• About C3 Church Watch
    • Church Watch Rules
  • C3 Scandals
  • C3 Testimonies
  • C3 Tirade Brigade
  • C3’s Bible Garble
  • Church Leaders Speak Out
  • Finding a good church near you
  • LoveIs What Exactly?
  • Pringle’s Oracle Debacles

C3 Church Watch

C3 Church Watch

Tag Archives: scandal

Phil Pringle invites convicted felon, Yonggi Cho, to speak at C3 Church Oxford Falls.

10 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by Nailed Truth in Pringle's Business, Pringle's Influences, Uncategorized

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

c3 church oxford falls, criminal, David Yonggi Cho, felon, fraud, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal, tax evasion, yonggi cho

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” Acts 20:28-30

We here at ChurchWatch have followed, and documented the scandal Dr Yonggi Cho was involved in. It was not long ago that this man was found guilty of serious charges. On 20 February 2014, Cho was found guilty of tax evasion, sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended for five years, and fined the equivalent of almost $5 million. His oldest son Cho Hee-jun was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The charges arose from Cho’s church purchasing shares from his son’s church at above market value and fraudulently claiming tax relief.

To this day, Phil Pringle continues to lie by omission, praising Yonggi Cho but neglecting to tell his church of Cho’s crimes.

David Yonggi Cho Church Fraud Investigation? (Part 6) Ps David Yonggi Cho – Convicted

“Cho was charged with causing around 13.1 billion won in damages to his church and evading approximately 3.5 billion won in taxes in the process (embezzlement as defined in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes). In addition, Pastor Cho’s oldest son Cho Hee-jun, 49, former chairman of the Yeongsan Christian Culture Center, was given a three-year prison sentence and taken into custody.”

It comes to our attention that Phil Pringle has invited this false prophet to speak at C3 Church this Thursday February 25. We leave it up to our readers to decide on the appropriateness of this invitation for Yonggi Cho to speak as a church “leader” rather than as a convicted felon, (a person convicted in a court of law of a felony crime).

David Yonggi Cho is not only a false (which disqualifies him from Christianity), he also has disqualified himself as a Christian pastor. These are the requirements of a pastor:

“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.” 1 Timothy 3:3 (Emphasis ours.)

The things we highlighted in bold are areas he failed in relation to the financial scandal he was involved in and how he ruthlessly treated his elders. And because Cho is a swindler, why is Pringle inviting David Yonggi Cho to speak as though he is a figure of high integrity? Pringle is directly opposing Christ, His Word and His Church with this clear command in scripture:

“But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler– not even to eat with such a one.” 1 Corinthians 5:11

And yet C3 hypocritically state “we love Jesus and people”?

C3 Church Oxford Falls stated on their instagram,

We love Jesus and people. Sat 5pm + Sun 830am 10am 6pm Oxford Falls // Sun 10am Wahroonga + Avalon + Manly // #everyONEmatters#sydneyacityforchrist www.c3churchjournal.com/news-on-the-go/

Source: C3 Church Oxford Falls, Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/BBioskhQN09/, Published 09/02/2016. (Accessed 09/02/2016.)

proof_Instagram-YonggiChoAtC3_09-02-2016

Here is the video:

[Click to download]

 

 

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Breaking News: Goldman calls out Scott Morrison & his association to cults covering up paedophilia

23 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations, C3 Parramatta Scandal

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brian Houston, c3 paedophile coverup, c3 paedophile scandal, c3 pedophile coverup, c3 pedophile scandal, ferguson, Houston, Kerrie Ferguson, paedophile, paedophile scandal, paedophilia, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal

We have been covering the paedophile scandal cover-up of Phil Pringle of C3 Church. If people tuned in to 2SM radio this morning, they would have learnt that this scandal also found it’s way into the Hillsong movement.

This morning, Grant Goldman from 2SM radio publicly challenged Scott Morrison’s associations with cult leader Brian Houston of Hillsong. Goldman also introduced the serious issues behind Hillsong by introducing cult leader Phil Pringle and his C3 movement into the mix, highlighting the fact that both men have covered up paedophilia in their church’s. Goldman focused on Kerrie Ferguson’s story as well.

You can read Kerrie Ferguson’s ongoing story here in how this was covered up:

C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 1)
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 2) – The cover-up scandal that Pringle refused to deal with…
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 3) Sex, Money, Power
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 4) Pringle regards pastors “gambling” worse than pastors defending a pedophile?
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 5) Phil Pringle’s leadership – an unresolved mess
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 6) C3 prophetically manipulating the abused into silence
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 7) Letter exposing Pringle covering up paedophilia & refusing to help victim

You can listen to the radio segment here:

[Click to download audio.]

Scott Morrison attends ShireLIVE and has close ties with the better-known Hillsong community. Brian Houston is one of Morrison’s mentors and we have a personal email claiming that Scott Morrison has boasted that his mentor is Brian Houston.

Hillsong’s influence with influential people: “Brian Houston, is one of [Scott] Morrison’s mentors”


If you don’t know how to navigate what surfaced from the Royal Commission regarding Houston covering up his father’s crimes, please read the below link:

Evidence, Fact Files & testimonies exposing Brian Houston at the Royal Commission

[EDIT: 23/09/2015 – Transcript added.]

TRANSCRIPT: Grant Goldman to Scott Morrison, Monday 21 September 2015.

“On August 24th, less than a month ago, I had something to say about Scott Morrison,  I stated that in 2007 Morrison as State Director of the Liberal Party was the beneficiary of a totally unfounded and unjustified smear campaign against a man by the name of Michael Towke, the telecommunications engineer who had been preselected by the Liberal Party for the seat of Cook.  The effect of that smear campaign was that Morrison, who in contesting the preselection, had received less than one tenth of the votes won by Towke. But Morrison was able to gain the Liberal endorsement as the Member for Cook.

In recent days supporters of Tony Abbott have suspected the loyalty and sincerity of Scott Morrison who appears to have been rewarded for his failure to defend the then Prime Minister against the Turnbull attack.  In his Maiden Speech to the Federal Parliament on 14 February 2008, Scott Morrison made favourable mention of Pastor Brian Houston who operates the Hillsong religious organisation.

So who is Pastor Brian Houston, the mentor to Scott Morrison?  Is he?

This is the fellow who told a Royal Commission that he had no legal or moral obligation to the victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by his predecessor in the leadership of Hillsong, his father Frank Houston.    In October 2014 the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse was told by a witness known as AHA that when he was seven years only, Pastor Frank Houston would come to his room, lie on him, fondle him and masturbate him.  When Brian Houston found out that in 1999 that his father was a pederast taking advantage of a young boy, he failed to tell the Police.  Instead, Brian Houston and  committee of the Assemblies of God suspended Frank Houston’s preaching credentials, for just two years.

It gets worse.  I have in my hand as I write a copy of testimony given to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse by a lady named Kerri.  I shall put this document on my website.   Kerri told the commission the tragic story of how her son was raped by the man she had married.  Her son reported the crime to two Pastors, Gary Dench and Ian Treacy.  They did not tell the police.  They did not tell the victim’s mother. They admonished the victim, telling him he was partly to blame.

After Kerri learned from her son what had happened, she told the Police and also asked for help from the Head Pastor of the Christian City Church, Phil Pringle who provided no assistance.   Pringle had suspended Dench, not because Dench had concealed a crime against a child, but because Dench’s wife had won a prize in the lottery.

Later Kerri asked for help from Pastor Brian Houston of Hillsong Church knowing him to be a close friend of Pastor Phil Pringle.  I’ll quote what Kerri told the commission:

“I related our circumstances to Brian Houston who became very irritated, told me he did not believe that such a thing had happened, turned his back on me and walked away.”

That is Brian Houston, who I understand with his wife Bobbie still calls the shots at Hillsong.

I am inviting Scott Morrison to come on my program and repudiate Pastor Brian Houston.  I want Scott Morrison to express disgust at a Christian Leader who fails to report the sexual abuse of a child.   I want Scott Morrison to express disgust at a Christian Leader who turns his back on member of his own congregation, a mother whose son has been betrayed by other pastors in the network, who refused to report to police that that boy had been raped, and instead told the boy he was partly to blame.

If you agree with me, back me up. If you disagree, prove me wrong.”

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 7) Letter exposing Pringle covering up paedophilia & refusing to help victim

15 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 Parramatta Scandal

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

c3 church, c3 church parramatta, dench, ferguson, gary dench, Ian Treacy, kerri ferguson, letter, nutter, paedophile cover-up, paedophile scandal, paedophilia, pedophile cover-up, pedophile scandal, pedophilia, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal, sexual abuse, spiritual abuse, Treacy

C3 SCANDALS OVERVIEW

Phil Pringle and his cohorts continue to refuse to deal with issues that occured in the C3 Parramatta scandal 25 years ago. We are talking about two men that covered up pedophilia in the C3 Church movement.

C3 Global Scandals

The two pastors put into C3 leadership that showed lack of pastoral care, wisdom and responsibility in the C3 Penrith scandal are STILL in leadership positions today.

These pastors are Gary Dench and Ian Treacy.

C3- Gary Dench Ian Treacy

Before reading on, we encourage viewers to read what we have covered on the C3 Penrith scandal so far. In this article we wish to publish an open letter that alleges that Pringle was informed of this sexual misconduct and did nothing about it. Nor did he deal with the C3 pastors in relation to the trials.

C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 1)
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 2) – The cover-up scandal that Pringle refused to deal with…
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 3) Sex, Money, Power
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 4) Pringle regards pastors “gambling” worse than pastors defending a pedophile?
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 5) Phil Pringle’s leadership – an unresolved mess
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 6) C3 prophetically manipulating the abused into silence

The C3 god abandoning the C3 pastors victims

Part 6 of this series of articles is an important read. It is important to understand the spiritual binding nature of C3 through their prophetic manipulation. It appeared that God wanted Mrs Ferguson to not “over analyse” her situations and just “let loose” so God could bless her.

Just like most loving and undiscerning Christians at C3, she would have done so willingly. However, when you see pastors at C3 preaching that Jesus died to make you rich and watch them live extravagant lifestyles, their is a false hope kindled in it’s members that they can rise above their difficult circumstances.

So when Kerri Ferguson was prophesied over in 1985, you can imagine what she was feeling when she lost her family, lost her home and lost her church through the collateral damage of the cowardly behaviour of C3 “pastors” Gary Dench, Ian Treacy and C3 Founder, Phil Pringle. Just like other victims caught in the C3 Prosperity and Word of Faith cult, Kerri Ferguson would have felt God had completely deserted her. However, unlike other victims, she decided to deal with the issues head on.

Background to the letter

The sexual abuse of Mrs Ferguson’s son had been disclosed one night after a church service to both C3 “Pastors” Gary Dench and Ian Treacy.  These two pastors were then primary witnesses to the crime. Not only did the Pastors fail to report the crime to the police but when they were later approached by the Police to give evidence in the case, “Pastor” Gary Dench refused to co-operate and stated that he would not give evidence on behalf of the Prosecution.  Dismayed when the Police informed her that Dench refused to cooperate with the investigation, Mrs Kerri Ferguson then decided to approach the leader of the entire church operation, the Head Pastor and founder of C3 (then operating as Christian City Church) in an attempt to have him direct his Pastors to cooperate in the police investigation.

What you are about to read in this below letter was how they first tried to ignore her and then attempt to discredit her. Their pompous and sanctimonious meanderings would have hurt her deeply. Sadly, this is the typical repeated behaviour we continually see at C3 church when members get abused either financially, sexually or emotionally or spiritually by their church leaders.

This letter from Kerri Ferguson was written to Phil Pringle in 1992. You can tell that this woman was writing in such a way to try and convict Pringle’s conscience to get involved in dealing with this unresolved issue. And just like when Pringle was mailed all the evidence exposing Tom Papania as a fraud (a fraud who Pringle allowed to speak at C3 Church anyway), Pringle did not respond to Mrs Ferguson.

You can read the original letter at the bottom of this article.

THE LETTER

Dear Mr. Pringle,

As I discussed with you and Simon McIntyre in 1988, it was then and is still, my fervent belief that the “deacons” of the Church should deal with misbehavior on the part of any of the ministers or other leaders in their number. At that time (after an incredible amount of effort to get to talk to you – I am sure Christ himself was more accessible, despite his schedule) I notified you that you were being given an option – “Either deal with the matter yourself or I would have to go outside the Church to have the matter dealt with “. The latter became necessary.

I refer to the matter of [son’s name] a subject subsequently dealt with by “60 Minutes” and showing Gary Dench and C.C.C. in a most unfavourable light. I hasten to assure you that that opinion was passed in thousands of letters received after the show. Those letters were written in the main, by “Christians” and many from Christian church people of all denominations, including several from your own church applauded our stand.

As you did not have the courtesy to get back to me or to [sons’ name] after talking with Gary Dench in 1988 and since it was necessary for me, once again, to “chase” you to get the result of your investigation into the matter, I was not altogether surprised at your ineptitude in dealing with the matter. You told me that you were powerless to control Gary Dench and that he was a “law unto himself”. It would appear Mr. Pringle, that following the “60 Minutes” story that you had a change of heart about just what power you did or did not have! It’s a sorry day when God has to use the secular media to do what his own people are too lacking in courage and principle to take care of.

It may interest you to know that [son’s name] left your office with the comment “he’ll turn out to be just like all the others” to which I urged him “to give you a chance”. [His] cynicism at so called Christian leaders was vindicated. Despite the “college-boy” smiles and the practiced looks of “concern”, the boy never heard from you again. Under the circumstances, don’t you think some show of Christ’s love would have been appropriate?

Despite admissions by Ian Treacy that he and Gary had indeed behaved as we claimed and despite Dench’s subsequent behaviour (which should have been of concern to the country’s psychiatrists, if not to you) to this day neither [son’s name] nor I have EVER received a request by you to forgive any damage caused or any attempt to reconcile what happened.

By the way, whilst Stephen Dent sat in the “accused”s box whilst on trial. Dench sat at the back of the Court reading TRAVEL BROCHURES!!! The praying was left to others!

AS the months went by in 1988 to now I carefully diarised EVERY incident. In my search for more information for a subsequent project I received some startling information. During a phone call from yourself to Gary Dench (after my visit to your office) I was referred to as “A NUTTER”. Well, Mr. Pringle that is not the opinion of doctors, journalists, counselors or MINISTERS of religion with whom I have worked on my project over the last few years.

What a gallant and courteous way for men of the church to speak about “the widows and orphans”!! May I respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Pringle, that Christ himself would have hardly been pleased at such a label being used to one of his children under the circumstances (or, indeed, any circumstances!)

Other revelations have been passed on to me regarding Mr. Dench’s activities which I, and I’m sure even you must find disturbing. To go on, however, expecting any decent stand from you at this point would, as experience has shown, be a lost cause.

I did do the correct thing in going to you first, Mr. Pringle. You left me no choice but to have the media expose that very dangerous man. Sometimes it requires a great deal of courage to stand by the underdog – “THE NUTTER”! You did not show that courage.

Mr McKeon (another of your colleagues) was first approached by me prior to 1988 with my concerns over Dench. I contacted him again much later in my attempt to have you “heroic” men put the pressure on Gary to support [my son] in court. He accused me of being on a “witch hunt” (a most unusual term, I feel for a Christian pastor!) and refused to criticize “God’s ordained”! (Good grief!!)

He was later to say some most ungentlemanly things to me on the phone and hand up (loudly) in my ear. Mind you, when my husband (a committed Christian) phoned him back to ask him to explain such behaviour he was given a hearing. Yet another example, I assume, of the esteem in which your fine C.C.C. Pastors hold women!!

It seems peculiar to me that in my conversations with several C.C.C. pastors they have claimed to have had God speak to them about issues such as real estate purchases, money ventures, parking spots etc. but none seems to have conversed with God about an issue as important as the peace of mind and trust of His children. It has caused me to wonder, Mr. Pringle, whose voice it is they have heard when God “called” them. You would have a difficult time convincing me that the Christ of the Gospels “chats” to his pastors all day about their real estate, other financial undertakings etc and becomes suddenly silent when one of their number steps out of line. No, Mr. Pringle, not the Jesus in my Bible – in fact He publicly castigated his disciples for putting anything in the way of his “little children coming to Him”.

Thankfully, I was most careful about all my dealings with you and your fellow Churchmen, not trusting any conversation (which may be referred to in the future) to their memory. I now feel vindicated in taking the particular steps I did.

It was shameful that a woman and child showed more courage than you and your colleagues. Perhaps, the weakness of some males in leadership positions in Christendom is the cause of many of the Church’s ills.

I am disappointed (yes, and angry) that my approach to you to seek your assistance was treated with such contempt.

Since you have not asked for forgiveness, I assume you do not need mine. May I most humbly suggest, that in the final judgment you and I will have to give account.

Yours faithfully

Kerri Ferguson

Letter to Pringle 1992 Page 1Letter to Pringle 1992 Page 2Letter to Pringle 1992 Page 3Letter to Pringle 1992 Page 4Letter to Pringle 1992 Page 5Letter to Pringle 1992 Page 6Letter to Pringle 1992 Page 7

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 5) Phil Pringle’s leadership – an unresolved mess

29 Monday Jun 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 Parramatta Scandal

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

c3 church, c3 church parramatta, dench, Dent, gary dench, Ian Treacy, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal, Stephen Dent, Treacy

C3 SCANDALS OVERVIEW

Phil Pringle and his cohorts continue to refuse to deal with issues that occured in the C3 Parramatta scandal 25 years ago. We are talking about two men that covered up pedophilia in the C3 Church movement.

C3 Global Scandals

The two pastors put into C3 leadership that showed lack of pastoral care, wisdom and responsibility in the C3 Penrith scandal are STILL in leadership positions today. 

These pastors are Gary Dench and Ian Treacy.

C3- Gary Dench Ian Treacy

Before reading on, we encourage viewers to read what we have covered on the C3 Penrith scandal so far. In this article we wish to publish an open letter that alleges that Pringle was informed of this sexual misconduct and did nothing about it. Nor did he deal with the C3 pastors in relation to the trials.

C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 1)
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 2) – The cover-up scandal that Pringle refused to deal with…
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 3) Sex, Money, Power
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 4) Pringle regards pastors “gambling” worse than pastors defending a pedophile?

So our question is this: where are these men pastoring today?

More information has surfaced that Pringle knew of this situation and chose not to resolve it. From what has been disclosed to Pringle personally, Pringle did not drop C3 “Pastor” Gary Dench because of his handling of the paedophile scandal in C3 Parramatta. Nor did he drop “Pastor” Ian Treacy pastor involved in this issue.

Kerri Ferguson C3 Hillsong Brian Houston Phil Pringle

The below letter was a response to Phil Pringle slamming critics and mocking those that would go to the newspaper over Phil Pringle’s leadership. As you can see, this letter highlights Phil Pringle’s negligence over this situation.

“AN OPEN LETTER TO MR. PHIL PRINGLE

I am one of those people who found it necessary to go to the media with a complaint about you when you failed to answer my concerns yourself. I am dumbfounded that you are not humbled and ashamed that any one in your congregation would feel it neccessary to seek assistance from outside the church as a result of YOUR failure to listen and assist them.

When it was discovered that TWO Pastors in one of your churches failed to attend to a plea for help by a child because he was being systematically raped by his father, (also a member of one of your churches) telling the child instead that “he must have led his father on” and “he should pray for forgiveness”, I requested that you intervene immediately on behalf of this child.

You, with all the care and concern you could muster only agreed to see me and the child AFTER we threatened to go to the media.

You refused to speak to us without your “legal adviser” being present. I didn’t see Christ setting that example in the Bible……………but then our Jesus had strength of character and faced up to hurting people without needing a “legal adviser”.

You didn’t even offer to PRAY for the child or his family, instead, packing us off out of your office as quickly as you could.

You offered NO counseling, NO assistance and NO prayer.

You refused to take action against these two Pastors telling me that you had no power to do anything. You even refused to instruct them to go to court and give evidence on behalf of the child when they refused a police request to do so. You said they “were a law unto themselves”!

However, some time later when you discovered that one of these Pastors had benefited from a lottery win by his wife, you took immediate action to stand him down. It seems, Mr. Pringle that someone winning a lottery is of greater concern to you than the rape of a child!

The other Pastor still oversees one of your church branches Mr. Pringle but then he never committed the dreadful sin of sharing a lottery win did he?

You never contacted the victim or the victim’s family after your meeting with them – not even to inquire about the child’s well-being.

Which of these actions, Mr. Pringle, mirrors what Christ would have done under the circumstances?

If the measure of the contempt in which you hold people is how many people they have on a Twitter account, you must have deep contempt for me Mr. Pringle, because I don’t even have a Twitter account.

You see, I am STILL too busy cleaning up the mess left by you and your Pastors to be bothered with such a thing.

That people can discover your deeds (they are well documented) and learn of your behaviour during these events and yet still sit in your church each week and follow your teachings is an indictment on every single one of them and their obedience to God when we are told to “test all things and hang on to that which is GOOD!”

Perhaps the desire to test all things and follow GOD’S INSTRUCTIONS might move some or any of your followers to require you to stand in church before me and answer for your behaviour in this matter, Mr. Pringle.

Or are the people in your churches just sycophantic sheep, more afraid of displeasing you than they are of pleasing our precious Lord and Saviour?

Of course Mr. Pringle, you tactic is to make fun of, or ridicule, the complainant in these matters. That has always been your way. Your Pastors referring to people as “nutters” whom they wish to discredit in order to deflect proper examination of events, is shameful and abhorrent.

But when will your “followers” begin to ask, “Is this how Christ would behave”?

I wonder if Jesus will say to me on the last Day, “Sorry, you can’t come in – you didn’t have a Twitter account!” I doubt it!

And I wonder, Mr. Pringle if Jesus will ask me why I had to go to the media about a problem in your church? I certainly hope so. I will be only too happy to tell Him!”


One thing we would like to highlight in this letter is the following:

“The other Pastor still oversees one of your church branches Mr. Pringle…”

This would be referring to Ian Treacy.

So where are Gary Dench and Ian Treacy today?

WHERE IS GARY DENCH NOW?

Gary Dench is STILL a pastor but is no longer part of the C3 movement.

On Parramatta Life Church Parramatta website, his bio reads:

Gary DenchGary Dench

Role: Pastor

Web:

Gary and Joyce are the senior leaders of Life Church International in Australia. They head the Parramatta congregation, a multi-ethnic church representing more than 30 nationalities, and believe God has a definite and specific plan for Parramatta. Gary and Joyce began their ministry in New Zealand in 1975. After 8 years of pastoring in New Zealand, they moved to Australia and pioneered Parramatta New Life Church (now called Life Church Parramatta). Gary’s dynamic, animated and biblically focused preaching inspires and empowers the congregation to live a life committed to God and challenges them to demonstrate his loving character through their own words and actions. Their dream is for the church to be a blessing to the local community; a hub where people can gather in unity and love; a haven of acceptance and forgiveness and a school to train, equip and release mission-minded people to share God’s message of hope and healing to the world.

Source: LifeChurch Parramatte, http://lifechurchparra.org.au/index.php?option=com_preachit&id=3&view=teacher&Itemid=0, (Accessed 21/12/2013-18/06/2015.)

proof_LifeChurchParramatta-GDBio_18-06-2015

The issue is this: Why didn’t C3 Leadership either encourage Gary Dench to step down or resolve his past wrongs as best he can with his victims? Gary Dench says that his dream for their church is to “be a blessing to the local community; a hub where people can gather in unity and love; a haven of acceptance and forgiveness and a school to train, equip and release mission-minded people to share God’s message of hope and healing to the world”. Is this a lie?

And what did Gary Dench do between “8 years of pastoring in New Zealand” and pioneering in Australia “Parramatta New Life Church (now called Life Church Parramatta)”? As you can see in the above bio, Dench did not mention his involvement with C3 Church.

WHERE IS IAN TREACY NOW?

Believe it or not, Ian Treacy is still a C3 Pastor and “pastors” C3 Church Prospect.

The C3 Church Global website confirms that Ian Treacy is STILL a C3 pastor:

“Ian & Arlene Treacy

Church Details

Venue: Cnr Great Western Hwy & Blacktown Rd PROSPECT NSW 2148 Australia Service Times: 9.30am, 6.30pm”

Source: Prospect, http://www.c3churchglobal.com/church-detail/59, Accessed 02/03/2012.

proof_c3churchglobalTreacy_02-03-2013

DomainTools tells us that Ian Treacy purchased the domain for his C3 Church Prospect on,

“Aug 4, 2012”

Source: DomainTools, c3Prospect.org.au Domain Report, http://domainreport.domaintools.com/c3prospect.org.au, (Accessed 21/12/2013.)

More information that Treacy oversees the C3 Prospect Church can be found here:

Domain Name:                c3prospect.org.au

Last Modified:                 11-Mar-2013 02:25:57 UTC

Registrar ID:                   TPP Wholesale

Registrar Name:              TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd

Status:                            ok

Registrant:                      Christian City Church Prospect

Registrant ID:                 ABN 61003881543

Eligibility Type:                Charity

Eligibility Name:              Christian City Church Prospect

Eligibility ID:                    ABN 61003881543

Registrant Contact ID:             DIT-640488

Registrant Contact Name:        Ian Treacy

Registrant Contact Email:        Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs

Tech Contact ID:                 DIT-640490

Tech Contact Name:               Ian Treacy

Tech Contact Email:              Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs

Name Server:                     ns1.mediatemple.net

Name Server:                     ns2.mediatemple.net

Source: DomainTools, c3Prospect.org.au Whois Record, http://whois.domaintools.com/c3prospect.org.au, (Accessed 21/12/2013.)

Like this:

Like Loading...

C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 4) Pringle regards pastors “gambling” worse than pastors defending a pedophile?

18 Thursday Jun 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations, C3 Parramatta Scandal

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

c3 church parramatta, c3 church scandal, dench, gary dench, Ian Treacy, LifeChurch, LifeChurch Parramatta, Pastor suspended, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal

Although this scandal is old, this issue is important to analyse due to current events and behaviours we see in C3, Hillsong and the way they are governed.

This has been an ongoing series that has covered how a paedophilia scandal continued to snowball across the two biggest churches in Sydney.

C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 1)
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 2) – The cover-up scandal that Pringle refused to deal with…
C3 Parramatta Scandal (Part 3) Sex, Money, Power

When reading the below news article, some people might think, “Well, what is CW on about? Pringle did sack Dench over the paedophilia issue didn’t he?”

No. Pringle did not.

This below news article’s first sentence was not accurate.

What makes this scandal so disgusting on Phil Pringle’s behalf was that he did not discipline Gary Dench for defending in court the pedophile and wife-beater Stephen Dent, Dench’s discipline came into play because… wait for it… Dench’s wife won the lottery.

Kerri Ferguson C3 Hillsong Brian Houston Phil Pringle

BACKGROUND

Phil Pringle did NOT take any action over the covering up of the paedophilia. Pringle blatantly REFUSED to take any action or censure pastors Gary Dench and Ian Treacy or instruct them to cooperate with the police.

Pringle’s response to the abused mother was that he couldn’t do anything about it stating, “Gary is a law unto himself.” Pringle never contacted the mother of the abused again.

The alleged suspension of Dench occurred over two years and three months later only when the matter of the lottery win became known in the church and co-incidentally after the affairs of this particular family became public when aired on the 60 Minutes news program.

The church did NOT take any action over this family’s matter and it was, (in our view), a cynical and manipulative exercise (even, it could be said, a lie) for Pringle and CCC to claim that Dench’s suspension was related directly to the sexual case.

Who’s best life?

That matter had all been raised with Pringle over two years previously.  The only way in which Dench’s suspension related to the sexual abuse was that it had been made public and Dench’s behaviour on national TV had brought embarrassment to the church. (See above – Parramatta Scandal (Part 2).)

According to Phil Pringle, why was gambling a greater sin than dealing with a pastor defending a pedophile and wife beater?

C3 Parramatta Scandal - Article 21-10-1990

Pastor Suspended

A SYDNEY clergyman has been suspended from church duties following a controversial court case when he admitted not telling police nor a parishioner that her son was being sexually abused by the boy’s stepfather.

The minister has also been asked to advise church officials what he intends to do with his wife’s share of an office lottery win – an even that has aroused controversy within the church and promoted a formal church policy on gambling.

A statement from Christian City Church International (CCCI) on Friday, said Pastor Gary Dench stepped down for three months to give him and his wife some time and space to clarify what actually took place and to resolve what will take place.

“Gary and Joyce Dench have stepped down from a position of responsibility within the church for a period of time so that the CCCI executive, the Westside Board and Gary and Joyce are all able together to clarify and resolve the situation.

“Their future ministry direction is also still yet to be finally resolved”.

The $50,000-a-year Castle Hill clergyman left on extended leave early this month, just after he and his wife returned from a two-week holiday overseas.

Discussed

A spokesman confirmed that Pastor Dench’s decision to step down followed discussions with church superiors and fellow directors.

He said t related to the sexual abuse case and “Gary’s position with the board and with the church”

“Not just Gary, but people in the congregation were hurt, by that,” he said, referring to the media reports of pastor Dench’s court evidence.

“The case raised questions, and there needs to be time for those to be clarified”.

Last month Pastor Dench testified in support of a former parishioner, ex-policeman  Stephen Dent, who had pleaded guilty to sexually abusing his (Dent’s) stepson. Pastor Dench admitted he had sent the boy home with his stepfather after he had run away, and that he had not told the boy’s mother, also a parishioner, of the alleged abuse.

He responded heatedly to cross-examination by Pat Barrett, and refused to reveal what Dent told him, claiming it as a secret of the confessional.

The spokesman said that the lottery issue was separate, but that it had sparked a detailed new policy.

“We’ve asked him to tell us where the money will be direct.”

A local church spokesman said that the lottery issue was part of the reason for the suspension for Pastor Dench’s duties.

Church members reported that the prize was thought to be $1 million, but the Sunday Telegraph has been unable to confirm the amount.

While the Denchs were overseas the CCI executive met and formalised a written policy opposing all forms of gambling by church officers.

The Denchs say Mrs Dench had not bought a Lotto ticket, but was given a staff payout from her office manager, who bought the ticket.

Source: Warren Owens, Pastor Suspended, Sunday Telegraph, Published 21/10/1990.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Ponzi Pastor Playing Pea-and-Thimble with Building Fund Proceeds?

19 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

building fund, building fund proceeds, CHC, chc confessions, City Harvest Church, cover up, coverup, financial scandal, fraud, Kong Hee, pea-and-thimble, Phil Pringle, ponzi, Presence Conference, scam, scandal, thumblerig, xtron

Supporters of Kong Hee, (who is on trial with five of his colleagues on various charges pertaining to the alleged siphoning off of funds from CHC in Singapore), have long been maintaining that CHC suffered no financial loss, since bonds purchased from the company “Xtron” were fully redeemed.

Phil Pringle CHC Kong Hee Cover up

This naturally raises the question:

“From where, exactly, did Xtron obtain the funds to repay CHC, since Sun Ho’s foray into the music industry was a complete flop and her album was never released?”

The answer to this conundrum has been revealed in a post on the CHC confessions Facebook page, wherein a recent post had this to say:

“One of the mysteries of the trial is the accused insistence that CHC did not suffer any loss through all the sham bonds. Now the mystery is finally solved in City News’s own report:

http://www.citynews.sg/2015/04/city-harvest-trial-arla-and-sof-investments-not-sham-maintains-tan/

“Although Xtron had used part of the ARLA to buy up the bonds, Tan explained that it was still obligated to provide the corresponding value for which CHC had paid, which in this case was the use of venue for a pre-agreed length of time. Xtron, on its part, would service this obligation with the expected revenue that was to come from the US album sales.

In essence, AMAC and Xtron were legally bound to compensate CHC for what it had paid.”

But since there is [sic] no US album sales, Xtron won’t have the revenue to service the obligation and [at] some point in time CHC will either have to forgive the obligation or force Xtron into bankruptcy – [in] either case the money is gone.

The same with the SOF with AMAC. The money is gone. CHC can sue AMAC but it is not likely that it will ever recover the money.

So it is not true that CHC has not suffered any loss – it is just that they are kicking the can down the road and sooner or later will have to pay the piper.”

Source: CHC Confessions, CHC Confessions, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/CHCConfessions/posts/1003161419703235, 07/05/2015. (Accessed 15/05/2015.)

So what has apparently transpired is that since Xtron was unable to repay CHC, those whose scheme had been discovered – and who were desperate to clear the bonds off the books – resorted to an accounting thimblerig.

They simply shoveled more of CHC’s money into Xtron, a portion of which funds Xtron promptly returned to CHC as a repayment of the bonds, including both capital and interest due. Thus the accused have allegedly paid themselves (that is, Xtron) money with which they have subsequently reimbursed themselves (that is, CHC) to falsely convey the impression that Xtron is a profitable business being run at arms-length from CHC, rather than a shell company whose sole purpose is to facilitate the defrauding of CHC members via sham transactions. This practice is known as “round-tripping”, and it is illegal. It is over this matter, among others, that some of the accused parties are now being quizzed in the Singaporean courts. Naturally enough, attempts were made to disguise the ruse: funds that were allegedly round-tripped were referred to by the acronym “ARLA”, which stands for “Advance Rental Licence Agreement” (CW’s take on that is that “A Really Lame Artifice” would have been far more apropos).

Of course, even a novice who knows nothing at all about such things as business or accounting would be able to understand that if a business spends buckets and buckets of money but fails to earn a profit, then a loss has been incurred and there will inevitably be financial pain as a result.

The salient question for C3 adherents is “Does Phil Pringle understand that?”

This is because if he does, one could be forgiven for wondering why he has continued to mindlessly repeat the “No money was lost” mantra when it has long been clear that although Sun Ho spent CHC’s money like water to live the high life in the U.S., she never showed a return to justify the so-called “investment”.

Maybe Phil really is unquestioningly gullible, and he actually believes that no money was lost. Perhaps he would prefer to refrain from inquiring too closely or pondering too deeply, given how uncomfortable the truth would be for him – after all, he is both mentor and friend to Kong Hee, and his own credibility and reputation are very much on the line here.

But supposing we all give Phil the benefit of the doubt, what about the fact that he is supposedly a man of God who has a hot-line to the Most High? Why wouldn’t God have given Phil a “word” regarding the facts surrounding this tawdry affair? How is it that God is allowing his golden-haired apostle to back himself into the tiniest of corners without giving him a heads-up, without even dropping so much as the smallest of hints? Has Phil Pringle become like King Saul? Has he really become estranged from the One whom he purports to represent, and on whose behalf he presumes to speak?

TO PHILIP A. PRINGLE

We know that you read the articles on this site, Phil, even though you have strictly forbidden your followers from doing so.

We also know from our reliable sources inside C3 that you have recently discussed a certain unrelated issue with your “leadership”, and that you explicitly told those same “leaders” that you were unable to broach the subject with the wider membership of your organisation – that the information you gave was for the “leaders’” edification only, and was not for general consumption.

Given that precedent, we would like to know this, Phil Pringle: how much do you really know about Kong Hee’s case?

Have the “leaders” in your movement been apprised of facts to which the tithing drones in the pews have not been made privy? Surely you wouldn’t behave in a deceptive manner, would you? After all, you have been referred to as “Australia’s Pope”; indeed, you yourself have invited people to see you as an angel, and you have even, in all humility, have told people to liken you to the Old Testament prophet Elijah.

It’s all very heady stuff, and quite compelling – there’s no way a man of your caliber, an exulted personage of unimpeachable integrity, would deliberately withhold pertinent information from your followers…. is there? (Particularly since some of those followers have been been inveigled into giving money to support Kong Hee’s legal battle).

If we’ve got the wrong end of the stick, please feel free to comment here and set us straight, Phil; we await your anointed explanation with great anticipation.

RELATED ARTICLES

Phil Pringle Interview = Damage Control (Part 1)
Pringle Encouraging CHC Members To Shun Criticism & Promote “Good Guys”
Of Course Pringle Is Uh- Telling The- Uh- Truth About Kong Uh- Hee And Sun- Uh-Ho!
Phil Pringle Misleading His Church Over Kong Hee’s Case

Kong Hee To Phil Pringle: “You created this mess! You’ve Got To Come And Help Us Fix It”
Kong Hee Again Blames Phil Pringle For SunTec Mess: “… it’s all your fault, Pastor!”

“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…” (Part 1)
“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…” (Part 2)

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2011 KONG HEE FINANCIAL SCAM
Prophet Pringle Plundering People’s Pockets For Kong Hee’s Cause

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2012 KONG HEE FINANCIAL SCAM
Where There’s A Phil There’s A Way

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2013 KONG HEE SCAM
Beyond Words… Pringle Sinks To New Depths At Global Presence Conference 2013

PRESENCE CONFERENCE 2014 KONG HEE SCAM
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 1)
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 2) Hillsong “Stands” with C3 & CHC?
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 3) All faith – no substance
Phil Pringle’s Kong Job At Presence 2014 (Part 4) Kong’s “selfie” sermon.
Phil Pringle’s Kong job at Presence 2014 (part 5): Kong Hee and Phil Pringle Undermining Singaporean law?

Like this:

Like Loading...

C3 Church Mt Annan being less than truthful to their congregation? (Update)

24 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

A. R. Bernard, AR Bernard, c3 church, c3 church mount annan, c3 church mt annan, C3 Mount Annan, Casey Treat, chc scandal, Christian City Church, City Harvest Church, David Yonggi Cho, John Bevere, Kong Hee, lie, lies, lying, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal

One of the most disturbing things about the CHC/Kong Hee scandal, is how C3 leadership are refusing to educate their movement on the revelations emerging in Singaporean court proceedings. Instead of waiting to invite Kong Hee to speak at their churches after the trial proceedings (and Kong Hee has been vindicated), C3 instead are inviting Kong Hee to speak at their churches and being less than truthful about Kong Hee to their congregations.

In the screen shot below, advertising Kong Hee speaking at C3 Mt Annan, the leadership are guilty of:

1. Lying about Kong Hee’s status (“hosting one of our generations greatest leaders”).

There is nothing ‘great’ about this man if you look at the hard evidence revealed in court and admire his greatness as a serious fraud. The scheming that he has been involved in since 2002 has left the Singaporean public ashamed of this man.

2. Lying about Kong Hee’s influence (“is a highly sought after speaker worldwide”).

The only possible reason why Kong Hee could be “highly sought” is because:

a) His mentors, Phil Pringle, Casey Treat, AR Bernard, John Bevere and Yonggi Cho deliberately mislead their congregations about the circumstances of Kong Hee’s trial and continue to invite him to speak the way C3 Church Mt Annan has.

b) Church leaders are simply ignorant of this man’s schemes at CHC.

Thanks to Christian radio, blogs, websites, forums and media, many Christian churches are beginning to ask the right questions and are not willing to be associated with Kong Hee and his church.

3. Lying about church attendance figures of CHC, (Kong has grown City Harvest Church Singapore to more than 32,000 attendees in 20 years).

 

The word games on this do not make the grade. This ‘propaganda’ has been promoted for years. Phil Pringle has no problem misleading his C3 Church movement over this issue. Back in 2012 and 2013, C3 advertised that Kong Hee had “grown his congregation to over 28,000 members through passionate prayer and discipleship”.

And now we are lead to believe that the church has grown to 32,000 attendees/members?

Kong Hee & Phil Pringle: It Is Not About The Numbers… Right?

Why are C3 leaders and members allowing this misinformation(propaganda) to continue being promoted by their C3 church leadership? Why are not more Christians trying to contact Phil Pringle and ask him to be honest about Kong Hee? Why is it so important for Phil Pringle to keep lying about the Kong Hee?

4. Lying about Kong Hee’s church reputation, (“his Church is viewed as one of the largest, most vibrant and influential congregations in Asia today).

This is one of the biggest scandals to hit Singapore and its citizens are not happy with how long the trial is going. The reputation of Kong Hee and CHC is so bad that Phil Pringle and the C3 movement have to publicly lie to their movement to keep members from leaving.

Members of C3 should be terribly ashamed of the conduct,  not only of Kong Hee but also Phil Pringle and the C3 leadership. When people are lied to so brazenly, they feel insulted, they feel betrayed and their faith in God can be terribly shaken. If you are a member of C3 Church reading this, we pray that the Holy Spirit will convict you to be a voice in the C3 movement about the conduct of the C3 leadership surrounding the Kong Hee scandal.

C3 MOUNT ANNAN ADVERT

C3 Church Mt Annan write,

On Friday 13th Feb at 8pm we have the incredible privilege of hosting one of our generations greatest leaders, Pastor Kong Hee.

Ps. Kong is a highly sought after speaker worldwide. Ps. Kong has grown City Harvest Church Singapore to more than 32,000 attendees in 20 years and his Church is viewed as one of the largest, most vibrant and influential congregations in Asia today.

Don’t miss this unique opportunity to listen to an incredible speaker here in our very own church!

Source: February 2015, C3 Church Mount Annan, http://www.c3churchma.com/events/february-2015/, Accessed 25/02/2015.)

proof_C3ChurchMA-LyingAboutKong_24-02-2015

EDIT 25/02/2015: Furthermore, Chew Eng Han made this accusation to AR Bernard in an open letter for exaggerating CHC church figures on television:

“One of my specific concerns which I brought to you was the falsified attendance figures, which was claimed to be 33,000 instead of the actual twelve to thirteen thousand.” [Source]

It only goes to show how flippant with the truth these leaders are.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…” (Part 2)

08 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 40 Comments

Tags

c3, C3 Balmain, c3 balmain scandal, c3 church oxford falls, C3 Church Rozelle, C3 Church Rozelle scandal, C3 Rozelle, C3 Rozelle scandal, CHC, chc scandal, Christian City Church, City Harvest Church, kong, Kong Hee, Lucas, Macken, Paul Macken, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal, Ward Lucas

Ps Kong Hee and Ps Phil Pringle

TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE – WHERE IS IT?

 “… nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” – Jesus, Luke 8:17

The context of the above scripture has Jesus explaining how we should listen. What I have been seeing at C3 church is a lack of the leaders hearing the words of Jesus and instead hide things in secret so they do not get caught. After reading various articles on this site, researching C3 church further on the web and attending C3 Conferences, I feel compelled to share some thoughts and information with you in this article. As a Christian attending a C3 church over some year, I believe what I have seen and heard in C3 needs to be examined further. After reading this article you will see why.

COMPARING KONG HEE’S CHC TO PHIL PRINGLE’S C3…

Before reading any further, please read my first article here:

“For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest…” (Part 1)

The above heading is slightly altered from Tom Adam’s website that tackled the scandal his family was involved in at C3 Balmain. He has updated the information on his website. This section of his website should get everyone’s attention (emphasis mine):

The Mystery of the Disappearing Cash

When I had left C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle, I was so disbelieving that the senior pastor Ward Lucas’s ‘love’ for us could have resulted in such an outcome that I kept asking questions about finances.  I only wanted to know what had happened to the large sums of money given into their control by my wife and I and others, just to make sure our expulsion hadn’t been some kind of grotesque cover-up.  At first I was met with fob offs, then silence.  So I went as far as to start court proceedings, thinking perhaps they were just being difficult because they could and they ‘loved’ us so.  They’d thrown me out for ‘pretending’ that they were not accountable, surely they’d have no problem providing proper financial accounts to me then?  On the contrary, they went on to prove during a four year court process that as well as making sure they’ve set themselves up to avoid any legal obligation to provide financial information to church goers, they’re also prepared to spend signficant time and money in litigation to avoid it.  They did all this with the energetic assistance of Mr Paul Macken Solicitor, of C3 Church Oxford Falls.

The actual reasons for this painful display only became clear at the death, after years of ducking and weaving.  C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle had taken $20K I had given them specifically to be used for a building fund, that came from my late father’s estate, and tipped it into something else.  At one point according to my forensic accountant, the money seemed to spend some quality time in an C3 Church bank account called ‘pastoral account’, that was apparently used for pastor Lucas’s expenses.  This was written up by the church accountant as a mistake.  And although I clearly recall specifically telling pastor Lucas what the money was to be used for, he signed an affidavit sworn on the bible saying I did not give the money to be used for a building fund, I was making that up.  Odd, because when C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle got the money they wrote on the cheque the words ‘building fund’, and put it into an account where it remained for years labelled ‘building fund’.  According to pastor Lucas, notwithstanding the church’s own records, the truth was that I had given it to them to use for a later fund that did not come into existence until years later, one that was used for things that included buying chairs, musical equipment, paying insurance and accountants fees.

But then, at the door of the court, after the years of ducking and weaving, faced with a judge who might actually consider things like the church’s own records, C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle decided they didn’t want to roll the dice on that yarn, and paid all the money back to me.  Which reveals the truth of the matter more succintly than anything I can say.  So test the claims.  Jesus is not reported of speaking of an unforgivable sin of asking about money, questioning or disagreeing with religious leaders.  Instead, he blasted religious leaders who neglected justice and mercy and threw those making money out of the temple.  And then those same religious leaders killed him for it.

Senior pastor Ward Lucas worked diligently to remove my family and I in 2008, well aware of the issues with the cash that we had started asking about.  His assistant pastor Anthony Grant, who also often claimed to ‘love’ us, helped put it into effect.  The ‘love’ proclaimed by them so often before we asked about their use of other people’s money had become something else entirely.  I’ve had more genuine enemies, who at least didn’t pretend for years to ‘love’ me.  The C3 Church Oxford Falls overseers, Steve Janes and Mark Kelsey, who knew all about the circumstances backed pastor Lucas to the hilt.  They didn’t even speak to us before reportedly judging us to be liars based only on the say so of pastor Lucas, and recommending our forced removal.

No one protected us, or our kids.  So why would they protect you?

Source: Tom Adam, Important Information about C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle, http://www.christianchurchbalmain.info/. (Accessed 02/09/2014.)

As Tom Adam explained on his website, it appears C3 settled with him on the Supreme court steps early this year. Being a solicitor with a strong family history of members involved in Law, he was a very brave person to threaten them and win.

Obviously, Phil Pringle didn’t want the scandal to be  made public. I believe very few people at C3 overseas and in Australia know anything about what happened to Tom Adams and other church members at C3 Balmain.

HOW DEEP DOES THE RABBIT HOLE GO?

For more information on the C3 Balmain scandal, click on the link below and go right to the bottom of the page and click on the subpages to follow on.

C3 Church Balmain/C3 Church Rozelle Review Page

Below is a blog stating that the Attorney General’s Department was also involved in the Supreme Court action against C3 Balmain. It discloses some details on the structure of the C3 Church which their Lawyers uncovered. It appears the person who wrote on this blog as “Dave” is Dave Adams, Tom Adam’s Brother. I understand he and other family members were expelled from C3 Balmain. Here are the comments I thought were worth reporting from David Adams:

Hi, Specks,
What you say is right on the money.

Seven members of my family were expelled by force from C3 Balmain after asking to see properly kept accounts of the church’s Rise and Buile fund to which they had given more than $100,000.

The story is told on this web site:
http://sites.google.com/site/c3churchbalmainreviewpage/

It’s worth a look.

The church leaders are now in the Australian Supreme Court defending themselves against among others our Attorney General’s Department.

The money has vanished.

C3 Church Balmain is set up so that there is no independent oversight whatever of the use of funds donated to it.

What strikes me is that these guys convince you to give money to them by telling you if you give to God, you’ll prosper.

They are the ones who gain out of that arrangement.

The lawyers in my family’s case have found everywhere in the C3 movement dodgy private companies; dodgy incorporated associations; and church’s with massive assets that are not actually owned by the church community, but effectively by five or ten people–the Pringles of the world.

Keep protesting is all I can say!

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%E2%80%98vision-builders%E2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%E2%80%98rise-build%E2%80%99/, September 5, 2010 at 9:19 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

G’day Specks.

The fault doesn’t lie in any particular company (as in say such and such company is alleged to be skimming money).

The problem lies in this (this is what has got the Attorney General interested).
If you’re a not-for-profit you’re supposed to be set up so that you have enough formal members to have an independent majority ensuring that you don’t misuse funds, and that you are looking after those regularly involved in your organisation.
C3 churches appear to set themselves up so that the legal entity behind them has a handful of members. In which case there is no independent majority overseeing the finances and protection of ordinary attendees as required under the Charitable Fundraising Act.

The short version!

At this stage white Horse hasn’t been mentioned, although I’ve read about it.
God speed one and all!

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13214, September 5, 2010 at 11:33 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

P.S.

What this means of course is that unless you are a formal member of the association/company that is your C3 church’s legal entity, you in fact have no legal rights as an attendee of the church.

In addition it means that all the assets that look as though they’re owned by your church community (buildings/fittings/land) are effectively owned, not by the church community, but by the five or six formal members of the legal entity.
It also means that the handful of members of the legal entity have iron control of finances. If the majority of them gain financially from the spending of the church’s money (ie because they are employees of the legal entity as well as controlling it), then…?

Be it said significant breaches of the Charitable Fundraising Act make you liable to a jail sentence.

Cheers.

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13215, September 5, 2010 at 11:47 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Cheers, all.

Re C3 Balmain–naturally I can’t go in to any detail that involves the court business.

What I’ve done on my site, and my brother has done on his, has been to confine ourselves to irrefutable facts.

The explicit information contained on those is supported by copious documentation.

That stuff I can chat about.

With respect to Kelsey’s involvement, no-one knows at all what it was. Lucas and Grant apparently said one thing at the time; but as my brother’s site indicates Kelsey, via his lawyer, is so vehement in denying any involvement the literal meaning of his denials seems to be that he has nothing to do at all with C3 Church Balmain, and that he isn’t even a leader in the C3 Church movement.

None of us can make head or tail of that!
Here is my brother’s take on things re Kelsey.

http://www.christianchurchbalmain.info/page8.php

He is the senior lawyer involved in the case against the leaders of C3 Balmain.

Peace be with all!

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13223, September 6, 2010 at 9:34 am. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hi, all,

Thank you for your kind thoughts. There is so much here, I can’t reply in detail to it; but I appreciate your remarks. I will try in later posts to come back to anything you’ve written, if it seems good to.

In the light of the posts that have followed mine I thought it most important to clarify my own position about a few things.

I co-led an independent church for ten years. I founded a not-for-profit organisation working with victims of domestic violence. I wrote its constitution so that it complied with our laws. So I know from that point of view what our laws require both in founding and administering this kind of group.

The following is ultimately my reason for writing my own web site, and for being on this page. As it happens, this is what Tom and I both really care about.
The failure to provide explicit constitutional protection to attendees of C3 churches is a profound evil. It is a massive scandal in waiting. Why deny them these rights?

These are rights that are supposed, under Australian law, to be extended by every social organisation formed here to every person who can fairly be said to belong to that organisation.

If you do not comply exactly with the relevant government department’s instructions in setting up a not-for-profit organisation, and if you do not comply exactly with its rules thereafter, you break the law. And you break it over and over in the ordinary running of your organisation.

As well, even if you do not allow church attendees to become members of your church’s legal entity, you are required to extend the basic principles of your association’s constitution to every person who comes under your care. If you do not—you break the law.

Serious breaches of the Charitable Fundraising Act make you liable to a lengthy prison sentence.

No rigorous scrutiny is presently carried out by the NSW Government, to check whether not-for-profits in practice set themselves up in compliance with instructions. Nor are the financial documents submitted to government departments by not-for-profits here rigorously scrutinised.

The idea that a not-for-profit is probably on the up and up because it is allowed to come into existence, and because it later submits the requisite financial documents to the relevant government department without trouble arising, is false.

This lack of scrutiny is in part where the problem lies.

It is the way C3 Balmain is set up that has led to a situation in which the only way Tom can learn where his inheritance from Grandad went is to through a Supreme Court decision. If the church were set up properly, there would be properly kept accounts. If there were no accounts there would be a procedure for handling the matter internally, that would involve trouble for anyone failing in their accounting measures. Tom wouldn’t be blamed for asking, and insisting; those who would not answer would have to face the music. There would be music to face. Should the internal procedures in place fail the minister for Liquor, Gaming and Racing could intervene.

Without these things…it’s as you see. Lucas and Grant face five years of nerve-racking court proceedings, with who knows what for them at the end.
With respect to the way not-for-profits are supposed to be set up and run, don’t ask your pastor, and don’t accept my views either. I suggest you call the relevant government department, and get the bundle of information that is given out to those who wish to start such an organisation. Then read it.
Or search the web. Here is a good place to begin.

http://www.olgr.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/starting_a_charity.pdf

It is plainly taken for granted by this document that not-for-profit organisations (a) will allow all people working in them to possess full membership of the organisation; (b) will have a properly written and binding constitution that applies to all these members; and (c) will be governed by a board voted into office by a body of members that extends to all workers in the charity.

It is also plainly the case that the rules applying to members of the organisation will automatically apply to anyone whatsoever who works in the charity.
It is plainly not expected that your not-for-profit with fifty people active in its running will have five legally recognised members.
It is plainly not expected that employees of the charity will be paying themselves from donations because they form the majority of the organisation’s membership.
It is plainly not expected that members of a not-for-profit which is set up bodgily are within their rights to apply the constitution only to themselves, and not to everyone else working in some capacity in it.
The whole purpose you’re allowed to form a legal entity of the kind talked about here is that you are thereby going to be able to give legal protections and standards of behaviour to all persons involved in your charitable work.
This document is obviously not written so that a religiously minded person who is a good salesmen can create an authoritarian system of religious government in a church, and thereby come into joint possession of large assets with five friends (or worse family members)—much of it bought by other workers in the charity.
C3 Balmain is definitely not set up in compliance with the expectations of the document in question. And how far in the C3 movement does the same thing run?
Eventually the Tax Commissioner and the Minister for Liquor, Gaming and Racing will work out what is going on, and then….

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13264, September 7, 2010 at 6:32 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The burning questions are, do C3 churches as a matter of fact set themselves up with dummy constitutions to please the Department of Gaming and Racing, etc? (ie Constitutions whose content bears no resemblance to the church’s actual workings?) And do they then systematically operate in a manner that, if it had been revealed to the authorities from the beginning, would have meant that they would have never been allowed to exist in the first place?

If the answers to these questions is yes, then the C3 movement in NSW is apparently guilty of a widespread and deliberate fraud.

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13339, September 9, 2010 at 12:34 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

G’day, Teddy…just had a spare moment.

The money was donated to the Rise and Build Fund of C3 Balmain.

Lucas and Grant can’t or won’t produce a properly kept accounting of the use to which the money was put.

(As soon as they did, the court case as things stand would be at an end.)
So we have no idea where it has ended up. Apparently, it might take a forensic accountant to discover its whereabouts (ie whose account it is in, what is was spent on, whatever)–and even then there is uncertainty whether such a person would find it.

We have never heard that Grandad’s money might have gone to Oxford Falls. If that really is where it has gone, what motive could Lucas and Grant have for not saying straight out where is was? Most confusing….

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13341, September 9, 2010 at 1:51 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hi, all,

I’m enjoying following the conversation. Tom is, too, and I’m sure he’s finding the aspects relating to his stuff encouraging.

RP, thanks for your kind thoughts.

Teddy, this is my church background (thanks for asking)–Dad was a Prezzy minister; Mum was a missionary. I went to the Prezzies till my mid-twenties; then I went to a cell church for ten years. Then a C3 Balmain/other churches mix for eighteen months. Then the Anglicans for a few years; but its youth work collapsed (I have young kids). At present we go the the local Baptist Church, which has an excellent youth program.

With respect to C3 Balmain, (I noticed some confusion about this, so it’s good to clear it up), I went there occasionally over about 6 years, and fairly regularly for a while. However, I was never convinced, so I moved on. I wasn’t going there when Tom etc were thrown out.

The help I’m giving Tom, apart from fraternal support, is much more to do with my particular experiences and training than with my intimate knowledge of the church’s workings. (Apart from the things I’ve already mentioned, I worked as a social worker for a number of years. Another one of my areas of expertise both in and out of my current studies is the language-use of criminal tyrants–ie domestic violence perps, religious leaders in breach of the principle of natural justice etc..

If you’re good at that kind of thing, you can spot a criminal tyrant five or ten minutes after they start talking–and of course very quickly from their written work also.)

That being said, Tom was extremely wise in his dealings with Lucas and Grant. About a year before he was chuckled out, he noticed problems with the legal set up of the church.

He pointed them out to Lucas and Grant, thinking these problems had arisen by mistake.

He was not encouraged by their response. So from that time on he had (if memory is correct) one private conversation with Lucas about anything significant. And there were two witnesses present at that conversation.
Otherwise he conducted all meaningful communications with Lucas and his superiors in writing. In other words, there is a permanent record of basically all his actual behaviour in his treatment of Lucas over a long period–a period which began before he and Lucas were in dispute.

I’ve read all the documents available–apart from the most damning one with respect to Lucas’s own personal integrity, which Tom has never shown me, although I know its contents.

The speculations about Tom’s behaviour towards Lucas are understandable–but the worst he can possibly be accused of doing is writing him a moderately ill-mannered letter. And really, the tone of his communications is pretty good.
In my view, his greatest fault in Lucas and Grant’s eyes was that he kept quizzing them about whatever legal problems he perceived. Not long before he was thrown out, he pointed out to them that lawyers have to reveal legal problems, or they face being disbarred (of course what else could he do?) In my opinion this was as much of a problem as the issue of Grandad’s money. To me, it was that which broke the camel’s back–Lucas and Grant had a lawyer with a conscience in their midst, and a set up whose legality was…highly dubious.

Peace be on the heads of all!

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13354, September 9, 2010 at 5:13 pm. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Once again, I’ve enjoyed reading people’s remarks.

Re the exemption of religious organisations.

This is my view (and Tom’s).

(1) The Charitable Fundraising Act is a codification of already existing laws that apply to all groups existing for charitable purposes. It adds no new laws; it codifies what is already there. Its substance applies to all groups of this kind, regardless of the exemption.

(2) According to the Hansard documents, the exemption was only given to religious organisations because those with a good reputation–ie the mainstream churches–already complied fully in their running to these laws…so for instance the laws were already accommodated by the churches’ constitutions, and these churches were properly complying with their constitutions.

(3) The Charitable Fundraising Act empowers the minister to remove this exemption from any religious group deemed to be failing in its keeping of the laws codified by the Act. That is to say, despite the exemption it is expected that religious groups will nonetheless do what the Act says–seeing that if they don’t their conduct will be policed via the removal of the exemption in their case, and the application of the details of the Act to their actions.

(4) The upshot? The exemption doesn’t mean religious groups are exempt from the law–it is on the contrary a nod to the integrity of the mainstream churches, who don’t need the code provided by the Act because they were already complying with its substance, still do that and presumably always will.

The crucial point here is not exactly which act, and which minister, and so on, though.

The crucial point is, do C3 Church’s set themselves up in contradiction of NSW law by adopting a democratic etc constitution according to its requirements, with every intention thereafter of ramming in practice an authoritarian system of government down the throat of those laws?

It doesn’t really matter how many Acts of Parliament don’t apply to the C3 church. Ultimately the illegality of their behaviour (should it be illegal) will not be affected.

The question, ‘Which sentence of which Act?’ is not really relevant–other than in settling on the precise sentences, clauses etc of NSW law that may have been broken.

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13381, September 10, 2010 at 9:45 am. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

On the question of the rights and wrongs of dealing with certain problems outside the church.

I agree with all of you who think that if it’s very serious, you give the church an opportunity to deal with it inside the church. If the church won’t deal with it, then you deal with it in the other places available.
And with many serious problems, you are required by law to report them; and lawyers face being disbarred if they do not report them.

In this situation, it is our opinion that we have no choice but to pursue the course we are following.
It’s worth pondering the fact that at any time C3 could solve the part of the dispute involving Grandad’s money, merely by showing (as is required by charitable laws) a properly kept accounting of the money’s use.
That C3 hasn’t implies, as far as I’m concerned, that the movement is quite happy to ride out financial scandals.

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13420, September 11, 2010 at 7:29 am. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Again, BB, throught the centre of the target.

TVD is the worst advocate for Lucas and Grant and the C3 movement imaginable.

In the short time I’ve been here he has (a) made up NSW law; (b) advocated a dictatorial system of church government that is contrary to charitable laws in NSW, and utterly contrary to the servant model exemplified and commanded by Christ; (c) shown by constant misunderstandings that he can’t read plain English, which means he is not qualified to fulfil one of a pastor’s duties, that being to teach the meaning of the Bible; (d) imputed acts of defamation to Tom and I, which is itself an act of defamation, seeing that he can’t possible prove it; (e)written that he thinks his obligation to uphold fundamental laws applying to him is a ‘vibe’ that he can ignore; shown no meaningful concern for any unjust treatment Tom etc might have received; and so on and so on.

This guy is living proof that our concerns are legitimate.
I’ve been thinking of taking snapshots of his comments, they’re so damaging.
He has basically admitted in writing on this blog that our take on C3 church is spot on.

His utterly dismissive attitude to our charitable law is in my view utterly gross.
The only reason I engage with any of his questions is because the more rope he has, the more enthusiastically he throws himself into the noose!
Does the C3 church know they have this loose cannon blasting wildly in every direction here?

Source: David, C3 ‘Vision Builders’ Pamphlet for ‘Rise & Build’, Signposts02, https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/c3-%e2%80%98vision-builders%e2%80%99-pamphlet-for-%e2%80%98rise-build%e2%80%99/#comment-13421, September 11, 2010 at 7:48 am. (Accessed 20/06/2014.)

CONCLUSION

Kong Hee copies Phil Pringle

We have all seen the corruption, deceit and cover-ups within governments, business corporations and religious institutions reported globally daily in the media. Unfortunately many people have experienced it personally. Usually over time the truth always comes to light in some way.

What I have generally noted over many years is that corruption, fraud, deceit and injustice seems to occur when transparency and governance are deficient within the institutions conducting such unacceptable behaviour.

As disclosed above, what has come to light in relation to C3’s treatment of Tom Adams, his family and other C3 Balmain members, was C3’s attempt to hide the scandal from its members and the general public.

The issues that CHC are facing has some similar issues Pringle is facing (which Tom and Dave exposed). This would possibly explain why C3 settled outside of court to hide this fact. It’s even more revealing C3 has “everywhere in the C3 movement dodgy private companies; dodgy incorporated associations; and church’s with massive assets that are not actually owned by the church community”.

This shows that C3 is totally deficient in transparency, governance, and accountability. Is it just a coincidence that it also seems to be the same situation in the other C3 / Phil Pringle associate institutions like Kong Hee’s CHC in Singapore and Yoido Full Gospel Church in South Korea?
You decide.
These issues are what needs to be disclosed, investigated and vigorously discussed in depth. This is to inform others of the deceit and corruption that is  going on within these churches out of sight from most honest church members.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

The leaky ship reveals leaky trip

08 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

accused, c3 church, chc scandal, Chew Eng Han, Christian City Church, City Harvest Church, courts, John Lam, Kong Hee, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal, Serina Wee

Knowing that Phil Pringle reads our site, you have got to wonder how Phil Pringle is personal receiving this information on CHC.

Channel News Asia reports,

Five City Harvest Church leaders on trial met to discuss their defence

SINGAPORE: Five of the six City Harvest Church leaders had met at least once in 2013 to discuss their defence, according to an email chain highlighted by the prosecution in court on Thursday (Aug 7). The court heard that church founder Kong Hee was not present at the meeting. The leaders are accused of using monies from the church’s building fund to buy sham bonds in Xtron and Firna to fund the secular music career of Sun Ho – the wife of church founder Kong Hee.

In an email, the church’s former investment manager and co-accused Chew Eng Han says he is “convinced” that they are not on the same page regarding the substance of their defence and some of them had shifted their position on what the bonds were actually for.

He adds that he is “disturbed” by this, and that these differences should be discussed when they next meet. Chew was also the one who brought the email chain to the court’s attention. It was admitted after a closed-door hearing on Tuesday.

Another email also revealed that his co-accused – John Lam, Serina Wee, and Sharon Tan had also raised concerns about whether they were all on the same page about the round-tripping charges.

In an email to Chew dated Feb 3, 2013, John Lam wrote: “The 2 girls have a concern. If on the bond issue there seem to be a “different page”, how about the round trip? Are we having the different view as well. Obviously we rather not.” He then suggests a meet-up to discuss this. When initially questioned by the prosecution, he had denied talking to the other accused persons about what should be said at trial.

The prosecution then questioned Lam about why – if he was truly honest – would he be worried about his co-accused taking a different view of the charges.

Lead Prosecutor Mavis Chionh asked: “Do you agree that if you are an honest accused person who is going to go to court and tell the truth… you would not be trying to meet up with your co-accused persons and worrying about their taking a different view from yours on the charges?”

In wrapping up her cross-examination on Lam, Ms Chionh also said that Lam had placed the interests of the Crossover Project over and above his duty as a church board member to ensure proper stewardship of the church’s Building Fund. She also pointed out that Lam knew using the Building Fund monies to finance Ms Ho’s career was an unauthorised use of the funds, and that his keen awareness of this was why he had desperately tried to claim ignorance during the trial.

“It is also because of this guilty knowledge that you are now trying to disassociate yourself from the transactions and instead to push the blame to some of your co-accused, from blaming Sharon Tan, for example, for wrongly recording minutes, to blaming Chew Eng Han, whom you say was responsible for feeding you information,” she said.

Ms Chionh also gave a scathing assessment of Lam’s defence saying that it has essentially been one of “I don’t know, nobody told me, and if they did tell me, they didn’t ask me for advice”. She said given his status within the church, financial expertise, and documentary evidence, his defence is not only “untenable” but “deeply cynical”.

Source: By Kimberly Spykerman, Five City Harvest Church leaders on trial met to discuss their defence, Channel News Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/five-city-harvest-church/1302222.html?cid=FBSG, Published 07/08/2014 22:25.  Updated: 07/08/2014 22:26. (Accessed 08/08/2014.)

(EDIT – 16/08/2014 – Insert of CityNews article.)

CityNews reports,

CHC Trial: Defense Objects To “Unfounded” Insinuation Of Fresh Exhibit

DPP Mavis Chionh throws curveball suggestions at defendant late into the day based on new evidence submitted by church’s former fund manager Chew Eng Han, prompting rigorous objections from the defense team.

Late this afternoon in court, senior counsel N Sreenivasan for Tan Ye Peng objected strongly when deputy public prosecutor Mavis Chionh made an attempt to “inject unknown suppositions” in her questioning of John Lam.

In a new email exhibit submitted by accused party Chew Eng Han, the court saw that a discussion had allegedly taken place among the defendants in Feb 2013, over half a year after criminal charges had been pressed against the six.

The email showed Lam informing Chew that co-defendants Sharon Tan and Serina Wee wanted to meet up to talk about the round-tripping charges, and that it was preferable for them not to have differing views from one another.

Wouldn’t an accused person who is honest just go to court and tell the truth instead of trying to meet up with his co-accused persons, worrying about their taking a different view from him on the charges? asked Chionh.

At that, Sreenivasan stood up and objected to Chionh’s question because it suggested that consulting one’s co-accused was a dishonest act. “Even an honest person in a joint trial will be concerned about all the evidence, including the evidence of the co-accused,” he reminded the court.

“I’m objecting to the fact that the entry of this document is being used to make insinuations that are unfounded,” he said.

The judge allowed the question, however, leading Lam to testify that he disagreed with the DPP’s suggestion.

In the last piece of evidence in the prosecution’s cross-examination, Chionh presented to the court a spreadsheet sent to Chew by Lam, which contained information about external loans that had been taken in order to provide funds to Xtron to fulfil its liability to City Harvest Church.

When asked why Wahju Hanafi was listed in the list of creditors who had extended the external loans, when he was the guarantor of the Crossover Project, Lam replied that he did not know.

Earlier, Chionh also sought to establish the depth of Lam’s involvement in the restructuring and redemption of the Xtron and Firna bonds, and questioned his lack of objection when a particular proposal, which seemed not protective of CHC’s interest, was made by Chew.

Lam explained that he could not see how the proposal could work, but did not offer his view because at that stage, plans and scenarios were at an exploratory stage.

Chionh labelled his explanations “absurd” and “unreasonable.” She asked Lam, hypothetically, if somebody had proposed to him a plan to steal his company’s money, would he also have kept silent? Lam replied that it was not the same—one was simply a plan he felt was unworkable, while the other was an outright crime.

In winding up the prosecution’s cross-examination today, Chionh put forward her case against Lam as follows.

“You knew that the Building Fund could not be used to fund the Crossover directly, and that was why this use of the Building Fund had to be disguised as a legitimate investment.

“You were a board member at the time, Mr Lam, is it not the case that you placed the interests of the Crossover over and above your duty as a CHC board member to ensure proper stewardship of the Building Fund?

“You may have had your own motives for why you chose to misuse the church funds in this way, but the bottom line, I’m putting to you, is that you were aware that using the Building Fund to finance Sun Ho’s music career in the Crossover was an unauthorised use of the Building Fund.”

Lam disagreed with all her points. His lawyer, Kenneth Tan, will be conducting re-examination tomorrow.

Court resumes at 10am tomorrow.

Source: The City News Team, CHC Trial: Defense Objects To “Unfounded” Insinuation Of Fresh Exhibit, CityNews, http://www.citynews.sg/2014/08/chc-trial-defense-objects-to-unfounded-insinuation-of-fresh-exhibit/,  Updated 11:36 pm 07/08/2014. (Accessed 15/08/2014.)

Related articles:

Kong in court: The Lord is my rancher?

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Phil’s phoney friends

05 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by Nailed Truth in Uncategorized

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

c3 church, CHC, Chew Eng Han, Christian City Church, court, hanafi, kong, Kong Hee, Ms Chionh, Phil Pringle, Pringle, scandal, Sun Ho, Wahju Hanafi, xtron

More disturbing news has surfaced against Kong Hee and his wife. We bring you these two articles that we are sure Phil Pringle does not want you to read.

Channel News Asia reports,

CHC spent half a million dollars buying Sun Ho’s unsold CDs

These and other details surfaced as the prosecution sought to highlight inconsistencies in the testimony of ex-church board member John Lam, who cited Ms Ho’s success as a reason CHC should invest in bonds issued by her artiste management company.

SINGAPORE — Ms Sun Ho was not the successful singer City Harvest Church had made her out to be. Evidence showed that the church had spent about half a million dollars buying her unsold CDs.

The profitability of her artiste management company Xtron was also called into question as the trial involving the church’s leader Kong Hee and his five deputies resumed yesterday.

The six church leaders are accused of misusing more than S$50 million of church funds to buy sham bonds to bankroll Ms Ho’s music career.

Although she had been touted as a big commercial success, lead prosecutor Mavis Chionh said the financial statements told a different story.

In 2004, City Harvest Church spent about half a million dollars buying at least 32,000 of her unsold Mandarin CDs to give to ministries and churches overseas.

These details surfaced as the prosecution sought to highlight inconsistencies in the evidence given by former church board member John Lam.

Lam had cited Ms Ho’s success as a reason for the church’s investment in bonds issued by Xtron. He pointed out that the junk bonds were not necessarily bad ones and added that he had believed Ms Ho’s album sales in the United States would be good enough to cover the obligations of the bond.

However, the prosecution said that as former director of Xtron, Lam would have known it was not a profitable company. For example, its only asset was a laptop and all its other assets were loaned from the church. It did not even have the budget to pay a S$46,000 freight services bill.

The prosecution also pointed out that Xtron was not the independent entity it had been made out to be. For one, Lam and fellow accused Chew Eng Han had agreed to stamps being made of their signatures to be used on Xtron’s invoices.

Ms Chionh said the two were “happy to rubber stamp decisions”, knowing that they were made by Kong and the church and were happy to go along with those decisions.

The court also heard that the bulk of Xtron’s funding came from the church’s members. For example, Indonesian businessman Wahju Hanafi’s donations to the church’s building fund were refunded to him and channelled to Xtron. The building fund pledges and tithes of some other members, including Lam’s, were also diverted to Xtron.

The trial continues.

Source: By Kimberly Spykerman, CHC spent half a million dollars buying Sun Ho’s unsold CDs, Channel News Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/chc-spent-half-a-million/1296604.html, Published 23:49 AM 04/08/2014. (Accessed 05/08/2014.)

Yahoo! Singapore reports,

City Harvest case resumes: S$500,000 used to buy Sun Ho’s unsold music CDs

City Harvest Church (CHC) spent $500,000 to buy Sun Ho’s unsold CDs. This was revealed in court on Monday as the trial involving the church leaders resumed.

According to Today newspaper, lead prosecutor Mavis Chionh said the financial statements of the church revealed that at least 32,000 of Ms Ho’s unsold music CDs were purchased by the church for a sum of S$500,000 to give away to ministries and churches overseas. Sun Ho is the wife of CHC co-founder and pastor Kong Hee. A former student of  Anglican High School and Victoria Junior College, Ho — previously known as Ho Yeow Sun when she was a successful Mandopop singer — began to eye the US pop market in 2003 and had plans to use A-list music stars to launch her career in Hollywood.

Ms Ho’s “commercial success” was also cited as a reason for the church’s investment in Xtron-issued bonds. Xtron was Sun Ho’s artiste management agency although its profitability and who controlled it is currently under question.

Church founder Kong Hee, his wife Sun Ho and former finance manager Serina Wee are among six senior church leaders accused of misappropriating more than S$50 million worth of church fundsto finance Sun Ho’s career as part of a “Crossover Project” — a church mission started in 2002 designed to reach out to non-Christians through music.

Former City Harvest treasurer and board member, John Lam Leng Hung also took the stand on Monday, claiming he had “mistakenly” pumped S$1.2 million into a church-building fund, which was later withdrawn and channeled into funds to develop the musical career of Sun Ho.

Clad in shirt and blazer, Lam, 46, was the first of six leaders to take the stand in the fifth tranche of the mega church’s trial, which  resumed on Monday.

During court proceedings, prosecutor Mavis Chionh produced a 2002 email suggesting that Lam’s “error” was part of a deliberate plan to muddy the paperwork trail before the eventual channeling of funds into the Crossover Project.

In the email between Lam and another accused church leader, Chew said, “We will need to do more withdrawals of BF [building fund] (this time, probably Wahju and myself), and put into Xtron, and Pst Kong will put in some personal cash also…”

This “merry go round” funds as claimed by Lam in another email was initially excluded in meeting minutes submitted to auditors because he was “scared” that the public would “object” the withdrawing from the building fund. It was later added into the minutes signed by Lam. In response to this, prosecutors suggested that Lam had “falsified” the document.

The court also heard that the bulk of Xtron’s funds came from City Harvest church members.

For example, the $1.2 million in question was donated by church member, Wahju Hanafi, the owner of company Attributes Pte Ltd. Lam had initially explained that he had made an “error” when depositing $1.2 million worth of donations, which was originally intended for Sun Ho’s career from the start.

Lam allowed rubber stamping of his signatures

Lam also admitted to allowing stamps to be made of his signature for invoices under Xtron as he would not be “the best person” to verify some of them.

He admitted to this after prosecutor Chionh showed an email from the church’s human resource and administration manager Wong Foong Ming requesting to make signature stamps.

Lam added that Wee was in charge of processing those invoices and had trusted her verification.

The trial continues on Tuesday.

Source: By Nurul Azliah Aripin, City Harvest case resumes: S$500,000 used to buy Sun Ho’s unsold music CDs, Yahoo! Singapore, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/city-harvest-church-leader-john-lam-in-spotlight-for-s-1-2-million–error–100459301.html, Published 04/08/2014. (Accessed 05/08/2014.)

EDIT 09/08/2014 Here are more articles relevant to the case:

CHC leaders accused of doctoring paperwork to back investments

But church board member says backdated meeting minutes were ‘a mistake’

SINGAPORE — The leaders of City Harvest Church (CHC) had planned to falsify paperwork and deceive auditors that the church had assessed Xtron’s bonds to be a good investment, charged the prosecution as the high-profile trial resumed yesterday.

Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies are being accused of using millions in church funds to buy sham bonds from Xtron and Firna in order to bankroll the secular music career of Kong’s wife, Ms Sun Ho.

Yesterday, the prosecution said the leaders doctored documents so auditors would think the church had considered in July 2008 whether the Xtron bonds could be recovered before the auditors raised the issue on Aug 1, 2008.

For example, the minutes of a church board meeting dated Aug 3, 2008, reflected that CHC’s investment committee had already reviewed and approved the Xtron bonds. But the investment committee only met two days later, on Aug 5.

Similarly, the minutes from that investment committee meeting were backdated to July 29.

A spreadsheet reflecting Xtron’s ability to redeem the bonds, which had allegedly been presented at the Aug 5 meeting, was only created a few days later on Aug 8.

When these anomalies were highlighted to one of the accused, former church board member John Lam, who had seen both sets of minutes and signed off on the church board minutes, he said they were simply “a mistake”.

Lead prosecutor Mavis Chionh disputed that and called it a “deliberate act” to present a certain picture to the church’s auditors — that CHC had considered the recoverability of the bonds before the issue was raised.

Lam had been fully aware of the falsification and deception, argued the prosecution.

She also asserted that the church leaders had not always painted a full picture to its executive members and had sometimes given them misleading impressions.

That was because they did not want members to discover that money that had been meant for church-related matters had, instead, been spent on the Crossover Project. Fronted by Ms Ho, the project was the church’s way of evangelising through pop music.

The court also heard that the leaders had not told the church board that proceeds from the Firna bonds would be used to fund the project, leading them to believe that the bonds were genuine investments that were made purely to gain financial returns.

It was clear Firna, like Xtron, was merely a “conduit” to channel funds to the Crossover Project, charged Ms Chionh. CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Source: Today Online, CHC leaders accused of doctoring paperwork to back investments, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/chc-leaders-accused-doctoring-paperwork-back-investments?singlepage=true, Published 4:03 AM, 07/08/2014. (Accessed 09/08/2014.)

Channel News Asia reports,

Five City Harvest Church leaders on trial met to discuss their defence

An email chain highlighted by the prosecution in court shows five of six church leaders on trial had met to discuss their defence and later raised concerns on whether they were on the same page about round-tripping charges.

SINGAPORE: Five of the six City Harvest Church leaders had met at least once in 2013 to discuss their defence, according to an email chain highlighted by the prosecution in court on Thursday (Aug 7). The court heard that church founder Kong Hee was not present at the meeting. The leaders are accused of using monies from the church’s building fund to buy sham bonds in Xtron and Firna to fund the secular music career of Sun Ho – the wife of church founder Kong Hee.

In an email, the church’s former investment manager and co-accused Chew Eng Han says he is “convinced” that they are not on the same page regarding the substance of their defence and some of them had shifted their position on what the bonds were actually for.

He adds that he is “disturbed” by this, and that these differences should be discussed when they next meet. Chew was also the one who brought the email chain to the court’s attention. It was admitted after a closed-door hearing on Tuesday.

Another email also revealed that his co-accused – John Lam, Serina Wee, and Sharon Tan had also raised concerns about whether they were all on the same page about the round-tripping charges.

In an email to Chew dated Feb 3, 2013, John Lam wrote: “The 2 girls have a concern. If on the bond issue there seem to be a “different page”, how about the round trip? Are we having the different view as well. Obviously we rather not.” He then suggests a meet-up to discuss this. When initially questioned by the prosecution, he had denied talking to the other accused persons about what should be said at trial.

The prosecution then questioned Lam about why – if he was truly honest – would he be worried about his co-accused taking a different view of the charges.

Lead Prosecutor Mavis Chionh asked: “Do you agree that if you are an honest accused person who is going to go to court and tell the truth… you would not be trying to meet up with your co-accused persons and worrying about their taking a different view from yours on the charges?”

In wrapping up her cross-examination on Lam, Ms Chionh also said that Lam had placed the interests of the Crossover Project over and above his duty as a church board member to ensure proper stewardship of the church’s Building Fund. She also pointed out that Lam knew using the Building Fund monies to finance Ms Ho’s career was an unauthorised use of the funds, and that his keen awareness of this was why he had desperately tried to claim ignorance during the trial.

“It is also because of this guilty knowledge that you are now trying to disassociate yourself from the transactions and instead to push the blame to some of your co-accused, from blaming Sharon Tan, for example, for wrongly recording minutes, to blaming Chew Eng Han, whom you say was responsible for feeding you information,” she said.

Ms Chionh also gave a scathing assessment of Lam’s defence saying that it has essentially been one of “I don’t know, nobody told me, and if they did tell me, they didn’t ask me for advice”. She said given his status within the church, financial expertise, and documentary evidence, his defence is not only “untenable” but “deeply cynical”.

Source: By Kimberly Spykerman, Five City Harvest Church leaders on trial met to discuss their defence, Channel News Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/five-city-harvest-church/1302222.html, Published 07/08/2014 22:25, Updated 07/08/2014 22:26. (Accessed 09/08/2014.)

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

WATCH, DISCERN, AVOID

Follow Us
Facebook

Sowell

_________________________________

OUR OTHER SITES

Latest Insights

Nailed Truth on Noble Preaches Furtick Is Mess…
k on Noble Preaches Furtick Is Mess…
ashevillesveryown on C3 Asheville Scandal – M…
churchwatcher on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
Clinton on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
2expose1 on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
Tracker on My! What Big Faith You Ha…
Timothy Boisvert on C3 Asheville Scandal – M…
Bryce on Phil Pringle the “scam…
Tracker on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…

Latest Headlines

  • A Scholar On The Holy Spirit? Pringle And The Windy Way.
  • Phil Pringle – God’s Word confirms that you are a false prophet….
  • Have Christians lost the art of biblical discernment?
  • A valuable BTWN resource addressing dangers in evangelicalism

Bible Resources

bible.org

Good Christian Radio Resources

Good Church Resources

Good Discernment Websites

Feeling Supportive?

Must-Read Christian Books

The opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally we agree but not always.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • C3 Church Watch
    • Join 252 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • C3 Church Watch
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: