Update From Suzanne

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

From Suzanne's latest post: "[Joan] said that she thinks the person that gave her mine [documents in question] did not mean to, that it seemed accidental."

I'm quite sure with the seriousness of this entire episode no one is turning in documents "accidentally." Maybe they don't really spell things out quite as Suzanne indicates. I guess we'll find out soon.

[DarthVader]

I was curious DLM if you'd heard any perspective on this you could share (e.g., there are documents but they don't say exactly what she said, etc.)?

If it's a lie, to your point, it's lifespan should be very short as in a week or 2 when decisions have been made, presumably ECC would know this question (about these 2 documents) would be coming and be prepared to answer it or even preempt it with their communication.

I also think an accident seems unlikely (although I've never seen anyone at ECC as evil/super adept at coverups, so stranger things have happened).  I'd prefer to think someone on staff "did the right thing," come what may or that God had a hand in this (if, in fact, it is true).

I did look up the attorney she mentioned (Greg Guevara) and his linkedin profile indicates he was with GCM/Reliant at the right time to have been engaged in this. I think most acknowledge a severance offer with a non-disparagement clause was made, but dispute if this originated with ECC or GCM, and if Mark was mentioned by name.  To me that would be telling as he was not a GCM employee - so for him to be mentioned -by name in a GCM severance agreement would be very odd indeed, but, to your point, we should know soon.

[steadfast]

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

Seriously? Decades of abuse using scripture to convince people that all is as it should be. Decades of cover up by those who know that abuse is taking place. Decades of not being willing to acknowledge scriptural heresy but asking those who who bring up concerns to leave. Decades of this....decades. And an apology or repentance should be sufficient? Are you kidding me? Lets not forget that GCM heresy includes such statements that all is forgiven before you sin and repentance is not therefore needed. People who teach that kind of heresy do not repent. Brent Knox, Mark Darling and Mark Bowen are unfit to be in a position of authority because they lack healthy boundaries and have a pattern of covering up sin that goes back decades!!!!!!!!! This entire "church" operates this way. The system is so sick how can it possibly become a healthy one?? Disband and let people go find a healthy community if they so choose. I do not see any possibility to "save" Evergreen because if you remade Evergreen into a healthy system it simply would not be anything like what it is now.

Make no mistake, sin has consequences and ramifications. Repentance would be key. Much work would need to be done to repair the damage done and bring about healing. Whole systems would need to be altered and many changes would likely need to happen. But I have noticed Devlin and some others refer to the ruin this could bring to Mark Darling and Evergreen, and this concerns me. The path of brokenness is not an easy one, but the Bible tells us it does not ultimately lead to ruin. So even the very worst of sinners need not fear confession and repentance. This is the good news of the Gospel.

Also, I am sorry as I think I have hijacked this thread. I just noticed devlin’s reference to ruin, and that is what I was responding to.

[Linda]

The real question, I wonder, when all is said and done: In 10 years, will there be over two decades then of slander and gossip against GCC by the "forum"?

Slander and gossip? Please explain. Perhaps we define those words differently.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Yeah, I'm not sure if the David reference was implying that anyone who alleged abused and/or covered up abuse at Evergreen should remain in a leadership position at any church, but if so, that would be an improper application.  God made a promise to David of kingship for his line because God's plan was that David's line would include Jesus, the king.  So David's remaining on the throne after his sexual relationship with a woman over whom had had power, subsequent murder of her husband, and failure to provide justice for his daughter Tamar after she was raped by her brother is due to the metanarrative of the bible and David's place in it rather than God's desire to keep people in their position after greivous sin.  

Obviously on a spiritual level, no one is ever disqualified from God's love or belonging to his kingdom.  There is a lot we can learn from David.  But that pastors (none of whom has been made promises like those that God made to David) should remain in their positions after sinning in such a way that even the world considers it evil, is not one of them.  

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

Seriously? Decades of abuse using scripture to convince people that all is as it should be. Decades of cover up by those who know that abuse is taking place. Decades of not being willing to acknowledge scriptural heresy but asking those who who bring up concerns to leave. Decades of this....decades. And an apology or repentance should be sufficient? Are you kidding me? Lets not forget that GCM heresy includes such statements that all is forgiven before you sin and repentance is not therefore needed. People who teach that kind of heresy do not repent. Brent Knox, Mark Darling and Mark Bowen are unfit to be in a position of authority because they lack healthy boundaries and have a pattern of covering up sin that goes back decades!!!!!!!!! This entire "church" operates this way. The system is so sick how can it possibly become a healthy one?? Disband and let people go find a healthy community if they so choose. I do not see any possibility to "save" Evergreen because if you remade Evergreen into a healthy system it simply would not be anything like what it is now.

Make no mistake, sin has consequences and ramifications. Repentance would be key. Much work would need to be done to repair the damage done and bring about healing. Whole systems would need to be altered and many changes would likely need to happen. But I have noticed Devlin and some others refer to the ruin this could bring to Mark Darling and Evergreen, and this concerns me. The path of brokenness is not an easy one, but the Bible tells us it does not ultimately lead to ruin. So even the very worst of sinners need not fear confession and repentance. This is the good news of the Gospel.

Also, I am sorry as I think I have hijacked this thread. I just noticed devlin’s reference to ruin, and that is what I was responding to.

[steadfast]

Yeah, I'm not sure if the David reference was implying that anyone who alleged abused and/or covered up abuse at Evergreen should remain in a leadership position at any church, but if so, that would be an improper application.  God made a promise to David of kingship for his line because God's plan was that David's line would include Jesus, the king.  So David's remaining on the throne after his sexual relationship with a woman over whom had had power, subsequent murder of her husband, and failure to provide justice for his daughter Tamar after she was raped by her brother is due to the metanarrative of the bible and David's place in it rather than God's desire to keep people in their position after greivous sin.  

Obviously on a spiritual level, no one is ever disqualified from God's love or belonging to his kingdom.  There is a lot we can learn from David.  But that pastors (none of whom has been made promises like those that God made to David) should remain in their positions after sinning in such a way that even the world considers it evil, is not one of them.  

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

Seriously? Decades of abuse using scripture to convince people that all is as it should be. Decades of cover up by those who know that abuse is taking place. Decades of not being willing to acknowledge scriptural heresy but asking those who who bring up concerns to leave. Decades of this....decades. And an apology or repentance should be sufficient? Are you kidding me? Lets not forget that GCM heresy includes such statements that all is forgiven before you sin and repentance is not therefore needed. People who teach that kind of heresy do not repent. Brent Knox, Mark Darling and Mark Bowen are unfit to be in a position of authority because they lack healthy boundaries and have a pattern of covering up sin that goes back decades!!!!!!!!! This entire "church" operates this way. The system is so sick how can it possibly become a healthy one?? Disband and let people go find a healthy community if they so choose. I do not see any possibility to "save" Evergreen because if you remade Evergreen into a healthy system it simply would not be anything like what it is now.

Make no mistake, sin has consequences and ramifications. Repentance would be key. Much work would need to be done to repair the damage done and bring about healing. Whole systems would need to be altered and many changes would likely need to happen. But I have noticed Devlin and some others refer to the ruin this could bring to Mark Darling and Evergreen, and this concerns me. The path of brokenness is not an easy one, but the Bible tells us it does not ultimately lead to ruin. So even the very worst of sinners need not fear confession and repentance. This is the good news of the Gospel.

Also, I am sorry as I think I have hijacked this thread. I just noticed devlin’s reference to ruin, and that is what I was responding to.

The reference to David was only to point out the similarity of a leader using their power differential to abuse, confessing, facing consequences, and finding healing and mercy in God. That’s it. Please don’t read anything more into it than that.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

steadfast, that makes a lot of sense and I absolutely agree with that application.  I didn't mean to read in to your comment other than some people do try to misapply David's story that way.  God is ready to welcome any of us with mercy and healing and surrendering to him is the most beautiful thing we can do.  Thanks for that emphasis.

[DarthVader]

Agree as well. But I would note there have been many painful months during which confession, if warranted could have occurred, sparing all, the alleged victims most of all, a lot of pain. Confession after a “guilty” verdict may not imply repentance. The difference between “I’m sorry” and “I’m sorry I got caught”

[JessicaNoelDarling]

I noticed I've been mentioned a few times today so I'd like to address some points. First of all, I do actually find it telling how my posts are often evaded. I don't believe that folks are being silent because they have been trying to be sensitive to my situation, whatever that means. I think my questions have been evaded because addressing them seriously challenges the narrative that folks have been pushing. I've spoken the truth over and over again about my fathers observed character as a man, not just a father, since I'm not sure you can separate the two, not to mention I lived with him through my mid to late 20's so these aren't things I've observed just from a childhood perspective. Some are trying to isolate this apparent flaw in their narrative by saying, "Well, he was just a good father is all." ....What?? Just a good father? That makes no sense gut check in logic. How can you be a wonderful father, a faithful husband, a passionate and caring pastor....but a pseudo abuser/manipulator on the side (that only scratches the surface of the nonsense). So I'd have to conclude that either some are turning their brains off, or I'm being ignored because it's hard to reconcile the narrative with the observed character of my father by pretty much everyone who actually knows him. People on this forum, you'll find out, don't actually know him! It's laughable at times watching the conspiracy theories form. So why am I on this forum you ask? Trying to prove my father's innocence? No. He is innocent and that really doesn't need to be proved. No, the reason I'm here is to ask questions for the purposes of illustrating the ridiculous nature of these claims for others to see so that they, who haven't turned their logic centers off, can see the lack of actual substance to these claims via the responses (or lack of responses) to legitimate questions. You see, many folks are peering in on this little forum because they are curious. Many of them have no context at all other than what they read online. I want to be respectful on this forum, mind you, but I'm compelled to speak the truth and if the truth makes these claims seem silly, I really can't help that. A number of times people have tried talk about me as if I am just a desperate daughter trying to salvage the reputation of my father, all the while dealing with my own pain and doubt. Lord have mercy, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Whether my dad is innocent or guilty doesn't even seem to matter on this forum as evidenced by the strategic evading of questions. This forum is very unfortunate. It's a hot mess of feelings, which is fine, but feelings have this ability to color the perspective of truth. I believe a few on this forum are outright liars, but most are people who have been hurt. I do understand that and I want you to know that I believe God cares deeply for you and is concerned about that which is causing, or has caused you pain. But please don't be misled by those who are using your pain to push a narrative that is more easily palatable because of where you have been or things you have gone through. My heart goes out to you, but consider that the so-called abuser in this story might actually be the victim.

Bump.

[jeromydaviddarling]

Wow, quite a bit of action here over the last week. To clarify, I was not ordered to stop defending my dad and I will continue doing that as God allows - it's my right as a son. My father is a human being - not an organization, and I will fight for him as long as I have breath. I haven't posted because there are plenty of folks here doing a great job exposing all the holes, which has been wonderfully refreshing during the darkest and worst months of my life.

[ShineTheLight]

From Suzanne's latest post: "[Joan] said that she thinks the person that gave her mine [documents in question] did not mean to, that it seemed accidental."

I'm quite sure with the seriousness of this entire episode no one is turning in documents "accidentally." Maybe they don't really spell things out quite as Suzanne indicates. I guess we'll find out soon.

I am also confused as in the same sentence she said she did not know if John turned in that letter (I would think she could call or text him to find this out??) but then states Joan tells her it seems to be accidentally turned in by someone??

Hello GTA, Suzanne did not exactly say what you said she said - her exact quote was "I do not know if she has John's letter or not".  Suzanne said Joan confirmed for Suzanne that someone else turned in a copy of Suzanne's letter to Joan with sexual references crossed out - Suzanne did not turn this is.  My assumption was Suzanne also knows that John did not turn in his letter (w/out sexual references) because she knows that did not keep a copy (to your point, even if they having challenges, I'd assume John and Suzanne would communicate about who is sharing what with Joan).  What Suzanne does not know is if another person at the meeting held many years ago turned in a copy of John's letter - for example, Jeromy, in the Reckoning said his dad kept at copy of John's letter, which, if asked, I'd assume he would share with Joan, as proof that sexual issues were not discussed at the meeting.

