Presiding Bishop comments on COGIC sex crimes and money issues
In 2009, according to documented testimony by COGIC’s presiding bishop, the denomination on average pays out approximately $800,000 annually to settle clergy sexual abuse legal claims.
But a year later, in a 2010 report to the General Assembly, Bishop Blake told delegates that financial payouts for “settlements” had dramatically increased.
After “expressing concern” over the denomination’s financial health due in part to improper financial recordkeeping, the minutes reflected that “Bishop Blake noted the need for adjustments to be made and highlighted the fact that approximately $1.7 million is spent on legal fees and settlements.”
Then, as if to connect then segue:
“Bishop Blake expounded on the problem of sexual misconduct by clergy and emphasized that such criminal activity must be properly reported. He also intimated that the general church could not pay legal expenses for local and jurisdiction litigation.”
Even though the church’s chief lawyer Enoch Perry falsely informed the church’s general assembly that in over 100 years of COGIC there had “only been 20-25 processed cases of sexual misconduct”. Perry did not say what constitutes a sexual abuse case nor why with such a low number of cases, the church pays out such large sums of money to compensate victims each year.
His GA testimony was in sharp conflict with Bishop Blake’s $800k statement. The math between the two statements were worlds apart.
Another note of interest: Given the prior numbers and statements from the Perry, no one (at least not on record) ever questioned the presiding bishop as to why settlement payouts had increased and who the money was paid to.
As we pointed out here, COGIC’s own “sexual abuse policy” approved by Blake says that “The local jurisdiction and the National Church can all be held liable for of the acts of one individual.” This was the case in Washington State where after a legal defeat in the case of Supt Charles Smith, the church had to pay a $1 million dollar settlement. The jurisdictional headquarters was later sold. And several years prior in Illinois (5th jurisdiction) the church paid $1.5 million settlement (see this) because of a failure of leadership to discipline a known sexually immoral pastor.
April 2010 GA Minutes (contains cited remarks)
Sexual offenders and ministry [POLL VOTE]
One Wisconsin church has recently begun holding biweekly church “adults only” services, in part as a way to allow convicted sex offenders to “worship”.
The church’s pastor said, “Through our work with prisoners we realized that there might be a need for a service of this kind because many sex offenders cannot for legal reason or should not for therapeutic reasons attend worship service when children are present.” [source]
As more and more sexual offenders are returning to seek a place in the church, questions about re-admission and ethics must be discussed and written into policy for the church. But RCA would like to know your opinion on the matter. Please respond to the following polls with your vote.
A. If a person is convicted of a sexual crime (rape, molestation, assault, etc) and placed on a sexual offender registry [example] by a law enforcement agency, how long do you think it should be, after fulfilling their conviction requirements, before they are allowed to hold a “ministry” office (pastor, elder, evangelist, bishop, etc)?
B. If the offender’s victim is a child, and placed on a sexual offender list, how long do you think it should be, after fulfilling their conviction requirements, before they are allowed to hold a “ministry” office (pastor, elder, evangelist, bishop, etc?
C. If the offender is on the sexual offender registry for life, should they ever be allowed to hold a ministry office?
D. If the offender is on a sexual offender registry for life for sexual crimes against children, but allowed to hold a ministry office, should prospective members of a church be informed of the offender’s presence in the church?
If you have additional questions or comments, use the post comment section.
CA COGIC lawsuit alleges unusual sex demands by Barrett
**an exclusive report**
Report COGIC Abuse has obtained a copy of the civil lawsuits filed by two California women against a former Administrative Assistant to Bishop George McKinney, Southern California 2nd Jurisdiction.
The twin 28 page lawsuits names COGIC, Inc., Donald K. Barrett, his wife Ruth Barrett, So California 2nd Jurisdiction, Greater Gospel Center COGIC, New Directions COGIC and DOES 1-50 as defendants.
Among the charges cited in the 1st suit are Assault and Battery, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and constructive fraud. The 2nd suit alleges assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, physical abuse of a dependent adult and financial abuse of a dependent adult.
The Barrett case represents yet another unseemly blight on the reputation of the nation’s largest black pentecostal denomination. In 2009, COGIC presiding Bishop Charles Blake admitted to the church’s General Assembly that on average COGIC annually pays out almost 1 million dollars to settle sex abuse cases [source].
At the crux of the problem are male leaders who use their authority, influence, talents and at times brute force to rape, molest, and sexually devastate men, women and children of both genders. The problem is fairly expansive involving every level of leadership the church has in place. Additionally, COGIC clergy sexual abuse cases have been cited in 29 different states. See more here and here.
Denominational leaders have not been aggressive in dealing with sexual crimes committed by clergy and in many cases have turned a blind eye. Recent developments still show an unwillingness to tender justice to victims via a more comprehensive victims advocacy policy. Instead, the church has an ineffective institutional policy advising churches on how to protect themselves.
