letters

October 22, 2001
To: Ken Smith <[email protected]>
From too funky <[email protected]>

Greetings Ken!

I apologize for the inconvenience of suggesting that you are an atheist rather than a deist. I picked that up from one the tidbits on your website. I have made the appropriate changes on my page to reflect this new understanding.

I would like to address right away that I am NOT Bob Larson. I do not know Bob Larson in any way, shape or form. Additionally, I am not working for Bob Larson in any way. In fact I live hundreds of miles from Colorado (if that is where Larson lives) in Oklahoma. I have NEVER had a conversation with Larson or anyone that works for him.

You yourself proclaim that Larson has many defenders and supporters. Why are you having such a hard time accepting that a random Larson supporter got angry about your site and put up a rebuttal page?

And now a response:

>> Greetings Ken! Any suggestions for my new Bob Larson site?

>> www.geocities.com/defenderiam/index.html

>How about starting over? Seriously, you have so many things
>wrong that it's difficult to know where to start. But I thank you
>for the courtesy of giving me an opportunity to respond to your
>allegations. I won't address them all at this juncture, but you can
>rest assured that I can, if pressed to it.

How can I be �wrong� in merely demonstrating that the �Bob Larson Fan Club� website is filled with �slur claims� about Bob Larson that are unfounded and offer no indisputable evidence? As I have said on my website, I don�t know Bob Larson and therefore I don�t assert anything about Bob Larson personally. I am merely showing that a layperson like myself can see that YOUR allegations don�t hold water.

I would suggest that it is your website that makes allegations and assertions and therefore it is YOU that has a burden of proof.

It�s not enough to just put up a site that says: �Bob Larson is a conman�. You have the burden of proof. You have to prove it!

To add to the lack of evidence, your website itself is an embarrassing production of insipidly juvenile jokes, pictures, and �Mad� magazine-ish fluff. If you are sincerely out to show people some truth that you know about Bob Larson, why didn�t you create a site that articulately, and professionally lays out the real evidence without all of the 3rd grade rhetoric? (You can borrow my page template if you would like.)

>I have met Bob Larson personally, and conversed with him at
>some length. I've even interviewed him under oath. I have also
>interviewed many of his colleagues and former employees, who
>are every bit as competent to report on Larson's activities within
>their scope of knowledge as he is. It's Journalism 101, really.

I don�t know why in the world you would have been in the position to do such a thing, but it�s not enough to say �I interviewed Bob Larson under oath�. You have to prove that too!

Additionally, even if you (for whatever reason) did interview Bob Larson under oath and have met Bob Larson, this still doesn�t mean you know him personally. I believe that you can�t possibly know all the personal things that you claim.

Concerning Bob Larson�s former employees: This is a most subjective form of evidence. Many people have probably worked for Bob Larson and so it�s almost certain that one or two people have left BLM disgruntled. This type of thing happens at any company, business, and organization. People leave their employers (and get fired) often because of personality conflicts and office politics. At BLM, a former employee may have had a personal vendetta against Bob Larson (perhaps they were terminated or laid off) and when a critic comes along looking for ANYTHING to accuse Bob Larson, the critic has his willing source.

Hence, quoting or interviewing a disgruntled former employee is a subjective and flawed way to prove anything.

>Let's take the issue of adultery. As I presume you know, the Bible
>says that "anyone who putteth away his wife and taketh another
>committeth adultery." We can say from court documents that it
>was Bob who initiated his 1991 divorce from former wife Kathy,
>and as such, he has put his wife away. (FWIW, his current wife,
>the former Laura Anderson, is herself a divorcee.)
>The question of whether Larson had a biblical basis for taking
>such action is refuted almost conclusively by the diary, which I
>shall address presently. Other evidence, including the romancing
>of the former Lori Boespflug, only adds to that conclusion.

What a silly assertion you are making here. Are you suggesting that in order that a person be a minister, they must be completely without sin? We would be without any ministers!

I have already refuted this on my webpage. Notice I never denied that Biblically, divorce is a sin. It�s just that you are making a whopping assumption that ministers are to be entirely sinless. �Perfect ministers� are not Biblical (see apostle Paul quote on my webpage).

>And how do we "know" that the confidentiality agreement that
>muzzled Margo Hamilton and her husband exists, and its scope?
>The deposition of Angelo Diasparra, taken in Muriel Olson's age
>discrimination lawsuit. Hamilton herself confirmed this fact in an
>interview with Christian reporter Jay Grelen, as was reported in
>World magazine. Again, credible evidence from two sources.

I have no immediate way of confirming these sources to be credible. But even if they are, here are two points:

1. Let�s say that you really do know of specific individuals who have confidentiality agreements with BLM. That in itself doesn�t prove any wrongdoing! You are making another whopping assumption. In order to find out if these confidentiality agreements are indicative of some illegal something on the part of BLM, one would have to talk to these individuals--yet that�s impossible because they are legally bound not to discuss BLM.

