It was beginning to look as if Bob had beaten the rap. Mike Warnke and Larry Lea were both on the comeback trail. And Robert Tilton was still preaching at his mega-church in Dallas. Thanks to the Evangel ical community's astonishing apathy and the willing complicity of the Christian media, the "Brat Pack" was still more or less intact. Like the watchman on the wall in Ezekiel 33, we sounded the alarm, but the 'city of God' remained in slumber.
And then, along came Mike....
WDIV investigative reporter Mike Wendland took an unexpected inter est in our handiwork on the Internet ... and thought that his viewers might like a look at Colorado's bush-league version of Robert Tilton. But unlike the people at Inside Edition, he didn't insist upon sex.
Panicked by Detroit:
The first segment of Wendland's special report aired in Detroit on Monday, May 23. Larson knew that the piece was coming, but he didn't know when -- and it appeared to have caught him off guard. His reac tion was, to put it politely, downright surreal:
"This ministry is under attack! There has been a systematic effort over the last couple of years to 'go after' one ministry after another. It is an effort designed in the pit of hell! And Satan will use whoever is at his disposal [audio unclear]: the Christian who thinks that, by dividing and conquering the Body of Christ, he's doing some service to the cause of Chris tianity, or whether it's an unbeliever, who has no concern for the welfare or the cause of Jesus Christ, and doesn't care how the truth is manipulated to destroy the work of God, or whether it's the 'media elite', who feel it is their arrogant responsi bility to pass judgment on others, when they themselves do not put their lives open to the same kind of scrutiny in which they would like to judge other people....I know stuff about the Jim Bakker thing that I wouldn't tell in public, that you will probably never know, and maybe on my deathbed I'll tell. Someday, the truth needs to be told; maybe someday, I'll write a book about it! You don't know the story of Jim Bakker and what-- how that whole thing came down. You know what the press wanted you to know....
You know about Jessica Hahn. You don't know how the whole Jessica Hahn thing really happened, and how it really came into being, and how it was manipulated from behind the scenes, and how the whole thing was set up to destroy that ministry. And you don't know the role that Satanism played in that whole thing behind the scenes. Someday, I may come clean and tell the whole story and blow your mind. I know!!! You don't!!!"1
Bob has been complaining about a plot to 'destroy his ministry' for years, but this is the first time that he has tried to link it to the fall of such selfless servants of the LORD as Jim Bakker, Robert Til ton and Jimmy Swaggart. What's more, this sinister scheme appears to be directed by Christians:
"There are child-molesters and rapists and drug dealers run ning the streets of America, free on parole, who didn't do one- millionth of what Jim Bakker did to warrant what they did to him, to sock him away as a vendetta against the Church. And Christians went around, beating their chests, crowing and say ing, 'Oh, Jim Bakker got what he had coming'...But what you've got to understand, folks, they took what they could and capitalized on what was there, and manipulated it behind the scenes, then it was a set-up to bring them down, to destroy them because they were easy to topple over. And Jimmy [Swaggart] wasn't too [unintelligible] to topple over. Okay? Then, along came the likes of Tilton, Lea, Grant, Warnke, many others. What they did was they went after the ones that were easy pickings first....
They set up a pattern. A pattern of accusation, a pattern of destruction, a pattern of going after people systematically. Listen, again, I know stuff behind the scenes about what hap pened in each and every one of these situations that would blow your mind if I could ever tell you. And let me tell you, for a year and a half, next in line has been Bob Larson. In a year and a half, they have done everything they could possibly do to threaten, destroy-- you don't know the one-thousandth of the things that have tried to be done to me, the ugliness and the viciousness of it. And sometimes, these people call themselves Christians. You don't know one-thousandth of it.
You don't know the private hell that I've lived through for the last couple of years. Now, a major television network has decided that they're going to try to take it upon themselves to destroy me, fueled by some who call themselves Christians....
I want to tell you, it is more ugly and vicious than you can possibly comprehend, how it's been done. The purpose of the devil is almost beyond belief. In fact, if I were to lay out in front of you the actual details of how this whole thing came together and how it's been done, so help me, not one person in ten thousand in this audience could believe -- you'd think I'm lying."2
And you'd be right.
A Bill of Goods:
Of course, Bob didn't get a chance to see Wendland's piece until Wednesday; once he got over the initial shock, he immediately set out on the daunting task of damage control. His usual collection of sus pected shills made their obligatory appearances, like Tina, the phone sex operator. But the most interesting caller of the first hour was Bill -- who quizzed Bob about the Ministry's alleged financial woes:
Bill: "Well about your $35,000 shortfall, you always talk about
paying your bills on time, yet you've got a $35,000
shortfall."
BL: "That's right."
Bill: "You must have quite a bankroll stashed away that you're
able to pay these bills if you've got no money."
BL: "No, I don't."
Bill: "Well, where did you get the $35,000 to pay all these
people?"
BL: "Bill, read [Genesis] Chapter 41. It's the story of Joseph
in Egypt. Joseph had a dream [seven years of plenty and
seven years of famine].... Now, was Joseph used of God and
blessed by God for having the stewardship responsibility to
follow the leaning of the LORD and to prepare for difficult
times?"
Bill: "So, you are running a surplus, Bob?"
BL: "No, I'm not, Bill. You're not listening to what I'm
saying. Bill?"
Bill: "You've run a surplus in the past, and you've
saved it up?"
BL: "Bill, some years ago, there were a couple of years in
which, fortunately, God did bless us, and we were allowed to
have an excess for which I praise and thank God for. Because
it had not have been for that, this ministry would have been
out of business four years ago, and I would have been
history."3
In the beginning of 1990, Bob Larson Ministries was indeed in sound financial condition. It had a net fund balance of over $1.3 million, and cash reserves of nearly $2 million.4 Yessir, once upon a time, things were really good at BLM. But how have things gone since then? The Ministry's financial statements speak volumes:
Bob Larson Ministries
Increase (Decrease) in Net Worth
For the years 1990-1992
Year and source of info. Revenues Expenses Fund Balance
Fund balance, 12/31/89 $ 1,387,089
1990 Stewardship Rept. $ 5,613,445 $ 5,103,648 509,7975
---------
Fund balance, 12/31/90 1,896,886
1991 Stewardship Rept. 5,436,225 5,189,611 246,6146
---------
Fund balance, 12/31/91 2,143,500
1992 Stewardship Rept. 4,681,166 4,724,935 (43,769)7
---------
Fund balance, 12/31/92 $ 2,099,731
=========
If things were good four years ago, they must have been really good
17 months ago: For the three years ended December 31, 1992, the Min
istry enjoyed a net profit of more than $700,000! Unless 1993 was an
unmitigated disaster -- and I guarantee that, if Bob had lost a half-
million dollars last year, Bob would have told us -- the Ministry is
in far better financial condition than it was in the 'good old days'.
Still, I suppose it wouldn't surprise you if Bob sees things a little
differently:
You say, 'Well, Bob, I've heard you say a lot.' Let me tell
you something: For the fourth year in a row, we've run in the
red. And we've kept going only because of the past generosity
and goodness of God's people. But that's come to an end."8
Four years ago, things were great ... but his listeners would never
have discovered that from reading his 1990 fundraising appeals:
Remember, these letters were written back when Bob said that things
were good, and his Ministry's financial records proved that they were
good. Yet, in the midst of all this obvious prosperity, Bob is hold
ing a 'going out of business' sale. And what Bob asked his audience,
I would ask as well:
I suppose that I could say it ... just not with a straight face.
Shirley, Bob Jests -- Part II:
While Tina's appearance was merely implausible, the return of Shir
ley from Bakersfield, CA to the Talk-Back airwaves could be explained
only by divine intervention or blatant fabrication. Shirley -- whose
daughters purportedly killed a boy, and left his dismembered body in
the desert near Yuma, Arizona -- should not have known about the WDIV
news report that she more or less 'starred' in. And even Bob had to
concede that her call seemed suspicious. Still, it wasn't the timing
of the call which was so incriminating, but rather, the content. In
this excerpt, Bob tried to direct Shirley's testimony in an effort to
impeach the WDIV news report:
While it is not uncommon for law enforcement agencies to refuse to
disclose the particulars of an investigation, the suggestion that the
Yuma, Arizona police would deliberately deceive a national television
network regarding the grisly crime that Shirley described is patently
ludicrous. Simply put, if the body was hacked to pieces, it's pretty
safe to say that the victim didn't die of natural causes -- it's hard
to imagine how the investigation could be damaged by a mere admission
to the press that one was going on.
Oblivious to that rather obvious hole in her story, Shirley marches
on:
BL: "Where are your daughters now?"
Shirley: "Uh, they're not in jail right now. It's --
it's still pending.
BL: "Okay."
Shirley: "They say they don't have enough evidence-- he said
they don't have enough evidence, but he did tell me
that when he left my house that day, he said, 'I think
we have enough evidence now to convict them, or to
pick them up'."17
Once again, this is vintage Larson: the story isn't consistent. In
the original conversation, Shirley's daughters were in jail, but now,
they didn't have enough evidence to hold them. And two months later,
the one daughter hadn't regained custody of her kids, even though the
State had no grounds for depriving her of custody. What's more, the
kids were left in the custody of a grandmother who couldn't even pay
her electric bill.
It must have been 'divine providence' -- despite Bob's inept direct
examination of his witness, he got precisely what he wanted:
While the evidence is admittedly circumstantial, it points directly
at Bob. First, Shirley "just happened" to call from Bakersfield, and
as Bob conceded, she "didn't know" about the WDIV report. That means
that she would have had to have called on the regular line and gotten
right through, while Tina the phone sex operator claimed that she had
dialed "all week" without success19; moreover, it also means that she
didn't have a compelling reason for calling. Second, she volunteered
everything that Bob 'needed' to cast aspersions upon the WDIV report,
and serve as a pretext for his grandstand speech:
It is interesting to note that, in Shirley's second appearance, she
almost seemed to go out of her way not to mention that the crime pur
portedly took place in Yuma, Arizona. This is standard procedure for
the Mighty Larson Art Players; it simply wouldn't do for listeners to
pick up the phone and check out the story.
Sounds Like Bob Larson:
By Friday, Bob had regained most of his composure, and was ready to
mount his counteroffensive. Using his 50th birthday as an excuse and
a motif, he painted himself as an innocent victim of that scandalmon
gering secular press:
Unquestionably, this was the most impressive public relations ploy
I have ever seen Bob use. Without saying it, he is subtly insinuat
ing that his critics never bothered to confront him, and if they had,
this silly little misunderstanding could have been cleared up.
While Bob Larson's Christian critics haven't confronted him to his
face, it hasn't been for lack of trying. Former Watchman Fellowship
staffer Fred Wheeler23 approached him long before this story ever hit
the media, but was brusquely rebuffed. Christian talk-show host and
pastor Stewart White reportedly followed suit, but Larson slammed the
door in his face, as well.24 Christian reporters Joe Maxwell,25 Jay
Grelen,26 and Mike Wendland27 fared no better. He will appear on
TBN,28 answer written questions submitted by the Church of Satan,29
and whine about how the secular media "raped" him on his own broad
casts,30 but has steadfastly refused to submit to cross-examination
from knowledgeable inquisitors.
Friends and foes alike observe that, even though he is the consum
mate press-hound, Bob doesn't take public criticism gracefully. Ever
since Michael Roberts broke the Larson story in Westword magazine two
years ago, Bob has grown increasingly fearful of the press -- and his
ministry has adopted a 'bunker mentality'. For a man who has nothing
to hide, he certainly is going out of his way to hide it.
The following memo is further evidence that his silence was part of
an orchestrated plan:
To the best of our knowledge, the BLM Board never gave even passing
consideration to the filing of a lawsuit, and based upon my knowledge
of libel law, there isn't an attorney this side of J.C. Joyce (Robert
Tilton's attorney) that would have taken the case. Bill Abbott is an
expert in media law; he knew better, and so then should we.
Bob insisted that he didn't want to deal with the charges raised by
his critics, but, as is so often the case on Talk-Back, the very next
caller "just happened" to bring it up (I'll interrupt Bob's soliloquy
with pertinent observations):
[The windfall Bob is referring to was a $150,000 retroactive bonus,
paid either in 1989 or 1990, ostensibly for his forbearance of salary
during the first 18 years of the Ministry's existence. As a general
rule, retroactive bonuses to executives are invalid -- on the grounds
that consideration is not given. In a for-profit corporation, share
holders could attack the bonus payment, but the not-for-profit corpo
ration is not beholden to anyone.
It is interesting to note that the $150,000 bonus did not appear on
the Ministry's 1990 Form 990 (which listed Larson's base compensation
of $131,879, contributions to employee benefit plans of $54,708, and
other allowances of $35,750, for a total package of $222,23732 -- not
including salaries paid to him by International Broadcasting Network
and BLM's Canadian subsidiary). And as you might have expected from
an accountant, I used conservative figures in my estimate of Larson's
annual income:
You will also note that $150,000 bonus is nowhere to be found in my
estimate. I excluded it on the grounds that it was a one-time event,
and inclusion would tend to unfairly overstate his annual income.]
[Let's take a quick look at one of Bob's shrewd real estate deals.
In late 1985, Bob and former wife Kathy bought the building housing
the Ministry for $1,415,000.34 But they didn't put up a dime of
their money -- they mortgaged that property for $1,550,000,35 and
evidently, pocketed the difference. So far, it looked like a shrewd
deal; Dave Del Dotto would have been justifiably proud.
Unfortunately for Bob, 1986 was a disastrous year for Denver real
estate: the market went into an absolute free-fall, as property val
ues plummeted by 10% and more -- and there was no end in sight. Sud
denly, Bob's "shrewd investment" became a white elephant. And as he
was personally liable on the mortgage, his net worth dropped as fast
as the building's value.
What was a best-selling author and commentator to do?
Like many investors who were saddled with burned-out tax-shelters,
Bob tried to 'cut his losses' by selling the building to an entity he
controlled (the Ministry) for $1,800,000.36 A $385,000 profit, in
less than 15 months, is nothing to sneeze at -- until you start look
ing at the fine print.
By all accounts, the building was worth somewhere between $1.2 and
$1.3 million (several years later, it was revalued on the Ministry's
books at a shade more than $1 million). Yet, the Ministry bought it
from the chairman of its' Board of Directors for the grossly overin
flated price of $1.8 million. Instead of buying another comparable
building on the open market for $1.3 million, the Ministry "gave" Bob
a windfall of over half a million dollars. Or to put it another way,
Larson sold the building to the Ministry for the $1.3 million it was
worth -- and put $500,000 worth of sacrificially-given Ministry funds
into his own pocket.
So, did Bob reap God's blessings ... or steal His money?
[If Bob had, indeed, written 22 books -- on his own time, and using
his own personal resources to research, write, and promote them, his
critics simply wouldn't have any basis for criticizing him. But when
Ministry employees do the bulk of his research, writing, and editing
for him (while on the Ministry's payroll), Ministry money is used to
pay for direct-mail advertising of his books, and Ministry airtime is
used to promote his books, there's a real cause for concern. And, to
add insult to injury, Larson even had the audacity to sell books that
Ministry employees wrote while on Ministry time for a 50% markup, far
more than the customary 10% author's royalty. Yes, God has prospered
him -- but at the expense of the Social Security checks of little old
ladies who have been duped into supporting his largesse.
