1. Is this really a church putting you in jail? Isn't it just the state doing it for disobeying the law?
2. Have you confused anyone by using the name Creation 7th Day Adventist, and is it true that you were impersonating, or stealing the identity of, the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
3. Is this really a religious liberty issue?
4. Is religious conviction a valid grounds for disobeying a neutral law? Couldn't that lead to anyone claiming religious liberty as a grounds to violate any law, such as those against murder or theft?
5. According to a press release by the General Conference, they made several attempts to resolve this dispute amicably, but you refused. Is that true?
6. According to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they first asked you to cease using the name in 2005 and only initiated the lawsuit as a last resort. Is this true?
7. Why did Pastor McGill refuse to attend mediation in this case? Doesn't that constitute an "amicable attempt to resolve the case" on the part of the Plaintiffs?
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
- Lucan Chartier
Re: Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is this really a church putting you in jail? Isn't it just the state doing it for disobeying the law?
A. While it is indeed the court issuing the warrants, because this is a civil case the issuing of sanctions is at the sole behest and discretion of the plaintiff. Criminal contempt is punished by the state, and is punitive in nature; civil contempt is coercive in nature, and it falls on the plaintiff to request it. The Seventh-day Adventist church's attorneys have persisted in both requesting the court to grant show cause hearings and submitting proposed orders of contempt and sanctions. The first example was in 2009, when the General Conference's attorneys sought indefinite incarceration. The following is an excerpt of what was submitted to the court as though it were written by the judge, with the hope that he would sign it:
Additionally, the idea that "it is a matter of law" when one church persuades the government to punish another over a religious dispute is unjustifiable by Adventist standards, as the following writings demonstrate:
A. While it is indeed the court issuing the warrants, because this is a civil case the issuing of sanctions is at the sole behest and discretion of the plaintiff. Criminal contempt is punished by the state, and is punitive in nature; civil contempt is coercive in nature, and it falls on the plaintiff to request it. The Seventh-day Adventist church's attorneys have persisted in both requesting the court to grant show cause hearings and submitting proposed orders of contempt and sanctions. The first example was in 2009, when the General Conference's attorneys sought indefinite incarceration. The following is an excerpt of what was submitted to the court as though it were written by the judge, with the hope that he would sign it:
(Proposed) Order of Contempt and Sanctions wrote:Accordingly, the Court hereby Orders the arrest of Defendant, wherever he may be found within the jurisdiction of the United States, and his incarceration in this District pending his full and complete compliance with the Injunction Order. This Court will release him upon his full and complete compliance with the Injunction Order. The United States Marshal of this District is directed to take all appropriate steps to ensure that this order of arrest and civil commitment is executed wherever Defendant may be found within the United States or its territories, including appropriate notification of the United States Customs Service.
Additionally, the idea that "it is a matter of law" when one church persuades the government to punish another over a religious dispute is unjustifiable by Adventist standards, as the following writings demonstrate:
- Lucan Chartier
Re: Frequently Asked Questions
2. Have you confused anyone by using the name Creation 7th Day Adventist, and is it true that you were impersonating, or stealing the identity of, the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
A. No. Despite being in existence for over twenty years at the time of this writing and fifteen years at the time of the lawsuit's initiation, not one instance of actual confusion has ever been documented nor provided to the Court. For example:
Further, the Court found the following:
And again:
A. No. Despite being in existence for over twenty years at the time of this writing and fifteen years at the time of the lawsuit's initiation, not one instance of actual confusion has ever been documented nor provided to the Court. For example:
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment wrote:The Plaintiffs rely heavily on the fourth element, evidence of actual confusion, in their motion for summary judgment. . . The only evidence of actual confusion presented by the Plaintiffs are entries in the guest book of the Defendant’s website by visitors to the site. Several of these visitors identify themselves as Seventh Day Adventists and comment on the contents of the website or ask for information on McGill’s church. (Id. at 7.) For example, one visitor stated that he was a Seventh-Day Adventist looking for “internet friendships,” while another complimented the Defendant’s “description about the New Start Program,” and yet another asked that McGill pray for her. (D.E. No. 37, Pls.’ Mem. in Supp., at 7.) However, these somewhat ambiguous entries do not conclusively indicate that these visitors mistakenly believed that the Defendant’s church was part of the “mother” church. . . Thus, there is no persuasive evidence of actual confusion.
Further, the Court found the following:
Ibid. wrote:While the use of the mark was certainly knowing, there is no evidence that the Defendant intended to confuse the public into believing that his church was one of the Plaintiffs’. Rather, the proof supports the conclusion that they chose the name based on a divine revelation.
And again:
Ibid. wrote:The evidence supports the conclusion that the Defendant chose the name for his church based on a divine revelation, rather than a desire to profit from any already established good-will towards the Plaintiffs’ church.
- Lucan Chartier
Re: Frequently Asked Questions
3. Is this really a religious liberty issue?
A. Absolutely. While the religious writings on this topic are numerous and easily found, the courts have also ruled that our belief is both sincere and substantially burdened by the enforcement of this injunction:
A. Absolutely. While the religious writings on this topic are numerous and easily found, the courts have also ruled that our belief is both sincere and substantially burdened by the enforcement of this injunction:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit wrote:So far, no one has questioned the sincerity of McGill’s belief that God requires him to continue his infringing use of the plaintiffs’ marks. Being compelled to stop could substantially burden his religious practice. [...] McGill cannot claim the benefit of RFRA, however, because as we explain, the defense does not apply in suits between private parties.
- Lucan Chartier
Re: Frequently Asked Questions
4. Is religious conviction a valid grounds for disobeying a neutral law? Couldn't that lead to anyone claiming religious liberty as a grounds to violate any law, such as those against murder or theft?
A. While it is true that religious liberty cannot be used as a carte blanche for disobeying laws, neither does the existence of a law provide a carte blanche for trampling on religious convictions to the contrary. The longstanding solution to conflicts of this nature was to apply the Sherbert test, which was re-instated in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). For a more full treatment of the RFRA, how it is to be used to resolve conflicts of this nature, and why this case is not an example of a law that must be maintained at the cost of the freedom of the minority, please view Lucan Chartier's Objection to Report and Recommendation.
For an Adventist perspective on the question of whether a law such as the trademark that specifically regulates religious observances is to be obeyed, we recommend the book Individuality in Religion by A.T. Jones as an introductory reading.
A. While it is true that religious liberty cannot be used as a carte blanche for disobeying laws, neither does the existence of a law provide a carte blanche for trampling on religious convictions to the contrary. The longstanding solution to conflicts of this nature was to apply the Sherbert test, which was re-instated in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). For a more full treatment of the RFRA, how it is to be used to resolve conflicts of this nature, and why this case is not an example of a law that must be maintained at the cost of the freedom of the minority, please view Lucan Chartier's Objection to Report and Recommendation.
For an Adventist perspective on the question of whether a law such as the trademark that specifically regulates religious observances is to be obeyed, we recommend the book Individuality in Religion by A.T. Jones as an introductory reading.
- Lucan Chartier
Re: Frequently Asked Questions
5. According to a press release by the General Conference, they made several attempts to resolve this dispute amicably, but you refused. Is that true?
A. No. In fact, since the formation of the CSDA Church in 1991 not one such attempt - amicable or otherwise - was ever received from the Seventh-day Adventist Church or its representatives. Despite this, we have been active in attempting to initiate dialogue with Seventh-day Adventist leadership. In 1991 we mailed a copy of "Crucified Afresh!" to every Conference office in the NAD, serving as our official position paper and announcement of formation under the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist." No reply was received. An index of further correspondence initiated with the General Conference and its representatives may be found here, along with their responses.
At no point from 1991-2006 (when the lawsuit was filed) were we requested to cease usage of the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist", informed that they considered our usage to be a violation of the trademark, or entreated to reconsider our doctrinal positions on the need for separation and reformation under our name. In short, not a single "amicable attempt at resolution" was made, much less several.
A. No. In fact, since the formation of the CSDA Church in 1991 not one such attempt - amicable or otherwise - was ever received from the Seventh-day Adventist Church or its representatives. Despite this, we have been active in attempting to initiate dialogue with Seventh-day Adventist leadership. In 1991 we mailed a copy of "Crucified Afresh!" to every Conference office in the NAD, serving as our official position paper and announcement of formation under the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist." No reply was received. An index of further correspondence initiated with the General Conference and its representatives may be found here, along with their responses.
At no point from 1991-2006 (when the lawsuit was filed) were we requested to cease usage of the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist", informed that they considered our usage to be a violation of the trademark, or entreated to reconsider our doctrinal positions on the need for separation and reformation under our name. In short, not a single "amicable attempt at resolution" was made, much less several.
- Lucan Chartier
Re: Frequently Asked Questions
6. According to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they first asked you to cease using the name in 2005 and only initiated the lawsuit as a last resort. Is this true?
A. In February 2005 a demand letter was mistakenly sent to us from a lawfirm retained by the General Conference, which was addressed to the owner of several Davidian websites based in California. Pastor McGill responded and pointed out the error; within a few short months, the exact same letter was sent to Pr. McGill with only minor alterations. In fact, the letter still listed the Davidian-owned domain names, referred to prior communications with the owner of the Davidian websites, and contained the exact same text as the February letter. The only alterations were the addition of one url operated by the CSDA Church to the list ("7th-day-adventist.org"), and the addressee being changed to Pr. McGill. No mention was made of our church signs or the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist."
Pr. McGill again responded and pointed out the error, further explaining that we believed the one website listed that did belong to us to be within "fair use," as it did not make use of the word "church." The next papers received were a legal filing. The relevant documentation, including scans of all letters involved, may be reviewed at the top of the "Legal Updates" timeline on this page.
A. In February 2005 a demand letter was mistakenly sent to us from a lawfirm retained by the General Conference, which was addressed to the owner of several Davidian websites based in California. Pastor McGill responded and pointed out the error; within a few short months, the exact same letter was sent to Pr. McGill with only minor alterations. In fact, the letter still listed the Davidian-owned domain names, referred to prior communications with the owner of the Davidian websites, and contained the exact same text as the February letter. The only alterations were the addition of one url operated by the CSDA Church to the list ("7th-day-adventist.org"), and the addressee being changed to Pr. McGill. No mention was made of our church signs or the name "Creation 7th Day Adventist."
Pr. McGill again responded and pointed out the error, further explaining that we believed the one website listed that did belong to us to be within "fair use," as it did not make use of the word "church." The next papers received were a legal filing. The relevant documentation, including scans of all letters involved, may be reviewed at the top of the "Legal Updates" timeline on this page.
- Lucan Chartier
Re: Frequently Asked Questions
7. Why did Pastor McGill refuse to attend mediation in this case? Doesn't that constitute an "amicable attempt to resolve the case" on the part of the Plaintiffs?
A. First, the mediation in question had nothing to do with the name "Seventh-day Adventist," as the court had previously ruled on that issue in summary judgment; instead it was over secondary issues of the acronym "SDA" and the generic term "Adventist." Pastor McGill did not see the value in a costly return trip from Africa simply to restate the fact that he had nothing to compromise regarding his faith. This was particularly the case after having already lost the main issue at stake in the case, the name of the church.
Further, the mediation was supposedly voluntary. Pastor McGill's then-attorney agreed to it without his consent, and was immediately fired as a result. Pastor McGill made a motion to delete the agreement for mediation on these grounds, but the court denied the motion. Despite Pr. McGill certifying to the court that he could and would not be attending, nor did he volunteer to the mediation on the remaining issues, the court held the agreement as both binding and as if made by Pr. McGill himself and mandated the mediation.
Finally, despite the claims of the General Conference, Pr. McGill's refusal to attend the mediation had nothing to do with his arrest or sanctions. The only consequence of his non-attendance was a default loss on the relative non-issues of "Adventist" and "SDA," which were hardly relevant given the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" had already been ruled against. The question of contempt of court and subsequent arrest did not arise until later, and was in response to our signs and websites; not the court-mandated "voluntary" mediation.
A. First, the mediation in question had nothing to do with the name "Seventh-day Adventist," as the court had previously ruled on that issue in summary judgment; instead it was over secondary issues of the acronym "SDA" and the generic term "Adventist." Pastor McGill did not see the value in a costly return trip from Africa simply to restate the fact that he had nothing to compromise regarding his faith. This was particularly the case after having already lost the main issue at stake in the case, the name of the church.
Further, the mediation was supposedly voluntary. Pastor McGill's then-attorney agreed to it without his consent, and was immediately fired as a result. Pastor McGill made a motion to delete the agreement for mediation on these grounds, but the court denied the motion. Despite Pr. McGill certifying to the court that he could and would not be attending, nor did he volunteer to the mediation on the remaining issues, the court held the agreement as both binding and as if made by Pr. McGill himself and mandated the mediation.
Finally, despite the claims of the General Conference, Pr. McGill's refusal to attend the mediation had nothing to do with his arrest or sanctions. The only consequence of his non-attendance was a default loss on the relative non-issues of "Adventist" and "SDA," which were hardly relevant given the name "Creation Seventh Day Adventist" had already been ruled against. The question of contempt of court and subsequent arrest did not arise until later, and was in response to our signs and websites; not the court-mandated "voluntary" mediation.
- Lucan Chartier
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest