Another southern preacher accused on in appropriate actions with other men

[Florida69]

Those who live in glass houses are always the first to throw the first stone.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/21/georgia.pastor.abuse/index.html?hpt=C1

CNN) -- Two Georgia men have filed a lawsuit claiming that prominent Atlanta, Georgia, pastor Eddie Long coerced them into sex.
The suits, filed Tuesday in DeKalb County, Georgia, allege that Long used his position as a spiritual authority and bishop to coerce young male members and employees of his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church into sex.
A spokesman for Long told CNN on Wednesday that the allegations are "a case of retaliation and a shakedown for money by men with some serious credibility issues."
Long "categorically and adamantly denies these allegations," said spokesman Art Franklin.
"Defendant Long has a pattern and practice of singling out a select group of young male church members and using his authority as Bishop over them to ultimately bring them to a point of engaging in a sexual relationship," the suits allege.
Long is considered one of the nation's top black preachers. His church has more 25,000 members, according to the suit, and was the site of Coretta Scott King's 2006 funeral, attended by then-President George W. Bush and three previous presidents. King was the widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
The pastor took one plaintiff, Anthony Flagg, 21, on overnight trips to a half-dozen American cities in recent years, Flagg's suit alleges.
"Long shared a bedroom and engaged in intimate sexual contact with plaintiff Flagg including kissing, massaging, masturbating of plaintiff Flagg by defendant Long and oral sexual contact," the suit says.
Long took the other plaintiff, Maurice Murray Robinson, 20, to Auckland, New Zealand, in October 2008 for his 18th birthday and engaged in oral sex with him, Robinson's suit alleges.
"Following the New Zealand Trip, Defendant Long regularly engaged in sexual touching, and other sexual acts with Plaintiff Robinson," Robinson's suit alleges.
"It is very unfortunate that someone has taken this course of action," Franklin, Long's spokesman, said Tuesday. "Our law firm will be able to respond once attorneys have had an opportunity to review the lawsuit."
Long frequently denounces homosexual behavior. A 2007 article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine called him "one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement."
"Everybody knows that a bishop or church pastor ... cannot have any sort of sexual relations or sexual relationship with one of your parishioners," the lawyer, B.J. Bernstein, said at a news conference Tuesday evening. "And even worse to have it with two young men who trusted him and got to know him at a very young age."
Bernstein said she has alerted federal authorities about the allegations.
In June, Robinson was arrested and charged with burglary in connection with a break-in to Long's office. An iPhone, iPad and other items -- more than $1,300 worth -- were taken from the office, according to the police report.
On Tuesday, Bernstein said the theft was Robinson's attempt to retaliate against the pastor. She said that once Robinson began telling others about his experience with Long, "he realized he wasn't the only one."
"It made [Robinson] angry," she said.
Both plaintiffs said the pastor, his church and church employees gave them cash and lavish gifts that ranged from cars to college tuition.
The suits also said that Long framed the sexual relationships as religious in nature.
The suits allege that Long chose the plaintiffs to be his "Spiritual Sons," a program that allegedly includes other young men from the church.
"Spiritual Sons are taken on public and private jets to U.S. and international destinations, housed in luxury hotels and given access to numerous celebrities including entertainment stars and politicians," the suit alleges.
Flagg moved into a home owned by another New Birth pastor when he was a high school junior, according to the suit, where Long would sometimes share a bed with him. Flagg was eventually put on the church's payroll, his suit alleges, with Long personally delivering his checks.
Flagg's suit says that Long presided over a spiritual "covenant" ceremony between the two of them.
"It was essentially a marriage ceremony, with candles, exchange of jewelry, and biblical quotes," Bernstein said Tuesday. "The bishop [told] him I will always have your back and you will always have mine."
Robinson's suit alleges that "Defendant Long would use Holy Scripture to discuss and justify the intimate relationship between himself and Plaintiff Robinson."
The lawsuits are seeking unspecified amounts of punitive damages from Long on various counts, ranging from negligence to breach of fiduciary duty.
The suits allege that various staff members working for Long, his church and the Longfellows Academy -- which the suit describes as an offshoot ministry of New Birth -- "knew of Defendant Long's sexually inappropriate conduct and did nothing to warn or protect [the plaintiffs]."

[Florida69]

a third person has come forward and filed a civil law suit.

[WillyWump]

I'm sure more will be coming out of the woodwork in the following days, it's rare that these Hypocrites limit their deeds to 1 or 3 tricks.

-Will

[OneTampa]

Since he deemed the young men his "spiritual sons", I guess it lends a new meaning to "I feel the spirit".

That "reacher creature" is beyond a hypocrite.

[tednlou2]

A good report from World News Tonight about this pastor and his anti-gay views--plus his mansion and jet.  It was interesting to hear so many civil rights leaders refused to attend the Coretta Scott King funeral held at his church, because of his anti-gay views.  The report says leaders in the church knew all about this and covered for him.  Whenever someone comes out big time against gays, I think it is now safe to conclude they are probably gay themselves.  So, I wonder how much gay sex Fred Phelps has had! 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/anti-homosexuality-pastor-linked-gay-romances-bishop-eddie-long-ban-pastor-gay-romances-steve-osunsami-11703565

[Florida69]

tednlou, I was thinking the exact same thing about Phelps when I first saw this story.  I grew up in a southern baptist church and have met some overly friendly preachers that were very touchy feely.  I too am confident that more will come forward as the days and weeks progress.  D 

[WillyWump]

Is this really a picture a Pastor should be sending to young male parishioners? Granted it is merely an accusation that this picture was sent to one of the 3 boys in question, but still something about a pastor (If it is indeed him) taking pictures of himself in a tight muscle shirt just doesnt sit right with me.

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2010/09/photos-show-bishop-eddie-long-002646.php




Edited to add: Clearly the Lord has blessed him with an endless supply of roids from Eastern Europe. Glory be to him in the hghest!

[mecch]

That article is a rat fuck of contradictions, as is probably the holly rolling "down low" situation it reports.

Listen --  no teacher and no preacher and no boss has much business getting sexually involved with young people under their authority.  So the preacher was wrong.

The two guys were legal age, however. And they let it go on and on and on. Says one of them even sorta married the preacher.  So I'm not sure what they are griping about! Clearly there was no crime.

The big hypocrisy of course is the anti-gay preaching, but private gay action.  

Hardly ironic in this rat fuck is the inevitable inclusion somehow of the King family.  Now there is a legacy if you scratch a little - its filled with contradictions.  

Great social leader, and inspiring movement speaker, King was also a moral hypocrite, academic fraud, and likely corrupt with church money.  I wouldn't be surprised if King's father, Daddy King, had been just as sordid, contradictory, and opportunistic as "preachers" e.g. "leaders" such as King's "protege" Rev. Jackson, and the contemporary Rev. Sharpton.  

I almost like Rev. Sharpton now, though he's got to be the biggest bullshitter around, and I hated what he stood for when he first made a name for himself.

Since these "leaders" are obviously cynical hypocrites, in the end you got to worry more about the flock.  How on earth do they get away with being considered leaders?  From afar, we (at least I) can almost admire their chutzpa, until the day we also relish their public humiliation, reputations in ruins, over their hypocrisy.  

"Wake up cows, you are being had by con men."  Isn't that what genuine lefties are feeling about so much in America these days, on the right and extreme right?

[Florida69]

A high school senior is of age? My point of this story is that here we are again with another nut job preacher, attempting to stand behind the pulpit and say that homosexuality is wrong.  While he himself is engaging in homosexual relationships.  The crime here is not only the issue of the guys age, but the misappropriation of church funds to finance his liaisons with boys for sex.  

Mech you also say that Dr. King was not really a doctor, Nobel Prize.org states his qualifications for being a doctor.   http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html

I can not speak of Dr. King's character, I never knew the man, but he did a lot of great things for the civil rights movement, which by the way started at the same time as the gay movement.  Many civil rights members did not attend Corretta Scott Kings funeral because of Long's issues with gay people.

