CMI-AIG: What’s the dispute all about?

(2 pages, followed by a one-page index of the main web documents)
Last modified 10 July 2008—see (Our response to AiG-US’s latest legal maneuverings) which explains about the lawsuit launched by AiG-US in America against CMI-Australia, seeking to evade accountability under law or arbitration in Australia. (Note that even though our legal costs are only temporary, and expected to be more than recovered in due course, no other CMI office incurs these.)

In late 2004, Carl Wieland (CW), then CEO of AiG-Australia¹ (now CMI-Australia), with the full knowledge of his Board, raised some internal professional concerns concerning Ken Ham/AiG-US, in relation also to matters that affected Australia and the other AiG countries.

Rather than discuss, contact with CW was totally cut off, but not with the (then) Australian Board.

In October 2005, in a meeting with AiG-US, these four (volunteer) Australian directors signed two legal documents prepared by lawyers engaged by AiG-US. These signed away substantial assets to the US ministry, as well as leaving the Australian ministry extremely vulnerable. These directors did this without seeking their own legal advice or consulting their own management, despite having promised them they would not sign anything without such consultation.

Ken Ham (KH) then wrote informing of a ‘formal separation’ of the US and UK ministries from the other four (Australia, Canada, NZ and Sth Africa), describing them in an email as ‘no longer sister ministries’.

After precipitating a staff crisis in Australia, all four Australian directors consulted the ministry’s Christian lawyer. Thereafter they all resigned, handing the company over to a new board that included CW as Managing Director²—after seeking and obtaining legal indemnities (protection from penalty) from the incoming Board for their actions.

All offers to AiG-US of peaceful discussion with a view to renegotiating these onerous agreements were spurned. Australia was told to ‘do its own website’, which necessitated rebranding of the four ‘divorced’ ministries. They all became Creation Ministries International in March 2006.

Around that time, in breach of its long-standing contract with Australia, AiG-US announced that it was immediately dropping its distribution of Creation magazine and the Journal of Creation (then called TJ). US subscribers would be switched by default to the new magazine Answers.

Clever wording gave the overwhelming impression that these magazines were no longer available and/or that Answers was simply a revamp of Creation. CMI did not have US subscribers’ names and addresses to be able to notify them of the true situation.

This action was both deceptive and unethical, as well as unlawful.

CMI’s new directors did not have the option of just accepting this loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue, because for one thing AiG’s ‘lawyer documents’ still left the ministry legally vulnerable. Under Australian law (hence under God’s law—see Romans 13) they are duty bound to protect their corporation or resign, leaving the ministry to fold up.

In Nov 2006, a libellous letter was sent out by AiG to a number of people in the public arena, accusing CMI of having (unspecified) ‘spiritual problems’. All pleas to withdraw it were ignored, including all pleas (again) to meet openly, all together.

In desperation, and trying to resolve the matter as befitting believers, CMI set up a panel of enquiry composed of prominent Christians, inviting AiG to participate. And offering, in return, to similarly participate in an AiG-US-appointed panel, provided the biblical principles of openness and cross-examination (Proverbs 18:17) were followed. All this was rejected.

The Chairman of the committee (Clarrie Briese, a prominent Christian former Chief Magistrate with a huge national reputation as a corruption fighter), after working through nearly 700 pages of documents, became so concerned about the injustices and patterns of behaviour his investigation uncovered that he chose to add his own separate Chairman’s report, an extremely serious and important document. Even knowing its contents, AiG-US still refused open meeting.

CMI explained it would have no choice but to ‘appeal to Caesar’ under Romans 13, and urged AiG again to meet to settle the matters. This was ignored, as was an offer of straightforward, binding Christian arbitration.

With heavy heart, and after carefully considering all the relevant biblical principles, including consulting widely with biblically astute counsellors and the works of leading Bible commentators, CMI–Australia launched an action in the Supreme Court of Queensland on part of the issues. [For further on the vital biblical issues involved, see this page and also this detailed letter to a concerned supporter.]

Only then did AiG express any interest in any form of mediation/arbitration. [Editor’s note added 25 Feb 08 – i.e., only after CMI made it irrevocably clear that it would definitely be holding them accountable]. The launching of the action ultimately led to a meeting in Hawaii in August 2007, facilitated by a NZ man recommended by Peacemakers USA, and we put the court proceedings on hold. We and the moderator were given indications that KH was going to be present, but he failed to appear.

The outcome was a handshake agreement on all points to settle the dispute. This still had to be put into writing (time in Hawaii ran out).

AiG subsequently reneged on key aspects of this ‘handshake agreement’. Simultaneously, we experienced a surge of attempts by KH to undermine the ministry in Australia by spreading false claims by proxy, using an unrepentant excommunicant who had previously spent years trying to wipe out the Australian ministry.

The letters from AiG’s lawyers discussing the reneging appeared to be ‘designed for the onlooker’, so that someone who did not know the whole history and context would think that they were actually making reasonable offers, and/or that it was actually CMI who had gone back on the Hawaii agreement! And this, even though we were overjoyed in Hawaii that matters seemed to have been honourably resolved, despite AiG’s initial threats of large defamation suits, etc.! (We also, as a gesture of goodwill, removed all the reports, etc. from the web while the Hawaii agreement was supposed to be being put in writing—even though this was not something we were obliged to do under that agreement.)