When famed bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks,
he simply said, "That was where the money is." Willie was wrong.]
[Since I know a fair number of them, I can say with some confidence
that there isn't a single one of Larson's critics that would begrudge
him as much wealth as he could attain. But, as I told him in conver
sation nearly two years ago, I don't object to his being wealthy, but
rather, I take offense as to how he got it. Bob didn't make his for
tune from writing books, or investing in real estate; he made it from
his Ministry. Bob did it by defrauding his listeners, and using his
Ministry as his own personal piggy-bank. Bob's God helps those who
help themselves ... to the contents of the collection plate.
Bob Larson might not be a competent musician, writer, or minister,
but he does have an undisputed talent for raising money. He can turn
almost any situation into a plea for donations, and this is no excep
tion:]
You know, God's got a lot of ways of getting my attention and
your attention without using the faithlessness of other people
regarding their finances. God doesn't need your stinginess to
teach me a lesson."37
Still, I'd reckon there is hope for Bob yet. After all, he didn't
lie about his age....
The Soap Opera Song:
Throughout his recent trials and tribulations, Bob Larson has tried
his best to maintain at least the outward appearance that the disclo
sures concerning his many moral indiscretions have had no effect upon
his ministry. And like Robert Tilton before him, he has for the most
part succeeded. But every now and again, the obvious cracks in Bob's
porcelain fa5ade are exposed; even when he tries to pick topics which
should keep the Bob-bashers away, they just keep on coming. Consider
what Duane from Aurora had to say when Bob asked him what he would do
if he became 'dictator for a day':
Angry denials won't silence legitimate questions; even devout long-
time Bob-backers have started to doubt him. Each censored caller and
every new revelation raises the level of suspicion even further -- as
a result, to maintain the Ministry's cash flow level, Bob has to ride
his remaining supporters just that much harder. And now, our favor
ite Mafioso minister has started his own spiritual protection racket,
using 'shake-down tactics' worthy of John Gotti to replenish his
coffers:
Thus spake the Dapper Don, Bob Corleone: You give-a me money, or I
breakka you legs. God so loves a cheerful giver....
Ever since the WDIV incident, Larson's image consultants evidently
have given him strict orders to shut up. Gone are the passionate and
entertaining tirades against "enemies" who are out to destroy him and
his ministry. Gone are shows about atheists, witches and the occult.
These days, he's even hard to listen to on fast forward.
Clinton, abortion, and gays ... oh, my!
There are still ways to keep abreast of current developments in the
world of "Beelze-Bob," but those avenues are shrinking at an exponen
tial rate. Larson recently settled the age discrimination case filed
by the undisputed star of the WDIV report, Muriel Olson.40 If Larson
stays true to form -- and he will -- Olson will be required to sign a
confidentiality agreement, and yet another incriminating 'voice' from
the past will be silenced. Still, as this letter from the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission attests, the evidence remains:
According to WDIV's Mike Wendland, despite this clear and unequivo
cal confirmation of Ms. Olson's WDIV testimony, Bob Larson Ministries
spokesman and attorney James Rollin Miller told their counsel that if
they had bothered to look at Olson's suit against Larson in Jefferson
County District Court, they would have found that her claims to auth-
orship were dismissed as without merit. However, as Judge Polidori's
order dismissing the case shows, the facts never quite seem to square
up with Bob Larson Ministries' press releases:
While the Court properly acknowledged that Muriel Olson was not the
"author" of the books she claimed to have written (e.g. Satanism: The
Seduction of America's Youth) for purposes of U.S. copyright law, it
tacitly confirms the EEOC's finding that she was indeed an author-in-
fact. The Ministry paid her salary -- while she was writing Bob Lar
son's books. And, as Olson's timesheets, the EEOC, and internal Min
istry memos43 attest, the time that Ministry employees spent on Bob's
books was quite substantial. Yet, this fact was conveniently ignored
on the Ministry's 1990 tax return.44
Either the books in question are, in fact, Ministry property (under
17 U.S.C. =201, Bob Larson Ministries would be a co-author), and Lar
son's receipt of royalties constitutes embezzlement, or time spent by
employees on Larson's books constitutes compensation to him (under 26
U.S.C. =61 and Treas. Reg. =1.61-21(b)), and he has wilfully signed a
false tax return (see, 26 U.S.C. =7206(1)). Either way you slice it,
it still looks like a felony.
O-wim-o-weh, o-wim-o-weh, o-wim-o-weh, o-wim-o-weh....
While the 'Larson beat' has been remarkably quiet in recent months,
there have been a few curious developments. It seems that IBN vice-
president Pam Koczman and her husband John have filed for divorce.45
Koczman, a conservative Lutheran pastor, reportedly confessed to mem
bers of his congregation that his wife's purported infidelity was at
least part of the reason for the break.46.
As we have learned from both the Anita Hill and Paula Corbin Jones
affairs, the fundamental problem with charges of sexual impropriety
is that they invariably boil down to a simple game of "he said, she
said." Unless you happen to catch them in flagrante delicto (like
former Tilton aide and pastor Dan Moroso, who pleaded guilty to hav
ing oral sex with a known prostitute, in broad daylight, in an apart
ment complex parking lot47), or find spent condoms in a divorced
minister's personal garbage, one or both of the parties could invoke
the 'Bart Simpson defense': "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, and
you can't prove it!"
For our purposes, the question of who Pam may have become intimate
with is almost beside the point; the Koczman incident speaks to Bob's
public rationale for firing BLM vice-president (and, Dead Air author)
Lori Boespflug. Larson allegedly dismissed Boespflug for living with
her fianceE,48 not really sinful per se, but such a relationship does
give rise to a presumption of Biblically-proscribed behavior. On the
other hand, Boespflug insisted that she was fired because she refused
to 'put out' for Larson.49
Every divorce is a tragedy; we should not inquire into the whys and
wherefores any more than is absolutely necessary. I wouldn't say one
word about it, except for the fact that it puts Bob Larson in a deli
cate situation. Unconfirmed reports have reached me that Pam Koczman
(who, as Christianity Today's Timothy Morgan reported last year, is a
defendant in a sexual harassment suit50) has moved in with her cur
rent paramour, even though her divorce is, at last check, still pend
ing. If these reports are true, and Larson, as he publicly insisted,
fired Boespflug for apparent adultery, then he is obliged to show Pam
the door, as well ... no ifs, ands, or buts.
Like sands in the hourglass....
BL: "But the message that I'm trying to get across to you in
this audience is real simple: What God did for us four years
ago, and what the audience did for us four years ago, has not
been repeated. And it particularly has not been repeated in
the last four months. Consequently, the abundance of the
blessing from God's people has been depleted to the point
where I am desperately needing your support NOW to be there
on your station. And those are the facts....
April 6: "In the first three months of 1990, we covered costs
for only 4 broadcast days out of 60."9
May 4: "Compassion Connection is collapsing!"10
July 11: "The last two months were a financial disaster. Dona
tions dwindled, contributions dropped off, and those who
pledged didn't follow through."11
Sept. 6: "The possibility of losing TALK-BACK in your area is
very real. August has been an agonizing month of continuous
financial shortfalls."12
Oct. 9: "Recent weeks have been the most devastating in the
history of this ministry. Every week was worse than the week
before. Things have gotten so bad, I'm left with only two choices.
I will have to cancel the second hour of TALK-BACK, or close
down the Compassion Connection and the HOPE line."13
Dec. 7: "By December 31, I must erase a $185,000 deficit in
paying for our air time. If I can't, we could lose so many
stations it would be difficult to continue TALK-BACK."14
"Are you going to say, 'Bob is honest, and he's telling me
the truth. And he's letting me know when it's been good, and
telling me when it's bad'."15
BL: "Here's what happened. This videotape -- and it's gonna be
shown in some other cities-- has an excerpt of the conversation
I had with you."
Shirley: "Yes?"
BL: "And basically what happened-- well, well, in the original
conversation that you and I had several months ago, you told me
about your daughters?"
Shirley: "That they were involved in a murder. That they had
cut up a boy, they killed a boy -- well, their
boyfriends did -- killed a boy, and they cut him up,
and put him in different places."
BL: "All right. Basically --"
Shirley: "As a matter of fact, the police, when they were here
to my -- I wasn't supposed to say this over the air,
but that makes me mad."
BL: "Well, let me tell you what they did. What they did was,
they played an excerpt of your call, and then they put my face
on the screen, and they put a map of Arizona there, and they
said, basically.... I don't remember the exact words, but we're
going to prove that Bob Larson is a liar, and that he makes up
these calls. And they played your excerpt, and then they said
they contacted the police in that city, and they have no knowl
edge of any such thing...."16
Shirley: "So that's why the cops told me not to say anything
more about it. See, the police were here-- I wasn't
even supposed to talk with you on the air about it.
But I'm going to,'cause that really makes me mad.
When they were up here at my house, they told me to
keep my mouth shut about it, but I'm sick of keeping
my mouth shut about it. Okay?
Shirley: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to yell at you. [BL inter
rupts, "That's OK."] They make me angry. They make
me almost as angry as they do you, Bob."
BL: "Well, I tell you what, Shirley-- Your call that day has--
has been used by the media to basically slander me and to
accuse me of being a liar, and it was then used in the face of
a Christian talk-show host to further accuse me of making up
people like you."
Shirley [interrupts]: "Oh, man!"
BL: "Of course, I know the story, and I was never asked or told
this was going to air, or they never asked for permission to
play your call. Nothing. I mean, they did not get the tape
recording over from us. How they got your voice, I don't know.
Somebody--"
Shirley [interrupts]: "I was gonna say, did they ask my
permission to use my voice?"
BL: "They didn't ask for it, and they didn't ask mine-- they
didn't ask permission for anything. But they used this to make
you into a liar and to make me into a liar and I-- as I watched
the video running, I thought, 'What those people don't know is
that this ministry did what it could to help Shirley after the
fact, but they don't bother to ask those questions'."
Shirley: "Well, yeah, but what right did they have to play any
thing? Where did they get it from?"
BL: "I don't know where they got it from, Shirley, but when
you're dealing with the media, they don't play fair. These are
not ethical people who go by the rules--"
Shirley [interrupts]: "Well, we know that!"
BL [continues]: "And-- and play above board. They-- they are
out to smear, and they don't care who it takes...."
Shirley: "You know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to get those
reports. I'll get everything I can on it-- what
little, what news they did on it, what newspaper
reports they did on it and everything--"
BL [interrupts]: "All right, will you do that, Shirley? ..."18
As of this writing, it has been more than seven weeks since Shirley
made that pledge ... which should have been plenty of time for her to
get that police report. In light of the fact that, under the circum
stances, the Yuma police would have no reason whatever to lie to NBC,
the absence of documentation becomes more and more incriminating with
the passage of time. And let us assume, right now for sake of argu
ment, that the documentation never comes. One question remains: Did
Shirley deceive Bob, or did Bob defraud his audience?
Like the majority of Larson's lies, his statements contain a grain
of truth to them. Bob was never "told" the details of the story, but
that was more a function of his refusal to appear on camera than any
thing else. The tape was recorded from the public airwaves, which is
perfectly legal, and WDIV's rebroadcast falls within the ambit of the
"fair use" doctrine of 17 U.S.C. = 107. And while Mike Wendland may
not have asked Bob Larson Ministries how they followed up, I did, and
I published a transcript of my conversation with a Compassion Connec
tion operator, in which she concedes that they never bothered to call
the Yuma police.21
BL: "Let me tell you how the media operates, just so you know.
They never told us that they were going to play a purloined
tape of the show with Shirley's voice. They never asked us how
we followed up, and what we did, and what we know about the
veracity of this story. No. They took the tape, played it,
went behind her back and my back-- now, this is how the media
operates, folks. You need to know. You watch that you-know-
what on television, hey, I wanna tell you something: You don't
know sneaky the Devil is being to twist stuff. You don't know
how sneaky the Devil is being."20
"The message of this song that I wrote fifteen years ago and
recorded fourteen years ago is maybe needed more today than
ever. So, for all my Christian critics, listen very carefully
to the words of this song:
'Brother,
Why are you angry with me, Brother?
What have we done to one another?
Why do you say you find a fault in me
and then you never tell what's on your mind?
Oh, Brother,
Why don't you ever call me Brother?
And say you mean what you have said
[unintelligible] behind my back,
But never to my face to share the
grievance that you have against me...'"22
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOB
FROM: BONNIE
RE: CT INTERVIEW/BILL ABBOTT UPDATE
DATE: 7/27
CC: DIRECTORS
* Christianity Today -- Reporter Joe Maxwell
* 30-minute telephone interview re: BLM, fundraising, BL's
finances and personal life
* Deadline is August 12th. Best days -- 7/29, 8/10-11-12.
* He indicated that they have the Westword, but also have inde
pendent sources of info regarding finances. I conclude from
this that they have the divorce decree.
* Said that several charges had been levied against BL. I
inquired what charges and by whom but he declined to answer.
* Indicated not all questions would be indicting, but that this
obviously wasn't to be a flattery piece. CT wouldn't be call
ing if they didn't have serious questions regarding BL and BLM.
* Could not or would not tell me if the story is independent of
a BL interview.
After speaking to the directors, my suggestions is that the BLM
Board decline the interview. I think it will look better on
paper if it's not just Bob Larson saying no he won't speak.
I also suggest we not wait to respond and put them in a posi
tion where they call us back. It is easily printed that Bob
Larson did not respond to 'numerous' inquiries. Numerous is
open to anyone's definition and this makes us look bad. I
would prefer we are simply up front in our declination.
BILL ABBOTT
* Per BL request filled BA in on the above.
* BL agreed that there is no win in doing the interview.
* Suggest in addition to the Board saying no that we give a
reason the board says no. 'The Board of BLM is considering
legal action against parties spreading malicious and defamatory
statements against Mr. Larson. Until this matter is resolved
the Board has put a moratorium on all interviews so as not to
involve other parties'."31
Charles: "I have a really important question to ask you, Bob."
BL: "I'm not into questions on my birthday, but we'll see."
Charles: "I'm kinda confused 'cause I've been reading different
books about Christian ministries and stuff--"
BL [interrupts]: "Yeah?"
Charles: "I saw a salary figure attributed to you--"
BL: Well, I can tell you right now, it wasn't true. And that's
just not something I [unintelligible]--I don't even want to get
into that 'you-know-what' today. I don't want to do it. It's
just not true, Charles."
[While Bob said, "No, no," he said "Yes!" with his eyes. He didn't
want to get into it, but spent the rest of the segment talking about
it:]
BL: "In fact, ironically, it's the same figure--the same figure
that they've been beating me bloody with. The news media did
it this week, in two major cities in America. First of all,
what they did was to quote a figure that involved, almost five
years ago, a one-time windfall situation in which God blessed
me, and I prospered....
Bobby E. ("Bob") Larson
Estimated Personal Income from Ministry Activities
Year ended December 31, 1990
Direct compensation - Bob Larson Ministries (BLM):
Salary $ 81,500
BLM - Prorated bonus 25,000
BLM - Expense account 33,000
BLM - Retirement allowance 50,500
BLM - Housing allowance:
Mortgage payments 22,512
Utilities, etc. 4,980
-------
Compensation - Bob Larson Ministries 217,492
Direct compensation - BLM subsidiaries 95,428
-------
Total direct compensation from Ministry activities 312,920
Indirect Ministry-related compensation 184,833
-------
Total compensation from Ministry activities $ 497,75333
=======
=======
BL: "Secondly, figures that they quote don't have anything to
do with the Ministry.... Now, in 25 years' time, I've person
ally made a lot of real estate investments. God has blessed
me. I-- I've fallen into things that, boy, it sure wasn't my
brains that got me. God has blessed me. I've taken some chances
and God has blessed me."
BL: "I have written 22 books. So, you know, go buy a calculator.
Go buy a calculator. I've written 22 books. Half of them
have been best-sellers. I don't get food stamps. Is this a
mystery? Is this should be like a great shock to those news
paper reporters, and people who want to go around quoting
figures?"
BL: "And if primarily -- apart from the Ministry -- through my
own wisdom and resources and good judgment, and God's blessing
-- God has blessed me -- then should the figure matter?"
BL: "You see, I believe this Ministry ought to prosper, and one
of the most hurtful things is to see that over the last few
months, it has not prospered. It's hurt deeply. And you know,
there are people out there who would come along and say, 'Well,
you know, the LORD must be trying to 'teach you a lesson', Bro-
ther."
It's not like Bob's listening audience has only two choices ... to
give their tithes to him, or pay taxes to Bill and Hillary. There is
a vast array of worthy charities out there, run by people who believe
that their ultimate mission is to help the needy, as opposed to help
ing themselves. Even the layperson has an obligation of stewardship;
throwing money at the first man who comes along and calls him brother
is by definition irresponsible. If Bob doesn't get a Champion, some
organization more worthy of it undoubtedly will.
"First off, I would rescind the tax-exempt status for churches.
Second, I would institute the death penalty upon conviction for
fraud, when perpetrated in conjunction with evangelistic fund-
raising activities. And third, I would declare a one-time holy
holiday so [Bob hits his panic button; dead air] watch on TV as
your sentence is carried out [more dead air]."38
"What you do in these next four minutes is not an option.
Did you hear me? It is not an option! God doesn't give you a
choice! If you have been blessed by this ministry ... you do
not have a choice. Give--and it will be given to you. That's
not a choice, that's a command! Most Christians don't under
stand that. They think that when the offering plate comes by,
that's an option. No, it is not an option. And that offering
plate's going under your nose right now! It is not an option,
unless-- you want your life to be cursed. Now that's what
Malachi 3 says: You rob God, you're gonna be cursed."39
"Charge No. 3209211626 [letter signed by Francisco J. Flores,
Jr., EEOC District Director, on December 31, 1992]
DETERMINATION
Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the
following determination as to the merits of the subject charge
filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Acts (ADEA) of
1967, as amended.
All requirements for coverage have been met. The Charging Party
[Muriel Olson] alleges that she was discriminated against in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, in that
she was discharged and paid less than other employees at her
level because of her age, 61.
Investigation reveals that Charging Party was hired as a word
processor, at age 56, on January 2, 1986. Charging Party was
later promoted to head of the word processing department and
trained subordinate word processors. Charging Party requested,
and Respondent [Bob Larson Ministries] agreed, to change her
title to Rewrite Editor. At this point Charging Party had dele
gated all her other duties to subordinates. Charging Party's
sole duties were to rewrite and edit chapters of a book being
written by her employer. Charging party completed her work on
that book in March 1991. There were no other duties for Charg
ing Party to perform and her position was eliminated."41
"Plaintiff's [Olson's] Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for
Relief are for conversion, unjust enrichment and accounting and
implied trust, respectively. Plaintiff alleges that her work
on the books produced by the Defendants was more than mere
editing; rather, the books were 'ghostwritten' by Plaintiff.
Plaintiff asserts that she was never compensated for her liter
ary product, and this constitutes conversion by the Defendants,
and that leaving proceeds of these works solely in the hands of
the Defendants would be unjust enrichment.
Ownership rights in literary products are governed by federal
copyright laws. Title 17 U.S.C. =201, reads, in pertinent part:
'(a) Copyright in a work protected under this title vests
initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors
of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work.
(b) In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or
other person for whom the work was prepared is considered
the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the
parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written
instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised
in the copyright.'
One of the definitions of 'work made for hire' is 'a work pre
pared by an employee within the scope of his or her employ
ment'. 17 U.S.C. =101.
Plaintiff alleges that she began as a supervisor in the word
processing department. Plaintiff acknowledges that she per
formed many other duties for Defendants, including working as a
re-write editor for Defendants books. There is no dispute that
the Plaintiff performed all of these duties as part of her
employment. As such, Plaintiff's contribution was 'work made
for hire', and any ownership rights lie with the Defendant.
Plaintiff's compensation came in the form of wages. Therefore
the Court would find that summary judgment is proper on the
Plaintiff's Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Claims for Relief."42
1Bob Larson, "Talk-Back With Bob Larson" (hereinafter, "Talk-Back"),
Radio broadcast, 24 May 1994.
2Ibid., ibid.
3Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
4Bob Larson Ministries (hereinafter, "BLM"), 1990 Form 990, p. 3
(obtained by author from the Internal Revenue Service).
5BLM, 1990 Stewardship Report.
6BLM, 1991 Stewardship Report.
7BLM, 1992 Stewardship Report.
8Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
9Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 6 Apr. 1990, p. 2.
10Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 4 May 1990, p. 1.
11Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 11 Jul. 1990, p. 1.
12Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 6 Sept. 1990, p. 1.
13Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 9 Oct. 1990, p. 1.
14Bob Larson, Fundraising letter, 7 Dec. 1990, p. 1.
15Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
16Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
17Ibid., ibid.
18Ibid., ibid.
19Ibid., ibid (first hour).
20Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 25 May 1994.
21Ken Smith, "Bob Larson: Patterns of Fleece" (Internet article),
March, 1994, pp. 3-4.
22Talk-Back, 27 May 1994.
23Fred Wheeler, Telephone conversation with author, Jul. 1992.
24Perucci Ferraiuolo (free-lance reporter; regular guest on Stewart
White's radio program), Telephone conversation with author, May 1994.
25Joe Maxwell, Telephone conversation with author, Aug. 1992 (see
also, note 33, infra.).
26Jay Grelen, Telephone conversation with author, Jan. 1993.
27Rick Salinger (KCNC news reporter, who worked with Wendland on the
recent NBC exposE of Larson), personal conversation with author, 13
May 1994.
28"Praise The Lord," Television broadcast, date unknown (some time in
Apr. 1994; an excerpt from the tape was used in Mike Wendland's WDIV
report on Larson).
29Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 2 Feb. 1994.
30E.g., Bob Larson, Talk-Back, 27 May 1994.
31"Bonnie" [Bell], Memorandum to "Bob" [Larson], 27 Jul. 1992.
32BLM, 1990 Form 990, p. 4 (see note 4, supra).
33A more detailed explanation of the estimate and how it was arrived
at can be found at Ken Smith, "The Two Faces of Bob," Christian Press
Report, Jun. 1993 (article available on Internet).
34Deed (filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, 11 Oct. 1985), Reception
No. 85098153.
35Deed of Trust (filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, 11 Oct. 1985),
Reception No. 85098159.
36Deed (filed in Jefferson County, Colorado, 29 Jan. 1987), Reception
no. 87012264.
37Talk-Back, 27 May 1994.
38Ibid., 10 Jun. 1994.
39Bob Larson, Talk-Back, __ May 1994.
40Olson v. Larsen [sic], No. 93-B-469 (D. Colo. July 11, 1994) (order
advising the Court that the parties reached a settlement).
41Francisco J. Flores, Jr. (EEOC District Director), Letter, 31 Dec.
1992.
42Olson v. Larson, No. 92 CV 2058 (Jefferson County (Colo.) Dist.
Ct. Dec. 18, 1992) (order granting summary judgment).
43See, e.g., Pam Koczman, Memorandum (to Bob Larson), 18 Aug. 1992;
the internal evidence concerning Larson's wilful misuse of Ministry
resources to further his career as an author is examined in greater
depth in Ken Smith, "Bob Larson: Looking Out For Number One," avail
able on the Internet at FTP.MANTIS.CO.UK [see Scott Mikusko (MIKUS
KOS@MSU.EDU) if there are problems].
44Transactions between the Ministry and "related parties" (including
the Ministry's for-profit broadcast subsidiary, International Broad
casting Network) are required to be disclosed in accordance with IRS
regulations. The Ministry disclosed their purchase of broadcast time
from IBN during 1990 on Form 990, Schedule A [those who have my press
version see the Ministry's 1990 Form 990, Schedule A, p. 1 and Sched
ule II attached], but it did not acknowledge any purchase of employee
services by Bob Larson -- either directly or through IBN.
45In re the Marriage of Koczman, No. 94 DR 508 (Jefferson County
(Colo.) Dist. Ct., filed 23 Feb. 1994).
46Name withheld by request, Telephone conversation with author, Apr.
1994; Lori Boespflug imparted knowledge of a purported affair between
Ms. Koczman and a co-worker to me back in June of 1992.
47Rebecca Sherman, "Fallen Angel: Former Tilton Aide Pleads Guilty to
Public Lewdness," Dallas Observer, Mar. 24-30, 1994, p. 9 (courtesy,
"Brother Randall" of Snake Oil magazine, who also enclosed a copy of
the arrest affidavit).
48Timothy Morgan, "Bob on the Block," Christianity Today, 17 May
1993, p. 74.
49Lori Boespflug, interview with author, 17 Jun. 1992 (see, Ken
Smith, "CT on the Block," Christian Press Report, __ Jun. 1993, for a
closer examination of the supporting evidence).
50Timothy C. Morgan, "Personnel Woes Persist at Larson Ministries,"
Christianity Today, 13 Sept. 1993, p. 62.
Return