Monday, June 20, 2016

a brief consideration in light of Sutton Turner's statement in response to the RICO filing


http://investyourgifts.com/mars-hill-rico-never-served/
...
The sole purpose of filing the lawsuit was to disparage my character. [emphasis added] The Jacobsens, Kildeas, and Brian Fahling acted in bad faith and the case should be dismissed with prejudice as a result of this bad faith. In addition, attorney fees and sanctions in the amount of $4,240.00 should be assessed.

But if the sole purpose of filing the lawsuit was to disparage the character of one person why were there two listed defendants?  Why were there a variety of named non-party co-conspirators?  This particular assertion seems, to put it nicely, implausible on its face.  It's possible to have questions about the RICO suit at all kinds of levels while rejecting this particular assertion as absurd on its face.

Remember RICO Lawsuit Filed Against Former Leaders of Mars Hill Church; ECFA Named As Co-Conspirator?

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/files/2016/02/Filed-Complaint.pdf

When the word "defendant" appears in plural form then it seems pretty obvious that the sole purpose of filing the lawsuit can't have been to disparage the character of one person, or does it?

No comments: