CMI’s response to a very misleading email from Mark Looy of AiG-US

This is CMI’s response to a reply by Mark Looy of AiG-US to a person asking AiG-US about the dispute between AiG-US and CMI-Australia. Mr Looy’s email is in serious error. We believe that others have received a similar communication from Mr Looy. CMI’s response refers to the Briese committee. This judicial/ecclesiastical committee was set up to adjudicate on the major issues at dispute between CMI and AiG. The background and reports can be read at www.creationontheweb.com/Briese2#BrieseCom

Mark Looy wrote:

[Name removed],

Thanks for your comments.

In our letter to magazine subscribers in March 2006, we indicated that we would no longer be distributors of "Creation" in the US. We did not say that the magazine was not available any more.

CMI: Dozens of Americans have contacted us when they found out that Creation magazine was still available (through our internet ad or word-of-mouth, etc.) and universally they thought, from AiG’s cleverly worded communication, that Creation magazine was no longer available (i.e., no longer published). AiG referring to their new magazine ‘replacing’ Creation magazine would have reinforced this impression. In fact, a renewing American subscriber recently (early June 2007) called AiG-US and asked if she could subscribe to Creation magazine. She was told that Creation magazine was no longer available. As a consequence of being so misled by AiG originally and then having it confirmed, these folk have ceased all support for AiG-US (they were ‘charter members’ of the museum). We have had similar testimonies more than once, and have quite a number on file.

When we sent the letter, we did not know who the new US distributor would be (that was determined a few weeks later), and so that new contact info. could not be included in the letter.

CMI: But they knew the Australian contact details of the publisher. For that matter, even the Canadian office and phone number could have been given (the latter would have been convenient for residents of the USA). The point is that the wording very carefully gave most people the impression that it was no longer available. In the absence of a softening of hearts and repentance, this issue of deceptive practices will be determined by a judge based upon the facts of the matter.

Of course, for the many people who did call us to see how the magazine could still be received, we freely gave out that information as soon as we had it.

CMI: That is not consistent with the feedback we have received from many, many people who have contacted AiG-US to ask (see above for just one example). We do not doubt that on occasion this was done. But often it was not. For example, a lady whose husband is prominent in evangelical ministry told us recently how she personally rang one of the Vice-Presidents of AiG-US, to ask about how she could keep getting our Journal of Creation (formerly TJ). (AiG also dropped distribution of our Journal of Creation / TJ). She was simply told that it ‘was no longer available’.

The tipping point that led to CMI's breakaway from a sisterly relatinship with us occurred because our board would not agree to pay for someone [CMI: something?] before it saw it, especially with a major leadership change that had just happened at the Australian ministry.

CMI: This is confused. CMI and AiG separating was not caused by AiG-US dropping the magazine (February 2006). The separation was effected by the boards of AiG-US and Australia signing an ‘agreement’ in October 2005 (see later). Also, there had been no ‘major leadership change’. The management of the Australian ministry was exactly the same. The scientists and speakers are exactly the same. The only thing that had changed was the volunteer Board, which is a matter of governance (accountability, oversight). This was due to their mass resignation after consulting an attorney, due to the crisis into which their actions had plunged the ministry. They sought, and were granted, indemnity in exchange for handing over the company to the management leadership, who appointed new Board members at the old Board’s request. Furthermore, there had already been one issue of Creation magazine produced (December 2006) and accepted by AiG-US since the change of directors at AiG-Australia (now CMI-Australia). In the early days of AiG-US, they distributed Creation magazine when it was produced by Creation Science Foundation (as we were called back then, before we changed our name to AiG-Australia in 1996).

If you believe that our board acted wrongly in this regard, please let me know. They felt they could not offer a magazine choice to subscribers if they could not be assured of the magazine's contents.

CMI: Ken Ham had vetted every article, just as he had done with previous issues of Creation magazine. He had not seen the final complete magazine, which showed our name change and advertising, but nor had he for any previous magazine. Furthermore, we had given them a legally binding undertaking that nothing in the magazine attacked or denigrated AiG or Ken Ham. But even more important than this, is the fact that before they dumped our magazine, we had already, in writing, relented on showing them the electronic proofs (pdf), saying we were prepared to show them. We were waiting on them replying to our request for an undertaking that they would not attack us on their website. This is a crucial point that changes the whole discussion, but is kept well hidden in Mr Looy’s comments. Of course the entire email exchange was available to the Briese committee, whose important report is based on documents, not carefully crafted ‘after the event’ reconstructions with crucial omissions. See www.creationontheweb.biz/briese-report.pdf. Further, as we told AiG long ago, and Mark Looy knows full well, we had to delay showing them the name change (which the magazine revealed) for a few days to give our attorneys time to prepare a letter first. Here is the dilemma we were in: The devious agreement our former Board was maneuvered into signing (see later) provided for some nasty consequences if we demonstrated that we accepted it. By our ‘announcing’ the name change to AiG-US via the proofs, we were in danger of ‘de facto’ accepting all of its horrendous provisions, placing a permanent noose around our ministry’s neck. So we needed a few days to have attorneys prepare a formal (legal) letter of rejection. And again, the really important point is that as we knew the letter from the attorneys was nearly ready, we had already said we would show them the proofs, subject only to minor further discussion, but instead of responding, AiG-US dropped the magazine. So the comments in this AiG letter are misleading in the extreme.

Also, we did not dump Creation so that Answers could take its place -- our intent was to launch a new magazine AND retain Creation, and hope that people would subscribe to both. That would bring in additional revenue for the ministry.

CMI: AiG-US used the words, on their web site announcement, that they were launching their new magazine to ‘replace’ Creation magazine, saying they were no longer able to supply Creation. In a confidential survey of American Creation magazine subscribers in 2005, they said they were planning an ‘upgrade’ of Creation magazine (this was done without reference to the publishers of Creation magazine; we only found out about it because a friend received one of the surveys and passed it on to us). Furthermore, AiG-US set about registering the brand-name ‘Creation’ in the USA in 2005 and continued pursuing this registration even after they ceased distribution of Creation magazine, even using copies of our magazine to bolster their application when it was initially refused by the registration authority. (The original name of their magazine was announced as Creation Answers.)

A confidential senior staff meeting of AiG-UK was informed by CEO Monty White, on 2 March 2006, that the initial strategy was for both magazines to be run side by side, but only the new one was to be promoted, so that Creation subscriptions would ‘die on the vine’. AiG-UK was told as early as November 2005 that AiG-USA would produce its own magazine in June 2006, which is when it appeared. This is eyewitness testimony from a former senior executive of AiG-UK.

Furthermore, to finally demonstrate that Mr Looy’s justification for dropping Creation magazine and deceiving subscribers is baseless ‘spin’, AiG-US also dropped distributing our TJ (now called Journal of Creation), cutting off all the American subscribers. This journal was/is produced by CMI as a service to the creationist research community around the world, at a significant financial loss. AiG did not even have any replacement journal to offer. Why was TJ dropped? There were no ‘proofs’ (pdfs) or similar refusal at issue. But of course, those subscribers would have known about our existence, and known that they could keep on getting Creation magazine. There is absolutely no just reason. The loss of more than half the Journal subscribers has been a huge ‘hit’ to CMI, on top of the loss of the Creation subscribers.

Perhaps this timeline will help you sort things out,

CMI: As we have seen, Mr Looy has the timeline hopelessly confused. All this is shown and confirmed in the hundreds of pages of documentation obtained by the Briese committee of Inquiry, to which AiG-US were invited to participate.

but I recognize that ultimately you will have to apply what could be called the "Galatians 5 test" to such a dispute-- i.e., which ministry is manifesting the fruits of the Spirit in all this?

CMI: Which ministry is telling the truth? (not specifically mentioned in Galatians 5). But who is displaying love, … patience, kindness, goodness, … gentleness? ‘Goodness’ would include being truthful, not deceitful and being generous and merciful in dealings, not commercially ruthless. CMI has pleaded for nearly two years for mercy from AiG-US, finally proposing Christian arbitration when our pleas for face-to-face meeting to sort out the issues were ignored or refused. All our pleas were ignored (mostly) or refused. Meanwhile, there has been serious ‘poisoning of the well’, with senior people in AiG-US trying to influence others to cut us off with slanderous and false charges like ‘board rebellion’ being spread around behind our backs and even diabolical innuendo about the legitimacy of the marriage of a senior CMI person, etc. (compare Galatians 5:19-21). See Mr Briese’s ‘chairman’s report’ linked at www.creationontheweb.biz/chairmans_report.html where the background to the ‘Briese committee’ and its work are explained (an ecclesiastical/judicial panel to investigate the dispute between CMI and AiG).

--The former Australian governing board of CMI (then called AiG-Australia) resigned in late 2005. Just two months before [CMI: just three weeks before, actually], the boards of both AiG-Australia (now called CMI) and AiG-U.S. unanimously and harmoniously signed a "Memo of Agreement" (MOA), putting into writing a clear statement as to the separate but fraternal relationship of the two ministries would be.

CMI: The ‘agreement’ was signed by the volunteer directors of the Australian ministry without reference to the professional management of the Australian ministry, in spite of a solemn promise they had given to management not to sign anything without consulting them. This ‘agreement’ even purported to give AiG-US the right to change the authors’ names on articles published by the Australian ministry for AiG-US’s use on their web site or in any adaptations they liked, in perpetuity. Furthermore, it contained a false promise (warranty) that the Australian ministry had obtained the permission of all the authors for this to happen. Then it provided that if any of those authors sued AiG-US for contravening their personal rights, the Australian ministry would pay! We could only conclude that the Australian directors were duped (trying to think the best of their actions). Note that the largest part of what was agreed to was drafted by copyright lawyers in Melbourne, Australia, at the behest of the management of AiG of Kentucky Inc., without any reference to the management of the Australian ministry. ‘Fraternal relationship’? Hardly. This ‘agreement’ was a divorce on AiG-US’s terms. An Australian university academic, a creationist supporter, has an email from Ken Ham, sent just after the ‘agreement’, in which Mr Ham made it clear that he no longer regarded AiG-Australia as a ‘sister ministry’.

The Australian board was concerned (among other things) that its senior staff in Australia was meddling in the affairs of AiG-U.S. (e.g., attempting to get the AiG-U.S. president Ken Ham demoted in 2005);

CMI: This is a gross distortion of reality. This is from the executive summary of the Briese Committee’s chairman’s report (by Mr Briese):

‘The documents show that the dispute between AiG-USA and CMI commenced in 2004 when six senior officers of the Australian and US creation ministries (Carl Wieland and four others from Australia, and Brandon Vallorani, Second in Command to Ken Ham in the US) sent reform proposals by letter to AiG-USA. These proposals, if accepted, would have seen Wieland and Ham disconnected from management and given ‘elevated’ presidential style roles. They meant further democratization of the US and Australian ministries. These proposals were summarily rejected by Ken Ham. Vallorani was immediately fired and given a payout package on condition of silence, and over the next 2½ years a relentless campaign was conducted against Wieland and the Australian ministry, consisting of a variety of punitive/vindictive/separation actions. The worst of these were unbiblical/unethical/unlawful, and caused massive damage to the Australian ministry.’ Available at: www.creationontheweb.biz/chairmans_report.html (including the summary, which is near the beginning of the chairman’s report).

they both wanted a clear statement of separation, yet preserve cooperation in certain key projects.

CMI: It’s a weird way to ‘preserve cooperation’, to pillage the Australian ministry! Please see this summary of the ways this agreement disadvantages the Australian ministry.

The two ministries were separate (e.g. with different boards) yet worked cooperatively in certain projects. The Australian staff was not at the heart of the US ministry, but worked with us.

--The senior leadership of the Australian ministry, however, did not want to accept the MOA that its board had just signed. After significant financial supporters in Australia threatened to withhold their donations to the Australian ministry unless the CEO (who had been demoted by his own board for insubordination) was reinstated, the Aussie board decided to resign because of the impasse (and to prevent the ministry from financial collapse).

CMI: Again this is quite misleading. There was no insubordination from the CEO, Dr Carl Wieland (this is an all too common slander of CMI by AiG, often referred to as ‘board rebellion’ by AiG). Dr Wieland, as CEO, requested a meeting with the directors to discuss the agreement they had signed. They made all manner of excuses not to meet, culminating in the bizarre suspensions of senior staff. For an accurate account of what happened, see the section headed The Suspension of Wieland and Senior Staff in Mr Briese’s chairman's report. And the withdrawal of support was not of ‘significant financial supporters’; nothing like that ever happened. What happened was that the leaders of the state capital city volunteer support groups (who supply help with ministry events in each location), plus the volunteer and part-time speakers who work with the Australian ministry to help spread the message, withdrew their support unless proper explanations, or reinstatement of the suspended speakers, was forthcoming. It was not ‘financial collapse’, but the impending cancellation of ministry engagements with the suspension of the speakers and withdrawal of the associate speakers resulting from the directors’ rash actions that led them to consult an attorney. Following this, they handed over the ministry to management, specifically requesting through their attorney that Dr Carl Wieland should be on the Board and should choose their replacements.

CMI's claim that an Australian board could not legally demote (or fire) any of its staff is contrary to that ministry's very Constitution (in paragraph 30) where it says that "the board (executive committee) shall exercise full management and control of all business property and other affairs of the [company] and for that purpose shall have power to ... enter into Contracts ..." In other words, the Australian board had the authority to enter into the MOA, which was personally signed by all former board members in Australia. Furthermore, that clause is not in violation of any Australian law, contrary to what has ben contended. Botom [sic] line: the October 2005 MOA is binding.

CMI: CMI has never claimed that the board did not have the authority to enter into the agreement or to suspend or fire staff. Nor that the clause is in violation of Australian law, so AiG’s claim here is astonishing, and seriously misleads. We have said that in signing the agreement they failed in their duty to protect the Australian corporation of which they were the directors and towards which they had a fiduciary duty. We have also said, correctly, that the manner in which they suspended staff was illegal under Australian industrial law (which required that staff be given written warnings prior to suspension / dismissal plus proper reasons for such action). But that is a relatively minor side issue.

(By the way, AiG-U.S. had no involvement whatsoever in the internal dealings between the Aussie board and its staff.)

CMI: Maybe not directly, but as Mr Briese’s chairman’s report points out from his analysis of the documents, there is no doubt that the Australian Board was substantially and progressively influenced from the US in its progressively changing attitudes and actions towards its own management. Remember that, with Australian senior management/CEO excluded at the insistence of AiG-US/Ken Ham, there were repeated meetings of the Australian Board with not just the US Board, but with Ken Ham and other US management staff.

--The Australian CEO then appoints three new board members -- plus adding himself to the board.

CMI: This wording makes these events seem underhand or improper. However, it was the expressed desire of the outgoing directors. The message from them via their attorney, in front of several eyewitnesses, was that Carl was ‘the best person to run the ministry’, and that the mess ‘would not have happened if Carl had been on the Board’. (For one thing, the Australian Board could not have been maneuvered into having secret meetings with US management behind the backs of Australian management.) Dr Wieland was asked by them to become Managing Director (which means that he is by definition on the board) and that he choose new directors. Since this was the desire of the outgoing directors, rather than them appointing their replacements, how else could new directors be appointed in that situation? The way this was done was completely proper, and Mr Looy’s innuendo is baseless scuttlebutt.

--With a new board (by January 2006), its members start to manifest new philosophies and ways of doing things as compared to the prior board, including wanting to ignore the October MOA (signed by the previous board). AiG-US was now concerned that some of the new ideas of the newly appointed board might pop up in the content of "Creation" magazine (which AiG-US was distributing in America).

CMI: Again this is baseless innuendo. What ‘new ideas’? There had and has been absolutely no change to the ministry philosophy of AiG-Australia/CMI-Australia. The new directors appointed were folks with a proven track record of shoulder-to-the-wheel commitment to creation ministry and they were and are unanimous in their dedication to the direction of CMI. In fact it is more accurate to say that AiG-US is the one that has moved away from the tried-and-true model of ministry that all AiG sister ministries once shared. In fact, this was one of the issues that indirectly led to the schism. See ‘What we do’ and the ‘linking and feeding’ article linked there (written in 1996). CMI continues in that solid tradition—a modus operandi shared by all sister CMI ministries.

--In fact, to fully understand what led to the events that were to follow in 2006 (especially related to "Creation" magazine), it is essential to know the circumstances surrounding the board's resignation and the appointment of a new one. It is the backdrop to everything.

CMI: There is nothing improper in these matters that excuses/justifies what was done to the Creation magazine (and Journal/TJ) subscribers.

--In February 2005, AiG-US asks the editors of "Creation" magazine (the magazine is an AiG-Australia publication) if it could look at the entire magazine before it committed about $65,000 to purchase over 30,000 copies of the next issue. This request was denied, and AiG conveyed to the Aussie ministry that it would be unwise for them to distribute the magazine at that point.

--After three attempts to see the full magazine before paying the Australian ministry upfrot [sic] and after indicating that that a refusal to preview the magazine would mean that AiG-U.S. could cease distributing the magazine in the U.S., the CEO in Australia writes back: "We'll cope."

CMI: Actually it was February 2006, not 2005. CMI did initially refuse to send the pdfs (it’s like an electronic proof of the final print form); that much is true. But as shown earlier, to leave out the crucial bits misleads so seriously that it is in effect bearing false witness. To repeat: despite our initial delaying refusal (forced upon us) we let AiG know that we were willing to relent, and let them see the proofs, subject only to getting an undertaking from them not to attack us on their website for a period which they could propose. We also guaranteed that we would not put anything negative in that magazine about them (one of Ken Ham’s brothers told an Australian staff member that ‘Ken was paranoid about being attacked in the magazine’.) While waiting for the reply to this, we see on their website a notice to the US subscribers, that it is now ‘not possible’ for them to distribute Creation, but that they have a replacement magazine, Creation Answers, and using such wording that clearly gives the overwhelming impression that Creation is no longer available in the USA (returning US subscribers have consistently told us that this is what they understood from AiG–US’s statements). They also dropped the Journal of Creation (formerly TJ) a short time later. Over 35,000 subscribers are not told of their options to continue, or how to do so. All magazine subscribers miss out on the March issue prior to the new Answers magazine starting in June. We state that we would have no problem with fair competition, but that the only ethical and decent approach would be to inform people that there were now two magazines available, that the Journal (TJ) was also still available, and people have the choice to go on getting it, or not. However, they not only reject this, but people clicking onto ‘subscribe’ next to a picture of Creation magazine after seeing our magazine articles on their website, are taken directly to a subscription process for AiG–USA’s new Answers magazine. It takes many weeks of pressure, and others telling them of how unethical this sort of ‘bait and switch’ appeared, before some (not all) of these actions are modified on the website. (From page 9 of the ‘brief chronology of events’)

See also Mr Briese’s report, the section titled: The dropping of the Australian Magazines.

--AiG-Australia quickly breaks away from its sisterly relationship with AiG-US, and rebrands to become Creation Ministries International. AiG-U.S. did not break away -- its name has not changed, and its board has remained intact. CMI ceases to partner with AiG-U.S. on the website and stopped airing the "Answers" program which AiG-U.S. had produced for them for use on Australian radio stations.

CMI: Again, this is very misleading. In mid-November 2005, AiG-Australia’s new board immediately appealed to the US Board for peace talks (a very conciliatory olive-branch approach) to try to find a way forward together (the Australian ministry had not determined to re-brand at this stage, still hoping for resolution of the issues). Don Landis, chairman of the AiG-US Board, responded on 30 Nov. 2005, indicating that the agreement was non-negotiable and saying, ‘We do, however, suggest that you consider setting up your own website.’ And he indicated that we would only be permitted to continue to share their web site for a ‘reasonable period’ while setting up our own. We are thus forced to do our own website. This of course forces us to re-brand, since one cannot have two totally separate organisations using the same brand (AiG) on two separate global websites—a recipe for total confusion, especially for our Australian supporters. But just to make sure the Australian ministry could not easily set up its own web site under the AiG name, the ‘agreement’ also transferred the domain name www.answersingenesis.com, which the Australian ministry had been using, to AiG-US (they were using the .org domain name). (This also meant that we had even less chance of contacting any US subscribers to the magazine if it were later dropped, which happened.) But in any case, it would be a recipe for utter confusion to have two ‘AiG’ websites. The ‘divorce’, initiated by the ‘agreement’ crafted by AiG-US management that our former directors signed, apparently on trust, is now virtually complete. The re-branding did not occur until over four months later, on March 1, 2006 (‘quickly’ says Mr Looy), after all requests for meeting to find a way forward together are rejected. So the truth is that after getting what they needed with the ‘agreement’ to operate without us, AiG-US ‘divorced’ what were the AiG sister ministries in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa (now CMI sister ministries along with new ministries formed in the USA and UK). There was total rejection of any sort of international system of democratic cooperation. We could passively go on using the name ‘Answers in Genesis’ in our own countries, but only by being totally at the mercy of a ministry that had already shown itself to be commercially ruthless in its dealings.

--AiG-U.S. wishes the newly branded ministry well in a front-page web article (it is still posted on the site) called "A new name in the creation family" (March 5, 2006). It stated:

"You may have already noticed that some of the former Answers in Genesis ministries have changed their names to Creation Ministries International (CMI). Under new board leadership, the CMI ministries have philosophical and operational policies that have them moving forward with unique goals and objectives.

"The boards and staffs of Answers in Genesis-USA and the United Kingdom will continue to pray for God's rich blessings on our brothers and sisters in CMI as they seek His perfect will for their ministries.

"As the fastest-growing creation ministries in the world, AiG-USA and AiG-UK will continue to focus on their respective national ministries-and to seek further worldwide ministry outlets. We are excited about all of the opportunities that God is presenting to us and other creation groups in these important times.

"This AiG website continues to set the standard for creation answers throughout the world, and we have an ever-expanding list of ideas to keep this vibrant international tool on the cutting edge in an ever-changing web environment.

"In addition, we are encouraged by the excited response we have already received about our newest innovation, ANSWERS magazine. This new tool to present the biblical worldview and the creation/gospel message will impact our culture and bless readers worldwide (as does Creation magazine, still offered by CMI*).

"God continues to use creation ministries to awaken and equip the church, and we encourage our friends at CMI as they serve the Lord."

CMI: This would be all very nice (overlooking the use of the occasion for self-promotion and the put-down of all other creation ministries), except for the sad reality of the ongoing behind-the-scenes belligerence towards CMI that is analyzed in Mr Briese’s chairman’s report. In other words, this is for show and is quite hypocritical (to be on the one hand saying that they want to ‘encourage our friends’, while working to undermine those ‘friends’ using backdoor tactics). To have it on the front page for a day, and then buried deep inside the site thereafter, means only that they can say ‘We told people that CMI still carries the magazine’. To reinforce what tokenism this is, if someone searches the AiG site for ‘Creation magazine’, which would be the obvious thing for someone to search for if wanting to find out about how to get it, they will not find this page. The reality is that in our settlement discussions, the major sticking point for AiG, over and over, was our pleading insistence that they write to former subscribers and tell them honestly and openly of their options, and how/where to keep getting the magazine if they wished. Further testimony to this is the reality that we keep coming across folk in the US who are stunned to find that Creation magazine is still available—‘That’s not the impression we were given’ is the constant refrain. A major focus of former Chief Magistrate (Judge) Mr Briese’s report is the use of these ungodly tactics against those ‘cut off’ by Mr Ham.

--In the ensuing months, CMI (as it is now named) attempts to throw out and renegotiate the Memo of Agreement that its previous board had signed; AiG-US insists that the MOA itself is entirely legal and fair,

CMI: All who have taken the time to digest the MOA and accompanying Deed of Copyright Licence (DOCL) independently of AiG-US agree that this is a very unfair (unjust) ‘agreement’. But since the boards and managements of all six CMI sister ministries agree on the need for renegotiation, would it not be the merciful thing for AiG-US to agree to this? Even proposals to discuss what we wanted changed (no obligation on AiG-US to change, just discuss), flagging CMI’s willingness to be generous in what we proposed, were all refused or ignored. There has been this completely dogged insistence that it was a ‘godly’ agreement, etc. It is hardly ‘godly’ when it contains a falsehood and one party feels like it has been pillaged. Where is the Christian grace in this dogged attitude of AiG?

and even contains a provision of arbitration that must be followed if there was to be a dispute (but that provision is ignored by CMI).

CMI: The provision is so vague as to be useless and unenforceable. CMI has proposed on two occasions (August 2006 and April 2007) that AiG-US and CMI-Australia go to binding Christian arbitration, but both requests were ignored. The last offer involved AiG-US choosing the arbitrator options (three, from whom CMI would choose one). What could be fairer?

AiG-U.S. emphasizes time and time again to CMI that the MOA is a legal document, signed by both boards,

CMI: It may be a ‘legal document’, but the most important question is whether it is a just and honorable document. The two parties are the two ministries and if the two parties agree, the document can be renegotiated. Any two parties to a contract can cancel the contract, write a new one, rewrite the old one; it is perfectly honourable, legal and ethical to do so. The refusal to even consider doing this reinforces the reality that it’s a matter of ‘We have what we want, even though the ones that signed it resigned en masse as a result, it doesn’t matter. And even though those now in authority are asking for an honourable peace, just to sit down and all talk together as brethren should, we’re not going to. ’

and thus the document is not a candidate for CMI's demand of arbitration over the entire MOA; the MOA clearly states that if there is a conflict in the interpretation of a particular aspect of the MOA's intent, then that specific aspect can be decided by arbitration (but not the whole document).

CMI: If the document as a whole is unjust, then it needs to be renegotiated. Micah 6:8. Much of it became irrelevant after the passage of time, so it would be much easier and neater to draft a new agreement. Our offers of settlement in effect offered to let them keep the bulk of what they had seized anyway, but mercy and grace were not reciprocated.

--At the same time, AiG makes it clear to CMI that it was willing to amend the MOA to take care of any issues that concerned CMI, but it was rejected out of hand by CMI. CMI demanded that the entire MOA be renegotiated.

CMI: No meeting has ever been permitted where we could discuss the matters face-to-face so that AiG-US directors could understand our concerns. Over and over we offered to be magnanimous in our negotiations, giving them nearly everything that was seized. But no; no negotiations were ever allowed. Two directors of AiG-US were finally given permission to talk on the phone with two of ours; but time revealed that they were not authorized to conclude any deal, and during the discussions, we were suddenly cut off and told that we were not spiritually worthy of being spoken to anymore. To make matters worse, a letter to this effect, with deadly (but totally baseless) innuendo was circulated widely by AiG-US. We pleaded with them to withdraw this, but they ignored this plea, and it was only after that that we realized that we had no choice but to start to put responses on the web (though not then readily accessible) to defend our ministry’s Christian reputation. This is different from defending our own personal reputations.

--CMI demands that the "Creation" subscription list be handed over,

CMI: Completely misleading. CMI has never demanded any such thing in all our interactions right up to the time of the legal action being served (June 2007). We would ask Mr Looy to please prove this with documentation, which we maintain does not exist. We suggested that AiG-US should contact the subscribers and tell them that they could still get Creation magazine, otherwise they would have a continuing stain on their integrity because of the way that they gave so many subscribers the impression that Creation magazine was no longer available. We have long been aware that we have a lawful right to the subscription lists for our magazines, as our lawsuit/writ says, but we have never demanded this of AiG prior to this point. For our statement of claim see Statement of claim. We have seen correspondence from AiG-US showing that even before seeing our legal claim, AiG has actually been writing to supporters that we were demanding the mailing list. This is completely false. There needs to be accountability (and we were hoping that this would be before a Christian body) for such repeated ethical issues.

because what AiG-U.S. did was allegedly illegal (and this remains CMI's contention even today, as presented in its public web articles).

CMI: That much is correct, except that until the end of May 2007 there were no ‘public’ web articles. There were articles on a web site, but these were not readily accessible to the public (people needed to be given the url by us to find them, although some mistakes in web coding resulted in a few people inadvertently stumbling across some of the material at one stage). As of late May, in the interests of transparency, and to counter such misinformation as is contained in this letter, the information has been made more accessible to the public (we do not know who has received this sort of communication from Mr Looy, etc.).

However, the legal owner of the list is AiG-U.S. because of American privacy laws, which indicates that such a mailing list -- because the contract is between the subscriber and its distributor -- can't be shared with anyone else (despite protests to the contrary by CMI). An attorney confidently advised us that in accordance with American "case law" and "industry practice," AiG:

"... is considered the 'list owner' of the mailing list. The term 'list owner' is well-understood within the direct mail marketing industry, and commonly means a person or company who has built a list by compiling names which have something in common. The list owner keeps a list of names and addresses, such as a membership list kept by an association or a subscription list maintained by a magazine. Accordingly, list owners consider mailing lists their property and courts have found the same to be true."

CMI: Until the time of the court proceedings, this was all irrelevant, because CMI has never demanded that AiG-US ‘hand over’ the mailing list. We have never asked for this. We did ask for the ‘right thing’ to be done, very simply, by AiG writing to all former subscribers (not just buried in a one-day glimpse on the web) that they had the choice of magazines, and where to get the one they originally subscribed for if they still wanted it.

--Bottom line: AiG-U.S. has not done anything illegal or unethical; furthermore, it goes against sound business practice for an organization not to examine something before it is purchased (especially if it's a huge amount of money). [CMI: they did this for over ten years without problem] Again, the reason AiG-U.S. is no longer carrying "Creation" is being it was not allowed to see all the articles in the next issue. It was not dropped because we supposedly had a new magazine to replace it.

CMI: As we have said, Ken Ham had already seen all the articles, as had been our practice for over ten years.

--Faced with a contract to fulfill with its subscribers,

CMI: Precisely: the contract was to supply Creation magazine! The people had subscribed to Creation magazine, not another magazine. The substitution of a different magazine when the one that people had subscribed to was still available, and deceiving subscribers into thinking that Creation magazine was no longer available, is deceptive conduct, as well as a breach of contract with the subscribers. And Mr Looy claims that AiG has done nothing unethical! For months after the ‘switcheroo’ the AiG website also, when displaying Creation magazine articles, had a link <Subscribe to Creation magazine>, which when clicked on went to information about subscribing to their replacement magazine, Answers. This was also deceptive. In making our legal claims, we are not talking about some attempt to use some legal loophole. We are being advised by one of the finest evangelical Christian senior legal minds in Australia, who is a Professor of Law at a top Australian University and an expert in precisely these sorts of areas of law. We are very confident that AiG-US has breached the law, but more importantly, the conclusions of the Briese committee (and as any fair outside observer can easily see), are that basic biblical principles of ethics and reasonable behaviour have been breached with defiance and utter ruthlessness. This is why it is so important, for the sake of Christendom, that these matters not just be ‘swept under the carpet’. We are willing to extend forgiveness, but there must be a measure of softening of hearts, and of humility and recognition of wrongdoing. If not, there will be a judgment and an accountability.

AiG launches in June 2006 a new "Answers" magazine, which was originally going to be inaugurated in 2008. However, it was not intended to replace "Creation" magazine but be complementary, for AiG wanted to eventually offer two magazines in 2008. AiG sends a letter to "Creation" subscribers in March 2006 indicating that it would not be distributing "Creation" anymore (but not saying that it was no longer going to be available in the US); because the new distributor was not known until the following month, the new contact information could not be included in the letter.

CMI: This is repetition from earlier, where it is corrected.

Please call me at ext. 450 (859-727-2222) if you have further questions.

CMI: Unfortunately, what Mr Looy says when people call him is not so easily available for correction as a letter or email (Proverbs 18:17). CMI has always been willing to be accountable, to have what we say tested in the light of day. We have consistently pleaded for brethren to meet to sort things out. But such pleas have been rejected or ignored. AiG continues to send ‘confidential’ letters and emails and have ‘confidential’ phone calls with all and sundry, claiming many false things, without proof, as this correspondence shows. This contrasts with the Briese enquiry and chairman’s report, which deal with matters of fact, proven by proper documentation.

Regards,

Mark

Mark Looy
CCO
AiG