I have added the following document to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through. I added it as it occurred chronologically, so the walk-through has been renumbered.
#10 AC Meeting Minutes from January 4, 2001
These are the AC Meeting Minutes from January 4, 2001. They include all 8 pages of the regular minutes and the 9th page of confidential minutes. Previously I posted the confidential page. Some quotes of interest:
“The
AC received a report concerning the Council sent to Prescott, AZ, concerning
the difficulties between former pastor Tom Chantry and the church. Three
reports will be distributed: a general report to be sent to all the churches, a
middle level report sent to all the AC members (to remain confidential), and a
much fuller report to be given only to nine individuals involved.
Mr.
McKnight is to e-mail the public statement to be inserted. Distinction of 3
levels of reports is to remain confidential!! Only the public statement is to
be sent to the churches or noted in the public minutes.” [Page 9, item 2]
“Allocate $20,000 for the Publications
Committee to publish two books – “Holding Communion Together – Essays on
Reformed Baptist Association” by five contributors (David Dykstra, Erroll
Hulse, David Kingdon, Jim Renihan, and Earl Blackburn) and “The Baptism of
Disciples Alone – A Covenantal Rejection of Infant Baptism” by Dr. Fred
Malone. Actually $30,000 is needed; therefore the Trinity Reformed Baptist
Church of La Mirada, CA would like to request a Special Project in 2001 for the
other $10,000.00.” [Page 5, item e]
Note: The book “Holding Communion Together – The Reformed Baptists: The
First Fifty Years, Divided & United” was authored by Tom Chantry and
David Dykstra. It was published in May 2014 by Solid Ground Christian
Books.
I have added the following transcript to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through.
#41 Transcript of Tom Chantry’s Sentencing (7/19/2019)
This is the transcript from Tom
Chantry’s sentencing on 7/19/2019. Some
quotes of interest; all are Judge Astrowsky addressing Tom Chantry (names of
the victims redacted or changed to pseudonyms):
“First, the
defendant is correct when he stated that the sentence won’t fix things. Nothing that the Court does today is going to
undo the harm to the Jones family or the Walsh family. Nothing that the
Court does today is going to make anything better, whatever sentence the Court
imposes today is shy of the duration, length and weight of the impact upon
those affected by the events that occurred. So I agree with that.” [Page 66,
lines 21-25 to page 67, lines 1-3]
“When the defendant indicated in
his allocution that he’s the only person that knows the truth, that is
inaccurate, because as to their particular events that occurred to them, Jane,
Wayne and Mark know the truth. When the defendant said that he is
alone and defenseless, that is not accurate. He’s represented. He is alone in
terms of he will be the one that will be serving the sentence, but who actually
was alone and defenseless was Mark Jones. When Mark Jones was being
abused by the defendant, he was alone and he was a child and he was
defenseless.” [Page 67, lines 4-14]
“When you consider Mark Jones‘s
testimony, it is not unusual when someone’s testifying, whether it be 2018 or
2019, about events that occurred in the mid nineties to not be a hundred
percent accurate on the fringes or the details. The gravamen of what happened
was consistent and adds to Mark Jones‘s credibility from the Court’s
point of view.” [Page 69, lines 4-10]
“Well, we have to go a little bit
deeper than that, because why did Mark lash out at his brother and/or
his parents? It’s because of you. It’s because of what you did. I am not trying
to make the Jones family feel bad. They already do. I am not going to
talk about what they should or shouldn’t have done. They understand that and
they’re dealing with it right now and will deal with it perhaps for the rest of
their lives. But Mark has behaved in the way he has behaved not because
he’s a bad person or a jerk or bad brother or bad son. It’s because of you and
what you did.” [Page 69, lines 23-25 to page 70, lines 1-8]
“One of the things that struck me during Mark Jones‘s testimony is that even though we had an adult testifying on the stand, that wasn’t an adult testifying. That was — he was back as a child, talking as a child. I think that was pretty clear and remarkable. So emotional harm to the victim.” [Page 73, lines 8-13]
“The defendant took advantage of his position of trust and authority. He used his role as pastor – he knew that Mark came from a strict religious family — to convince the child that he deserved the abuse; it was God’s will and the child would suffer eternally if he resisted and/or told anyone. The defendant manipulated the victim’s parents so that he could be alone with the child.” [Page 73, lines 8-15]
The transcript is 76 pages, but
there is a lot of white-space so it doesn’t take that long to read. Here is a table of contents for the transcript:
Lois Jones: page 9, line 22 to page 10 line 25
Tracy Jones: page 11, line 5 to page 12 line 15
Luke Jones: page 12, line 19 to page 13, line 18
Bob Selph: page 14, line 17 to page 15, line 21
Al Huber: page 16, line 7 to page 20, line 10
Karen Chantry: page 20, line 16, to page 22, line 10
Attorney Eazer: page 22, line 15 to page 28, line 18
Tom Chantry: page 25, line 5 to page 55, line 15
Attorney Eazer: page 55, line 24 to page 58, line 10
Attorney Stevens: page 58, line 15 to page 66, line 18
Judge Astrowsky: page 66, line 19 to page 76, line 18
I have added the following transcripts to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through and updated the item numbers.
#28 Transcript of Day 7 of the First Trial (8/2/2018)
This is a transcript of Day 7 of Tom Chantry’s first trial (8/2/2018). Some quotes of interest (names of the victims redacted or changed to pseudonyms):
Q (Eazer): After the church council
came back and spoke to – we heard that they spoke to the children, some of the
parents, other members of the congregation.
Do you remember any of the families being told that Tom Chantry was not
going to be pastoring again?
A (Howe): During this process?
Q (Eazer): During or at the end of it. A (Howe): At the end. Yes. I think at the conclusion it was made clear from the council that that would be their recommendation.
Q (Eazer): Do you think the families
were assured that the defendant wasn’t going to be a pastor anywhere in the future?
A (Howe): Yes.
Q (Eazer): And did that seem to be
something that they wanted assurance for?
A (Howe): Yes.
Q (Eazer): Now, were the parents
told that the church wasn’t going to call the police, but if they wanted to,
they could?
A (Howe): I think at the conclusion of the council, anyone would have been able to call the police, whether it was us as a church, as elders, as families, individuals. There was no instruction on that. [page 88, lines 1-17]
Q (Eazer): After the church council
and this formal investigation was done, were you left with the sense that Tom
Chantry wasn’t going to be a pastor anymore?
A (Connie S Laver): Yes. [page 227, lines 8-11]
Q (Eazer): Was it your belief that
he wasn’t going to be a pastor anywhere?
A (Owens): Yes.
Q (Eazer): Do you believe that that belief was extended to the parents or they were given some assurances that that wasn’t likely going to happen?
A (Owens): I believe that. [page 257, lines 2-8]
#29 Transcript of Day 8 of the First Trial (8/8/2018)
This is a transcript of Day 8 of Tom Chantry’s first trial (8/8/2018). Some quotes of interest (names of the victims redacted or changed to pseudonyms):
Q (Sears): Now, I’m really interested in this call you got from a man named John Giarrizzo in this case. Did you know John before he called you?
A (Marley): Yes.
Q (Sears): And he is connected to Reformed Baptist Churches how?
A (Marley): He pastors a Reformed
Baptist Church in Gilbert, Arizona.
Q (Sears): And when he called you in 2012, is that when you think this call was?
A (Marley): That’s my guess.
Q (Sears): So he calls you and the substance of the call is he wants to know if you can help in some sort of reconciliation between Thomas Chantry and Miller Valley Baptist Church to let bygones be bygones; was that his word; is that what he was saying?
A (Marley): I don’t remember him
using that phrase but yes, that’s the idea.
Q (Sears): That’s your interpretation of what he was calling you about?
A (Marley): That’s correct.
Q (Sears): Out of the blue he calls you about Tom Chantry; right?
A (Marley): Correct.
Q (Sears): He never talked to you about Tom Chantry before?
A (Marley): Correct. [page 95, lines 10-25 and page 96, lines 1-11]
Q (Sears): And you had your dad try
to contact Tom?
A (Marley): Correct.
Q (Sears): How did he do that?
A (Marley): Phone call.
Q (Sears): Did he talk to Tom?
A (Marley): No.
Q (Sears): Okay. When was that?
A (Marley): Fall of 2015. He finally responded with an e-mail.
Q (Sears): Tom did?
A (Marley): Yes.
Q (Sears): Any follow-up by your
father or you to that e-mail?
A (Marley): He expressed that he didn’t want to communicate. [page 135, lines 3-19]
Q (Eazer): Okay, but I guess what I
was getting to is were you and your wife assured that he was not going to be
pastoring any further?
A (Tyler Walsh): Yes. [page 177, lines 6-9]
Q (Eazer): All right. Was there much discussion at the time about
whether or not anyone would make a report to the police if you recall?
A (Tyler Walsh): There was – basically there was discussion if we did see that we needed to go to the police, that we could, but that they would handle this as a church matter and if we were good with that, that’s how they would like to handle it. [page 177, lines 10-17]
#40 Minutes from Tom Chantry’s Sentencing (7/19/2019)
These are the minutes from Tom Chantry’s Sentencing. This document lists the counts of which he was convicted and confirms that he was sentenced to 24 years for each count, that the sentences are to be served concurrently, and that he will be given credit for 404 days served prior to sentencing. They have been added to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through.
I added the following to my post about Tom Chantry’s Sentencing for clarity. If there is anything else anyone would like checked or clarified, please let me know.
“Judge Astrowsky explained the sentencing. Tom Chantry had been found guilty on 4 counts (counts 2 to 5). Each count would receive a possible sentence of 10 to 24 years: 17 years the presumptive sentence; 10 years if the judge felt it needed to be reduced due to mitigating circumstances; 24 years if the judge felt it needed to be increased due to aggregating circumstances. Since the law was different when the offenses occurred, whether or not the sentences would be served concurrently or consecutively was up to the discretion of the judge. The sentences must be served in full (no possibility of parole). The lowest possible sentence would be 10 years (10 years for each count; sentences served concurrently). The highest possible sentence would be 96 years (24 years for each count; sentences served consecutively).”
Today I attended Tom Chantry’s sentencing. As has been reported, he received the maximum possible sentence of 24 years for each of the 4 counts of which he was found guilty. The sentences will be served concurrently, which means that he will serve 24 years. The sentences must be served in full, so he will serve the full 24 years (minus 404 days of pre-trial credit).
Judge Astrowsky explained the sentencing. Tom Chantry had been found guilty on 4 counts (counts 2 to 5). Each count would receive a possible sentence of 10 to 24 years: 17 years the presumptive sentence; 10 years if the judge felt it needed to be reduced due to mitigating circumstances; 24 years if the judge felt it needed to be increased due to aggravating circumstances. Since the law was different when the offenses occurred, whether or not the sentences would be served concurrently or consecutively was up to the discretion of the judge. The sentences must be served in full (no possibility of parole). The lowest possible sentence would be 10 years (10 years for each count; sentences served concurrently). The highest possible sentence would be 96 years (24 years for each count; sentences served consecutively).
Those making statements for the victim spoke next. The victim’s mother, sister-in-law, and father (speaking on behalf of the victim) spoke. They described how the victim and their families had suffered because of Tom Chantry’s actions and requested the maximum sentence for each count and consecutive sentences so that Tom Chantry would not be able to do to another child what he had done to the victim. After they spoke, it was opened up to non-family members and Bob Selph spoke. He spoke about how he had known the victim’s family for 40 years and trusted their testimony and integrity. He too requested that Tom Chantry receive the highest possible sentence.
Those making statements for Tom Chantry spoke next. Al Huber and Karen Chantry spoke. They both stated that they weren’t going to argue for Tom’s innocence. They described Tom’s behavior during the time they have known him, describing him as a loving father and husband as well as his charitable and positive works. Al Huber stated that, “Whatever he did in the past, he isn’t the same.” They requested the minimum sentence possible.
Prosecuting Attorney Susan Eazer spoke next. She stated that families are blinded, usually by love. She also said that Karen Chantry is manipulated by Tom and has allowed him to punish and spank their children outside of her presence. She also spoke of how Tom Chantry denied everything under oath, even some of the spanking. Tom’s testimony proves that he is a prolific liar, which makes him very dangerous. She talked about how the victims would crumble when they spoke about what happened and that the victim didn’t want to address the court because of what happens to him when he thinks or talks about it. She reiterated that they request the maximum allowable sentence.
Tom Chantry spoke for about about the next 40 to 45 minutes. He maintained his innocence. He stated that the church council was not concerned with facts, that they interrogated him in a haphazard fashion and wouldn’t allow him to speak. He said that Detective Belling was incompetent and didn’t encounter the facts. He claimed that Ms. Eazer advanced a false narrative and that Bob Selph finally arrived now that he can’t take the stand. Tom stated that he knows the truth and asked the judge to dismiss, disregard, and reject the requests of the victim and prosecution. Tom stated that the victim perjured himself, invented new allegations, and was an embittered man who would do anything to win. He said that the victim had the right to be heard but not believed. He said that he was enraged after the verdict and said things he wanted to apologize for. He believes the jurors were manipulated by Ms. Eazer. He stated that he has always wished the victim well and still desires a good life for him but then said that the victim bullied and manipulated his parents and brother. He said that this verdict and sentence will fix nothing, will turn his wife into a widow with a living husband, and, “It will destroy me.” He stated that there was no justice in this verdict, and that he has been slandered and his reputation destroyed. “This is not justice.” He went on to speak about the separation and limitation of powers and how he had been failed by the executive and legislative branches. He also spoke about how Prescott is a small town and subject to corruption and listed some things that were unique to AZ (the effectual elimination of the statute of limitations, unique and extreme victim’s rights, regressive minimum sentence guidelines, and jury rules designed to keep the jury in the dark). Tom claimed that he was denied due process. He asked the judge to redirect and to vote not guilty [I’m not 100% sure I got that terminology right] or give him a new trial. He asked the judge to find some way to refuse to sentence him. He asked that the judge to stop a runaway assembly line and to do what is just and free an innocent man. Tom Chantry then swore an oath under God that everything he said is truth.
At this point Judge Astrowsky allowed Ms. Eazer a chance to address the Ad Hominem attack against her. She spoke to the judge about letters written by Tedd Tripp and Rich Jensen that she had sent to him, which he acknowledged having read. She said that they (Tripp and Jensen) had seen through Tom’s actions of “smoke and mirrors” and that this is classic Tom Chantry.
Defense Attorney Stevens spoke next. He stated that Tom is a man who maintains his innocence and listed the mitigating factors (Tom’s strong family support, Karen describes a good marriage, was employed full time, was entrusted with bond, and always showed up for court). He said that Tom’s Risk Level Report was low but admitted that the psychosexual evaluation had not been done yet. He requested the minimum possible sentence.
Judge Astrowsky spoke next. He stated that the defendant was correct that the sentence won’t fix things and that anything the court imposed will be short of that. He said that the defendant was not the only person who knows the truth, that MJ, JW, and WW know the truth. He also said that Tom was not alone and defenseless. MJ was alone and defenseless when he was abused by him. He also said that Tom was right about the church and police investigations. The church council was ill equipped and should have involved the police. But, none of that diminished what happened to MJ, and MJ was not an embittered man willing to do anything to win. If MJ had made up the story, he would have made up something much more severe. He also said that it was normal to be inaccurate in fringe details after so many years. Judge Astrowsky then posed the question as to why MJ lashed out against his parents and brother and stated, “It’s because of you and what you did to him.”
Judge Astrowsky then stated that he couldn’t hold lack of remorse or repentance against Tom and didn’t hold what Tom had said against him. He went over the mitigating circumstances (defendants intelligence and education, stable personal life, long work history, no other criminal history, compliance to court orders, and his age) and the aggravating circumstances (emotional harm to the victim, how the defendant took advantage of position and authority, how the defendant manipulated the parents, that here were multiple victims, and that the defendant has devastated multiple families). Judge Astrowsky then pronounced the aforementioned sentence.
Tom Chantry will be appealing the sentence.
Note: I posted this from my phone, which (at least initially) resulted in some formatting issues. I think I have fixed them. If not, please let me know and I will try my best to fix them. I apologize if some of you are still seeing this as one long post without paragraphs.
I added the following document to the ARBCA and Tom
Chantry Document Walk-through page.
#39 State’s Sentencing Memorandum
This document contains quotes of Tom Chantry during phone conversations while in jail. They give insight into his character. Tom Chantry’s words are in bold.
“In a recent call with his sister,
Defendant states he was illegally convicted and ‘if the judge were anything
other than a legal robot he could fix this but he’s not going to. He’s incapable of being original or having
any imagination in how he approaches things and so we are where we are.’ Defendant
then goes on to say the system is a charade out here and that ‘all the
prosecutors should be hung and all of the judges should be in prison for life.’”
[Page 3, lines 7-12]
“When referring to the prosecutor, Defendant told a friend ‘You’ve got to understand, these [witnesses] are being hammered by a prosecutor who is intentionally driving her witnesses into tears. I mean she was mean at times trying to make witnesses cry on the stand because she knew they didn’t have any evidence to give. That’s how I was convicted.’” [Page 3, line 17 through page 4, line 2]
I have added the following documents to the ARBCA and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through page. I added them as they occurred chronologically, so the walk-through has also been renumbered.
#14 Letter from Earl Blackburn to Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp dated 4/18/2002
This document
is a letter written by Earl Blackburn to the members of the Informal Council
(Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp).
It was cc’d to Don Lindblad, Walter J. Chantry, and Dale Smith. It discusses Earl Blackburn’s belief that Tom
Chantry had been wronged by the IC and cites the “Report Written by Don
Lindblad for Earl Blackburn dated 4/15/2002” multiple times.
“…you
sought to be generous and kind to Tom Chantry by giving him an opportunity to
deal with matters and, hopefully, in time, reenter the ministry.” [Page 1, 2nd paragraph]
“I
asked him [Don Lindblad] then, and later followed up that request with a phone
call to write a report of the meeting and send it to me. I have enclosed for each of you a copy of
that report.”
[Page 1, 3rd paragraph]
“What
you told me and what he [Don Lindblad] wrote do not match up…In other words,
brothers, I believe his written report.” [Page 1, 3rd
paragraph]
“Just
as I predicted, serious and unsettling ramifications have followed the Arizona
meetings. Pastor Walt Chantry is very
bothered that his son was not given a full and fair hearing, so much so that he
has stated to me via letter that he will never have anything to do with
ARBCA again. Also, your refusal to allow
Tom Chantry to fully address all of his concerns has caused prolonged problems
in the Carlisle Eldership. This does not
include a number of other ARBCA pastors who have heard and are concerned about
your refusal.” [Page
2, 4th paragraph]
“One,
prayerful search your hearts and if you believe that Don is correct in his
report and that you were wrong, then admit it to yourself and each other. Two, individually write a letter to Tom
Chantry acknowledging your wrong in this particular matter and ask his
forgiveness. Three, do the same with
Pastor Walt Chantry.” [Page
3, 1st paragraph]
#15 Letter from Tedd Tripp to Earl Blackburn dated 8/26/2002
This document
is a letter written by Tedd Tripp to Earl Blackburn in response to the “Letter
from Earl Blackburn to Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp dated
4/18/2002.” It was also distributed to
“the other members of the Informal Council” (Rich Jensen and Mike McKnight).
“The
claim, that we were unfair to Tom Chantry is an essential part of his ‘smoke
and mirrors’ strategy to avoid acceptance responsibility for his actions. Sadly, you, Don and Walt have fallen for it
and thus fallen into Tom Chantry’s clever attempt to make himself the aggrieved
party.” [Page 1, 2nd
paragraph]
“It
is my belief that had that [calling for a formal council] been done, Tom
Chantry would have been found guilty and formal legal charges would have been
filed by the parents of some of the abused children. There is no doubt in my mind that Tom Chantry
would have been found guilty in a legal proceeding and may even be in jail
today.” [Page 1, 4th
paragraph]
“…Walter
Chantry should be filled with gratitude for what we did for his son.” [Page 2, 1st paragraph]
“None
of Tom Chantry’s counter-charges against the elders in Prescott mitigated the
matter we addressed, namely Tom Chantry’s abuse of the children in the
church. It had no bearing on the things
Tom Chantry had done, but was just part of the ‘smoke and mirrors’
strategy. It was a brilliant strategy;
it worked with you.” [Page
2, 4th paragraph]
“You
should have called for a formal council.
If you had I do not believe that Tom Chantry would be teaching children
today or teaching an Adult Sunday School in an Association church. Ironically, Tom Chantry had managed to be out
of legal jeopardy through the process we established and in a position to
rehabilitate himself…” [Page
2, 5th paragraph]
‘I
am curious about the number of ARBCA pastors who have heard and are
concerned…Have you been discussing private matters with other men?” [Page 3, 1st paragraph]
“Tom
Chantry’s strategy was to throw enough dust in the air by charging the elders
in Prescott with their failings so that the matter would be an issue of
disagreement between elders. Tom
Chantry, a trusted pastor, abused children in the Prescott church. It would have bene ludicrous for us to
investigate whether the elders had followed every point of the church’s
constitution in dealing with their pastor when the real issue was the pastor’s
abuse of children. We did not cooperate
with Tom Chantry’s attempt to divert the focus away from his action and the
fall out of those actions, to the matters of procedure and process with the
elders.” [Page 3, 2nd
paragraph]
“You
have not made private judgments and come to me personally, but you have made
private judgments and also published them to Don Lindblad, Walter Chantry and
Dale Smith…you also have spread that opinion to other brethren.” [Page 3, 3rd and 4th
paragraphs]
“…I
wish we had torn up the document recommended a formal council and gone
home. I firmly believe that the result
would have been legal action taken against Tom Chantry for abuse of the
children.” [Page
4, 1st paragraph]
#16 Letter from Rich Jensen to Earl Blackburn dated 1/21/2003
This document
is a letter written by Rich Jensen to Earl Blackburn in response to the “Letter
from Earl Blackburn to Rich Jensen, Mike McKnight, and Tedd Tripp dated
4/18/2002.”
“It
was very clear that Tom Chantry wanted to steer the investigation of the Informal
Council away from his culpability for possible crimes and shift it to the
deteriorating relationship with the Elders.
I want to say this in the strongest possible language. The council was well aware of what Tom was
trying to do and would not allow it.” [Page 2, 1st paragraph]
“But
any such discussion [about MVBC elders] had no bearing on his actions with the
children in question. It was at that
time that Tom made the statement, ‘Then it doesn’t matter anymore.’ This statement confirmed our suspicions that
Tom was trying to cloud the issue with his complaints against the Elders of
Miller Valley.” [Page
2, 3rd paragraph; page 4, 1st paragraph]
“Tom
was pleased with the outcome of the investigation but was not pleased that he
was unable to pull the wool over our eyes.
And he has used Don, his father, and you to do harm to the body of
Christ in general and to our association in particular.” [Page 3, 3rd paragraph]
“You
state that Don called you during the investigation to insist on certain
things. You told him to phone Tedd and
plead with him. You also warned him of
your concerns of ‘serious and unsettling ramifications.’ I find this behavior highly irregular and questionable.”
[Page 3, 2nd paragraph]
“I
find his [Tom’s] actions reprehensible and his attempts to mask his culpability
equally distasteful and sinful.” [Page 4, 2nd paragraph]
“This
whole matter has left a very bad taste in mouth [sic]. I believe it speaks very badly for ARBCA and
some of its members…How did they hear about the actions and why?…If someone
has a bad opinion of me based upon rumors and gossip and never comes to me
personally, I can do nothing about it.” [Page 4, 5th paragraph]
“I
do not believe that Tom has complied with either the letter or the spirit of
the document he signed. Instead he has
sown seeds of discord among the churches.
And Don, though I do not believe he acted maliciously, has done the
same.” [Page 5, 2nd
paragraph]
Some may be wondering where I got all the documents I have posted. Most of them I purchased from Yavapai Superior Court, some of them I created, some of them were owned by me due to my status as a church member, and some were available in the public realm (almost all that I have are now available in the public realm). Here is a list of the documents I have posted stating where and when they were purchased/created/acquired (in the order in which I purchased/created/acquired them). At the end are instructions for how to purchase documents from Yavapai Superior Court if you would like to do so yourself.
CRBC Vista, CA Bulletin dated
5/1/2016 – As a member of CRBC Vista, CA,
this was emailed to me on 4/30/2016.
CRBC Vista, CA Bulletin dated
5/29/2016 – As a member of CRBC Vista, CA,
this was emailed to me on 5/27/2016.
ARBCA Announcement April 2017 – I received this from Jim Renihan at CRBC Vista, CA on 4/30/2017.
Informal Council Level 1 Report;Pre-trial Testimony by Hariet Edson and Connie A. Laver;Transcript of Don Lindblad’s Telephone Interview – I purchased these from Yavapai Superior Court on 8/10/2018 and received them on 8/14/2018 when I purchased the entire case file.
Exhibit 12 Church Documents – I purchased and received this from Yavapai Superior Court
on 8/17/2018. It is the MVBC “Red
Binder” and includes: MVBC Timeline, Minutes of Special Meeting, Tom Chantry’s
Resignation, Letter from Walt Chantry to MVBC, Letter from MVBC Elders to Walt
Chantry, Letters from the parents and one of the children for the IC, Letter
from MVBC Elders to Tom Chantry (severance schedule), Letter from Tom Chantry
to MVBC Elders (receipt of severance letter), IC Report Level 2, and
Recommendations for the Parents.
Transcript of Don Lindblad’s
Testimony During Tom Chantry’s Trial
– I purchased this document from the Yavapai Superior Court (from the Court
Reporter) on 8/17/2018 and received it on 8/27/2018.
ARBCA’s AC Part I Report and Attachments – As a member of Emmaus RBC Hemet, CA (at that time an ARBCA church), I received this report on 9/6/2018. I have posted excerpts from several pages. Attachment I used: 12 (Letter from Don Lindblad to Steve Marquedant dated 6/17/2015).
Portico Church’s Letter of
Resignation from ARBCA – This
document dated 9/6/2018 is in the public realm.
I downloaded it in early September.
MVBC Objection to Ad Hoc – This is a public document that was released in early
September 2018. I received it in early
September.
ARBCA & Timeline of Events – This is a document I created to pull the information from
the documents into a single reference. I
first created this in early October 2018.
I have continued to refine it and add additional documents as they have
become available.
ARBCA’s Constitution – I downloaded this from ARBCA’s website on 10/8/2018. At the time of this writing, the constitution
has not changed.
ARBCA’s AC Part II Report and Attachments – As a member of Emmaus RBC Hemet, CA (at that time an ARBCA church), I received this report on 10/26/2018. I have posted excerpts from several pages. Attachments I used: 2 (IC Level 3 Report); 10 MVBC Letter to Earl Blackburn; 11 Earl Blackburn Letter to MVBC
Private Documents left out of ARBCA’s AC Part II Report – I created this list of documents in late October 2018. I have continued to update it as additional documents have become available and were identified. The documents themselves are listed when they were acquired.
Letter from Don Lindblad to Steve Marquedant dated 6/17/2015;Notes on the Informal Council Regarding Tom Chantry – I downloaded this from the public realm on 11/2/2018. It was part of a document cache obtained from the Yavapai County District Attorney obtained through a FOIA request.
Victim Impact Letters – I purchased these on 11/27/2018 from Yavapai Superior
Court and received them on 12/1/2018.
Counselor’s Letter – This is in the public realm. I downloaded it on 1/25/2019.
ARBCA’s Statement from the 2019 GA – I downloaded this off of ARBCA’s website on 5/10/2019.
Exhibit 153 Review Report: Don Lindblad (April 15, 2002);Exhibit 156 Letter: Tom to Council (Prior to December 13, 2000);Exhibit 165 Letter: C. A. L. (December 15, 2000) – I purchased these from Yavapai Superior Court on 5/10/2019 and received them on 5/15/2019.
SCARBC & Timeline of Events – This is a document I created to pull the information from
the documents specific to SCARBC into a single reference. I created it from my ARBCA & Timeline of
Events document on 6/24/2019.
I think I have listed them all. If I have missed one, or you have a question,
please let me know.
Most of the time I purchase
documents via email, unless there is a large page count. It’s 50 cents
per page if you get them emailed to you or an unlimited amount if you have them
burned to a disc (ends up being $37 per disc when shipping and the convenience
fee is included). To purchase the entire case files, email Susan Rupe srupe@courts.az.gov
and ask for a disc for P1300CR201600966 (if you want the first case) and/or
P1300CR201801308 (if you want the second case) for entire files. Exhibit lists will be included in the case
file, but the exhibits themselves must be purchased separately using their case
and exhibit numbers. The case files
contain a lot of documents, so it would be easier to request an Exhibit List
for each case file than to dig through all the files looking for all the
Exhibits lists.
I realized that the link to one of the documents in the “SCARBC, ARBCA, and Tom Chantry Document Walk-through” was incorrect. Instead of linking to the SCARBC & Timeline of Events, I had linked to the ARBCA & Timeline of Events. That has been corrected. For your convenience, here is the correct link. I apologize for the error and inconvenience.
Ephesians 5:11 