Of course this is all dependent upon what Suzanne stated in her FB post being honest, and you and others question her honesty, as is your right and complete fair to do.  On the flip side, this would be a stupid lie for Suzanne to tell as in just a few weeks (hopefully less) when this is all done, ECC could just ask Joan to make a statement saying that what Suzanne said in her FB post about these letters was false. Joan does not seem like the type to put her reputation at risk by lying for either ECC or Suzanne, so if Joan did make a statement that Suzanne was lying/inaccurate about what she said on FB regarding these letters,  I would believe Joan which is why I tend to think, on this point at least (what letters Joan has) Suzanne is being honest. As someone who has not been perfect in my life regarding the truth, one of the keys to a successful lie is that it cannot be easily outed.  What Suzanne posted on FB does not meet that criteria as Joan can either back her up or out her instantly, with high credibility if asked.

The exact content and context of the letters its still far from clear, to be sure.  Just trying to clarify what I think Suzanne is saying, not "stir the pot."

[jeromydaviddarling]

From Suzanne's latest post: "[Joan] said that she thinks the person that gave her mine [documents in question] did not mean to, that it seemed accidental."

I'm quite sure with the seriousness of this entire episode no one is turning in documents "accidentally." Maybe they don't really spell things out quite as Suzanne indicates. I guess we'll find out soon.

I am also confused as in the same sentence she said she did not know if John turned in that letter (I would think she could call or text him to find this out??) but then states Joan tells her it seems to be accidentally turned in by someone??

Hello GTA, Suzanne did not exactly say what you said she said - her exact quote was "I do not know if she has John's letter or not".  Suzanne said Joan confirmed for Suzanne that someone else turned in a copy of Suzanne's letter to Joan with sexual references crossed out - Suzanne did not turn this is.  My assumption was Suzanne also knows that John did not turn in his letter (w/out sexual references) because she knows that did not keep a copy (to your point, even if they having challenges, I'd assume John and Suzanne would communicate about who is sharing what with Joan).  What Suzanne does not know is if another person at the meeting held many years ago turned in a copy of John's letter - for example, Jeromy, in the Reckoning said his dad kept at copy of John's letter, which, if asked, I'd assume he would share with Joan, as proof that sexual issues were not discussed at the meeting.

Of course this is all dependent upon what Suzanne stated in her FB post being honest, and you and others question her honesty, as is your right and complete fair to do.  On the flip side, this would be a stupid lie for Suzanne to tell as in just a few weeks (hopefully less) when this is all done, ECC could just ask Joan to make a statement saying that what Suzanne said in her FB post about these letters was false. Joan does not seem like the type to put her reputation at risk by lying for either ECC or Suzanne, so if Joan did make a statement that Suzanne was lying/inaccurate about what she said on FB regarding these letters,  I would believe Joan which is why I tend to think, on this point at least (what letters Joan has) Suzanne is being honest. As someone who has not been perfect in my life regarding the truth, one of the keys to a successful lie is that it cannot be easily outed.  What Suzanne posted on FB does not meet that criteria as Joan can either back her up or out her instantly, with high credibility if asked.

The exact content and context of the letters its still far from clear, to be sure.  Just trying to clarify what I think Suzanne is saying, not "stir the pot."

As far as I know, Joan is having completely off-the-record, confidential interviews, and nothing shared in those interviews will be shown to anyone other than the board (I'm sure you could understand how people talking to Joan might not want Mark or Suzanne to know they're talking to Joan yes?). So it's very easy to lie about what Joan said to Suzanne because Evergreen will not be releasing names or content of the interviews - only their determination of the substance. Make sense?

[Boggs]

As far as I know, Joan is having completely off-the-record, confidential interviews, and nothing shared in those interviews will be shown to anyone other than the board (I'm sure you could understand how people talking to Joan might not want Mark or Suzanne to know they're talking to Joan yes?). So it's very easy to lie about what Joan said to Suzanne because Evergreen will not be releasing names or content of the interviews - only their determination of the substance. Make sense?

- "off the record" interviews? The whole purpose of an investigation is to record facts.
- why do you think they are confidential?
- why do you think that information shared will only be shown to the board? Is this a condition of participating in the investigation?
- are you saying that Suzanne is lying about what happened in her interview?

[ShineTheLight]

From Suzanne's latest post: "[Joan] said that she thinks the person that gave her mine [documents in question] did not mean to, that it seemed accidental."

