Regarding an Oct. 14, 2009, post on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:
A letter dated Oct. 9, 2009, by an attorney representing "friendsofchapel" was sent to the Chapel of Awareness Board of Trustees (which was subsequently mailed out to Chapel members using a questionably obtained Chapel mailing list).
The letter "orders" the Board of Trustees to step down (why they would do so based solely on one lawyer's demand is odd). What stands out in this letter is the following, if the board did NOT meet this lawyer's demand. In the letter, the lawyer states that trustees' failure to resign would "result in severe financial consequences to each of you personally if a lawsuit is filed, as well as public humiliation if this situation is allowed to escalate."
A lawyer threatening public humiliation if a church's board doesn't bend to their request? That seems pretty outrageous. Since when is "public humiliation" a legal course of action? It's not. What it can be, however, is libelous.
It's ironic, in this blogger's opinion, that the lawyer would also demand that the Chapel end its so-called "escalation" of the current conflict. The only escalation to be found, however, is in the behavior observed on the "friendsofchapel" blog site.
Based on this lawyer's statement, in this poster's opinion, it seems as if the "friendsofchapel" are willing to engage in public humiliation to achieve whatever goal they seek. Is that what founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr would want?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment