Litigation Update: Emergency? No Emergency. Emergency? No Emergency.

Update Button 19 Dec 2018Ten days ago, around the 7th of December, documents that had been returned as a result of multiple subpoenas issued by Julie Roys were shared among all parties to the litigation.  These subpoenas had been issued to: Brian White, David Wisen, Rob Williams and Maida Korte.  On Tuesday, the 11th of December, the plaintiffs filed an Emergency Motion Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(c) and noticed the case to be heard on Thursday, the 13th of December 2018.

On the 12th of December, one day before the Emergency Motion Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(c) was set to be heard, the plaintiffs inexplicably withdrew their emergency motion in the morning.  Later that day, they indicated that they intended to spindle the motion on the regular court calendar, meaning the matter would be heard at a later time.

By the 14th of December, the plaintiffs refiled the motion, once again as an emergency.  It was noticed to be heard on an emergency basis on Tuesday, the 18th of December.

In court that day, the Honorable Judge Diane Larson ruled that there was no “emergency” related to this matter; and she instructed the plaintiffs to yet again re-notice the motion on the regular court calendar.

While all of this has been transpiring, Charles Philbrock, attorney for Julie Roys, has filed a brilliant and eloquent response to the protective order filed by MacDonald and Harvest Bible.  The response is well summarized by the following:

“According to plaintiffs, the standard for a protective order is “as justice requires.” (Mot. ¶12) Justice does not allow a plaintiff to smear a defendant in the media, claim it has nothing to hide, and then cloak the very records that reveal the truth via a protective order.”

Please understand that the act of having the Bryant’s attorney appear only to have the Judge rule that this is not an emergency is a very expensive endeavor. At this point, we are coming close to exhausting the funds that we raised in our first round of funding; and we will need to launch our new fundraising campaign at the beginning of the new year.  In the meantime, please feel free to visit our GoFundMe page and donate as you best see fit.

With deepest gratitude,
The Authors


6 thoughts on “Litigation Update: Emergency? No Emergency. Emergency? No Emergency.

  1. wow… talk about ironic and poetic justice coming about as a result of this lawsuit… stay strong! and I think it was the Lord that allowed Julie to be named in this lawsuit with you, so you could fight this together with her, adding her experience, connections, influence and heart to do what’s right for the Kingdom along with yours! Bless your hearts! Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith. He’s doing it!

  2. Sounds like they are trying to drain you of your resources. I pray every day that the truth will prevail in this lawsuit and any lies be brought into the open. I guess he going about it his way, Mafia style. Isn’t it strange the most current Chief operating officer resigned a few weeks ago? Add that to the mass Exodus list. Praying for you all!

  3. You guys are doing a great job I left Harvest twelve years ago, because they did not like people of my ethnicity, Even though we started the Christian Church 2000 years ago

    1. I attend Harvest and am not defending the behaviors listed in this site . That said I have never witnessed discrimination of any kind toward someone’s color or ethnicity etc. please elaborate so as not to make an unfounded accusation.

  4. They are finding out that their opening litigation is opening a can or worms! Sad for them!

  5. I’ve read both emergency motions. In neither does counsel for the Plaintiffs even attempt to address why it should be accorded emergency treatment. They make what I would describe as routine arguments for the TRO and confidentiality of discovery materials (although this latter filing is much weaker than the former, IMHO) but, at absolutely no point in either filing, do they address any justification of an emergency. Instead, and I promise you the judge sees this too, they come off as desperately wanting to control access to information that they think is embarrassing.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close