention to specifically 1991. Did there ever
come a time when you spoke with the leadership at Covenant Life Church
about allegations of sexual abuse?”

Paci: Yes. The summer of 1991 after school was out.

Hall: And who did you speak to in the summer of 1991?

Paci: Chris Glass and Thurlow Switzer who was our principal of the school
[Montgomery County Covenant Academy] and Grant Layman.

Hall: Okay. And Chris Glass, what was his role in Covenant Life Church at that
time?

Paci: He was my pastor. He was the younger, the youth pastor.

Hall: And what was Grant Layman’s role in the church at that time?

Paci: He was for a little bit older, like I guess for older singles, older meaning
probably early 20s versus high school.

Hall: Okay. And in 1991 did there ever come a time when you reported these
allegations of sexual abuse to the police?

Paci: No.

Hall: And why not?

Paci: Because I was 17 and I probably should have but I didn’t because I was
told by my [church] leadership and I kind of gave it over to my pastors and my
parents.
Hall: Okay. Now I want to direct your attention to 2007. Did there come a time
in 2007 when you became aware of Mr. Morales whereabouts?”

Paci: Yes.

Hall: And where was Mr. Morales living at that time?

Paci: In Nevada.

Hall: In 2007, did it ever come to your attention as to whether he was affiliated
with any type of religious institution at that time?

Paci: Yea. I google searched him and I found him to be a pastor or assistant
pastor at a church in Nevada in Las Vegas. The Vegas Valley [Christian] Church
if I recall correctly.

Hall: And after you found out that information, did you pass that information
onto someone else?

Paci: “Yea. I passed it to my Dad [Scott Bates] who then spoke to Grant Layman
about it.”

Rachael Bates-Paci
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Drew: So in 1991, you spoke with the church leadership about allegations of
sexual child abuse by Mr. Morales?

Paci: Yes.

Drew: And can you put it into a season or you really can’t do that?

Paci: It was the summer.

Drew: Summer?

Paci: Yes.

Drew: Who did you speak with? Who was the leadership that you spoke with?

Paci: Thurlow Switzer, he was the President of the school or principal of the
school. And Chris Glass and Grant Layman.

Drew: Okay. Thurlow Switzer and his role was Principal?

Paci: Principal of the school. President, principal or something to that effect.

Drew: Okay and then you also spoke to who?

Paci: Grant Layman and Christopher Glass.

Drew: Did you speak to those individuals all at once or did you speak with
them separately?

Paci: I spoke to Christopher Glass and then he went with me to speak with
Thurlow Switzer and Grant together.

Drew: Okay. And you made the report of what you had heard concerning
sexual abuse?

Paci: Yes.

Drew: Now, did you ever become aware after you made that report that Chris
Glass reported these allegations to the Montgomery County Police Department?

Paci: No. I wasn’t made aware of that.

Drew: Then you went with Mr. Glass to speak with Thurlow Switzer and Grant
Layman?”

Paci: Yes.

Drew: About the same topic, sexual child abuse?

Paci: Yes.

Drew: “Okay. Did you ever become aware that Thurlow Switzer notified the
Montgomery County Police Department about sexual abuse?”

Paci: No. No sir.

Drew: Okay. Did you inquire at any point of Mr. Switzer?

Paci: No. He was my principal. I was 17. I didn’t have that relationship where
I could go pester him about that [i.e., about reporting]. And I was basically told
by many people [not to report] that I wasn’t the one who was abused so it
wasn’t my problem basically.

Drew: Who told you since you weren’t abused that it wasn’t your problem?
 Paci: My parents for one.

Drew: Anybody else that you can recall?

Paci: No. But that was the gist of it that it didn’t happen to you so – but it
weighed heavy on my heart for a really for a long time.

Drew: To the best of your knowledge did Grant Layman ever go forward to the
police department about any of these allegations?

Paci: As far as I know, no. He did not.

Layman and the other pastors are lying about not receiving reports from Rachael Bates-
Paci and Marie Molina. By the way, Marie’s sister, Ellen, was in the courtroom during
the Morales trial.

One other point. Chris Glass is a major player in this scandal. Liebeler never mentions
his name or indicates he ever talked to him. The deceit and/or incompetence is never
ending. There should have been a full accounting of any and all interaction with Glass
by Liebeler. He was the first pastor Rachael Bates-Paci went to about Morales’ abuse.
He was also told about Morales abuse by James Roberts around the same time.

I didn’t in the end feel that it was necessary for me to absolutely come down and say,
“This conversation did occur or it didn’t occur” because ultimately the question that I
then went to was “If it did occur would the outcome have been any different with
respect to Nate Morales?” And I think that the answer to that is probably no for this
reason. That as I described it two weeks ago there is a Clergy Privilege that attaches to
the communications for the victims as they come to a pastor seeking pastoral care. Both
of those victims [Sam & Brian] that came and reported [in 1993] said they did not want
to go to the police for various reasons. If another family member [Rachael] who
disagreed with that came [in 1991] and said something should be done in reporting this,
I want you to convince my brother to go to the police. Does that break the Clergy
Privilege? I don’t think that it does. You could put a whole bunch of legal scholars in
the room with the books and close them up for 100 days and they could come out and
you would have, if you put 20 in there, you would have 10 opinions about that. I don’t
know that it is a resolvable question. 25:51

More deception by Liebeler. He is happy to keep everything nebulous. Far worse, he

asks and answers, “Would the outcome have been any different with respect to Nate
Morales? … Probably no.” What is wrong with Liebeler? The answer is “absolutely
yes!” If Layman, Glass and Switzer had reported Morales in June 1991 as mandated by
law, the next 21 years of sexual abuse by him would have been averted!

Liebeler is also being disingenuous by not supplying dates. Rachael came two years
before Sam and Brian. She wanted Morales stopped. No “Clergy Privilege” applied!
The question is easily “resolvable” if your honest.” Layman, Glass and Switzer deserve
prison time.

If in fact those conversations did take place, I don’t think that the Clergy Privilege
necessarily was broken if somebody said, “Well, I heard another report from a sister
[Rachael]. Do I then do anything differently?” I don’t think they [the pastors] would be
acting in bad faith if they said no. The victim told me that he wanted to keep this
private and just to have pastoral care about it. So, in the end, I don’t think that the
results necessarily would have been different. 26:32

Liebeler speaks with great ambiguity to cloud the issues. “If in fact those conversations
did take place.” What conversations? The ones by Rachael and Marie with the pastors.
When did they take place? Liebeler deceives again. He makes it sound like Rachael
and Marie reported to the pastors after Sam reported to the pastors. That is not the case.
With Rachael it was two years earlier. With Marie I don’t have an exact timetable and
Liebeler conceals it. It appears she came forward after the abuse ended in 1991 because
Morales was exposed by Rachael and fled CLC but before Sam came forward to in 1993.

Was C.J. Mahaney Told about Nathaniel Morales

Let’s see. There were a couple of other questions let me thumb through. There is a long
question emailed that talked about this question about why is it possible that two
different reports that came into two different pastors [Robin Boisvert, Gary Ricucci], is it
possible that both of them didn’t share it with anybody else on the pastoral team. More
specifically, people said, “Well gee, C.J. Mahaney must have known about this.” I did
not have access to C.J. Mahaney to ask that question. He is a defendant in the suit, he is
represented by counsel during the pendency of the civil suit in particular, they made the
decision not to talk about things. I do know from speaking to his lawyer that his
position is that he did not know. 27:40

There were at least four different reports to four different CLC pastors (Glass, Layman,
Boisvert, Ricucci) and one outside pastor (Switzer). Liebeler dismisses the reports by
Rachael and Marie. I cover the topic of C.J. knowing about Morales at length in C.J.
Mahaney, Covenant Life Church & the Conspiracy to Cover-up the Sexual Abuse
of Children (Feb 13, 2018). Glass, Layman, Boisvert, and Ricucci would NEVER have
withheld information about the sexual abuse of numerous boys at various times from
Mahaney. I know from working with C.J. for 27 years. We filled C.J. in on far less
important matters all the time.

Liebeler did not talk to Mahaney. But did he talk to Glass, Layman, Boisvert, and
Ricucci? In other words, did he ask them if they ever told Mahaney about Morales. He
is entirely mute on the subject which was of greatest interest to all the members of CLC.
They wanted to know. Asking the question and reporting the answer was so basic to
his investigation. This is another example of deceit or extreme incompetence.
In thinking, in talking to a lot of different pastors in the church about what it is that they
share with other pastors, there were a lot of different opinions about what is it that
triggers the need to discuss something, a sensitive issue with other pastors. And I
didn’t get a consistent answer all the way across the board. I talked to maybe ten or 12
of the pastors and there was a varying. So it is in the end something that I think is
pastor specific and I don’t think that is necessarily a wrong answer. There isn’t a legal
obligation that you share every bit of sensitive information with other pastors to get
their input on it. So I don’t know the answer to the question about whether it is likely
or unlikely that C.J. Mahaney should have known or did know about this. 28:32

It is plain from testimony in the Morales trial and in police reports that Layman,
Ricucci, Boisvert and others were talking with each other about Morales. “Plenty of
people were involved.” Layman said this in court.

Grant Layman
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Drew: And was part of your responsibilities, doing those things that you just
mentioned, that is to lead, to encourage, Bible studies, service in the
community; did you have a responsibility that if you became aware of
incidences of child abuse that you had a responsibility to either bring it to the
people who are in charge of the church {Mahaney] or to the police?

Layman: Yes.

Drew: So you knew about Sam Bates and allegations of being sexually abused.
Correct?

Layman: Yes.

Drew: And you knew about Brian Wolohan being sexual abused. Correct?

Layman: I knew there was abuse. I didn’t know details.

Drew: And you had no duty as a pastor, or one of the pastors at that church, to
report that to the police department. Is that what you are telling me?

Layman: I am telling you that there were plenty of people involved.

As the “independent investigator” Liebeler never mentions or reports on these

incriminating statements by Laymen. Two simple questions should have been asked.
Did you report to Mahaney since he was “in charge of the church” and who were the
“plenty of people involved?”
I would say in the end, it is the same question again, does that break the Clergy
Privilege if the family reports the information and says, “We don’t want to go to the
police. We have come here for pastoral care.” Even if one pastor shared it with another
pastor that doesn’t necessarily break the privilege. 28:53

Smoke and mirrors ad nauseum.

As a practical matter, if there are more pastors who know about it and they share
information and they had known at an earlier time that there was more than one victim,
I think as a practical matter your answer is, “Gee, we’ve got a problem and it may be a
bigger problem than we know.” 29:14

And that was exactly the case. They knew in 1991 there was more than one victim.
Rachael told them about three victims. Then they became of aware of more in 1993 and
1994. Of course, they were comparing notes.

That is one of the issues that in the module one in talking about what the current child
protection policies are, there is a “Do Not Serve List.” And when people are identified
as being unsafe to be around children, they are placed on a list so they cannot serve in
Discovery Land and that is appropriate. Over the course of time it’s been unclear that
everybody involved in every single ministry knew about that and that was a
recommendation that I made is that all pastors need to know who is on the “Do Not
Serve List” and why because the sharing of different information among the different
ministries can help you piece together pieces of information that appear different then if
you just have one isolated incident. 30:14

It is not enough to have a “Do Not Serve List” for individuals who are “unsafe to be
around children” in children’s ministry. There needs to be a list of convicted sex
abusers on the CLC website and anyone in harms way must be told about people who
are “unsafe to be around their children. This information should not be confined to the
pastors or Sunday security.

So I think that that is a very good question about whether it is possible or plausible that
only two pastors [Boisvert & Ricucci] knew about this and they were essentially in silos,
information silos at this point in time. We know that later on Pastor Layman,
eventually at some point, knew that there were two people and provided pastoral care
for both of those victims but I don’t find there is evidence, and I scoured the documents
with respect to the meeting minutes of the Board of pastors in which there sometimes is
sensitive information discussed. I don’t see anything in there at this time period that
would indicate to me that other pastors knew about this at this point in time. I don’t
know if that answers your question to your satisfaction or not; but those are the facts as
I know them. I don’t think that those facts, that if you say that the whole pastoral board
did not know at that point, it certainly doesn’t prove there is a conspiracy, it doesn’t
prove there is an intention to protect a child predator; it is consistent also with the fact
of what happened, that is that the families had come for pastoral care and didn’t want
to go to police. 31:40
Liebeler keeps spinning his web of deception. Robin Boisvert and Gary Ricucci were
not in information solos. Neither were Grant Layman and Chris Glass who he once
again dismisses as having knowledge of crimes in 1991 per Rachael Bates-Paci. And
Liebeler never tells us which pastor Marie Molina talked to about Morales. It could
have been anyone including Mahaney. These are not “the facts,” they are the fake facts.
Liebeler is creating an entirely false narrative.

The elders’ minutes are not going to record the sexual abuse of children that went
unreported to law enforcement. They are not that stupid.

The two witnesses who did testify, or that we learned had stated that they went to the
pastors, at least one of them at the time, was near the age of majority or at the age of
majority. Age 18. I don’t think that is relevant for the question about whether that
communication then eliminated the Clergy Privilege but I think it is important to note
that anybody at any time had the right to go to the police and the obligation to go to the
police if they had a reasonable suspicion that there was child abuse going on. 32:24

Liebeler is dastardly He listened to the testimony of Rachael Bates-Paci. He knows she

was 17 years old and went to them as a minor. He also knows why she didn’t go to the
police.
 Rachel Bates-Paci
Direct Examination by State
Tuesday, May 13, 20014

Hall: Okay. And in 1991 did there ever come a time when you reported these
allegations of sexual abuse to the police?

Paci: No.

Hall: And why not?

Paci: Because I was 17 and I probably should have but I didn’t because I was
told by my leadership and I kind of gave it over to my pastors and my parents.

Hall: Okay. And your pastors and parents, to the best of your personal
knowledge, did they ever go to the police about this situation?

Paci: No ma’am.

Rachael Bates-Paci
Cross Examination by Defense Counsel
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Drew: Okay. Did you ever become aware that Thurlow Switzer notified the
Montgomery County Police Department about sexual abuse?

Paci: No. No sir.

Drew: Okay. Did you inquire at any point of Mr. Switzer?

Paci: No. He was my principal. I was 17. I didn’t have that relationship where
I could go pester him about that [reporting Morales]. And I was basically told
by many people that I wasn’t the one who was abused so it wasn’t my problem
basically.

In predictable fashion, Liebeler leaves all of this out of his oral report.

Liebeler Claims the Press Reported that Only Pastors Could Go to the Police

One of the questions that I received by email was, because at the very end of my
comments I said to you that I don’t think that the press had reported things very
accurately or very fairly. And what I meant by that was, I think I’ve highlighted the
areas where the pastors could have improved and done a better job particularly in 2007.
I think in isolation to say the only people that could have gone to the police were the
Covenant Life pastors and that is sort of what you get when you look at some of articles
and discussions outside the courthouse steps; that is not accurate. There were other
people who had this information who also under Maryland law had an obligation to
report to the police and they did not. 33:15

Absolutely no one was saying “the only people that could have gone to the police were
the Covenant Life pastors.” When Jeremy Cook did a TV interview “outside the
courthouse steps,” he said they were taught to go to the pastors and believed the
pastors would report to police. He never said they were the only ones who could
report. But Liebeler is right that there were “other people” who had an obligation to
report but the pastors never required them to do so.

No Evidence Any Pastor Ever Told Victims Not to Report

An essential question which I believe I answered last week and I’ll say it again, I found
no evidence that any pastor ever told anyone that they should not go to the police.
That’s a critical distinction in my mind about whether there is an existence of a
conspiracy or an intent to protect child predators. Anybody who had the information
was perfectly free to go to the police themselves. I never found any inkling that any
pastor said, “Don’t go to the police.” You must stop going to the police, we will handle
this inside.” I don’t find any evidence that ever happened. 34:01

This is moronic. I guest Liebeler never had time to read the Second Amended
Complaint during his 18-month investigation.

Victim: Renee Palmer Gamby

Complaints: 94-106
Location: Likely a Home Group
Timeframe: 1993
Age: 2 (almost 3)
Alleged Abuser: Home Group Babysitter
Alleged Conspirators: John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, Grant Layman

96. On or about March 18, 1993, Dominic and Pamela Palmer, Renee’s parents,
learned of the assault and immediately called the police and reported the
assault. They then called Defendant Loftness, who immediately advised them
“do not call the police.” When the Palmers told Defendant Loftness that they
had already called the police, he expressed his displeasure (stating “that is
going to be a problem”), and explained that such matters were handled
internally by the church leadership, not by secular authorities

Liebeler categorical states, “I never found any inkling that any pastor said, ‘Don’t go to
the police. … We will handle this inside.’ I don’t find any evidence that ever
happened.” That means the firsthand testimony of Dominic and Pam Palmers
regarding John Loftness is not evidence in Liebeler’s mind. Hats off to such an
impartial and clear-thinking investigator!

Seriously, this example is illustrative of all Liebeler’s work. Bogus! It gets worse.

The Extent of Immunity When Reporting

Another question to answer. It was about the extent of the immunity under the child
protection law. And I described that if anyone makes a report of suspected child abuse
in Maryland that they are entitled to, and they have, legal immunity. And the question
was whether or not that immunity could protect them if they had actually contacted
someone else in a Nevada church. 34:38

That whole discussion there, I think and the question to the extent of that immunity, can
be answered this way. That the immunity is designed to encourage people to report to
the police. That’s what their obligation is. 34:55

This is a moot point. The CLC pastors should never have contacted anyone in Nevada.
They should have contacted law enforcement in MD and allowed MD detectives to take
it from there.

The Police Should be Contacted & Do Investigation – Not the Pastors

There is no legal obligation that someone go to someone else’s, the suspected abuser’s
employer, and make a report there. That is the responsibility of the police. So in
clarifying that, you are not supposed to take, no one is ever supposed to take,
essentially make that determination about who else should know, that’s what the police
are to do because the police are also the ones to investigate whether or not there is truth
to the allegations that there is a suspected child abuse situation. 35:34

I agree with Liebeler for once. The long-standing policy of the CLC was “to investigate
whether or not there is truth to the allegations.” Corby Megorden publicly said so.

I spent a fair part of the investigation looking through documents that were guiding
documents for the pastors from their law firm. And I did find that this concept was
contained there. That there were legal guidelines explaining that in sensitive situations
and difficult situations whether it be child abuse or other threatened imminent danger
to people that the police should be contacted and let those civil authorities handle those
matters. 36:09

If true, then the CLC pastors violated those legal guidelines. So did their lawyer, Chip
Grange. That doesn’t surprise me. These men have shown themselves to be hypocrites
time after time. C.J. Mahaney is the prime example.
I found evidence that pastors, administrative pastors who received that information
from the law firm [Gammon & Grange] had circulated it to the rest of the pastors and
said these are the guidelines that we are to follow. Please read these and be familiar
with them. So again the concept that there, at least a far as a document trail, that is we
don’t go to the civil authorities, we don’t go to the police, we handled it in house, I
found just to the contrary that there is legal advice saying, difficult situations, in
appropriate situations under law, you should report matters to law and I found that
pastors circulating those documents to each other. 36:55

That is why Grant Layman testified that he had a legal obligation to report Nate
Morales to law enforcement. Joshua Harris, Kenneth Maresco, Robin Boisvert, and
Corby Megorden knew the same in 2007 when Morales confessed to crimes. Yet they
did the exact opposite. Policy and polity mean nothing when men are corrupt and
follow their self-interests and not the interests of Christ or others.

News Media Wrong about Grant Layman’s Testimony

Further questions. I had a question in which again was a reference to the news media
essentially getting it wrong and reporting that Grant Layman’s testimony on the stand,
in what way did they get it wrong. What exactly did Grant say and how was that
misinterpreted? 37:20

Toward the end of his testimony both the prosecution and the defense were spending a
lot time asking whether Grant Layman had an obligation in 91, 92 to report the
suspected child abuse. None of the lawyers in the room made any mention or
discussion of the Clergy Privilege and they didn’t ask any questions with respect to
what the desires were of the victim [Sam Bates]. So that was what my reference was to
the fact that he was answering a question at the end of that, did you have an obligation
to report this information, he said yes, which in the end, I think was inconsistent with
what his legal obligation was, was to obey the Clergy Privilege and protect the wishes
of the family and victim not to report. So that was my reference to that point. 38:32

Liebeler is twisting the law! Once again, this is due to extreme incompetence or
extraordinary deceit. First, “the Clergy Privilege” did not apply to Layman when
Rachael Bates-Paci asked him, Glass and Switzer to stop Morales in June 1991. They all
had an obligation to report. Paci was not confiding in them or asking them not to
report. She was doing the exact opposite. She wanted action! They were mandatory
reporters under the law! Furthermore, there is no record of Sam Bates or his family
asking Layman not to report or to keep matters confidential in 1992. That is why
Liebeler cites none.

Second and most importantly, Liebeler totally misrepresents how the Clergy Privilege
works. A clergyman in MD can keep information confidential if he chooses under
certain conditions but he has no legal obligation to do so. He is free to report crimes
confessed to him in “confidence.” But Liebeler states just the opposite. He claims
Layman had a “legal obligation” “to obey the Clergy Privilege” and “not to report” the
sexual abuse of children to law enforcement. That is nuts but that is what he’s feeding
all the members of CLC. This is crackpot lawyering. There is no such law!

Are There Consequences for Breaking Clergy Privilege?

Let’s see. Let me make sure that I’ve addressed all the questions there. I believe there
was a question about what are the consequences to a pastor if they were to break the
privilege and reveal a confidence that had been entrusted to them by a congregant.
Again, I didn’t do independent research on this to determine how valid that cause of
action is but I did see that there were legal memos that were in the files, prepared by the
law firm [Gammon & Grange] and sent to the church saying when someone tells you
something in confidence and it is covered by the privilege you need to adhere to that.
Because if you reveal the information and it causes damage to the congregant you may
be subject to being sued for damages. 39:26

When a congregant reveals “a confidence” to a pastor he does not have to keep it in

confidence if it involves unrepentant sin (Matthew 18:5-17) or crimes committed against
him, by him or by others. For example, a pastor does not remain silent about
aggravated assault, sexual abuse, murder, extortion, grand larceny, etc. You help the
person repent and turn himself in to law enforcement. If he doesn’t, you report him.
You are not going to be “sued for damages” if you report “pastor” Nate Morales to the
authorities even though a victim wants you to remain silent. You are protected by the
law. In my opinion, Gammon and Grange has counseled the CLC pastors to do that
which is unlawful and unbiblical out of concern for financial harms.

The memo that I saw said there was a case in CA and there’s some other cases here. I
didn’t investigate that specifically but I wanted to answer the question for whoever
posed that question about what the consequences would be. Some lawsuits are valid.
Some are invalid. I couldn’t tell you whether someone would win or lose a lawsuit if
they tried to sue their pastor for revealing a piece of information. I do know that it has
happened in the past. Not all those cases win. Some of them loose. Sometimes there is
a good reason to reveal the information and it outweighs what the danger is but that’s
an issue that is out there and I just wanted answer that question for you. Those were
the questions. Or a summary of the questions that I received that were passed to me.
40:26

Heather Thompson-Bryant Regarding Steve Griney Mark Hoffman & Dave Mayo

The third part of my presentation tonight is to give you the results of what I know so far
for what we are calling module five.  And that is that I looked into some of the
allegations that were made by a particular Plaintiff who was a church member here that
she was sexually abused by three different men in the church: Mark Hoffman, Steve
Griney and Dave Mayo.  41:01
He is talking about Heather Thompson-Bryant. Her father, Chuck Thompson, was a
pastor at Covenant Life Church when she was abused. Dave Mayo was a pastoral
assistant to her father.

Liebeler claims he “looked into some of the allegations” but he didn’t do so in a just,
impartial or professional manner. His “investigation” was a fraud in my opinion.
Why? He did even contact Heather or her father. He only talked to her abusers to get
their “side of the story.” That is outrageous. He wasn’t interested in hearing her case or
evidence. Liebeler was prejudicial, not independent, throughout his supposed
investigation. I hope it is apparent by now it wasn’t an investigation, it was whitewash.

Allegations Against Steve Griney Do Not Have Any Merit

The Second Amended Complaint alleges that this girl was raped twice by Mr. Griney,
who was a kindergartener teacher in the Covenant Life School, and also served in the
children’s ministry for years and years.  She alleges that she was sexually abused,
fondled and molested by Mr. Griney from the time she was approximately 3 years old
until she was approximately 9 years old.  The time frame being 1983 to 1989.  41:43

Liebeler never attempted to talk to Heather Thompson-Bryant! Nor to her parents,

Chuck and Sandy Thompson. Nor to fellow victims like Jessica Roberts-Thomas (cf.
Complaint 59). There is nothing just about his investigation. Heather joined the First
Amended Complaint (Jan 11, 2013) under the pseudonym Paula Poe. She used her real
name in the Second Amended Complaint (May 14, 2013) to lend greater credibility to
her charges.

My investigators and I have interviewed more than 15 people who were identified by
the alleged victim of this conduct.  We have examined the details of the alleged abuse to
determine whether it is possible that these acts took place with no witnesses.  We have
not found any witnesses who have corroborated any of the allegations of sexual
touching, molestation, abuse or rape on the part of Mr. Griney.  42:05

Liebeler doesn’t tell us who he interviewed but the group was comprised of
perpetrators and conspirators who were covering up criminal activity.

Liebeler claims he “examined the alleged details of the abuse.” People must read the
Second Amended Complaint (lawsuit) to see how deceptively Liebeler is reporting the
allegations of facts. They are found in Complaints 56-84.

The details make clear there were no witnesses in 12 of the 13 cases of abuse. In nine of
those cases, the abuse was carried out by Griney alone. In three cases, it was carried out
with John Loftness, Gary Ricucci, or Mark Hoffman. In only one case, were there
“witnesses.” That is why he did find any witnesses or corroboration. Liebeler is so
dishonest.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/970485/22689936/1368570306447/
second+amended+sgm+lawsuit.pdf?token=pTUPWSoLcNMcbfJYcQal8yPFB84%3D

People have totally misconstrued Complaints 73-77 where there is reference to other
children and adults. The following occurred away from that larger group, not in front
of the group.

Victim: Heather Thompson Bryant

Complaints: 73-77
Location: Indiana University of Pennsylvania - Celebration
Timeframe: May 28-31, 1988
Age: 7
Alleged Abusers: Stephen Griney, Other Adults, Older Boys

77. Griney raped Plaintiff Thompson. Others were present and holding her
down as Griney raped her. After Griney finished raping Plaintiff Thompson, he
made her available to others, who raped her as well.

The circumstances of the allegations indicate that is not possible that these events could
have occurred without other witnesses having information other than the victim or
someone detecting these events.  I conclude that the allegations with respect to the
abuse by Mr. Griney do not have any merit. 42:31

Allegations 56, 57, 58, 65, 67-68, 69-70, 71, 78-79, 80 occurred without any witnesses.
Griney was alone with Heather Thompson. He isolated her or did it covertly. There
were no witnesses! Of course, all “these events could have occurred without other
witnesses having information.” No one was around to observe.

But surprise, there are witnesses Liebeler doesn’t mention! Fellow victims. Here are
Complaints 59 and 90. Liebeler never talked to Heather, Jessica, or the third girl whose
name I have redacted.

Victims: Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas, [Redacted]

Complaint: 59
Location: Covenant Life School (Aspen Hill) – Room in School
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Age: Heather – 4/5, Jessica – 7/8, [Redacted] – 7/8
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Stephen Griney, Gary Ricucci

59. On one occasion during the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness,
Griney and a third person [Defendant Gary Ricucci] isolated Plaintiff
Thompson along with two other girls [Plaintiff Jessica Roberts-Thomas and
Redacted] attending the school. Defendants took the children to a room within
 the school, and directed them to take off their underwear. Defendant Loftness
pulled a plastic rod along Plaintiff Thompson’s left leg and through her vagina.
He then began to hit her bottom.

Victims: Jessica Roberts-Thomas, [Redacted, Heather Thompson Bryant

Complaint: 90
Location: Covenant Life School – Empty Room
Timeframe: 1985/1986
Ages: Jessica – age 7/8, [Redacted] – 7/8, Heather – age 4/5
Alleged Abusers: John Loftness, Stephen Griney, Gary Ricucci

90. During the 1985/1986 school year, Defendant Loftness, Griney and
Defendant Ricucci brought Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas into an empty room with
two other girls. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas recognized the girls, one of whom
was Plaintiff Thompson. (The other is not being named here to protect her
privacy.) Defendants directed the girls to strip off their underwear, and lay
across desks. Defendant Loftness beat Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas on her bare
buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas heard the unnamed girl crying, and saw
Griney hitting her on her bare buttocks. Plaintiff Roberts-Thomas turned over
her shoulder to look for Plaintiff Thompson, and realized Defendant Ricucci
had taken her out of the room. Defendant Loftness continued to beat Plaintiff
Thomas-Roberts’ [Roberts-Thomas’] bare buttocks, and then he inserted his
fingers into her vagina.

None of this matters to Liebeler. “I conclude that the allegations with respect to the
abuse by Mr. Griney do not have any merit.” In other words, Heather, Jessica, and the
unnamed girl are liars!

Allegations Against Mark Hoffman Without Any Merit

The Second Amended Complaint also alleged that the same person who is now
approximately 34 years old was fondled, molested and sexually abused by a church
member by the name of Mark Hoffman during the time that Mr. Hoffman was an active
leader and participant in the Children’s Ministry at the church.  The alleged timeframe
overlaps with the other allegations and extends from approximately the same time 1984
to 1990 or 1991.  Molestations were alleged to have occurred in Children’s Ministry
activities, babysitting activities, and at the Griney household on a kindergarteners’ sleep
over with other children. 43:13

The allegations of fact against Mark Hoffman are found in Complaints 60-64, 66, 72,
83-84. Sometimes Hoffman and Griney worked together in the sexual abuse of Heather.

My investigators and I have interviewed witnesses with respect to these allegations. 

There is much overlap with the previous allegations against Mr. Griney as far as the
witnesses who we determined may have had knowledge of this.  We have examined the
allegations in detail to determine whether it was possible that these acts took place
without any witnesses.  We have also determined there is no basis to support the
allegations against Mr. Hoffman.  No witness has provided us with independent
testimony or information to substantiate these allegations.  Mr. Hoffman participated in
the Children’s Ministry for years, and when he was younger, babysat for many
families.  Not one other person has ever made any allegation that Mr. Hoffman ever
acted inappropriately with any of these children.  We conclude that the allegations
against Mr. Hoffman are without any merit. 44:13

There were no witnesses to interview because Hoffman abused Heather alone

(Complaints 66, 83-84) or with Griney (Complaints 60-64, 72). Of course, “it was
possible that these acts took place without any witnesses” because the abuse was done
singularly or in conjunction with another perpetrator in undetected locations.

Allegations Against Dave Mayo Have No Merit

The Second Amended Complaint also alleges that a gentleman by the name of David
Mayo sexually abused and molested the same victim in approximately 1988 when Mr.
Mayo allegedly babysat for her.  I’ve interviewed Mr. Mayo and others with respect to
these allegations.  I reviewed in detail the specifics of these allegations to determine
whether these allegations could have occurred without any other witnesses detecting or
any other information being made available.  I found no witness to corroborate any of
the allegations against Mr. Mayo in any other way. 44:55

There is one allegation against Dave Mayo in Complaint 82.

There are other pieces of evidence made available to me regarding Mr. Mayo’s activities
in 1988 including extensive travel and training in connection with his employment and I
find that those indicated it extremely unlikely that he even participated in babysitting
activities.  I conclude on the basis of what I have learned that there is no merit to the
allegations made against Mr. Mayo. 45:25

This is an email I sent to blogger Todd Wilhelm at Thou Art the Man in April 2016 that
addressed Liebeler’s handling of Dave Mayo. Terry Mayo is Dave’s wife.

From: Brent Detwiler

Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 9:38 AM
To: Todd Wilhelm
Subject: RE: Terry Mayo

Liebeler made two points in his oral report to CLC on Oct 26, 2014 regarding Dave
Mayo. First, he found no eyewitnesses to the alleged crimes. Second, Mayo was doing
“extensive travel and training in connection with his employment and I find that those
indicated it extremely unlikely that he even participated in babysitting activities.”
That is all the “evidence” put forth by Liebeler in making his case. I find it woefully
inadequate, even dangerous, that he emphatically proclaimed Mayo’s innocence on that
basis. First, obviously there are not going to be eyewitnesses. The abuse stealthily
happened in an upstairs bedroom while Heather Thompson Bryant was sleeping
according to the factual allegation.

Second, Mayo was a close friend of the Thompson’s. Liebeler does not point this out.
Nor does he point out whether or not the Mayo’s ever babysat the Thompson children.
That is a serious omission. The lawsuit also says, “Dave Mayo served as an assistant to
a Pastor.” That is a reference to Chuck Thompson. He is Heather Thompson Bryant’s
father. He was on staff from the beginning. He left CLC in 1992 to join Larry Tomczak
and the staff in Fairfax. Liebeler knows that but doesn't report that to CLC. Another
glaring omission.

Mayo also did all kinds of volunteer work in CLC as cited in allegation 82. He certainly
had time and occasion to babysit. It doesn’t matter if “calendars” showed Mayo was
busy and traveled. I was busy and traveled extensively but we also babysat for friends.
So did others. Moreover, if Liebeler was being objective, he would have cited precisely
how many days out of 365 days in 1988 that Mayo was gone.

Third, Liebeler never talked to Heather Thompson Bryant or her parents about the
alleged abuse or the babysitting arrangements. You can’t declare something didn’t
happen solely based upon your interaction with the alleged perpetrator. He should
have told CLC his reporting was entirely one sided on this point. That is what an
“independent” investigator is required to do.

This type of superficial reporting and investigating is typical of Liebeler in my opinion.

He comes to hard and fast conclusions based on the filmiest of evidence and doesn't
point out to Covenant Life Church any of the three points above. I find that extremely
prejudicial. Yet he says, “I conclude on the basis of what I have learned that there is no
merit to the allegations made against Mr. Mayo.”

Outstanding Requests & No Specific Details Regarding Witnesses

I do have outstanding requests to speak with approximately 3 or 4 other witnesses

regarding the allegations made by this victim.  I will continue to pursue that but I felt
that at this stage of the investigation I had spoken to enough of the key witnesses who
were identified by the victim in a deposition that she gave and that since there was no
corroboration from any of those witnesses, I felt comfortable standing before you to
make the conclusions that I have just made. 46:02

There is no due process by Liebeler. He talked “to enough of the key witnesses – no
corroboration.” The keys witnesses were the perpetrators and those that aided and
abetted them like Denise Griney, the wife of Steve Griney.
Liebeler has declared CLC members, Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo
innocent of sexual abuse. Remember, they are his clients! He works for them as their
lawyer since he is employed by CLC and they are members. He can say nothing
incriminating about them due to the lawyer-client relationship he has with them by
legal contract.

I realize I have not given you specific details regarding exactly which witnesses I have
spoken to and the details of what they have said.  Some of the witnesses told me that
they did not want their names used for a variety of different reasons.  Some of the
specific information if I were to give you the details would have a tendency to reveal
their identity so that is why I have not done so.  46:25

Liebeler doesn’t give details so his work can be cross-examined. The witnesses don’t
give names for the same reason.

Not at Liberty to Reveal Details

Secondly, I do know that the victim at one point reported these matters to the police and
an investigation was begun.  I am not at liberty to tell you the details of what the
accused people in this case told me.  I am not their lawyer.  It is for their own lawyers
and themselves to make a decision about whether to speak publicly or to remain silent
and I can’t make that decision for them and so I decided not to give any more specific
details.  47:01

Liebeler is not being honest. He is their lawyer in the general sense. He is representing
CLC and they are members. For that reason, he is not “at liberty to tell.” On the other
hand, he is not their personal lawyer representing them in the criminal investigations.

Notice how he talked to perpetrators about the details but never talked to any of the
victims in the lawsuit. All the alleged perpetrators have remained silent and not spoken
in public to defend themselves.

Other Elements in Investigation Ongoing

There are other elements in my investigation that are ongoing.  I will be in

communication with the pastors to determine the timing of those and again to prioritize
the remaining items that I have and some of them are still related in to the Second
Amended Complaint at this point in time.  And if they asked me to come back and
report on those I will do so. Thank you very much for your attention.  47:29

Liebeler investigated for 17-18 months and didn’t finish. He never came back to report
again. Thank God.

[Pause: 47:30-47:41]
Mark Mitchell
Minutes 47:42-1:24:27

Allegations Related to Gary Ricucci & John Loftness

Lars, thank you very much for your hard work, you and Caroline and others in looking
into these things and coming to report to us this evening. We are very grateful. 47:51

I will make a few comments regarding the men that Mr. Liebeler just reported on. I’ll
make those comments in just a few moments. I want to begin by addressing a few other
things that were mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint that Mr. Liebeler was
not able to touch on or did not address. 48:10

It is laughable that Mitchell later explains they did not talk to victims because they ran
out of money. No, it is tragic. No, it is a ruse! How can you do an investigation on
sexual abuse and not to the victims.

The “Independent” Investigation of Sexual Abuse at Covenant Life Church

Didn’t Include Talking to the Victims of Abuse – Incredulously, Executive
Pastor Mark Mitchell Says Exclusion Was Due to “Limited Finances”  
Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 1:50PM

First with regard to former pastors. There are allegations that relate to how former
pastors, Covenant Life pastors, handled information related to child abuse, specifically
Gary Ricucci and John Loftness. We have not had access to these men because the legal
counsel that represented them in the lawsuit did not make them available to the
independent investigator. He noted that. Now, we are not authorized to speak on their
behalf, so we won’t do that this evening. What we will say is that in every case
mentioned in the lawsuit related to them that we are aware of, we can confirm that the
civil authorities were involved. 48:49

“The civil authorities were involved” because of the parents. This was over the
opposition of Loftness and Ricucci. No civil authorities were ever involved because of
Ricucci or Loftness or any of the Covenant Life pastors. Read these articles.

John Loftness in Focus – Former Chairman of the SGM Board & Alleged
Sexual Sadist
Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 5:32PM

Gary Ricucci & the Conspiracy Surrounding Convicted Felon, David Adams

Friday, August 2, 2013 at 8:11PM

Grace Goe (Olivia Llewellyn)

The next situation I’d like to address has to do with the Plaintiff referred to as Grace
Goe. This Plaintiff described alleged abuse that occurred within her family while they
were members of Covenant Life Church in the 1990’s. We’ve recently learned that
Grace Goe has withdrawn as a complainant in any potential future lawsuit. Also in
1997 there was no knowledge of allegations of sexual abuse by the members of the
Covenant Life pastoral staff. We also deny the allegation that any pastor ever received a
gift in exchange for their silence to cover up alleged sexual abuse. It is not true. Finally,
we want to let you know that in 2008 when she first contacted the elders, Child
Protective Services had already been contacted and had already conducted an interview
with the family in their home.” 49:49

Grace Goe (Olivia Llewellyn) was in despair due to addictions, etc. (I could go into
detail). Her abusive father, Charlie, and mother, Greer told her they would step in and
save her from destruction if she withdrew as a complainant in any future lawsuit. She
did it under duress.

In 1997 the pastors learned about the severe beatings from the housekeeper, Mary
Burcham. The CLC pastors did not report it to law enforcement. It continued.

The lawsuit alleges, “In exchange for the conspiracy of silence, the abusive father
[Charlies Llewellyn] paid to send Defendants Mahaney, Ricucci and Layman and their
families on vacation to the Kiawah Islands, South Carolina.” Llewellyn told me he paid
for the expensive vacation as a “thank you” for their pastoral care.

Child Protective Services were not contacted because of the CLC pastors. I think they
were contacted by the Grandparents who were aware of the severe beatings.

Mitchell leaves out that the pastors became aware of the sexual abuse in 2008 and 2010.
The promised to report but did nothing. Read these article

The Conspiracy Surrounding Plaintiff Grace Goe at Covenant Life Church

Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 5:18PM

Brieta Llewellyn-Allison Calls Out Joshua Harris for Covering Up the Sexual
Abuse of Children at Covenant Life Church Based on First-Hand Knowledge
Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 2:02PM

David Adams

The next situation I’d like to address refers to another church member referenced in the
lawsuit by the name of David. A different David than David Mayo. The lawsuit
contains some accurate facts as well as some unsubstantiated allegations. Since the
main charges were fully adjudicated through the legal system two decades ago, we did
not make this particular issue a subject for the independent investigation. So I want to
briefly review the allegations. 50:21

David Adams repeatedly molested his adopted daughter over a period of 4 years.. See
Complaints 40-43. He was found guilty.
First, the first one concerns an incident that reportedly occurred in the early 1980’s. We
have found no evidence to support this particular claim [by James Roberts]. 50:31

“The first one concerns” James Roberts between 1982-1984, not the adopted daughter
between 1983-1986. Mitchell dismisses out of hand these allegations of fact by James
Roberts with “We have found no evidence.” That is no way to investigate.
Furthermore, Loftness and Adams were conspiring to commit and cover up sexual
abuse based on my knowledge of the evidence and that contained below.

Victim: James Roberts

Complaints: 32-35
Location: Covenant Life Church Premises
Timeframe: 1982/1984
Age: 8/10
Alleged Abuser: David Adams
Alleged Conspirators: John Loftness, David Adams & Other Defendants

32. In 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff James Roberts was sexually molested by

David Adams on the CLC premises. David Adams was playing the banjo in the
lobby, and Plaintiff Roberts, a child attending church and Children’s Ministry,
wandered out to listen. David Adams isolated Plaintiff Roberts, had him sit on
his knee, and began to rub his hands over Plaintiff Roberts’ penis while telling
Plaintiff Roberts “what a good boy [he] was.” David Adams tried to push his
hands up Plaintiff Roberts’ shorts, and Plaintiff Roberts pushed him off and
escaped.

33. During the 1982/1984 timeframe, Plaintiff Roberts knew Defendant Loftness
as the principal of the School. Sometime after the molestation, Plaintiff Roberts
approached Defendant Loftness and told him that David Adams had molested
him. Defendant Loftness directed Plaintiff Roberts, an elementary school child,
to re-enact the molestation.

34. From the date of this report to present, Defendant Loftness failed to inform
Plaintiff Roberts’ parents of the molestation. Nor did Defendant Loftness abide
by his mandatory reporting obligations to report the molestation or take any
steps whatsoever to prevent David Adams from having access to children for
abusive purposes. Instead, Defendant Loftness required Plaintiff Roberts, a
child, to attend a meeting with himself and David Adams. Plaintiff Roberts was
directed by Defendant Loftness, the principal of his school, to “forgive” Adams
for the molestation.
 35. From 1982/1984 to the present, Defendant Loftness conspired with David
Adams and the other Defendants to cover up David Adams’ pedophilia. As a
result of the conspiracy, David Adams had access to and did molest other
children, including his daughter, which is discussed below.

However, the lawsuit does accurately note that in 1988, David was tried and convicted
of abusing his stepdaughter. After serving two years in jail, he was released on parole
in 1990. He remained under legal supervision until 1994. The lawsuit’s allegation that
the church retained and paid for his attorney is entirely unfounded. David’s family,
despite receiving much financial and spiritual support from the church, experienced
profound hardship as a consequence of his sin. The marriage ended in divorce and the
children were temporarily placed in foster care. And to this day, David still grieves over
his actions and the effect that had on his family. 51:19

Much of this is strongly contested by Peggy Adams (the wife/mother) and Dara
Sutherland (sister). Dara is a Plaintiff in the lawsuit.

He remarried in 1995 and he and his wife have raised two children and have been active
members of Covenant Life Church. Now for some of us, especially parents, the fact that
a man who committed child abuse attends our church may be very troubling. And
dealing with the presence of child abusers in our church can cause concerns and fears to
surface. It is important that these concerns and fears are heard and addressed. 51:47

I don’t trust David Adams. He has never acknowledged his crimes against James
Roberts.

Now as pastors we aim to address these issues as best we can from a biblical
perspective. There is an undeniable tension between ministering to a repentant child
abuser and making sure that we protect vulnerable children. As a church we want to be
a redemptive community for all people. This doesn’t mean that past sins don’t have
present consequences. They do and for those who have committed abuse those
consequences at Covenant Life Church involve significant restrictions. 52:20

The pastors at CLC still don’t tell the church about convicted sex offenders or suspected
child abusers in their midst. People in harm’s way are not warned.

Now since he first reported himself to authorities in 1987, David has willingly
submitted to guidelines and accountability structures imposed by the pastors. He has
never served in children’s ministry and he has avoided contexts where he might be
alone with children. In cases where he and his family have anticipated any substantial
interaction with other children, it has been his practice to inform their parents of his
background and let them set whatever boundaries they considered appropriate. Now
he realizes he has not done this perfectly, but he has followed up in every case where
he’s become aware of any particular concern. 53:00

No one should trust a convicted sex offender to self-report (“inform their parents”).
Now there are many parents in our church who can vouch for David’s integrity. For
over 25 years not one additional instance of abuse has been reported and we thank God
for this evidence of genuine repentance and transformation. But our policies will
remain in place and if anyone does know of a situation where David has failed to
adequately practice the guidelines described a moment ago, we would ask you to please
speak with him or speak with a pastor. 53:33

Very naive. The case of James Roberts is totally dismissed. Like other victims, Mitchell
has called him a liar.

Returns to Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, & Dave Mayo - No Evidence to Support
Any Allegation

Now I want to return to the men that our independent investigator spent some time
talking about. As you heard there were several allegations against, and I am going to
focus here on the two men who remain in the church - Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo.
Both current long-time members as well as Stephen Griney, who was a long-time
member who recently transitioned to another church but is well known in our church
community. 54:02

Now these were some of the most grievous allegations in the lawsuit. No one had ever
heard of any such accusations, no one on our pastoral team, against these men. We
heard these things for the first time when the lawsuit documents were filed and made
public in May of 2013. Almost all the allegations against these men came from one
Plaintiff as the investigator referenced earlier. 54:30

Allegations against Steve Griney came from Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-
Thomas, and an unnamed girl.

Allegations against Mark Hoffman and Dave Mayo came from Heather Thompson-
Bryant.

Now as a precaution, we took a number of steps at the time according to our child
protection policies to restrict their access to children while the lawsuit was ongoing and
we sent an email about that to members last year. 54:44

Now this situation has obviously taken a tremendous toll on these men and their
families and because the trial did not specifically address the accusations related to
these men, we asked the independent investigator to look into these allegations as part
of his work. And as you heard from him tonight, he has found no evidence to support
any of the accusations made against them. So as I wrap up this section, I do want to
make now a few concluding remarks. 55:15
I know from my confidential interaction with sources that law enforcement believe
Steve Griney is guilt of the crimes alleged against him by Thompson-Bryant but they
were not able to build a strong enough case to prosecute him.

Mitchell is concerned about the “tremendous toll” upon men I believe to be abusers. He
has never shown any concern for the victims. They are all liars. Either about their
abuse or about the conspiracy or about both.

Not Satisfied with the Level of Detail

First, we do recognize that some of you still may not be satisfied with the level of detail
of what you’ve heard so far this evening. We do understand your perspective.
However, we still believe it is very important for us to exercise extreme sensitivity
toward every person who is named in the civil complaint. 55:37

All of the victims from CLC in the lawsuit have gone public. “The level of detail” in the
lawsuit is considerable. They are not showing “extreme sensitivity” to them. They are
covering up their stories of abuse and protecting the Griney, Hoffman, and Mayo in the
process. People must read the Second Amended Complaint!

Many Allegations in Lawsuit Are Not True

The second thing I want to say is that when we have said that there are false allegations,
some have wrongly concluded that we were saying that the Plaintiffs, all the Plaintiffs,
are not victims in any way. That is not what we have said or what we are saying. There
were multiple Plaintiffs listed in the civil suit and some of them clearly were victims.
Law enforcement was involved with their situation, their criminal activity against them
was verified and the perpetrator was punished by a court of law. In regarding other
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, what we are saying is that many of the things that have been
alleged there in the civil complaint simply are not true. 56:24

Mitchell is not being clear. There are six victims in the lawsuit. Two got convictions
(Renee & Davina). The other four (Heather, Jessica, James, & Olivia) “simply are not
true.” Translation – they are liars. Furthermore, all six are liars according to Mitchell
for alleging a conspiring to cover up their abuse. It is deceptive not to spell out the
details.

Commends Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, & Dave Mayo

And regarding these men [Steve Griney, Mark Hoffman, Dave Mayo] who have these
serious accusations made against them, just a few thoughts. First, I think it is important
for us to try to imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. What it would be like
to have these accusations made against us. How would that make us feel? How would
that land on our families? How might that impact the broader relationships? How
might that impact our employment situations? I think it is important for us to just
ponder really the extreme difficulty that these men have faced for the last 18 plus
months. 57:07

Based on my knowledge of the evidence, he is defending the guilty and damming the
innocent.

These men from the very beginning maintained their innocence and yet have
understood the necessity of submitting to restrictions that limit their access to children
here. They have chosen to bear up under these accusations and they have sought to
trust the Lord even though this circumstance has cost them dearly in their reputations,
in some cases in their jobs, as well as being treated by other believers with suspicion.
57:40

This investigation by Liebeler is illegitimate. He doesn’t know how to investigate sex

crimes He has no expertise in the field. His approach has ben partial, prejudicial and
corrupt from my perspective. No one should trust the conclusions of Liebeler and
Mitchell. There is good reason to treat these men with appropriate suspicion.

Neither we, nor the independent investigator, has found any evidence to suggest that
the allegations against these men are true. So in light of this and consistent with our
policies, the pastors believe it is right and appropriate that the restrictions against these
men be completely lifted and that their reputations be restored. These men should not
continue to be treated as if they have done these horrific things. 58:11

The testimony of the victims doesn’t count for anything! There isn’t “any evidence”
and yet they have never talked to Heather Thompson-Bryant, Jessica Roberts-Thomas,
the unnamed girl or law enforcement.

We want to encourage you, as the church family, as their brothers and sisters, to love
these men and their families, to affirm them, to embrace them, and to let them know
they are cherished members of this church community since the evidence
overwhelming suggests that they are innocent. We want to commend them to you.
58:39

Now some of you may still have further questions about this. And if so, we just want to
invite you, please come to talk with us. We’d be more than happy to sit down and
spend any time with anyone who has questions either about this situation or the
decision that we have made as elders. 57:59

The Involvement of C.J. Mahaney with Nathaniel Morales

The next category I want to address has to do with Nathaniel Morales. After questions
about the accusations in the civil lawsuit, the most questions that we received had to do
with Morales. People were looking for clarification about how the pastors were
involved, including former CLC pastors, why the 2007 board responded the way they
did, and how the Clergy-Penitent Privilege functioned. So for the next minutes, I want
to try and tackle some of these questions. 59:29

First, there were several questions about the involvement of former pastors [Brian
Chesemore, Mike Bradshaw, Gary Ricucci & John Loftness] especially C.J. Mahaney. In
2007, neither C.J. nor the other leaders of Sovereign Grace Ministries were on the Board
at Covenant Life Church. And none of them were involved in any of the decisions of
2007. 59:49

In 2007, C.J. Mahaney was still training Joshua Harris as the lead pastor and overseeing
Covenant Life Church.

The main decision in 2007 was the one made in August by Harris, Layman, Maresco,
Boisvert, and Megorden not to report Nate Morales to law enforcements even though he
confessed to abusing Sam Bates and Brian Wolohan.

C.J. was on the Board in the 1990’s but we have no knowledge of whether he was
involved in the Morales situation at that time. The CLC Board minutes from that time
period do not reference Morales. Therefore, any comments about the involvement of
former pastors at that time on our part would be speculation. All the information we
have about the involvement of former pastors in this situation is what we have learned
from the independent investigator which was shared at the last meeting and he touched
on some of that earlier tonight. 1:00:21

It would be easy to find out if C.J. had knowledge of Morales if men were honest. Ask
Chris Glass, Grant Layman, Thurlow Switzer, Gary Ricucci, or Robin Boisvert and
others.

No Laws Broken in Early 1990’s & 2007 but Nathaniel Morales Should Have Been
Reported

Next, several people submitted questions seeking to get more clarity on exactly what we
are saying about our handling of the Morales matter. Now at the last Members’
Meeting, Mr. Liebeler stated his finding that no laws were broken in the early 1990’s in
the church’s handling of information about Morales. And we appreciate that work and
we are grateful for his assessment. But that does not mean that we think the situation in
the 90’s was handled in the best way possible or in the way that we would handle it
today. A couple of pastors recently discussed this with the parents of one of the victims
and there was a very clear sense from all of us in the room that we would handle things
very differently today. 1:01:07

Laws were broken in the 1990’s when the pastors were told about abuse by Rachael
Bates-Paci, Marie Molina, and James Roberts at the minimum.
Now the investigator’s report focused on the pastors’ actions really from an exclusively
legal standpoint. We want you to hear that we believe our pastoral duty goes well
beyond legal responsibility. We believe that individuals such as Nate Morales should be
reported when information about their actions is first made known and that we should
work closely with the victims and their families in these situations to make sure that the
matter is reported. 1:01:37

Early in this report, Mitchell said the pastors still discuss the evidence before deciding
what to do instead of obeying the law and immediately reporting the suspicion of
abuse. The don’t report when information is “first made known.”

At our last meeting, when the men involved in the Morales situation shared their
apology they were speaking in moral terms, not legal terms. They spoke of having
failed to do what they now see they should have done and they were applying that both
to the early 90’s as well as to 2007. 1:01:56

Mitchell is covering everyone’s rear end. “Moral terms, not legal terms.” But there
were no moral terms either.

Why the Same Statement of Apology?

Now regarding their apology, some people had questions about why each man shared
exactly the same statement. And we can see how this could come across as scripted and
perhaps insincere. These men spent hours discussing what had taken place, examining
where they had failed, and asking for the Lord’s help to communicate effectively. They
considered a number of ways to present their apology including each one writing his
own personal apology, each one reading a portion of a joint statement. In the end, they
thought their individual apologies might be compared with each other’s for what one
man seemed to focus on and what another person did not, and so they thought it would
be best to take responsibility one by one for the same set of failures. And for each one to
make the same apology. In the end, they all agreed that the statement that they read
captured what they truly felt. 1:02:58

They made the same statement for legal protection. Each one should have made their
own confession and then let the people assess who is contrite, specific, clear, humble,
etc.

Now if the statements struck you as scripted, again, we understand. All I can do is
assure you that they take this matter very seriously and that the apologies were heart
felt. And again, we encourage anyone who has a concern, to please feel the freedom to
follow up with them directly. They’d love to talk with you. 1:03:19

The apologies were superficial and did not address any issues of sin.
Reporting Policies & Practices Including Clergy Penitent Privilege

The third category now for tonight. And this one has to do with reporting policies and
practices. Several people asked questions about how the Clergy Penitent Privilege has
functioned in the past and how it will function in the future as it relates to pastors
reporting suspected child or sexual abuse. The investigator spent a considerable
amount of time at our last meeting sharing his perspective of how the Clergy Penitent
Privilege applied to information the pastors received about Morales in the 1990’s and in
2007. And this was important to do because his responsibility was to evaluate how the
pastors handled this information in light of the Maryland Child Abuse and Neglect
Statute. 1:04:03

However, his focused attention on Clergy Penitent Privilege left the impression to many
that a key reason why the pastors did not report Morales was because of this
exemption. That is not the case. The primary reason why pastors did not report
Morales in the 1990’s was because as the investigator noted they were too deferential to
the wishes of the family. They were concerned for the privacy of the families and their
stated desire not to report. 1:04:37

Mitchell is cleaning up Liebeler’s mess. Time for a refund. Liebeler clearly stated that it
was against the law for CLC pastors to report abuse when shared in confidence which
was absurd. He was giving a wrong impression and I think it was on purpose.

The CLC pastors didn’t even know about the Clergy Penitent Privilege in the 1990’s.
All they knew was the obligation to report.

Dick Wolohan is the only parent for which there is evidence he asked Boisvert to take no
further steps. There is no evidence any other victim or family member asked the
pastors not to report. Regardless, the pastors knew they had an obligation under the
law and did not follow it. It was not a matter of deferring! It was a matter of
disobeying and covering up crimes to avoid harms (e.g. lawsuits, loss of reputation, loss
of people, loss of income) as articulated by Corby Megorden.

And for the 100th time, Rachael Bates-Paci, Marie Molina, and James Roberts were not
asking the pastor to “defer” and not report crimes to law enforcement.

Regarding 2007, the men acknowledged the following. There was a failure to pursue
the details of the abuse that the families had experienced. There was a failure to ask
more questions of our legal counsel. There was a failure to seek counsel from civil
authorities and there was a failure to adequately care for the families especially
considering the traumatic effects of sexual abuse. And for all of these things you heard
clear and specific apology from the men who were involved. 1:05:10

Once again, Mitchell is covering up. In 2007, Harris, Layman, Maresco, Boisvert, and
Megorden learned Morales was a serial and predatory sex offender going back to at
least 1979 in the New Testament Church denomination before coming to CLC. They
had a ton of information on Morales. Furthermore, the elephant is the room is WHY
they didn’t do the things above! Answer, because they were covering up all the cases
related to Morales and the same was true of other abusers in the church like Charlie
Llewellyn.

Can We Waive Clergy Penitent Privilege?

What I want to do now is address several similar questions that we received from many
of you and I want to summarize them with two specific questions. First, can we as
pastors waive Clergy Penitent Privilege in order to report suspected child or sexual
abuse? Our answer is yes. Though there is some room for differing interpretations, our
understanding is that in the state of Maryland the clergy does have the right to waive
the privilege in order to report suspected child or sexual abuse. 1:05:48

This is hilarious. Mitchell is cleaning up a load of dung in the in middle floor left by
Liebeler. There are no “differing interpretations.” The law is clear. You have the right
to waive the privilege to report sex abuse.

Will We Waive Clergy Penitent Privilege?

The next question, will we as pastors waive Clergy Penitent Privilege in order to report
suspected child or sexual abuse and against the answer is yes. If the pastors of
Covenant Life Church have reason to believe that child abuse or sexual abuse has taken
place, we will report this to the appropriately civil authorities which would be in our
case either Child Protective Services or the Montgomery County Police. 1:06:21

Once again we see the pastors (plural) do an internal investigation first. They only
report, “If the pastors of Covenant Life Church have reason to believe that child abuse
or sexual abuse has taken place.” No, no, no. An individual is obligated to report the
suspicion of abuse upon reception. Not a group after an investigation and discussion.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Al Mohler, the President of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary in Louisville, KY. I’d encourage you to read the article.

The Tragic Lessons of Penn State — A Call to Action by Al Mohler

Friday, April 05, 2013 at 3:17PM

We all need an immediate reality check. I discovered yesterday that the policy
handbook of the institution I am proud to lead calls for any employee receiving
a report of child abuse, including child sexual abuse, to contact his or her
supervisor with that report. That changes today. The new policy statement will
direct employees receiving such a report to contact law enforcement authorities
 without delay. Then, after acting in the interests of the child, they should
contact their supervisor.

How Have Past Reporting Practices by the Pastors Changed?

There was another category of questions related to what our past reporting practices
used to be and how they have changed. Specifically, some were asking, was the failure
to report Morales in 2007 an exception or the norm. Are there other cases where we
failed to report suspected child or sexual abuse? And still are their other cases where
we did report suspected child or sexual abuse. Here are our answers. 1:06:50

We are not aware of any other situations like Nathaniel Morales. Meaning that there
have been no other cases where such predatory activity has been alleged. We are not
presently aware of anyone suspected of child or sexual abuse in our church who has not
been reported to civil authorities. Or to state this another way, to the best of our
knowledge anyone in our church who was suspected of child or sexual abuse has been
reported to civil authorities. The pastors have made many calls to Child Protective
Services over the years to report child abuse, sexual abuse and/or neglect. And then
finally, in cases where we are not sure if suspected child or sexual abuse was reported,
we have taken action to follow up either by contacting victims and their families or by
contacting Child Protective Services ourselves. 1:07:50

“There have been no other cases where such predatory activity has been alleged.” That
is not true. Read the allegations against Charlie Llewellyn. That’s predation within the
home.

“The pastors have made many calls…over the years.” Without revealing the identities
of victims, how many? When? Under what circumstances? What was the outcome?
There is no documentation to substantiate these claims. I’ve asked the CLC pastors for
this information and talked to individual pastors off the record. No one has provided
any such verification. They should be able to state how many were reported and when
they were reported and what was the outcome.

The CLC pastors may have reported some physical abuse and neglect but I don’t know
of a single case where they ever reported sexual abuse and we know why – concerns for
“harms” to the church.

No examples of reporting the sexual abuse of children by pastors before the lawsuit was
filed in October 2012 have ever been cited. That is why there is no history of anyone
being arrested in the past except for David Adams and two juveniles who were reported
by parents.

“In cases where we are not sure if suspected child or sexual abuse was reported we
have taken action to follow up either by contacting victims and their families or by
contacting Child Protective Services ourselves.” I’d venture to say that “not sure”
means intentionally not reported. They are going back to make sure they are reporting
crimes they did not report in the past.

Grant Layman’s 2011 Notes & the Pastors February 2013 Statement

Now our fourth and final category. And these are just miscellaneous questions that
didn’t seem to fit neatly into the above three categories. The first question, a few
members expressed being confused by my explanation for the apparent discrepancies
about the church’s public statement in February of 2013 and the testimony given at the
Morales trial. So I want to take a few moments to try and explain this again. 1:08:18

The church’s public statement in February 2013 said that “Covenant Life Church had no
knowledge of such abuse until many years after the abuse when an adult who had been
victimized as a child came forward.” That statement was based on former pastor, Grant
Layman’s notes from a meeting that took place between him and one of the victims in
2011. Those notes indicated that the abuse took place in the early 1980’s and the church
had learned of the abuse in the early 90’s. The point was the abuse was not ongoing
when the pastors had learned of it. However, during the Morales trial, testimony was
shared that the abuse took place between approximately between 1983 and 1990 and
this suggested that this information may have come to pastors just a couple of years
later. Or that the time frame was much closer than what our statement had suggested.
And this is where the discrepancies came from. In other words, the church’s statement
was based on pastoral notes from a meeting with someone who was sharing about
events that took place from decades earlier. And by nature, such conversations and
notes are imprecise. We communicated what we knew at the time and we learned more
information later through the Morales trial. That is where the discrepancy came from.
1:09:50

I’ve covered this before. Morales abused boys in CLC from 1983 to 1991. That is a
matter of court record. Chris Glass and Grant Layman learned about it in June 1991
when the abusing was still occurring! This information did not come a couple years or
many years after the fact.

Grant Layman was on staff in February 2013 when the pastors claimed, “Covenant Life
Church had no knowledge of such abuse until many years after the abuse when an
adult who had been victimized as a child came forward.” Layman and Glass knew that
was a lie. So did Boisvert and Ricucci. Layman’s notes from 2011 are absolutely
irrelevant. The “discrepancies” were known lies to Layman Boisvert and others.

The Departures of Ben Wikner and Erik Sheffer

The next question that we thought important to address this evening has to do with the
departure of pastor Ben Wikner and former pastor Erik Sheffer. And the question was,
are their departures in anyway influenced by the 2007 actions of the pastors or any
other related actions. Now we sent the letter to the church indicating the reasons for
Sheff’s departure so I won’t comment this evening but his reasons for leaving had
nothing to do with the civil lawsuit or the events surrounding 2007. 1:10:23

Good for Ben Wikner.

Now the reasons behind Ben’s departure fall into three categories. First, Ben was one of
two pastors who disagreed with the decision by the elders to not place Josh, Kenneth,
Robin and Corby on a leave of absence in May. The second pastor who had disagreed
with that decision was Joe Lee. There was a 9 to 1 vote by the non-staff elder
candidates, they had taken to time to consider the issues very carefully. They had been
given access to the independent investigator and his preliminary report at that time and
after discussing it they voted 9 to 1 to not impose a leave of absence at that time. And
my understanding is that the one person who voted against it had nothing to do with
the fact that he believed the leave of absence was appropriate, rather it had more to do
with the language of what was being communicated. 1:11:21

Good for Joe Lee.

“His preliminary report.” This is a written report. It has been deep sixed.

They submitted those results to the elders and then the elders discussed it and we voted
8 to 2 to not place the men on a leave of absence. As I mentioned Ben was one of the
two dissenting pastors. His disagreement with this decision was a significant factor in
his decision to leave the pastoral team. 1:11:45

The second reason. Ben asked that when the decision was communicated to the
congregation that I also share that the decision was not unanimous. I did not agree with
this and therefore I decided against it. We hadn’t made a practice of announcing vote
tallies to the congregation and I didn’t think that was the time or this was the right issue
for that to take place. My judgment was that the congregation was in a volatile place
regarding all the issues surrounding Morales and the leave of absence and I didn’t think
communicating that information at that time was going to be helpful. 1:12:2

This is important. Mitchell was not willing to tell the church “the decision was not
unanimous.” That reveals a basic lack of transparency. Mitchell had far too much
power as the executive pastor.

In addition to that I did asked the pastors not to share the details of the vote at that time
beyond the pastoral team. Ben disagreed with this and this was another reason that
contributed to his decision ultimately to leave the team. 1:12:40

The pastors have a long history of keeping vital information from the CLC. It goes with
their deceit. They are accomplished pretenders.
And the final one is that Ben had communicated to us that he had growing differences
with the team in areas like communication, leadership, decision making and theological
convictions. And so based on these three things, Ben decided as a matter of personal
conviction, and this was his decision, that he needed to leave his position on the
pastoral staff. 1:13:04

Ben saw through the abusive leadership.

The Lawsuit & Separation from Sovereign Grace Ministries

Finally in this section, several people asked questions about the separation with
Sovereign Grace and whether it connects to the lawsuit and if so, how. The elders
learned of the civil lawsuit and its allegations against SGM and the former leadership of
CLC when the suit was filed and made public in October 2012. That was after the
elders had come to the conclusion over the spring and summer months that the best
action for the health and future of our church was to separate from Sovereign Grace
Ministries. The final decision to separate from SGM, with the congregation’s
affirmation, came in December 2012. And that decision was based on differences in
direction and philosophy of leadership. That decision had nothing to do with the civil
lawsuit. 1:13:57

“Differences in direction and philosophy of leadership.” This illustrates the lack of

courage and conviction to expose the serious issues of corruption, etc. in SGM. This is
political correctness to stay out of trouble with Mahaney and his powerful allies. The
CLC elders were never willing to stand strong against the opposition of Mahaney.

We Answered a Majority of Questions

Well, at this time I want to prepare to close but touching on a just a few remaining
items. We did attempt to answer as many of the questions as we could. And I think
that the way that we grouped them, I believe we answered a majority of questions that
were submitted to us but we know for a fact that we did not address every single one.
So, if your specific questions was not addressed, I just want to encourage you to please
come out to the Coffee and Conversation meetings next month, follow up directly with
a pastor, we may be taking the initiative to follow up with you as well. So I just wanted
to communicate that to you. 1:14:35

When Liebeler was hired in June 2013, Joshua Harris promised every allegation in the
lawsuit would be covered. Yet so little in the lawsuit was addressed and no real
evidence was put forward to rebut it. Just pronouncements based on pronouncements.
The Liebeler-Mitchell report concluded nothing in the 43-page lawsuit was true except
for the two people who were convicted of molestation. The rest is untrue. That’s what
you get when you retain a lawyer to investigate a client that he is obliged to defend and
pay him 100k.

The Confidence of the Congregation in Harris, Megorden, Boisvert, & Maresco

Also two weeks ago at the Members’ Meeting I mentioned that the pastors and the non-
staff elder candidates had spent several hours on our September retreat interviewing
the men who were on the Church Board in 2007 [excluding Grant Layman but including
Joshua Harris, Corby Megorden, Robin Boisvert, Kenneth Maresco] and discussing their
status. And we all agreed that their acknowledged failures, we believe, did not
disqualify them from gospel ministry and that we could still commend them to you as a
congregation. What we did not get to do at that retreat was to complete our discussion
which we did begin on what congregational input on this could look like. 1:15:15

“Congregational input” came in the form of hundreds of people leaving CLC because of
the corrupt and incompetent report by Lars Liebeler.

Now a few members submitted questions in whether the congregation would be

involved in what happens from here. And that is understandable. Here are a couple of
thoughts. First, we wanted to make sure that you were not unaware of our perspective
of these four men and again we’ve had the benefit of evaluating these issues over
several months involving many, many hours of conversation collectively with the
independent investigator, our legal counsel, the men on the 2007 board, and among
ourselves. 1:15:54

“These four men.” Harris is apostate. Maresco left CLC. Boisvert remains. Megorden
resigned, left CLC and is with the crooked P.J. Smyth (Harris’ replacement) who was
fired, rehired, and sent away to start a church.

The pastors and the non-staff elder candidates after careful consideration of the biblical
qualifications for elders, we all voted unanimously to affirm these men as qualified for
ministry. But that said, we recognize that there is a distinction between qualifications
for ministry and the confidence of the congregation to follow their leadership. 1:16:16

The exodus has continued at CLC due to the warranted lack of confidence in the
pastors.

So next week I plan to meet with the elders to discuss how to best seek your input on
this as a congregation. And we also plan to involve the non-staff elder candidates in
this process as well. And once we reached a collective decision on what’s best, I will be
communicating that to you. 1:16:40

The moral of the story. Only the victims are bad. The pastors are good. And so are the
perpetrators.
Many Differing Perspectives in the Church

One of the things we have become acutely aware of throughout the last several months
and even over the last two weeks is that there are many differing perspectives in the
church. Some have been tracking the issues surrounding Morales and the lawsuit very,
very closely. And many may still likely feel that they still need more time to process
these things even after what they have heard this evening. Others feel like it is time to
move forward as a congregation. They are eager to hear the pastors communicate
vision and direction. And they are eager to put these things behind us. And there are
many folks in between. So as your pastors we will be taking these differing
perspectives into consideration as we consider our next steps. But at this time we
believe faithful leadership going forward will involve several things. 1:17:35

First, we want to encourage everyone who needs more time to think on and talk about
these things to please do so. This can happen as I mentioned at a Coffee and
Conversation meeting, this can happen as you interact with one another, this can
happen as you interact with pastors as you are sitting down face to face. We want you
to know that we are eager to have these conversations with you if that would serve you.
1:17:58

For those of you who are in a place to move on and you are ready to move forward,
that’s understandable too. My appeal to all of us is this. Let’s seek the Lord’s help, to
be patient with each other, and gracious with each other, especially towards though
who have a different perspective as you do. 1:18:20

One day, I hope the Lord raises up a godly group of pastors who do not aspire to
greatness and are not wowed by the property, the building, the location, the wealth, or
the potential for greatness; but, just love Jesus and are willing to suffering for him and
walk in integrity.

No More Members’ Meetings

Secondly, we are not going to continue to have Members’ Meetings devoted to these
issues as we have done this month. We planned these two [meetings] to address as
much of the civil lawsuit and the Morales issue as we felt we reasonably could. Going
forward we are going to hold these two Coffee and Conversation meetings next month
for any who want to come out and ask more questions. And as we’ve stated, we are
eager to interact with anyone who wants to follow up with us personally on these
things. You can simply contact the church office if you’d like to set up a meeting with a
pastor to talk. 1:18:55

Conduct Worthy of the Gospel

Third, I want to exhort all of us to keep the Lord Jesus Christ in view and to conduct
ourselves toward one another in a manner that is worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Lord tells us in Philippians, “Let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of
Christ so that whether I come and see you or I am absent, I may hear of you that you are
standing firm in one spirit, with one mind, striving side by side for the faith of the
gospel.” And in chapter two, it says, “If there is any encouragement in Christ, any
comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete
my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one
mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit but in humility count others more
significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests but also
to the interests of others.” 1:20:04

The Covenant Life pastors have brought great reproach upon the gospel of Jesus Christ
and harmed many souls because of their selfish ambition and looking out for their own
interests. God has judged their religious jargon and hypocrisy.

In the mist of the challenges we are walking through we have an opportunity, each one
of us, to put the gospel on display in the ways we relate to one another. And we have
an opportunity to seek to honor Christ in our words, in our attitudes and in our actions.
So I want to encourage all of us, let’s pray for our congregation that the Lord would
indeed enable us to do this and let’s also pray that God would strengthen us and unite
us as we move forward together as a church to bring glory to Jesus Christ in the ways
he has called us to. 1:20:38

This report is a complete denial of these aspirations. It does not “seek to honor Christ in
our words, in our attitudes and in our actions.” It is about self-justification.

Affirmation of Non-Staff Elder Candidates & Church Constitution

a
Fourth, we want to finish making progress on bringing the non-staff elder candidates
before you for affirmation and finalizing our church constitution. So I’ll be writing to
you on that very soon to let you know how we are planning to do that. 1:20:55

Five of the nine non-staff elders they later ordained left the church.

Grow in Prayer

Fifth, we want to grow as a congregation in our dependence on and experience of God

through prayer. And I want to take a moment here just to thank many of you, who
whether it is through periods of just seeking the Lord privately or whether it’s contexts
like Wednesday nights here or in other places gathering together to pray with other
believers, thank you for the ways you have sought the Lord in humility and
dependence and thank you for the ways you have carried the pastoral team and this
congregation on your hearts. We are so grateful for you, we are inspired by your
passion to pray, and we are eager to join you and really see our entire congregation just
really take some steps, some strong steps forward, in seeking the Lord through prayer.
We are meeting with different members of the church; we are talking about ways we
can do that and we look forward to sharing with you soon ways that we are seeking to
grow in pursuing the Lord together through prayer. 1:21:56

May the Lord bring beauty from ashes in his way and time.

Ready to Move Forward in Mission – Our Life Together

Finally, we are ready to move forward as a congregation in accomplishing the mission

the Lord has given us to do. And as was mentioned this morning, beginning next week,
we are going to take a break from Colossians to begin a series that we are calling “Our
Life Together” series. And over the next four weeks we are going to be preaching on the
important priorities of just building community together through fellowship, in
particular through small groups, serving together and serving the Lord through the
investment of our gifts and our energies for his glory as well as the call that God gives
us to give financially toward the mission that God has called us to as a local church.
1:22:41

Brothers and sisters, the last three years have been challenging. But God has been
accomplishing much in our midst in the midst of the challenges. The ministry of the
Word has continued to take place week after week. Believers continue to be baptized as
they place their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. The fellowship and
communion of the saints continues to be enjoyed as we gather in groups small and
large. Even just yesterday we had approximately 20 people in our Starting Point class
pursuing and exploring membership here at Covenant Life Church. 1:23:21

Our commitment to missions continues to grow as we seek to engage our community

and our world with the gospel and how encouraging that was to hear this morning the
testimony of how God is using Ellie in her local school and through the vocation of
teaching to reach young people who desperately need to know Christ. That was so
powerful and encouraging. 1:23:42

In summary, God’s saving and sanctifying power has remained active among us and we
have every reason to believe from his Word that it will continue to do so. God is faithful
to his promises, he is faithful to us as his people, and his redemptive work is
unstoppable. As Jesus has said, “I will build my church and the gates of hell will not
prevail against it.” May these truths fill our hearts as we take some strong steps
forward now as a church to accomplish the mission God has given us. Amen. Amen. I
am going to ask Kevin Rogers to come now to close us in prayer. 1:24:27

Mitchell was removed from ministry in October for patterns of sin including outbursts
of anger. CLC had 23 pastors in 2011. They are down to four. Approximately 3,000
people have left the church. There have been no “strong steps forward.” God has been
faithful to his promises to humble the proud in heart. And he cannot be mocked by
deceitful leaders who cover up, rather than confess, their sin.

I’m confident the Lord will bring them through his judgment and show his compassion
to a new generation. That generation must be careful to confess the sins of the past and
make restitution wherever possible.