What the suit alleges
The women who filed the lawsuits against Barrett allege that he coerced them into sexual relationships after one woman went to him in late 2009 for counseling and revealed to him that she had been sexually molested as a child.
Ingar Jones’ complaint says that Barrett ensured her that COGIC, Inc was “in the business of protecting victims of sexual abuse, (2) that they intended to protect her from abuse and (3) that they could be trusted with the details of her most intimate and private matters relating to past instances of abuse.”
She alleges that Barrett further ensured her that he had extensive experience in helping victims of childhood sexual abuse.
After she confided in him, she alleges Barrett informed her that she would have to “have sexual relations with another female parishioner, while he watched, in order to overcome the emotional issues caused by past incidences of sexual abuse.”
Some time later, another female member of the church was brought into the situation and at locations both on and off church property, Barrett engaged in sexual activity with the two women.
The two women allege that Barrett forced them to perform lesbian sex acts while he watched. Over the course of a year, the woman alleges that Barrett became increasingly controlling and abusive. According to the suit, this culminated in September 2010 when Barrett punched and choked her while calling her “dyke” and b[expletive]. This resulte
d in “not less than $25,000 in injuries to the woman’s neck and torso”.
The lawsuit further alleges that after the fact, Ruth Barrett attempted to get them to sign a statement of release from liability signifying that she was aware of the crimes her husband had committed and was complicit in her attempt to cover it up.
According to additional court documents, the second woman, Barbara Harris (identified by California law as a “dependent adult”) was also a sexual abuse victim as a child, a victim of rape and at some point attempted suicide. Harris first met Barrett at his church in Harvey, IL where he served as the pastor.
Harris’ suit further alleges that through blackmail and intimidation, Barrett forced her to make him her representative payee for her Social Security Disability Income. According to her complaint, Barrett refused to give her money until she gave in to his sexual demands which included going to “sex clubs” with him, and arranging “sex parties” for him. When she refused to participate one time, Harris alleges Barrett struck her in the face with his fist causing a bloody nose. He further threatened to call child protective services and have her children removed and have her Section 8 housing revoked. Barrett told her that if she ever came forward “nobody would believe her and he would take all necessary steps to publicly discredit her.”
Washing hands of negligence?
COGIC has in several cases allowed sexual abusers to “walk away” from the denomination and continue on with “ministry” under another name. Barrett, if proven guilty, will be another example of this. Barrett was allowed to continue pastoring and using COGIC’s name and image without the denomination ever disclosing what they knew about him. This is the “negligence” that both lawsuits allege against COGIC, Inc and Southern California 2nd.
Barrett represented himself as an authority and an expert on sexual abuse recovery but like most abusers used that as an avenue of legitimacy to ensnare his victims.
The Barrett case contains all the classic signs of clergy sexual abuse: intimidation, threats, force, deception and charisma.
If you or someone you know has been victimized by a member of COGIC’s clergy, dont remain silent. Silence allows abusers to continue their pattern of deception with more victims. Often, they will not stop until exposed.
Judge dismisses sex crimes case against Bishop Charles Brown
**UPDATED** scroll down
On a legal technicality, a Louisiana parish judge has dismissed sex crimes cases against COGIC Bishop Charles Brown saying the charges were filed after the statue of limitations had expired.[source]
The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported the story March 2nd after the ruling.
Criminal District Judge Karen Herman ruled that the statute of limitations, as it was written when the alleged sexual attacks took place, had long ago run out.
Brown, the jurisdictional bishop for Greater New Orleans in the Church of God in Christ, based in Memphis, Tenn., also was pastor of Full Gospel Church of God in Christ in New Orleans, though he spent much of his time leading a congregation in Houston. The Church of God in Christ suspended him after learning of the first allegation, which came to light in September.
Brown faced a count of forcible rape, two counts of sexual battery and two counts of indecent behavior with a juvenile.
There is no statute of limitations any longer for forcible rape in Louisiana. State law allows prosecution of sexual battery, indecent behavior with a juvenile or other sex crimes against people under 17 for 30 years after the victim becomes an adult.
But that wasn’t the case when the crimes allegedly were committed, between 1977 and 1989. Then, the victims were required to report them no later than 10 years after they turned 17. Forcible rape carried a six-year statute when the woman said Brown raped her, Herman found.
The last of the statutes under the indictment ran out in 1991, Brown’s attorney argued. Herman quashed the rape count in January, and the other four counts Friday.
Brown’s attorney called the ruling “bittersweet”. “He actually wanted to face his accusers,” said Johnson, who claimed the case was “set up for a money grab” by the women. Brown hopes to be reinstated with the church, he said.
Take the poll: based on the ruling should Bishop Blake reinstate Charles Brown to his former positions? If you would like to leave a comment to support your view, use the post comment link.
UPDATE MARCH 21, 2011
Four days after a Louisiana judge dismissed charges against COGIC bishop Charles Brown, the COGIC issued a brief but tersely worded statement saying that it was immediately lifting Brown’s suspension without further comment. Its unclear if Brown will be reassigned or allowed to simply step back into his former positions.
Lawsuits filed against COGIC, Inc; Southern CA 2nd Jurisdiction
**EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPING REPORT**
Report COGIC Abuse has learned that two women have filed separate lawsuits against a former administrative assistant to Bishop George McKinney, bishop the Church of God in Christ Southern California Second Jurisdiction based in San Diego.
Principal defendants named in the suit are Dr. Donald K. Barrett and his wife Attorney Ruth Barrett who now reside in Stone Mountain, GA an Atlanta suburb. From the website for the Arizona church: “Attorney Ruth Lenetta Lewis-Barrett who is a staff attorney with the General Counsel’s Office of the Church of God in Christ.” The denomination’s website lists her as “chief of research” under COGIC’s “General Counsel”, the controversial Enoch Perry. Perry has presided over a string of legal blunders according to a letter by the church’s COO James Smith. Barrett moved to Atlanta and is now the leader of an apparently non-COGIC religious organization called Jesus is Lord Fellowship of Churches and Ministries.
Also named in the suits: Church of God in Christ, Inc., Southern California 2nd Jurisdiction, Greater Gospel Temple COGIC and New Direction Ministries COGIC in Yuma, AZ.
According to official court records, the civil suits were filed by Barbara Harris and Ingar Jones in California’s Superior Court May and June 2011, respectively.
Although the lawsuits do not specify the nature of the suits, Report COGIC Abuse was informed by a legal source that both cases involve sexual violations.
Court Cases
COGIC sexual abuse policies: mandatory or suggestive?
Has the Church of God in Christ made any significant progress in getting its clergy sexual abuse problem under control? The answer to that question may lie with two key factors. (1) The consistent implementation of church policies at the local church level and (2) the denomination’s enforcement mechanisms.
Without these two working in tandem, its only a matter of time –if not already– that another child or defenseless person is raped, molested, sexually abused or worse murdered by a COGIC representative.
In the past, although there have been small steps to address the issue, COGIC leadership under the administration of Bishop Charles Blake has rarely risen above what could be termed convenient “window dressing”. Eager to keep the church name, image and assets out of controversy, church leaders have made shoddy stitches without seeming to take serious the nature of sexual predation and the countless victims it leaves in its wake.
Its missive to the COGIC faithful, entitled “Keys to Reducing Litigation and Avoiding Liability“ may be telling about the denomination’s real motives in dealing with sexual abuse. Based on 11 key points, the goal seems purely legal and business oriented. Its devoid of the concern for vulnerable human life connected to these real tragic crimes. This attitude is typical of those who view victims as “problems” rather than as people who need the church’s love and protection.
Not to mention strange coming from an organization which purports to uphold “holiness” as a standard.
1. Churches must have a comprehensive, written Sexual Misconduct program that includes and explains child sexual abuse issues
2. Workers who have direct contact with minors (this includes jurisdictional officials, pastors, employees and volunteers) must attend regular seminars and forums that disperse pertinent information regarding all ways in which their church can prevent cases of sexual misconduct, especially that of child molestation. Attendance at such sessions should be documented and kept on file.
3. The pressing need for volunteers and/or workers should not negate the need to be diligent as it relates to hiring practices within the Church.
4. There must be a comprehensive application process whereby individuals seeking to be volunteers or employees would be subject to an extensive investigation. Any person seeking a position (paid or unpaid) within the Church must have been a member of the local assembly for at least six (6) months.
5. Overnight trips should be very carefully planned and monitored with an appropriate number of screened adults.
6. Youth leaders must be mindful to avoid even casual, physical contact with a minor child in their care. Touching, hugging, fondling or kissing any young person is strictly prohibited.
7. Sunday school teachers, daycare providers, other youth workers must be alert to mood changes in minor children.
8. Never take light an allegation made by a child. All claims must be investigated immediately and with a great deal of discretion to clearly protect the rights of the child and those of the alleged tortfeasor.
9. Each childcare worker, Sunday school teacher, daycare provider and pastor must know the reporting requirements of their state for suspected child abuse.
10. Each jurisdiction and local church should have one individual responsible for dealing with the press, the police and the congregation at large as it relates to responding to the publicity that surrounds alleged sexual misconduct cases.
11. The local jurisdiction and the National Church can all be held liable for of the acts of one individual.
Its unclear if this was written by someone with a legitimate legal background. None of the policies are ever attributed to any single person, perhaps because they know they are under scrutiny. For instance, the rigid command word must is mentioned several times, but there is nothing in place if a church, through neglect, ignorance or refusal fails to implement the denomination’s policies. But then in the same document, must is mixed with the suggestive identifier “should” leaving open the option of compliance. The final point is almost bizarre considering that COGIC’s legal representative Enoch Perry has argued —under oath— in numerous cases that the national church has no legal connection with a local church in these matters. See his Sherman Allen deposition.
Discussions