Baltimore Presbytery provides evidence
against charges by Paul R. Jensen
[12-2-02]
Recent reports on the case against the Rev. Donald Stroud have included
charges that Paul Jensen, the lawyer who first filed complaints against
Stroud, was not properly informed of his opportunity to testify against
Mr. Stroud.
The Presbytery took action on November 21, 2002, to
release a number of documents which indicate quite clearly that Mr.
Jensen was indeed invited to testify, that he received the letter of
invitation, but that he is now claiming not to have been properly
invited.
In order to correct the misinformation that is being
spread, the Presbytery has shared with us the relevant documents.
They are also available (in pdf format, so you see
them as they appear in the originals) on
the More Light web site.
These include:
1. A statement by
the Stated Clerk regarding the report of the designated members of
the PJC reviewing the work of the Investigating Committee appointed
September 27 I 2002
2. Motion made by Elder
Tom Eastman and adopted by the Presbytery on November 21, 2002.
3. Letter from
John Kazanjian. Chair of the Investigating Committee, to Mr. Paul R.
Jensen, dated April 12, 2002, inviting Mr. Jensen to meet with the
committee.
4. Copy
of Certified Mail receipt for the above letter. (To view this, go to
the More Light website, which provides the
document in pdf format.)
5. Extract from the Petition
of Mr. Jensen for review of the Investigating Committee's decision
not to bring charges. [The full petition is not attached, as parts
remain confidential.]
6. Letter dated
October 7, 2002, from Mr. Tom Eastman on behalf of the designated
members of the Permanent Judicial Commission to Mr. Jensen, asking for
an explanation of the apparent conflict between his petition and
the letter of April 12, 2002.
7. Extract from the Reply to
the above letter from Mr. Jensen, October 15,2002. [The full letter
is not attached, as parts remain confidential.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STATEMENT
OF THE STATED CLERK
(November 21,2002)
In the last week or so a number of articles have appeared in the press
regarding the report of the designated members of the Permanent Judicial
Committee which appears in the Clerk's report. This reporting has
contained factual errors which have gone uncorrected, even though the
media involved have been advised of the errors and asked to correct
them. The first of these errors is the report that this Presbytery
improperly instructed the Investigating Committee and the PJC to ignore
the Constitution. Members of this Presbytery are certainly aware that no
such instruction was given. The action of the Presbytery that is being
interpreted as instructing the Investigating Committee and PJC is the
motion adopted in June to "direct the Council, in considering
'possible next steps,' to include consideration of the following
actions." There followed a list of possible actions, one of which
included not pursuing the enforcement of G- 6.0106b. This was neither a
motion to adopt, nor to recommend, but that is the way it has been
characterized in some of the media.
Another misrepresentation appearing widely in
the media cannot be so easily refuted because the facts of the situation
are within the confidentiality restrictions of the judicial process.
Members of the Investigating Committee and the designated members of the
PJC met this morning to discuss whether they could respond to the
misinformation being circulated about their process. They noted that
both of the parties have waived confidentiality - Rev. Stroud by public
statement to the Presbytery, and Mr. Jensen through the extensive
statements that he has made to the media. Specifically I was asked if,
in my opinion, they could publically refute the misinformation being
circulated about the work of the Investigating Committee. I advised
them, and now so advise the Presbytery, that the confidentiality
requirements of the Constitution are more implied than specific.
Therefore, the power of the Presbytery in this matter would seem to be
governed by G-9.0103, which states, "The jurisdiction of each
governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution,
with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries."
I advised the individuals gathered that if they wished to publically
refute the statements being made about their process it would be best if
it were a corporate act, and they should seek the direction of the
Presbytery.
Moderator, my statement was made at the request of the
members of the Investigating Committee and the designated members of the
PJC. They now have a motion to present to the Presbytery. Tom Eastman,
Elder at Brown Memorial Woodbrook, and Secretary of the PJC, would like
to be recognized to make a motion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MOTION adopted by
Presbytery of Baltimore
THAT the Presbytery direct the Stated Clerk, acting on
behalf of the Investigating Committee appointed September 27, 2001, to
release copies of those documents which refute and clarify the
misrepresentations being published in the media about the conduct of the
Committee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Investigating Committee invites
Jensen to testify
Kenwood
Presbyterian Church
John J. Kazanjian, Pastor
4801 Fullerton Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21236
410-668-4664
Email: kenwoodpc@gfme.com
April 12, 2002
Dear Mr. Jensen:
Thank you for your letter dated March 13th. The
Investigating Committee of Baltimore Presbytery appreciates your
cooperation in assisting us in our work. To help us in our investigation
of Rev. Stroud, we are asking you to please do the following:
1) The committee would like to meet with you
face to face at the Presbytery Office in Baltimore to hear your
personal, first-hand testimony concerning the allegations you are
presenting. Specifically, to hear your first-hand knowledge of
Rev. Stroud's homosexual practices, and to listen to your personal
account of him performing "holy union blessings," and
considering them to be the same as marriages. If there are any other
items to which you wish to give personal witness, opportunity will be
given to you.
2) In the interest of saving time, the committee
requests you to please send all other written documents and records you
have concerning this matter, if there is anything else for the committee
to review. You can send these items to me at Kenwood Church at
the above address.
3) The committee would like you to write a brief
statement of exactly what is the heresy you feel Rev. Stroud has
committed. Please send that statement with any other documents.
We are suggesting two dates for your visit with
us to give your' testimony. Either Wednesday, May 29th at 7:00 p.m., or
Thursday afternoon, May 30th, at 1:00. We apologize that these are the
earliest times the committee could find. Please let me know if one of
those times is good for you. If not, we need to arrange
another time.
Also, to assure accuracy. the committee will
audiotape record your statement.
Again, thank you for your cooperation. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
John Kazanjian. Chair
cc: Charles Forbes, Clerk. of Presbytery
Florence Henderson, Committee Member
Sam Jett, Committee Member
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jensen petitions Presbytery Permanent
Judicial Commission to to review Investigating Committee's decision not
to bring charges.
Paul
Rolf Jensen
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
Post Office Box 9171
Reston, Virginia 20195
(202) 224-1936
fax (703) 319-7794
July 26, 2002
Via Telecopier #410 433-2066 (without attachments)
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL #7002 1000 0004 8316 6723
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of
Baltimore
c/o Charles P. Forbes. Stated Clerk
5400 Loch Raven Road
Baltimore, MD 21239-2998
RE: Disciplinary Accusation against The
Rev. Donald Stroud
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please accept this letter as my petition,
pursuant to Book of Order section D-10.0303, that the Presbytery of
Baltimore Permanent Judicial Commission review the decision of the
Investigating Committee not to file charges in the above-referenced matter.
I allege that the investigating committee has
not fulfilled the duties specified in section D-10.0202 of the
Book of Order, in the following particulars:
1. The investigating committee abused
its discretion by failing to make a thorough inquiry into the facts
and circumstances of the alleged offense, as required by D-10.0202(b)
by failing to seek and obtain testimony from all available witnesses,
e.g., myseIf as the accuser. At no time was I offered the opportunity
to present testimony to the Investigating Committee. On February 21,
2002. the Stated Clerk wrote me a letter (attached) which offered the
opportunity to present written evidence. I replied to this letter
certified mail on March 13, 2002, requesting the opportunity to
present live testimony. Both the letter and a copy of the return
receipt are attached. On April 2, 2002, I received a letter back from
Mr. Forbes, indicating that he had received my letter and was
transmitting it to the Investigating Committee. Subsequently, I spoke
with Mr. Forbes on one occasion, and he told me the matter was with
the Investigating Committee. I received a certified latter from Mr.
Forbes dated June 28, 2002 (attached) setting forth the Investigating
Committee's decision.
In the interim I had no other contact from
anyone on behalf of the Presbytery of Baltimore with respect to my
request to present testimony. Other than as set forth in this
paragraph, I had no other response whatsoever (mail, fax or phone) to
my letter of March 13th requesting the opportunity
to testify.
[The full petition is not
attached, as parts remain confidential.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Designated members of PJC ask Mr.
Jensen to explain apparent conflict between his petition, saying he was
not invited to testify, and the Committee's invitation of April 12.
THOMAS B. EASTMAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Mercantile-Towson Building
409 Washington Avenue, Suite 630
Towson, Maryland 21204-4903
(410) 832-0230
Fax (410) 832-0232
e-mail: tomeastman@msn.com
10/7/2002
Certified
Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Paul Rolf Jensen, Esq.
P. O. Box 9171
Reston, Virginia 20195
Re: Disciplinary Complaint
Dear Mr. Jensen,
We, the undersigned, are the designated members
of the permanent judicial commission pursuant to D-10.0303 c. We have
considered your petition and the response but have been faced with a
factual issue regarding the statement in your July 26, 2002 certified
letter that "At no time was I offered the opportunity to present
testimony to the Investigating Committee." A copy of your July
letter is attached hereto.
We also have a copy of a letter sent to you
dated April 12, 2002 by Rev. John Kazanjian, Chair of the Investigating
Committee, a copy of which is attached, inviting you to present
testimony and suggesting specific dates and times for the presentation
of your testimony. The letter also offered to arraign for alternative
dates if the dates suggested were not convenient for you. This letter
was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. We are enclosing a
copy of the certified mail information, which includes a copy of the
return receipt bearing what appears to be your signature as
"addressee."
Your letter of July 26, 2002, referred to above,
makes no mention of the invitation extended in the Investigating
Committee's certified letter to you. Although we are not handwriting
experts, the signature on the receipt appears to be the same as your
signature to your July 26, 2002 letter.
We would appreciate your addressing this factual
conflict.
Very truly yours,
Rev. Mary D. Gaur
Thomas B. Eastman
Enclosures
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jensen denies having received letter
of invitation, though he signed a receipt for it. Copies of the
relevant receipts are on the More Light website.
Paul
Rolf Jensen
Attorney and Counsellor at Law
Post Office Box 9171
Reston, Virginia 20195
fax (703) 319-7794
paulrolfjensen@yahoo.com
15 October 2002
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL #7002 1000 0004 8316 6631
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Thomas B. Eastman, Esquire
409 Washington Avenue, Suite 630
Towson, Maryland 21204-4903
RE: Disciplinary Accusation against The Rev. Don Stroud
Dear Mr. Eastman:
This will acknowledge, and respond to, your
letter under date of October 7th. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide you with further information.
At the outset, let me make perfectly clear that
the signature on the return receipt you attached to your letter is
indeed my own. That said, I have no recollection of ever seeing the
letter you also attached, which was presumably enclosed, and that letter
is not in my file. I have no explanation for this seeming contradiction.
All I can assure you is that these two facts are absolutely correct: the
signature is my own, and I never saw this letter. A variety of
explanations suggest themselves, any of which may be correct, e.g.,: I
could have erroneously discarded the letter; the sender could have
erroneously failed to enclose it in the envelope; the sender could have
enclosed in this envelope some other communication. One this is certain,
if the Investigating Committee wanted to schedule a date, they could
have done so in a heartbeat by picking up the phone and calling me-the
Stated Clerk had my number. Or, they could have sent a follow-up
letter/fax when no reply was received to this letter. After all, no date
for my testimony was in fact set; the letter only discussed the prospect
of a date. Accordingly, it cannot be said that I failed to attend a
meeting of the committee that had in fact been scheduled. Due process
requires both notice, and an opportunity to be heard. Even the letter
you enclosed does not constitute notice that I would be heard at a
specific date and time.
[Balance of letter remains
confidential.]
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL ROLF JENSEN
enclosure: TAMFS story dated July 24, 2002