Maybe I should also point out today that the current pope is also one of those hypocrites who hides behind the pulpit while allowing young boys to be sexually abused.  
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/23/deaf-victim-of-sex-abuse-is-suing-pope-and-going-public-with-his-story-for-the-first-time/?hpt=C1

Just the ways of the world I guess.  D
 

[mecch]

I love King, but don't deny his contradictions.
(I didn't say he wasn't a doctor, i said he was an academic fraud because his thesis was all copied!  Posthumously even his family acknowledge this, but said it was in the academic culture of the time.  Uh huh.....)

I'm not defending the georgia preacher, I think he's a turd.  Just pointing out the lawsuit may have no criminal basis because the sex was initiated after the age of consent.  Doesn't make it right, dear, I agree, of the preacher, but 18 yo's can say NO THANKS. Or as in this case, OK, lets get it on.

I agree that this pope is a total turd, a hypocrite. The Roman Catholic Church is completely corrupt when it comes to child abuse! (and that is CRIMINAL child abuse of genuinely young boys and girls.)

Just to restate - the point of my post as that we should question the FOLLOWERS of such leaders, not just the leaders.  Followers and supporters have blinders of admiration on.  The article says the Georgia church administration KNEW what that pastor had going down on the down low.  And certainly didn't spread that news around the congregation. 

[tednlou2]

Haven't some who've had sex with 16 year-olds in states where that is the age of consent been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor?  I know that carries less repercussions, but I believe some have been charged with that. 

[Florida69]

Haven't some who've had sex with 16 year-olds in states where that is the age of consent been charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor?  I know that carries less repercussions, but I believe some have been charged with that.  

The preacher knew what he was doing on the age part.

http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/16/16-6-3.html

16-6-3.
(a) A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of statutory rape shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years; provided, however, that if the person so convicted is 21 years of age or older, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this subsection of the offense of statutory rape shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
(c) If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

My thought was more along the lines of prostitution.

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=731
16-6-9
A person commits the offense of prostitution when he or she performs or offers or consents to perform a sexual act, including but not limited to sexual intercourse or sodomy, for money or other items of value.  


D

[Ann]

Eddie Long may have known what he was doing by not actually having sex with these young men until they were of age, but that doesn't mean he wasn't grooming them before the fact.

"Defendant Long has a pattern and practice of singling out a select group of young male church members and using his authority as Bishop over them to ultimately bring them to a point of engaging in a sexual relationship," the suits allege.

Long took the other plaintiff, Maurice Murray Robinson, 20, to Auckland, New Zealand, in October 2008 for his 18th birthday and engaged in oral sex with him, Robinson's suit alleges.

You can't tell me that he wasn't grooming Robinson long before his eighteenth birthday. Long isn't going to take a young man half-way around the world if he doesn't know before hand that he's going to get what he wants.

[WillyWump]

You know, perhaps we are being a tad bit hard on Rev. Touchy-Feely, maybe all he needs is a good 'ol southern style cleansing....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCcw8gJPZMA&feature=player_embedded#!

[Miss Philicia]

Eddie Long is a porn name, or will be very soon.  I wonder if he's related to Barrett.

[mecch]

"Grooming" the young ones, huh?  I think he's a turd, yeah I agree, wrong wrong wrong.
But I also think the boys knew what they were in for - after all the boys are saying HE WAS KNOWN FOR THIS.

In a nutshell, he's a sleaze, and they got in over their heads - probably lured by baubles and luxury experiences.

[Ann]

Mecch, you really don't get it. People in positions of authority have no business getting into sexual relationships with the people over whom they have authority. And especially not teenagers and young adults. These kids are likely to be from poor backgrounds (because that's the kind of kids these people prey on) and yes, they were likely groomed for quite a while beforehand. It's certainly not an equal or fully consenting situation at all.

The way you're talking reminds me of people who blame victims of rape saying they brought it on themselves. 

[bocker3]

Mecch, you really don't get it. People in positions of authority have no business getting into sexual relationships with the people over whom they have authority. And especially not teenagers and young adults. These kids are likely to be from poor backgrounds (because that's the kind of kids these people prey on) and yes, they were likely groomed for quite a while beforehand. It's certainly not an equal or fully consenting situation at all.

The way you're talking reminds me of people who blame victims of rape saying they brought it on themselves. 

Why bother Ann -- the world looks very different from Mecch's pedestal.......  Us mortals would never understand.

M

[mecch]

Mecch, you really don't get it. People in positions of authority have no business getting into sexual relationships with the people over whom they have authority. And especially not teenagers and young adults. These kids are likely to be from poor backgrounds (because that's the kind of kids these people prey on) and yes, they were likely groomed for quite a while beforehand. It's certainly not an equal or fully consenting situation at all.

The way you're talking reminds me of people who blame victims of rape saying they brought it on themselves.  

I do get it Ann. Thats why I said in my first post that people in authority have no moral right getting shady with the young.  And then I repeated that this guy was wrong wrong wrong.  Didn't read that?
And I also figured you'd say I was blaming the victim (which is what the defense is saying about these plaintifs - they are opportunists).  Nope.
Just saying its contradictory for the reports coming out to say the church knew he was a sleaze so the boys knew he was a sleaze and I can imagine more than one scenario, here.  Such as the young guys were gay and knew what was happening, and didn't walk away from it.  I dont know if thats the case, but you also don't know if they were brainwashed and groomed into something against their will.  

[Dachshund]

Such as the young guys were gay and knew what was happening, and didn't walk away from it.  

You're right. If you are young and gay and sexually abused, you deserve it.

[mecch]

Rather than being so interested in my offensive remarks, why dont you all have a look at black amercans blogging about the scandal.  Most agree that its finally up to a court to decide.  Some note that its a civil suit, not a criminal suit.  This is because, as I also say, the guys were of age.

You can see every take possible.

Abuse Accuser Left Letter For Bishop Eddie Long “You Are A Monster”  

News One for Black America:
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/abuse-accuser-left-letter-for-bishop-eddie-long-you-are-a-monster/comment-page-2/#comments

I have to agree that its possible he preyed on particularly vulnerable young guys.  Ick.
But, its all conjecture. There some who sling the shit on the boys, and even their families, saying the families pimped out the guys, a la the Michael Jackson scandals.  Two of these guys were arrested for breaking and entering and stealing from the church, by the way.  

The plaintif's lawyer is a known media wiz, and also worked in child molestation cases for the DA.

Its a mess. Thats what I said in my first post.  And Im certainly not defending Bishop Eddie Long.  

Gee, some of the descriptions of his behavior in front of the flock are hilarious.  Hilariously bizarre!  Sleeveless suits to show off his biceps while preaching?  

[bocker3]

And Im certainly not defending Bishop Eddie Long.  

Except that this is exactly what you are doing.  Oh, you may be trying to temper it with the occasional "Ick" thrown in, but what you are saying is that the kids should have known better and seeing as they didn't say, No -- then everything was just consensual and what the hell is the big deal then.

Oh, yeah -- you are also prattling on about everyone else's "conjecture", but then you are conjecturing all over the place too, aren't you???   

Mike

[mecch]

Yep, I am conjecturing and so are you. Thats what I said, And I am not defending Long. Once again you want to get me so you put words in my mouth.  You are really desperate to pin me to something but its your idea of my views, not what I said.

[bocker3]

Yep, I am conjecturing and so are you. Thats what I said, And I am not defending Long. Once again you want to get me so you put words in my mouth.  You are really desperate to pin me to something but its your idea of my views, not what I said.

But you ARE defending him.

I'm not defending the georgia preacher, I think he's a turd.  Just pointing out the lawsuit may have no criminal basis because the sex was initiated after the age of consent.  Doesn't make it right, dear, I agree, of the preacher, but 18 yo's can say NO THANKS. Or as in this case, OK, lets get it on.

Just to restate - the point of my post as that we should question the FOLLOWERS of such leaders, not just the leaders.  Followers and supporters have blinders of admiration on.  The article says the Georgia church administration KNEW what that pastor had going down on the down low.  And certainly didn't spread that news around the congregation. 

You are saying that it is the kids fault for having sex -- they were adults and "should have known better".  You refuse to see how he set this up and abused his position.  That might not be grounds for a criminal complaint, but is for a civil one.  If this was one kid, you argument might (just might) have some merit, but this is showing a systematic preying by this guy.  He has abused his postion and to try and blame it on the kids -- or the congregation IS defending him. 

And that is not conjecture.

Mike

[Ann]

Mecch, you're a teacher, are you not?

What would happen to your job if you were systematically preying on young men and using your influence as a teacher over them (promise of good grades as opposed to Long giving gifts, paying for vacations and no doubt the promise of eternal salvation) to gain sexual favours?

Would you excuse yourself by saying - they consented, they could have said "NO"?

One has to wonder why you're putting equal responsibility on these young men instead of squarely where it belongs - on Long's shoulders. 



edited to fix spelling

[Matty the Damned]

The issue here is not consent, it's about exploitation.

Young men (in their late teens) look to older men to see how they should behave. If they are exploited and manipulated by they older men they trust they will, in their turn, exploit young guys.

And so the nasty cycle continues.

This awful preacher had an obligation to the young males in his care. An obligation he has failed to honour. He used the authority and trust placed in him for his own gratification, not for the good of those young fellows.

Pretty straight forward stuff, I would think.

MtD

[mecch]

That article is a rat fuck of contradictions, as is probably the holly rolling "down low" situation it reports.

Listen --  no teacher and no preacher and no boss has much business getting sexually involved with young people under their authority.  So the preacher was wrong.

The two guys were legal age, however. And they let it go on and on and on. Says one of them even sorta married the preacher.  So I'm not sure what they are griping about! Clearly there was no crime.

The big hypocrisy of course is the anti-gay preaching, but private gay action.  

Eh hem. My first post. I am a teacher yeah, thus I said, teacher, preacher or boss doing shit like this - wrong.
I'm not defending the preacher.
Im saying maybe there were two wrongs, not right and wrong.  Just because the preacher is a jerk, doesn't make the young guys saints.  The court will reveal all, if it gets that far.

[Matty the Damned]

Eh hem. My first post. I am a teacher yeah, thus I said, teacher, preacher or boss doing shit like this - wrong.
I'm not defending the preacher.
Im saying maybe there were two wrongs, not right and wrong.  Just because the preacher is a jerk, doesn't make the young guys saints.  The court will reveal all, if it gets that far.

Don't worry Moochie, you're not alone in making excuses for presenting both sides of Pastor Long's case. The fiercely Reverend Ted Haggard is on Eddie's side too.

MtD

[bocker3]

Eh hem. My first post. I am a teacher yeah, thus I said, teacher, preacher or boss doing shit like this - wrong.
I'm not defending the preacher.
Im saying maybe there were two wrongs, not right and wrong.  Just because the preacher is a jerk, doesn't make the young guys saints.  The court will reveal all, if it gets that far.

Every one of your idiotic posts in this thread IS DEFENDING HIM.  This isn't about the kids -- it is all about the preacher -- whether there was perceived consent or not.  Wake up and smell the coffee darling. 

M

[Joe K]

Im saying maybe there were two wrongs, not right and wrong.  Just because the preacher is a jerk, doesn't make the young guys saints.  The court will reveal all, if it gets that far.

You really don't get this. The preacher, as an authority figure, manipulated these guys, based on his position. Surely he was molesting them, long before they became legal adults and that being the case, it is solely Longs fault for violating his responsibility to be a mentor, not a predator.

[phildinftlaudy]

Im saying maybe there were two wrongs, not right and wrong.  Just because the preacher is a jerk, doesn't make the young guys saints.  The court will reveal all, if it gets that far.

I have to agree with the others that have posted that you are not getting it Mecch -
Imagine applying your statement above in the context of rape
"Just because the guy is a rapist doesn't make the young girl a saint."

Sounds insane doesn't it?
Blaming the victim - isn't it?
The preacher in his role of authority, leadership and trust had the impetus not to exploit and take advantage of members of his congregation - particularly youth.  I agree with Matty - these young men were exploited - the pastor took advantage of his position and I would say he did so knowingly - which makes him fully liable and a predator in every sense of the word.

[mecch]

Well its a civil case, not a criminal one. i think the lawyer for the plaintiff will achieve the good result of fully discrediting the preacher to his church (and family - hes married with kids) and he'll lose his position of influence.  I am "wait and see" however if she'll be able to get damages for the plaintiffs. 

You all who think I'm "blaming the victim."
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F Scott Fitzgerald.   
You can think what you want about what I think, but doesn't make it true.

[phildinftlaudy]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F Scott Fitzgerald.   
 

This would make a great Hallmark card - and probably end up where most of them end up also

[Merlin]

Hmm, if the 2 guys were in their 30s, maybe , just maybe, we have reasonable doubt. But 18 and 20 are not exactly babies but they're clearly muck heads that are expected to make lotsa wrong judgement calls. Of cos, there are always exceptional streetwise young teens but the odds are, well, debatable. Also, a man of the cloth has NO business with pleasures of the flesh. I was once "harassed" by a priest years ago and I felt disgusted. If you are a pastor/priest and wanna play, get out of church-simple. 

[Florida69]

Well its a civil case, not a criminal one. i think the lawyer for the plaintiff will achieve the good result of fully discrediting the preacher to his church (and family - hes married with kids) and he'll lose his position of influence.  I am "wait and see" however if she'll be able to get damages for the plaintiffs. 

You all who think I'm "blaming the victim."
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F Scott Fitzgerald.   
You can think what you want about what I think, but doesn't make it true.

In an attempt to steer this thread back on track, I have to share why I found this story interesting and why I was hoping to engage and perhaps find a good mental standing to assist me in what I must do within the next year.  I was abused as a child by an authority figure in my family.  I am not really ready to discuss details, the person who molested me is in jail on another charge for another child and I have come forward to corroborate their story that he is indeed a child molester.  I will say that I am not the only one, and I have real issues with being labeled victim regardless of circumstance.  That would be giving to much credit to a monster, which in my book is one that intentionally caused harm to any vulnerable person (whether it be to a child, a teenager or a man/woman) for his/her own benefit or pleasure.  This guy is a monster/predator who robbed these young men of many things; their dignity is what they have put a price on. Mech you are accurate that this is a civil case, because basically the church helped cover up the acts, therefore these young men are attempting to find justice monetarily.  I think there is more to the story of them breaking into his house and stealing the items, it appears that the items were specific and perhaps they were gifts to the teenagers, that Long decided to reposes. I am confident that the story will come out.  Long, like the member in my family are both from Georgia held themselves out to be a preachers and more than what he could possibly ever be, and I see Long for the hypocritical monster that he is, many civil rights leaders seem to agree with me by not attending Scott-Kings funeral.   Some people protest to much.  Now Mech allow me express where you are wrong, the criminal side of this case is much more difficult to prove in the eyes of the law. Long and this church is going to do whatever he can to get out of this mess, I for one would like to see the church go belly up, and all of their money to be divided up among the attorneys, the court system and of course these three young men.  So by even thinking that these young men asked for the sexual advances is beyond the pale. Long took advantage, regardless how you slice it.  Thanks you guys for your input.  D

[komnaes]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F Scott Fitzgerald.   

Wow.. in that case this Eddie Long must be a first class intellectual or more - it seems he was not only able to function but having a good ole time while preaching against gay sex while HAVING gay sex. He did more than just holding them in his mind at the same time. I wonder if having a first rate intelligence is a defense.

Or are we going into a debate on the philosophical differences of "holding" an idea than to acting it out.. I can't wait.

[mecch]

Counts filed against Eddie and his church, as well:

Count 1: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Count 2: Negligence per se
Count 3: Negligence
Count 4: Fraud
Count 5: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Count 6: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Count 7: Negligent Failure to Warn
Count 8: Negligent Failure to Intervene
Count 9: Negligent Failure to Protect
Count 10: Negligent Retention
Count 11: Negligent Failure to Supervise

Full Complaint of 4 plaintifs easy to find as PDF online.


Longfellows levels:
1. Sons
2. Rough Riders
3. Gladiators
4. Ishmen

(eh hem)

Sinister Longfellows website:
http://www.longfellowyouthacademy.org/longfellows/iwanttobealongfellow-programdetails.php

blog of some guy who tries to denounce cult like churches - with personal experience of Longfellows and Pastor Long:

http://imspeakingtruth.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/spiritual-daddy-demands-submission/

http://imspeakingtruth.wordpress.com/

including the embedded video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfc8jzh1U2E&feature=player_embedded#!
_________