I'm quite sure with the seriousness of this entire episode no one is turning in documents "accidentally." Maybe they don't really spell things out quite as Suzanne indicates. I guess we'll find out soon.

I am also confused as in the same sentence she said she did not know if John turned in that letter (I would think she could call or text him to find this out??) but then states Joan tells her it seems to be accidentally turned in by someone??

Hello GTA, Suzanne did not exactly say what you said she said - her exact quote was "I do not know if she has John's letter or not".  Suzanne said Joan confirmed for Suzanne that someone else turned in a copy of Suzanne's letter to Joan with sexual references crossed out - Suzanne did not turn this is.  My assumption was Suzanne also knows that John did not turn in his letter (w/out sexual references) because she knows that did not keep a copy (to your point, even if they having challenges, I'd assume John and Suzanne would communicate about who is sharing what with Joan).  What Suzanne does not know is if another person at the meeting held many years ago turned in a copy of John's letter - for example, Jeromy, in the Reckoning said his dad kept at copy of John's letter, which, if asked, I'd assume he would share with Joan, as proof that sexual issues were not discussed at the meeting.

Of course this is all dependent upon what Suzanne stated in her FB post being honest, and you and others question her honesty, as is your right and complete fair to do.  On the flip side, this would be a stupid lie for Suzanne to tell as in just a few weeks (hopefully less) when this is all done, ECC could just ask Joan to make a statement saying that what Suzanne said in her FB post about these letters was false. Joan does not seem like the type to put her reputation at risk by lying for either ECC or Suzanne, so if Joan did make a statement that Suzanne was lying/inaccurate about what she said on FB regarding these letters,  I would believe Joan which is why I tend to think, on this point at least (what letters Joan has) Suzanne is being honest. As someone who has not been perfect in my life regarding the truth, one of the keys to a successful lie is that it cannot be easily outed.  What Suzanne posted on FB does not meet that criteria as Joan can either back her up or out her instantly, with high credibility if asked.

The exact content and context of the letters its still far from clear, to be sure.  Just trying to clarify what I think Suzanne is saying, not "stir the pot."

As far as I know, Joan is having completely off-the-record, confidential interviews, and nothing shared in those interviews will be shown to anyone other than the board (I'm sure you could understand how people talking to Joan might not want Mark or Suzanne to know they're talking to Joan yes?). So it's very easy to lie about what Joan said to Suzanne because Evergreen will not be releasing names or content of the interviews - only their determination of the substance. Make sense?

Hey Jeromy - I could be thinking about this totally wrong, but my train of thought was that Suzanne is representing publicly on FB that she had a conversation with Joan and Joan told her certain things about the 2 letters. If it turns out that Suzanne is lying, there is no breach of confidentiality for Joan or the ECC BOT to call out a lie posted on FB. FB has no confidentiality guarantee (quite the opposite, right) and the ECC BOT or Joan with their permission could (and should) call out this public lie, if it is a lie, without violating ethics or confidentiality.

[jeromydaviddarling]

As far as I know, Joan is having completely off-the-record, confidential interviews, and nothing shared in those interviews will be shown to anyone other than the board (I'm sure you could understand how people talking to Joan might not want Mark or Suzanne to know they're talking to Joan yes?). So it's very easy to lie about what Joan said to Suzanne because Evergreen will not be releasing names or content of the interviews - only their determination of the substance. Make sense?

- "off the record" interviews? The whole purpose of an investigation is to record facts.
- why do you think they are confidential?
- why do you think that information shared will only be shown to the board? Is this a condition of participating in the investigation?
- are you saying that Suzanne is lying about what happened in her interview?

Of course I'm saying she's lying. I've been saying that this whole time. And "off the record" meaning closed to the public. EG has made it infinitely clear that NONE of Joan's work will be made public. That's the only reason Suzanne agreed to finally speak to Joan. Because she knew that what she told Joan was protected by confidentiality, she can use that to manipulate the public once Evergreen's finally makes a public response. Is it a gamble? Sure. But when you're this deep into a lie, the lies continue to compound as you build your house of cards. I've been counting on that from day one...

[Linda]

Of course I'm saying she's lying. I've been saying that this whole time. And "off the record" meaning closed to the public. EG has made it infinitely clear that NONE of Joan's work will be made public. That's the only reason Suzanne agreed to finally speak to Joan. Because she knew that what she told Joan was protected by confidentiality, she can use that to manipulate the public once Evergreen's finally makes a public response. Is it a gamble? Sure. But when you're this deep into a lie, the lies continue to compound as you build your house of cards. I've been counting on that from day one...

Just for clarification, do you believe the others alleging abuse are also lying. Natalie, Loey, Victim A, and Victim C, and a few others who have yet to tell their stories, according to Suzanne.

Follow up, do you believe they are lying, or just misinterpreted what happened?

[Greentruth]

Not presently being a member of ECC at this point, and only having contact with a few members, none in leadership, and looking at this from the outside it has been quite obvious that the accusations have been very confusing to say the least. From my experience when someone is creating a path that is confusing and taking the many absurd actions such as Suzanne tweet, the news cast, and jumping the narrative all over the place and then with her and a few person friends doing over the top on and on repeating of supposed actions by this and that person, is very telling that this is a constructed agenda to manipulate to procure the results they desire, which is to take down MD and ECC. The more you see the extreme bloviating, the more suspicious it has been for myself and others. To most it would seem that IF there was a case against MD and ECC, they would have made the case and proceed with that. This whole case has been added to,manipulated, and confused, which I believe intentional. The truth I believe will be shown shortly, and the only ones still trying to manipulate are Suzanne and her few friends

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Suzanne asked for Joan's report to be made public as a condition of participation before she ever agreed to speak with her.  ECC declined, stating they couldn't do so due to employment law. 

You and your supporters could certainly lend your voices to those who are asking for the board to release the report in its entirety. 

Of course I'm saying she's lying. I've been saying that this whole time. And "off the record" meaning closed to the public. EG has made it infinitely clear that NONE of Joan's work will be made public. That's the only reason Suzanne agreed to finally speak to Joan. Because she knew that what she told Joan was protected by confidentiality, she can use that to manipulate the public once Evergreen's finally makes a public response. Is it a gamble? Sure. But when you're this deep into a lie, the lies continue to compound as you build your house of cards. I've been counting on that from day one...

[DarthVader]

Suzanne asked for Joan's report to be made public as a condition of participation before she ever agreed to speak with her.  ECC declined, stating they couldn't do so due to employment law. 

You and your supporters could certainly lend your voices to those who are asking for the board to release the report in its entirety. 

Of course I'm saying she's lying. I've been saying that this whole time. And "off the record" meaning closed to the public. EG has made it infinitely clear that NONE of Joan's work will be made public. That's the only reason Suzanne agreed to finally speak to Joan. Because she knew that what she told Joan was protected by confidentiality, she can use that to manipulate the public once Evergreen's finally makes a public response. Is it a gamble? Sure. But when you're this deep into a lie, the lies continue to compound as you build your house of cards. I've been counting on that from day one...

YES - This!!

[jeromydaviddarling]

Suzanne asked for Joan's report to be made public as a condition of participation before she ever agreed to speak with her.  ECC declined, stating they couldn't do so due to employment law.  

You and your supporters could certainly lend your voices to those who are asking for the board to release the report in its entirety.  

Of course I'm saying she's lying. I've been saying that this whole time. And "off the record" meaning closed to the public. EG has made it infinitely clear that NONE of Joan's work will be made public. That's the only reason Suzanne agreed to finally speak to Joan. Because she knew that what she told Joan was protected by confidentiality, she can use that to manipulate the public once Evergreen's finally makes a public response. Is it a gamble? Sure. But when you're this deep into a lie, the lies continue to compound as you build your house of cards. I've been counting on that from day one...

YES - This!!

She made the case on her facebook yes, and since she knew EG would not do anything she was demanding, she could manipulate the public into thinking that WAS a condition for her participating. Once she knew for sure they would not release it, it gave her yet another opportunity to manipulate by actually participating, knowing whatever Joan told her would be completely confidential, thereby giving her a chance to continue to try and control the anti-Mark/anti-Evergreen narrative. So when Evergreen stands behind my dad she can continue crying foul. This is how manipulators manipulate you