Sunday, November 7, 2010

"Watch This" Pt. 5 ~ The Bishop's Response

As he said, he wanted to do his talking in court and not in the media. There are some specific reasons for this. Here is the latest information on Bishop Eddie Long's response to allegations of sexual abuse and clergy sexual misconduct.



The Bishop's response to each individual complaint can be found by clicking the following PDF file links, however it is clear that the Bishop believes that he is innocent of any sexual misconduct allegations, and that the court should drop all charges and make the plaintiff's pay all costs associated with the whole mess.

1- Anthony Flagg PDF

Interestingly enough Bishop Long offers a section called "Affirmative Defense" beginning on pg. 25 of the 32 pg PDF. Under AD 3 he states that the complaint should be barred (the lawsuit against him) because of the Statute of Limitations. Stating that even if true the complaint took too long to surface from realization of damage to allegation and suit. Under AD 6 he claims the suit should be denied because of "the doctrine of unclean hands" specifying that the court should also consider the plaintiff to be at fault for his circumstance.

2- Spencer LeGrande PDF

This too is a very interesting denial of allegations in what is probably the most sexually charged lawsuit filed. According to the Bishop, on trips his room was always open to everyone traveling with him, meals were for the group and at no time did any of the intimate details of the allegations occur, although there may have been an occassion when they were innocently and incidently alone.

3- Jamal Parris PDF

This one is interesting in that Jamal Parris claims that he accompanied Bishop Long to San Francisco on occassion under his claim, allegation 45. In the Bishop's response he claims that he has never been to San Francisco period (pg9). As I stated, somebody is lying. Who is it?

4- Maurice Robinson PDF

5 comments:

  1. EnochWalked said:

    Pastor Burnett,

    You are right sir. Someone is lying. Read this:
    http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/church-confirms-long-trips-733966.html

    I have not read the cases. I will do so tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Crash and burn baby...crash and burn!

    This is a mess...Now he adamantly denies in his response this trip to San Francisco...I wonder why? What happened in San Francisco that this young man remembers but the bishop forgets (or wants to forget)?

    So the seperate filings in which the board of the church and the board of Longfellows must protect themselves...Who will be the sacrifice for this sin?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is just a hot mess. Pastor Burnett why won't this man just give it up. Four people say the same thing, and he claims nothing happen. I wish the others would come forward as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think its quite coincidental that he wants to specifically deny the trip to San Francisco.

    Didn't Ted Haggard deny the charges against him at first?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Ashley-you're right He did deny everything at first.

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.