Menu Content/Inhalt
Print

CMI-AiG Dispute

Super Brief (1-page) Summary of the Issues/Events. Prepared/added to November 15, 2007

  • Aug 04 – Carl Wieland writes letter expressing concerns about various issues at AiG-USA, proposing reforms. Letter vetted by the Board of his ministry (then AiG-Australia), supported by senior Australian staff scientists.
  • From that point on, Ken Ham/AiG-US cuts off face-to-face communication between Ken/US Board and Australian management (not Australian Board).
  • Tensions build up progressively—the 4 volunteer directors of the Aus. Board fly repeatedly to the US.
  • To restore relations, CW and Aus. Scientists withdraw all concerns apart from the need to have an international democratic system with checks and balances. Publicly rejected by KH.
  • Tensions gradually develop between Aus. Board and senior staff.
  • Oct. 2005 – Aus. Board leaves for US, promises ‘we won’t sign anything without consulting you.’
  • Oct. 2005 – Aus. Board signs a set of documents which surrender all manner of Australian assets/control to the US ministry, and leaves it legally vulnerable in a number of key matters.
  • Nov. 2005 – Aus. Board resigns en masse after seeking legal advice. They ask CW to form a new Board with himself on it, but first seek indemnity against the consequences of their actions.
  • CW repeatedly seeks to meet to discuss peaceful renegotiation, offering to let AiG-US keep the bulk of what they seized, but that the legal vulnerability needs to be settled. Offer turned down, Australia told ‘do your own website’. This means rebranding, obviously, which took place March 1, 06.
  • In 2005 AiG-US, without informing Australia, commenced work on producing its own magazine, originally to be called ‘Creation Answers’, with a planned launch date of June 2006 (they registered the ‘Creation’ magazine trademark in the USA in April 05). AiG-US discovered that our Creation magazine would announce the rebranding and that CMI was offering a free booklet that would result in some subscribers giving their contact details to CMI (in case AiG cut them off). AiG-US suddenly dropped Creation magazine, overwhelmingly giving subscribers the impression that it was no longer available in the US. And then the technical journal (TJ), too.
  • Repeated offers to meet/reconcile are met with either no response, or statements that these ‘godly’ documents are not negotiable. Pleas for AiG-US to write to subscribers to honestly tell them of their choices are spurned. CMI expresses concern to AiG-US about the appearance of deliberate delays to sustain their advantage. AiG-US threatens in a draft letter to take CMI to court about alleged emails containing alleged ‘lies’ by Dr Sarfati, but when challenged to produce the evidence of lying, nothing happens.
  • A binding offer by CMI, repeated, of binding Christian arbitration is ignored. It is repeated—to no avail.
  • AiG-US is never willing to talk about CMI in the presence of CMI, but ultra-keen to have people come and hear ‘our side of the story’ – but so long as there is no CMI person present.
  • In November 06, AiG-US abruptly cuts off communication, sends out letter to many parts of the world (using inter alia creationist John Mackay’s mailing list) saying that CMI has ‘spiritual problems’.
  • Dec. 06 – in desperation, CMI sets up a committee of eminent Christians, chaired by former Chief Magistrate/judge and renowned opponent of corruption Clarrie Briese, to investigate, provided that all evidence is in the open, the right to cross-examine, etc. Rejected by AiG. Examines 600+ pages of documents and interviews 12 witnesses from three continents.
  • Feb. 07 Briese committee conclusions (and later Chairman’s separate report) are seriously negative about AiG-US’ conduct. CMI is advised that time is running out on its right to seek redress, and that AiG’s delaying tactics appear to be purposefully designed towards that end.
  • March 07– CMI gives AiG-US one more chance to meet and urgently settle, otherwise it will take legal action. Suddenly CMI gets a flurry of responses… AiG-US now wants to try mediation after all, when the delay would be to their legal advantage. CMI instructs solicitors to press ahead, but:
  • April 07– just in case AiG-US really is serious for once about submitting to an umpire’s verdict, CMI makes one more offer of going straight to binding Christian arbitration, in which AiG-US gets to nominate three Australian Christian lawyers, of which CMI gets to choose one to be the arbitrator/judge. In other words, it is like having the case heard before a believing judge, and out of the public glare, but without giving AiG-US any chance for deliberately delaying and thus neutralizing CMI’s lawful rights. CMI expresses willingness to undertake mediation, a drawn out process, after the legal nightmare is settled—to restore relationships. AiG-US ignores all this once more. The writ proceeds.
  • Subsequently, AiG-US finally agrees to meet to have settlement discussions. A meeting is held in Hawaii, USA, though Ken Ham fails to appear as had been indicated. The parties reach agreement on all points and shake hands, though time runs out for a written agreement. All commit themselves to honouring the handshake agreement. CMI as an act of good faith ex gratia unpublishes the material on its website. The writ is put on hold.
  • In the subsequent period, the handshake agreement is effectively destroyed by attempts at massively ‘shifting the goalposts’. CMI’s offers of straightforward Christian arbitration are called unacceptable. (CURRENT AS AT NOVEMBER 14, 2007)