The longer that AiG-US can delay being held accountable for these actions (which we would much rather have seen happen in a straightforward Christian forum, followed by mediation to restore relationships), the more it works to their commercial and other advantage. We believe that our actions have shown that we are keen for a just and honourable conclusion, which AiG-US will have to agree to before the court proceedings are stopped again.

On past performance, there will be many frantic attempts to massage public opinion, to try to see CMI deterred. We believe that AiG/KH know they will likely be found guilty on these legal matters, whether in a secular court or a private Christian judgement, which helps explain the many attempts to muddy the waters, and to pressure outside people to ‘lean on’ CMI, try for a ‘fuzzy’ form of arbitration/mediation, etc. We have grown tired of trying to counter the repeated ‘spin’ from AiG, with out-of-context documents, no opportunity for cross-examination (Prov. 18:17), and the like. If someone reading this page and the associated documents linked from the below list is unable to accurately discern the ‘big picture’, he/she is unlikely to be enlightened by any further exposure to the truth.

We trust that as many as possible will pray for a just and honourable outcome, which can take place if AiG-US do the right thing at last. For us, the legal action has always been a last resort, with our preference being for either the sort of settlement we thought we had in Hawaii, or a straightforward Christian private ruling on these serious matters of ethics and law.

Index of documents

(the numbers in square brackets after each one give an idea of the size of the document by giving the approximate numbers of pages to read if they were printed)

• A brief summary of what is wrong with the legal entrapment documents that were signed by the former Australian directors [2].
• An extract from one of those documents highlighting some of the more outrageous provisions that make the Australian ministry vulnerable, and also showing a major falsehood it contains [1¼].
• Superbrief summary [1] of events (could be left till later as much of it is covered above). There is also a much longer semi-detailed chronology [16] which can be usefully compared to much of the spin circulating and could answer some questions remaining after reading the Chairman’s report (listed below).
• Are CMI-Australia’s supporters’ funds being squandered in legal action? [1]
• The document establishing the Clarrie Briese Committee of Inquiry, Mark 2, and showing the makeup of the individuals on it [4].
• The invitation sent to AiG-USA to participate and offering that CMI was willing to do likewise if they wanted to run their own similarly open, enquiry in the USA [1].
• The official report of the Briese committee. [3].
• The separate and detailed Chairman’s report, which is very sobering reading [40+]. This has an explanatory cover page and commences with a brief 2-page executive summary.
• The Supplementary Chairman’s Letter, received from Clarrie Briese after the Hawaii breakdown.
• Our response to AiG-US’s latest legal maneuverings

[The following two were mentioned and linked to in the earlier part of this document:]

• CMI's comment on why it is holding AiG-US accountable at law, including the formal offers CMI made to have the case determined before a believing arbitrator(s) [4].
• Response to Mrs Ed —a response in mid to late 2007 by CMI to a supporter expressing concern about a ministry taking legal action. Includes a very important comment by Philip Bell, former deputy CEO of AiG-UK, which remained allied to AiG-US and who was therefore an ‘inside witness’ to what was going on after the split and regarding the truth of AiG statements about the magazine. Philip resigned first his senior position, and later totally, on conscience grounds, prior to his first contact with CMI people. He now heads CMI-UK [4]


• A pdf of the full conditions of the last-ditch arbitration offer by CMI, prior to taking the action—not taken up by AiG. (It also quotes an earlier threat of legal action made against us by AiG-US, which counters their subsequent claims that legal action by us would never be appropriate under any circumstances.) [10] Note that the Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 (Queensland) mentioned provides for arbitration according to procedures agreed to in international treaties.
• A pdf of the formal legal statement of claim, posted without comment on its contents other than to say that the matters chosen were after careful discussion with our Christian barrister (senior counsel). [22; 2 MB file size]
• CMI’s response to AiG-US re their serious libel letter sent out to many folk in Nov. 2006 accusing CMI of unspecified ‘spiritual problems’—perhaps the most damaging sort of innuendo one ministry could propagate against another. AiG-US’s refusal to even discuss withdrawing this letter led to the formation of the Briese committee [9].
• The tangled web 1: AiG-US’s widely-emailed public statement of June 1, 2007 and CMI’s point by point response interspersed [12].
• The tangled web 2: A subsequent response by AiG-US to an enquirer re AiG’s actions on the Creation magazine, with CMI’s corrections interspersed [14].
• The tangled web 3: CMI's response to a misleading February 2008 AiG letter repeatedly sent out under Mark Looy’s name.
• Letter to UK supporters from Philip Bell (former deputy CEO of AiG-UK), written November 2006 [2].
• The Mackay files. A page that leads to two sets of substantial documentation about the 20-yr malicious attempts by one Mr John Mackay (an unrepentant excommunicant) to undermine the Australian ministry with malicious fabrications and distortions. This was a quiescent issue until, seeing an opportunity to mutually settle old scores, this person began to be used by KH—in a complete turnaround from KH’s previous statements as documented here—to once again seek to besmirch the Australian ministry with fabrications and the like and to generate sympathy for AiG-US/KH. [Two pdf files, each about 2 MB in size]

References

1. CW had, until stepping down as part of a restructuring he himself suggested, been a Director of the Board of AiG-US until a few months prior. He was still being routinely consulted on high-level management issues in the US ministry. Return to Text.
2. The outgoing board specifically requested CW to be a director, saying through their lawyer that he was the most suited for the position, and that the crisis would not have happened if he had been on the board. Return to Text.

Published: 7 January 2008(GMT+10)