-------- Original Message --------
||Walt Thompson, Elder Ken Denslow
||Questions pertaining to conversation with Hal Steenson
||Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:29:36 -0600
In my email to you of December 6, I left you hanging a bit
at the end, and I don't think that's fair. So I thought I'd write
you again and fill my comment in a little. In that email I wrote:
"On November 4
wrote to me and said, among other things,
"According to what Hal Steenson and John Lomacang told me, I'm
uncertain that this is true. But I won't go into that now."
" 'I will just say this, ... I have done nothing legally wrong in my administration with 3ABN.'
It isn't fair to you to keep you hanging forever on that one,
so I will touch on it now. On August 3 or 4 (most likely 4),
2006, at the ASI Convention, I had opportunity to privately ask
Hal Steenson a few questions without anyone overhearing us. One
of those questions was simply when your daughter Melody got married.
Hal diverted the conversation to that of you and Linda, a topic
I wasn't even going to touch, and gave me as proof of Linda's
guilt three things:
- Since the only Bible grounds for divorce and remarriage
is fornication, and since you got remarried, Linda has to be
- Since the board is composed of godly people and they went
along with it, Linda has to be guilty.
- There is a recording that is so bad, conference presidents
have listened to it and after 30 seconds they say, "Turn it off,"
it is that convincing.
As of late October, your conference president had not yet heard it. Thus,
Question 32: Who all has heard this recording, and which conference presidents have heard it, or did Hal get his details mixed up?
I found the following at
that is particularly relevant to reporters. I would imagine that
under the statutes individuals would be treated roughly similar,
but I'm not an attorney, and so I do not know for sure. The actual state statute appears
and I'll quote just a little from it as well.
"Criminal purpose. Federal law requires only one-party
consent to the recording and disclosure of a telephone conversation,
but explicitly does not protect the taping if it is done for
a criminal or tortious purpose."
"720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2: An eavesdropping
device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without
the consent of all parties to the conversation under criminal
statutes. An eavesdropping device is anything used to hear or
record a conversation, whether the conversation is in person
or conducted by any means other than face-to-face conversation,
such as a telephone conversation.
"In addition, it is criminally punishable to disclose information
one knows or should know was obtained through an eavesdropping
device. Offenses of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies,
with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent
offenses. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-4. Civil liability
for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill.
Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6."
"Sec. 14-2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.
"(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:
"(3) Uses or divulges ... any information which he knows or
reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device."
(720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/Article 14)
You'll notice that Illinois law appears to cover the recording
of any type of conversation, while federal law seems to specifically
concern just telephone conversations.
Question 33: Is Hal correct that such a recording exists
and/or was made, and if so, how many parties were there to the
conversation and how many of those parties gave their consent
to being recorded?
Question 34: Assuming that the recording does exist
and/or was made, to whom, besides myself, and by whom was information
from that recording divulged, and can you demonstrate that the
taping was not done for a tortious purpose?
Out of everything that Hal told me, this recording was the
one thing that was concrete, not merely based on someone's word.
I therefore told him I wanted to hear it. At that point he proceeded
to say, "You are led of the pits of hell." "You are one sick
puppy." "You are sick." "You need to get a life." "You need to
be born again." He then repeatedly threatened to call security.
It was quite an unnerving experience.
Question 35: Do you have any explanation for the stark
contrast between the relative ease at least one 3ABNer manifested
when talking about evidence of Linda's infidelity, and the apparently
extreme paranoia manifested when asked to actually give proof
that such evidence really exists?
That's it for this one.
Have you found anything to explain the title discrepancy yet?
Or anything that would explain
discrepancies that Walt said you told him regarding your brother's child molestations allegations,
and which Walt wanted me to verify? Did you get the
I sent Sunday about the proof you said you have about Linda taking a
number of vacations with the doctor in the U.S. and Europe between
May and October 2004?
Hope to hear from you soon.