2. You frequently refer proof-seekers to check out news stories and read articles in news publications. The articles that I have read (such as the one that was on the BCCN website) do re-echo some of the claims that you make on your website, but in the place of proof, they seem to only refer back to you. Thus we�re caught this merry-go-round of you saying check out the evidence of Johnny Christian reporter, and Johnny Christian reporter is just referring us back to you.

Where is the evidence? Can you prove anything that that you assert on your website?

Bob Larson is a public figure! If you hold the keys to exposing him to be a criminal, then do so! The mainstream media will pick up your story (and probably pay you nicely for it) and then beat Bob Larson Ministries into the ground! (Ever heard of Jim Bakker?)

The reason that this hasn�t happened is simple. You can�t prove a thing�cause these allegations aren�t true.

I don�t mean that you are not without some sincerity in your criticisms (you may actually believe some of what you say), but I see no reason to believe any of it until you can prove it. People that slander public figures are a dime a dozen now a days.

I only know that I�ve seen Bob Larson�s ministry in person and I believe that he is really helping a lot of people.

>Second, you claim that I have "fabricated" documents, such as
>Bob Larson Ministries' tax returns, based on a presumption that
>I shouldn't be able to obtain them by any reasonable means. But
>as I have actually stated on the website, ministry tax returns are
>matters of public record, and can be obtained from both the IRS
>and (at the time) the Colorado Secretary of State's office. (They
>are now on-line at http://www.guidestar.com.) Ditto, the incrimi-
>nating financial disclosures Bob had to make as a matter of law
>in connection with the divorce.

Two points:

1.While the tax records of the ministry may be acquirable, I�m not so sure that Bob Larson�s personal income is a matter of public record. I am not a lawyer but my guess is that it�s not that easy to get Larson�s personal information.

2.Even if you have authentic copies of ALL of Larson�s taxes, prove to me something other than �Larson has made A LOT of money selling books and videos while he helped people�. You used the word �incriminating� so tell me in legal terms what has been done illegally and prove it!

If there is criminal activity, why are the mainstream media and the IRS not going in for the kill? If you are an accountant/lawyer, prove something illegal!

>If these documents were "fabrications," they had to have been
>good enough to fool seasoned Christian reporters like Jon Trott
>of Cornerstone, Jay Grelen of the Lexington Herald-Leader, and
>Mike Wendland of the Washington Post. And even if they were
>fabrications, all Bob would have had to have done to refute them
>was to produce the authentic originals. He certainly had a motive
>to do so. Any suggestion that those documents were fabricated
>is, therefore, ridiculous on its face.
>But since you asked, I've copied Kent Wills, a former financial
>supporter to Larson's "ministry" (and, professing Christian) who
>went to the trouble of authenticating the documents for himself.
>If you refuse to believe it from me, you might believe it from him.

3 points:

1. On a website like yours, I don�t even know where to start in determining what is real and what is a joke. You have altered pictures of Bob Larson and others, juvenile games and worthless tidbits, and a supposed handwritten letter from TBN founder Paul Crouch (strange that the president of one the largest broadcasters in the world doesn�t have a secretary or a computer and yet, apparently takes time to scribble up a response to each of the thousands of letters that he receives including, of course, yours!) etc. etc. etc.

I�m guessing, based on the juvenile style and content of your website that much of what is shown is not entirely what you suggest it to be.

2. Bob Larson shouldn�t have to publicly come forward with his personal tax information to refute a fake! That�s extortion! I don�t see any reason why he should have to make his personal info public info.

3. The reporters you mention were probably Larson critics from the get go and were probably out on a heresy hunt long before they ever stumbled across your website. I doubt you had to do a lot of convincing.

>As for the diary, that's a longer story. In connection with a libel
>suit I filed against him, I asked Larson to produce his diary. He
>lied, under oath, claiming that he didn't keep one. I was able to
>procure excerpts from the diary from an anonymous source, and
>filed a motion for sanctions. Larson eventually released excerpts
>from the diary, which are in exactly the same handwriting and in
>the same kind of book. Our graphological comparison between
>known samples of Bob's handwriting and the diary entries shows
>that the diary is indeed written by him.
>This evidence would be accepted in any court of law.

Assuming that this diary really exists:

I�m still not convinced of any wrongdoing on the part of Larson. If a diary does in fact exist, it seems the only thing it proves is that you have somehow acquired at least part of it illegally through your �anonymous source� (since people don�t frequently give out their personal diaries on the street, it must have been stolen).

From the nature of how you obtained this diary (illegally), I don�t see any reason to trust your credibility when you say that there is �incriminating� evidence within it.

Let�s see some objective proof!

