As I sit here reflecting over the events of the last 24 hours, I must say there has not been so much to write since the initial few months of this blog. Actually, I had planned a totally different post for this slot. I planned to bring you “the rest of the story” about Michael Lowry. He has provided a narrative of the events surrounding his recapture, forced recant and second exit. Yes, we will bring that to you, soon. Today, I feel compelled to give you the overview of what I first considered two totally unrelated events. However, after pondering the content of these events, I see they are related. Hopefully, by sharing them we will shed some light where darkness has prevailed.  

First, I received an email on Monday from Josh Farmer of Tomblin, Farmer and Morris. He was questioning some material in a previous post about The Best of Rutherford 2011 and the first post presented about The Best of Rutherford 2013. I read his email filled with questions and took a while to answer. I wrote my answer and then slept on it a night. Tuesday morning, I sent it and have not heard back from him. The following is the text excerpt from his email.

 “I have seen your recent blog post from Saturday.  I am confused.  Your February 6, 2012 post regarding the 2011 Best of Rutherford County poll results indicated that “…the rules don’t seem to be broken [by WFF practices]”.  However, your January 25, 2014 post accuses Jane, the church and me of “vote rigging”.  So which is it?  Can you identify any impropriety here?

I have talked with Matt Clark about my involvement in the Best of Rutherford contest and candidly discussed the matter.  He couldn’t identify any problems with my activities or those of others you have accused.

You accuse me of impropriety by referencing the “Oath of Office as an Attorney at Law”.  So let’s be clear here, do you contend I violated any Rule of Professional Conduct, did anything illegal or even violated a rule of the Daily Courier’s contest?  I would like some clarification because your current post would tend to mislead all of your 10 readers.”

So, after researching the term “vote rigging”, I realized it was defined in reference to actual elections. Secondly, I had to find and read the Rule of Professional Conduct. Next, I presented my reply sent January 28, 2014 @10:49AM:

“Thank you for bringing the apparent misuse of a term meant for true elections. This event in question appears to have been more of a survey than an election, though the “winners” knew they were being “voted” on for some significant award. This can be seen as evidenced by their appreciation statements in most every advertisement in the insert. A more accurate term would have been “vote guiding.” I would be happy to make the clarification. Apparently, there were no rules barring such activity. It appears that the main goal of the newspaper was the participation of their readers.

As for your question about my mention of your “Oath of Office as an Attorney at Law” or possibly some other violation of the Rule of Professional Conduct did something illegal or violated a rule of Daily Courier contest?” First off, let me say in my finite understanding of the Rules of Professional Conduct, I see no violation since you are very honest and sincere in your application of your profession… Second, vote guiding in a survey is not illegal. Some, including myself may consider it a dubious undertaking but, that was your choice to make. And the Daily Courier did not prohibit such activity.

I will say the mention of the “Oath” was an incomplete reference to a contention I have made in an earlier post. The Oath contains a provision saying “I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said state…” That references the NC Constitution.  In the NC Constitution under Article 1 Declaration of Rights Section 13 -Religious Liberty- “All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

My contention is that by participating in the leadership, oversight and administration of the rules and practices of Word of Faith Fellowship- you violate the Oath to uphold and defend that Religious Liberty contained in the NC Constitution which applies to those in the group. The practices of the group include the restriction of one’s rights of conscience when it comes to this Religious Liberty and this “Declared Right.” I am not saying your choice to represent Jane or WOFF as a church is suspect. You have the freedom and ability to choose your clients. I am contending your leadership role within the Church makes you a “human authority” and that role requires you to control and interfere with the rights of conscience of WOFF members. The role you have contains the administration of WOFF rules and this could be (should be, in my opinion) construed as a violation of your Oath.

Hope this helps. Also, your offer of a reader count- was that the confessed readers inside WOFF? I will make sure those readers and the others are aware of your concerns.”

And there the answer to inquiry stood until I saw something else Tuesday which now seems to fit as a further explanation of my contention with Mr. Farmer. Actually, my belief outlined above could be applied to any individual taking the attorney’s oath and participating in the leadership of WOFF.

I received an alert from Facebook® about a posting from a young man that left WOFF about a year ago. His name is Matthew Fenner. His story is sad in one respect, but Monday, he was celebrating. My understanding is that Matthew went into WOFF after I left in 2008. He is a local resident of Rutherford County and was inside for about three years. I did not meet Matthew until he had been out of WOFF for a little while. He like so many other survivors was very leery to meet me because of the fear put in them while inside WOFF. During my first meeting with Matthew, I found him to be cordial and kind. As I remember, I was having a rough day and he seemed very considerate to me. It is with his permission I have re-typed his Facebook® post.

“LAUDATION/’FAMILIAR SPRITS’ ALERT: A year ago tonight, I was being cornered and assaulted by a local religious group that all too many are familiar with. It was probably the worst events ever to take place in my lifetime; one that left me feeling hopeless, degraded, and in fear for my life. I am so grateful to have been able to leave the environment I was in. After being slapped, choked, punched in the chest, excessively shaken, and degraded through caustic statements and threats such as “You disgust me,” I hate being around you,” “You’ll sit here for the next two days if you have to,” and “If you don’t change, I will beat this out of you,” all because of the sexual orientation I was viewed as being (and born with), I have been able to grow and successfully become a grateful empowered young man. I am so thankful for the many people that have been a part of my healing and for the opportunity I have had to share the detriment that religious-based bigotry and unrestrained hate have on today’s youth. I look forward to many great things that God will bless me and my family with over the next years. I have been so grateful to reunite with my family and friends whom I had no contact with for three years. I couldn’t (be) more excited for what the future holds.”

I found this about 3:30PM Tuesday and it had been online for about 18 hours. I just checked the post and there were 172 likes and 37 comments in support of his continued success in his new life. So, on the day Mr. Farmer presents his questions; Matthew Fenner is celebrating his exit from WOFF. The irony includes that I did not know that Matthew would lay out so clearly confirmation as to my opinion/contention that by participating in the authority/leadership of WOFF, Mr. Farmer furthers a system that not only violates Section 13 of the Declaration of Rights in the NC Constitution which he took as Oath to defend and uphold; but, the practices of WOFF outlined in Matthew’s description of how he was treated violate other more obvious laws as well as the norms of common decency! It is hard to think that a group calling themselves a “Protestant, Non-Denominational church” would treat their members in such a fashion!

So, yes Mr. Farmer, you may not have violated the Rule of Professional Conduct with vote guiding for The Best of Rutherford 2013; but please consider my reasons for mentioning the Oath you signed and the testimony presented by Matthew as well as other survivors. Your continued participation in WOFF presents your full and complete endorsement of such practices. Will you say it does not? Are these practices fitting for someone who has taken on the practice of law?

I quote the Preamble to Rules of Professional Conduct:

PREAMBLE:  A LAWYER’S RESPONSIBILITIES

[1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. (source link- here)

As an “officer of the legal system”, Josh, did you consider your “special responsibility for the quality of ‘justice’” which Matthew received while inside WOFF?

In closing, let me again remind the readers that soon I will post Michael Lowry’s narrative. I will say now that it will be further proof of the treatment which some members of WOFF receive. The events recounted will shock many who are not acquainted with the “standard practices” of WOFF.

And with that, let us remember:

“It is never too late to wake up and leave and reclaim your life!” Steve Hassan

Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog. Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Jane told me and Josh confirmed it.

Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.

Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.

Guest posts reflect the opinions of the writers. Their opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of John Huddle or any other persons affiliated with this blog.

Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, for posts written by John Huddle, any information about WOFF is from his memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be.

Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 458.