Victim Intimidation

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.

[Linda]

Please note: I have added Loey to the list of women who have spoken with Joan. I misread the communication verifying this list when I first posted.

As it stands, here is the current list of victims who have come forward. I confirmed this list today. There are 9. As you will see, 2 came forward, but asked that their names be removed after "The Reckoning". It makes me very angry that women alleging abuse were intimidated into silence. This should not be. My understanding is that they did not change their story, they just did not want to go public with it, and honestly, I totally understand.

For those of you who have come forward, and taken the ad hominem hits, thank you for your courage. For those of you who are reading this and have a similar story, I want you to know that Suzanne is safe. She will not release names or stories without permission.

Added thought after I posted: Just to make it clear, people alleging abuse do not have to go through Suzanne, they can go directly to Joan or anyone else they deem safe and helpful. I just wanted people to know that should they choose to contact Suzanne, she is safe.

Here is the list and the breakdown:

Those who allege abuse and have spoken with Joan:
1. Suzanne
2. Natalie
3. Victim A
4. Victim C
5. Loey

Those who came forward, but bowed out due to intimidation caused by “The Reckoning”:
6. Victim F
7.Victim G

Those who came forward after the Fox 9 Report:
8. One more

Additional victim:
9. Victim D who has not spoken with Joan.

[ShineTheLight]

Thanks Linda.  Do you know if Loey spoke to Joan? My impression was that she had.

[Huldah]

I hope Joan has been made aware that a serious, and successful, attempt was made to intimidate victims into silence.

[Linda]

Thanks Linda.  Do you know if Loey spoke to Joan? My impression was that she had.

My understanding is that she will, but I am not sure if she has, so didn't want to include her in the list of people who have spoken with Joan.

I hope Joan has been made aware that a serious, and successful, attempt was made to intimidate victims into silence.

Me too.

Correction: Loey has spoken with Joan.

[Linda]

Correction.

I misunderstood. Loey HAS spoken with Joan.

[ShineTheLight]

Thanks Linda.

[Linda]

Thanks for pointing it out.

[LuisCamachoIII]

Hi Linda,

I think a lot of this depends very much on your point of view. You say that a...

...serious, and successful, attempt was made to intimidate victims into silence

...however I see it as the Darling family demanding, loudly, more evidence to prove that the accusers' victimhood is legitimate. Remember that we don't have victims and abusers yet; we have accusers and accused. To grant the title of victim to everyone that has a story is to immediately assign guilt to the accused, and that's not good or just.

Justice and due process demand more evidence than a two sentence story about an event from 20 years ago. So yes, The Reckoning happened and the angry posts happened and the loud, serious demands for more and better evidence happened because having your lives ruined with a two sentence story about an event from 20 years just isn't fair.

Luis

[Huldah]

So yes, The Reckoning happened and the angry posts happened and the loud, serious demands for more and better evidence happened because having your lives ruined with a two sentence story about an event from 20 years just isn't fair.

Bringing up an accuser's bankruptcy, making hints that she has a criminal record (no evidence whatsoever being offered), and calling her mental health into question hardly qualify as demands for more and better evidence.

[Linda]

Hi Linda,

I think a lot of this depends very much on your point of view. You say that a...

...serious, and successful, attempt was made to intimidate victims into silence

...however I see it as the Darling family demanding, loudly, more evidence to prove that the accusers' victimhood is legitimate. Remember that we don't have victims and abusers yet; we have accusers and accused. To grant the title of victim to everyone that has a story is to immediately assign guilt to the accused, and that's not good or just.

Justice and due process demand more evidence than a two sentence story about an event from 20 years ago. So yes, The Reckoning happened and the angry posts happened and the loud, serious demands for more and better evidence happened because having your lives ruined with a two sentence story about an event from 20 years just isn't fair.

Luis

Asking people to state their case more clearly, or to provide more evidence is not victim intimidation.

Victim intimidation is this:  "Jesus fashioned a whip to loudly and violently drive out the thieves defiling his father's house - I believe I have a Biblical precedent to forcefully defend my father the same way."

There is no place for the words "forcefully and violently" in this conversation.

[ShineTheLight]

well look who's being threatened and intimidated now. Is there a number i can call or someone I can email to report Suzanne and Natalie to? No? Ok. My father (and family for that matter) are mocked and patronized all day, every day on this website. My own father has been effectively denied a basic human right of being allowed to answer his accusers and according to most on this site, Mark's kids should all just sit quietly and do as they're told. Jesus fashioned a whip to loudly and violently drive out the thieves defiling his father's house - I believe I have a Biblical precedent to forcefully defend my father the same way. My family comes before all other things - before my church, before my livelihood, everything but God. And by the way, I've answered every question posed in this thread, ad nauseum, so I can only surmise that the persistent asking of questions I've already answered is done to either mock me or continue distracting from the conversation. Suzanne was caught in 2 very bold lies in the Fox 9 story and exactly zero folks on this forum made an attempt to explain the massive discrepancies. Now an apparently anonymous source has provided secrets documents needed to exonerate Suzanne the exact same week she had her interview, and all of this is being communicated exclusively over the internet. Every time you guys ignore these things it proves you actually aren't interested at all in the truth and are actively rooting for my father's destruction.

This is the rhetoric Luis and other MD/ECC supporters apparently want to defend.  If you're watching all this from the sidelines, take note.

[Shamednomore]

Didn't Jeromy also call someone's pastor?  So if they find out the victims' names, they will call people close to them in their life?  If that isn't victim intimidation I don't know what is.

[LuisCamachoIII]

So yes, The Reckoning happened and the angry posts happened and the loud, serious demands for more and better evidence happened because having your lives ruined with a two sentence story about an event from 20 years just isn't fair.

Bringing up an accuser's bankruptcy, making hints that she has a criminal record (no evidence whatsoever being offered), and calling her mental health into question hardly qualify as demands for more and better evidence.

Yes, Huldah, I agree with this.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

So, the intimidation tactics of Jeromy and others on this forum were somewhat successful because they kept the number of women participating in the investigation to 5 instead of 7.  And those are the ones who contacted Suzanne, who knows if there are others.  They further silenced and instilled fear in people their church has already harmed. But now they have fewer people to try to discredit so win-win for them.

I ONLY know Jeromy from his online presence and because of what I've seen I have contacted some people just to see if they are taking any extra security measures.  He seems to only confirm this concern when he claims he will "violently" defend his father, talks about Jesus flipping tables, and then rather than clarify when given the chance, becomes outraged when people ask what someone with a black belt in karate means exactly with those statements.  I don't care how "loving" he might be in other contexts, what he has demonstrated online is inappropriate and cause for concern.  The pain of his family is no excuse.

I am not claiming to be a victim of Mark Darling.  I merely support the women who say they were and find their allegations credible.  I also think GCC has abusive churches and their system upholds that abuse.  That stance has earned me:

Jeromy Darling called my old GCC pastor and then PM'ed me to tell me that while that pastor "had every opportunity to disparage you" he didn't, and therefore  I OWE him an explanation as to why "I'm so angry with him."  So Jeromy called my old pastor for dirt and didn't get any--what would he have done had my old pastor lied and made stuff up?  What if I did have struggles from that time of my life I had shared with my old pastor and he would have felt justified passing that information on to another GCC good ol' boy?   Even though Jeromy didn't get dirt on me, he certainly wanted me to know that he called my old pastor and I was lucky that pastor didn't slam me.  I don't care what that pastor thinks of me and he should know my husband and I are no longer the people who won't stand up for ourselves or people we care about if we are slandered (slandered again, in the case of the people we care about).  But for some people, that would be enough to get them to back down.

Jeromy's friends on FB claimed they would make up fake FB accounts to go after Suzanne. One of them did so and came on my FB page and my husband's page, referencing my school and my husband's employment.  "I would think you would want to be very careful with the kind of career you have"  "What do your professors think of your online activity?"  At a different season in life, this could have been effective in silencing me.  Now, I told him to go ahead and call my professors because I know they're smart enough to recognize an unhealthy person.

Another of Jeromy's FB friends went on a family member's page and wrote false allegations against Suzanne.  Made post after post and comment after comment.  Seems unstable.  Mark's supporters encourage this, saying he was just making a point.  They are all deleted, but who goes to the page of someone they've never met and starts garbage like that?  Even if Mark was being falsely accused (which seems less likely by the day), why is this a normal thing to do?  This is not normal.  So when you're dealing with people who operate outside the boundaries of normal social contact, you could be intimidated in to silence.  You could think "I'm just going to take myself out of this because who wants to deal with these people?"

Multiple people told a man on FB that they could just make up allegations about him.  "Better yet, why don't I accuse you now of abuse and I'll start a movement to investigate your abusive behavior?" They also say they are "just making a point."  But when so many people do it, are they sending a message to intimidate?  Like "shut up or we'll do this to you?"  There are plenty of ways to make a point without suggesting such a horrible thing.

Jeromy revealed my identity on this forum even though I wished to remain anonymous to protect the victims of excommuniation and shunning that I am connected to.  He has written that he doesn't have to follow rules; he only answers "to God and God alone."  Is this not an attempt to intimidate--violate someone's boundaries because you are so darn important that you don't have to respect rules like everyone else?  That would leave victims and their supporters wondering what other rules he doesn't think he has to follow?  In what other ways will he violate boundaries?

And then there's the list of people to sue, which my name is on.  If someone does not understand how the law works (you cannot actually sue anyone for saying they believe someone), they could be intimidated in to silence because they don't have the financial resources, time, or emotional energy to invest in even a potential lawsuit.  Is there a legitimate reason for this list to exist other than to try to silence (potential) victims and their supporters?

To speak up, a woman would have to be at a place in her healing and life circumstances to be willing to deal with all of this junk.  She could be emotionally very healthy but have a new baby or be finishing up school or something from which she does not want to divert attention to be harassed.  So these tactics ARE effective in keeping women with stories silent.  And there is no reasonable or healthy reason that excuses any of these behaviors.  

I have discussed issues related to abuse and people in public pastoral ministry, but Jeromy and his supporters have made it personal.  And I've heard their excuses, like what is more personal than Jeromy's father being treated so "unfairly," which apparently that means Jeromy gets to do whatever he wants.  

And both GCC and ECC were aware of his antics from the beginning and by allowing him to continue (he is an employee) they are complicit.

Intimidation and bullying.  Plain and simple.  

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Just because my post is really long, I'll respond here.  Yes, Jeromy tried to get info about my husband and me from our old pastor.  And we are just supporters of the victims.  Imagine what he would have done if he got "dirt" on one of the actual victims?  Other than what they've already attempted to pass off as "discrediting"?  What a violation.

Didn't Jeromy also call someone's pastor?  So if they find out the victims' names, they will call people close to them in their life?  If that isn't victim intimidation I don't know what is.

[ShineTheLight]

Sorry for what you went through RIGA..BTW, when Jeromy posted the whole "whips and violence" statement, it bothered me (a lot) so that night I sent a note to Lynn Newman (acting chair of the BOT) Karl Quickert (the most experienced remaining pastor at the Rock) and Joan Harris (ECC investigator) to complain (others may have as well).  He hasn't been active or logged on the forum since (but may be "lurking"). I'm not sure what, if any action was taken as I sent the note anonymously (for obvious reasons) and told them to keep me out of any follow up.

[KnowingGod]

Very much like how ex Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons,  or Scientologist get treated after leaving the cults... His whole comparison to Jesus and the money changers (which is what that proper Biblical context was about, using Gods house for profit) is another gross perversion of Scripture.

[araignee19]

Rebel, can you clarify about the list of people to sue? Where is this list?

And wow. When it is all compiled into one post like this, it all sounds even worse than I thought of it before. Anyone who argues that all of that wasn’t intimidation is, well... confused. Yeah. I’ll go with confused. I like the benefit of the doubt.

[GodisFaithful]

Jeromy came on this forum naming Gary Miller from out of nowhere, not responding to Gary from this forum but perhaps from facebook or somewhere like that,  and railing on him. He said to Gary: "I have spent some time on your facebook/twitter/blog/podcast and see no mention of Jesus Christ and certainly don't hear his words in yours." Later he told Gary, "You can go back to your pen name now..." Gary had not been on this forum for years. Gary was supportive of one of the accusers, and this is the treatment Jeromy doled out.

Jeromy ridiculed John on this forum for not saying more on facebook, and ridiculed him for what he did say. He also mocked him for his performance on the Fox 9 report and he revealed some stuff about John's sex life.

Jeromy said to Heidi: "since you're so intent on inserting yourself into this conversation, why don't you be the one to break the news to everyone on this forum about their marital history? ...and specifically to Heidi: "what is weird is how devoted you were to our church most of your adult life."

Jeromy lit into Natalie saying, "I know she wasn't abused just from reading her blog..." And he accused her of going on tv to get more clients.

What victim would want to sign up for this kind of treatment from Jeromy?

If this is not intimidation and mean and nasty then I do not know what is. And I don't think anyone will get an apology from Jeromy. He is probably crowing about how he was successful in his intimidation tactics.

I will not engage with him. I think he is violent and mean.

He is free to express a completely different evaluation of his father than some of us have, but he has gone way beyond that into trying to dismantle accusers and their supporters. And I don't think his behavior is convincing many people of his father's clean hands and pure heart. He has acted like a spoiled brat who is used to being on the throne of entitlement, in my opinion.

[Linda]

Rebel, can you clarify about the list of people to sue? Where is this list?

Here's the list followed by the link. (G_Prince, would trolling online to find people who have posted statements on Twitter, Facebook, and Decomm, or shared Suzanne's post on Facebook for the purpose of compiling a "People to Sue" list be considered "doxxing", or is it just your "run of the mill" despicable intimidation?)

I have trolled this ordeal on line and many have posted statements of MD being a sexual abuser on Twitter, Facebook, and on De-Commission Forum.  Suzanne shares her statements with multiple people to post on their FB pages.  Others that could be pulled into the crosshairs if this does not play out as expected and defamation lawsuits are initiated would be these individuals that have shared sexual abuse statements on FB.
-   Linda Dugan
-   Terry Dugan
-   Chris Johnson (Go Fund Me for Mark Darling sexual abuse victims)
-   Barb Johnson
-   Tracy Nelson
-   Donna McBride
-   Lisa Skoglund
-   Ben Holmen
-   Megan Holmen
-   Jessi Irwin
-   Matthew Irwin
-   Heidi Van Dyck Anfinson
-   Jennifer Simpson
-   Ariana Van Dyck
-   Uncertain who is responsible for Forum postings
I would expect people would support a fundraising campaign to cover the cost for these suits or maybe a lawyer or two would come forward to provide their services.  Most of us expect or want him to be guilty, but I am starting to have some doubts.


http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/what-if-mark-darling-is-found-to-not-be-a-sexual-abuser/msg15801/#msg15801