>As for my credentials, they include a J.D. and a master's degree
>in taxation. Before I went to law school, I practiced as a C.P.A.
>for one of the Big-Five accounting firms. Yes, I have the expertise
>to make the statements I have made -- as opposed to your often
>erroneous misstatements of them. And no, I don't lord around my
>credentials, as a matter of policy. The facts speak for themselves.

AGAIN: What facts?

>If Larson could shut the Fan Club down in court, he would do it
>in a heartbeat. After all, he actually sued me for allegedly trying to
>engage in a boycott of Sears, Roebuck. :)

Congratulations.

>As for my not being a Christian, you are invited to discuss these
>matters with those of my colleagues who are. Fred Wheeler is an
>ABD seminarian (as opposed to BL, who dropped out of college,
>and has never been to seminary). Rev. Ron Black, Th.D. is now
>administering Trinity Foundation's Oklahoma Project -- providing
>housing for poor/distressed families in Oklahoma City. Fr. Jake
>Ashcraft used to work as a volunteer in Larson's ministry back in
>the early '90s. I could give you the names of many Christians who
>have contributed to the Page in varying degrees. (And FWIW, I
>am a legally ordained minister, with as much seminary training as
>Bob Larson.)

I don�t doubt that there are many Larson critics within the Christian community. I can name off several very popular Christians who DO support Bob Larson (such as Josh McDowell) but it�s really not relevant.

What your appealing to is a logical fallacy. Just because there are a lot of other people that think that Bob Larson is a conman doesn�t make it so.

I think a lot of Christians don�t want to believe in demons and demon possession and so they are very motivated to criticize Bob Larson.

You still have an unanswered burden of proof.

>Your assertion that I claim that Bob is "too rich" is beside the
>point. If he had earned his money from anywhere but from his
>ministry, I would have *no* problem with it. Rather, I merely
>point out that his entire fortune came straight from the ministry,
>a fact readily apparent to any trained professional who looks
>at legally obtainable financial information.
>If you don't mind giving up your beer and pizza so that Bob
>can fly first-class, live in mansions, and drive three luxury cars,
>that is your choice. All I am saying is that you have an obliga-
>tion as a steward of your money, and that you ought to know
>how the money will be used.

As I said earlier: Whether or not Bob Larson is as filthy-rich as you say he is, I have been to his conferences and seen him help people who cannot get help anywhere else.

Prove to me that he is not helping people, or prove to me that he is doing something illegal and then I will begin to care how much money he makes.

Until then your entire argument is built upon this subjective premise:

�Ministers ought not make a lot of money.�

And that�s just an arbitrary opinion.

>You seem to have either an unusual difficulty in discerning the
>obvious distinction between the documented factual allegations
>and the whimsical parodies on the site, or you are deliberately
>ignoring it.

See comments above concerning your site.

>The "How to Cook Bob Larson" gag was written
>by Kennon Baird. The Touchamargo gag was written by John
>Hattan. I'm responsible for "Charlie Manson Eyes." The W.V.
>Grant piece first appeared in that venerable Christian satire
>magazine, The Door, which took some heat for publishing it.
>The BLFC page is a "team effort"; if it weren't for the valuable
>contributions of a cast of dozens, it wouldn't exist.
<Are you going to accuse us *all* of schizophrenia? LOL!

In my essay, I was merely suggesting that, based on the morbid content of your website, readers should not rule out the possibilities. I don�t know you and so I don�t rule out the possibility that you are a crazed psychopathic stalker out to get Bob Larson.

Please direct that schizophrenic remark I made to the person in your group that gives out directions to Larson�s home!

>I suppose that we cannot rule out the possibility that you are
>really Bob Larson, and that you want desperately to respond
>to my documented allegations (which have been accepted by
>any number of news organizations, including NBC and World
>Magazine) without being *seen* as responding to them. But if
>you are not, and are prepared to come out from behind your
>cloak of anonymity, I'd be happy to discuss these matters with
>you at greater length and in person, if need be.

Suggesting that I am Bob Larson is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from you. This only serves to prove my point further. You are going out of your way to make a case against Larson�-ANYTHING that has potential to be incriminating or embarrassing to Larson is fair game to you.

You�re not interested in the truth so much as your personal agenda to attack Bob Larson. I believe if YOU worked hard enough, you could build a page that presents Mother Theresa as a selfish, greedy, old bigot.

(By this I am in no way equating Bob Larson to Mother Theresa!)

No, I am not Bob Larson. I don�t know Bob Larson personally. By this I mean that the closest I have ever encountered Bob Larson was when his conference came to my area. I went and watched and then left. I�ve never had a conversation with Bob Larson or with anyone that works for him. (You mentioned you have a friend in Oklahoma City--I live in Edmond, OK a suburb of Oklahoma City.)

Yes, I have opted to be anonymous because I don�t know who I�m dealing with. I don�t want crazy Larson-haters giving out my address and beating down MY front door.
-too