Chairman’s report

on the

2007 Briese Committee of Enquiry

into the dispute between AiG-USA and CMI-Australia

This separate and detailed report was produced (unsolicited by CMI) by Clarrie Briese to supplement the committee’s formal summary report. It was finalized in April 2007.

Mr Clarrie Briese B.A., Diploma of Criminology (Cantab.), A.O., was formerly Chief Magistrate¹ of the state of New South Wales (Australia). He is widely renowned in Australia for his role in the 1980s exposing and fighting public corruption at the highest judicial and political levels—see <www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/briese>. In 2002 he was awarded one of Australia ’s highest civilian honours, the medal of an Officer of the Order of Australia.

Mr Briese also served as a member of the New South Wales Crime Commission and is wellknown in Christian circles as a committed Bible-believer. In 1992 he served as head of the first Briese Committee, formed at the instigation of the Australian creation ministry which is now CMI, in response to serious public allegations by a prominent atheist and humanist geology professor—see <www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/plimer>. The committee’s efforts were instrumental in turning around what was otherwise a serious crisis threatening the viability of the ministry. (Mr Briese’s actions at that time were strongly supported by Ken Ham, now president of AiG-US²). Clarrie is also qualified as a (non-practicing) barrister³ -at-law.

In late 2006 Clarrie agreed to chair a second Briese committee (for the details, including the persons on it, see <www.CreationOnTheWeb.com/briese2>) to once again investigate serious (and potentially damaging) allegations being formally leveled at the Australian ministry—only this time by its own offshoot in the USA (AiG-US). CMI had been given no opportunity to even meet and openly discuss the issues with AiG-US.

Following the formal 2-page report of the committee, Clarrie Briese felt so strongly about the issues his ‘paper trail’ uncovered, and their relevance to, and importance for the health of, creation ministry organisations in general, that he felt it necessary of his own accord to prepare and issue this supplementary Chairman’s report of more than 40 pages (less in web format).⁴ He later prepared a 2-page executive summary, which precedes the report itself in these following pages.

¹ For US readers: a magistrate is a judge in the local court system. The Chief Magistrate is the Judicial Head of all the magistrates.
² Ken Ham was at that time a Board member of the Australian ministry, though resident in the US.
³ For US readers: Barristers are specialist lawyers who appear in court at the request of ordinary lawyers. A comparative US term might be ‘senior counsel’.
⁴ This Chairman’s report has been seen by all the other members of the committee, who expressed no objections nor saw it as inconsistent with their own understanding of the evidence they had before them.

****

EXECUTIVE (2-PAGE) SUMMARY OF CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Following the findings of an inquiry committee set up by CMI in December 2006, that AiG-USA had engaged in unbiblical/unethical conduct resulting in massive damage to AiG-Australia (now renamed Creation Ministries International – CMI), Clarrie Briese, the chairman of that committee, prepared this Chairman’s report. It consists of a detailed examination of the documentary evidence (well over 600 pages, approximately 700) before the committee, together with further documents he requested and obtained from CMI. The procedure Mr Briese undertook was to follow an audit ‘paper trail’ in which one email referred to another one, etc. and he insisted on seeing every one. So, even if CMI had wanted to provide a selected set of documents to slant Mr Briese’s findings, this procedure made it virtually impossible. Mr Briese states that these documents clearly reveal what happened over the entire period of the dispute and that they show (contrary, says Mr Briese, to his initial assumption) that all of the wrongdoing in the dispute was by AiG-USA and that there was none of any consequence by CMI. Mr Briese summarized his important and extensive report as follows:

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.

The overall aim of the actions against Wieland and AiG-Australia (as it was then called) was to separate the two ministries, which until then were united. This was substantially achieved in October 2005 when Ken Ham and his Board persuaded the Australian Board (then in the US for a meeting with AiG-USA) to sign certain documents prepared behind the backs of the Australian management, by solicitors employed by Ken Ham and his Board, giving virtual control of the Australian ministry to Ken Ham. These documents consisted of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and a Deed of Copyright Licence (DOCL). The documents indicate that the Australian Board either did not understand what they were signing, in particular the damage caused to the Australian ministry, or they did not read, or carefully read, the documents before signing them.

When the Australian management protested to the Australian Board over what it had done by signing those documents, Wieland and the senior core speakers of the Australian ministry were immediately suspended by a new CEO appointed by the Board, John Thallon, himself a Director of that Board. After uproar in creationist circles Australia-wide, the Australian Board resigned en masse. On their own initiative, they handed over power to a new Board with Carl Wieland as Managing Director.

In the following months, further unbiblical/unethical/unlawful behaviour by AiG-USA and Ken Ham took place. In particular, the way they went about dropping distribution of the Australian magazines, Creation and TJ (now Journal of Creation) in the US (giving most subscribers the impression that they were no longer available, with CMI unable to contact them) caused massive financial damage to CMI.

From the time Wieland was appointed MD in November 2005 until today, continuous efforts were made by CMI to settle the dispute and restore relations with AiG-USA and Ken Ham. All these efforts were ignored/resisted/rejected by AiG-USA using a variety of tactics, as the documents clearly show. AiG-USA and Ken Ham acted to avoid having the harsh/unbiblical/unethical MOA/DOCL documents renegotiated, and to avoid having to remedy the damage (or some of it) it had inflicted on CMI in the unethical/unlawful way it had dropped distribution of the Australian magazines in the USA.

This chairman’s report shows that all the documents indicate quite clearly what happened in the dispute, how, in an unbiblical/unethical/unlawful manner CMI was enormously damaged by what AiG-USA had done, how AiG-USA resisted all efforts to settle the dispute by mutual agreement or Christian arbitration, and how Ken Ham and the chairman of his Board, Don Landis, denigrated/defamed/belittled the persons defending/pursuing the interests of CMI, in particular Carl Wieland, the Managing Director.

The report recommends that if CMI is to fulfil its fiduciary responsibilities to protect and safeguard the Australian ministry, CMI, and have a recalcitrant AiG-USA brought to account for the serious wrongs it has committed, CMI has no option left except to bring AiG-USA before the secular courts, the ‘powers that be, ordained by God’ under Romans 13. It concludes by revealing that CMI gave one ‘last-last-ditch’ offer to AiG to accept binding Christian arbitration (by an arbitrator who would effectively be of their choosing, and of such a nature that no further delaying tactics would be possible) in lieu of a secular court and to indicate acceptance of the offer by 5pm Friday, April 20, 2007. At the time of preparing this summary, that deadline has expired with no response yet received from AiG-USA.

END OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FULL CHAIRMAN’S REPORT (in excess of 40 pages, less in web format)

Finalized 25 April 2007 by Clarrie Briese, Chairman, Briese Committee of Inquiry Mark 2

Preliminary Matters.

The report by the above committee of inquiry dated 16 February 2007 gives a very brief history of significant events in the dispute between CMI and AiG-USA. It does not mention, or provide a history of, all the events which took place, nor does it make an analysis of the underlying reasons/factors which produced and characterized those events over the years 2004-2007.

This report attempts to fill that gap for interested/concerned inquirers and supporters of creation ministries in general. It is based primarily on a detailed examination of 600 plus pages of documents before the committee. They are comprised mainly of an extensive number of emails between the parties/members of their staffs over the entire period of the dispute. They include other documents prepared by the parties and by people connected with the dispute. The details of the events and conversations set forth in those documents were often supported/ corroborated by the oral testimony of l2 witnesses from Australia, America and the United Kingdom who, during the two and a half years of the dispute, witnessed or were involved in those events/conversations.

From the time AiG-USA was established in America in c.1994 by the combined efforts of Ken Ham and others in both America and Australia, including Carl Wieland, good relations existed between the Australian and American creation ministries until the end of 2003. On the surface Ken Ham and Carl Wieland also enjoyed a good relationship with each other.

In connection with the Australian ministry, the documentary evidence indicates there was an excellent working relationship between Dr Carl Wieland, the CEO of AiG(Aust), and the Australian Board. In April 2004 the Board released a written assessment of Wieland’s performance. (Document 1) It is a glowing tribute to him as CEO. It applauds:

His “input into the US ministry” and his “care for Ken (Ham)” as being “highly commendable” and says “We appreciate your insights into the subtleties of the situation and your willingness to listen to advice and take the tough steps where needed”.
What the Board saw as a pleasing delegation of responsibilities from Wieland to team members, particularly in regard to the editorship of the magazine Creation.
The “positive and constructive relationship” existing between Wieland and Paul Salmon (general manager of the Australian ministry).

The assessment concluded: “ Carl, the board is most appreciative of your work, your commitment, your passion, your effectiveness in management, your leadership of the team and your sensitivity to the Lord’s leading. We would encourage you to continue working towards divesting yourself of more of the mundane responsibilities and to press on to more of the development work that is your particular area of strength.”

The Working Visit to Canada and US by Gary Bates.

At the time of this assessment a significant controversy involving the Canadian, Australian and American ministries was causing difficulties and problems, particularly for Canada. It arose out of a working visit by Gary Bates (AiG-Aust.) to Canada and America in December 2003. At the request of Carl Wieland, and with the consent of Ken Ham, Bates went to Canada to bring his management skills to bear on the serious problems which for some years were plaguing the Canadian ministry. According to Richard Fangrad, CEO of the Canadian ministry, the visit was a great success. He reported by email:

“Gary has provided much direction for ministry, for our 3 speakers and especially for John Bonesteel, our new ministry coordinator. I believe that in years to come we will look back on this visit as the time when AiG Canada really ‘turned around’. Gary just left this morning and we are already working on a plan to implement many of the suggestions he made in order to link as many people to the ministry as possible in 2004.
“All of us …are feeling a bit overwhelmed but are excited about actually having a plan to reach more churches.” (Documents 75)

In a subsequent email consisting of one word, Ken Ham called this assessment of the visit “poppycock” and he embarked on a course of action which could only be described as ‘punitive’ against Fangrad and the Canadian ministry. For anyone unfamiliar with the favoured methodology of Ken Ham (something that has become clearly apparent to me in working through the evidence) in dealing with disputes which threaten his position of power and status in the creationist movement, it is impossible to understand the rationale behind the series of actions which then took place against Fangrad and the Canadian ministry. They are analysed later.

In an email a year later Fangrad gave actual figures of the increase in ministry, magazine subs. Etc. since the Bates visit, and the difference is nothing short of spectacular. (Annexure 1)

Visits to the US by Australians.

By this time, i.e. 2004, there had been a number of visitors to the US from AiG(Aust) in addition to Gary Bates. They saw certain things, as did Bates, about AiG-USA and its operations which they viewed with concern. In a letter to the US board dated 18 Aug 04 (Document 8) supporting reform proposals put forward by Carl Wieland, 4 senior staff members of AiG(Aust) – Batten, Sarfati, Sparrow and Walker – summarized their concerns as follows:

The growth in the number of staff running the US ministry. This includes what seems to us to be an overly large number of vice presidents and managers in proportion to those directly involved in getting the message out and requires considerable amounts of supporters’ funds.
We have seen a subtle shift in focus from proclaiming the message (to the grassroots Christian in the pew) to promoting AiG and asking for funds purely to keep the organization going.
The number of staff casualties in the US ministry. With people being sidelined or terminated, while others resign (through burnout) or just carry on despite their poor morale. We have had various staff members share their concerns about poor staff morale.
The ministry in the US is far too dependent on one person, which makes it extremely vulnerable. Compare the apologetics ministry Answers in Action run by Bob and Gretchen Passantino – Bob was almost exactly Ken’s age but dropped dead of a heart attack last year. Their ministry has been devastated. It seems to us that AiGUS is becoming more and more focused/dependent on one person and is in a very vulnerable position.
A related issue is that the US ministry alone seems to have been reluctant to develop other speakers, scientists and leaders who can provide the apologetic engine for the ministry, as well as spreading the message by going church to church. It is not just a matter of broadening the support base, but primarily a way of countering the false teaching of the likes of Hugh Ross, who has been effectively filling the vacuum in the churches that AiG is not reaching.

Item 4 was the problem perceived by them as causing (and still causing), the greatest concern. (A US Skeptics’ website on 27/1/2007 noted that “AiG looks…to be very weak … They are completely dependent on the health of Ken Ham. Without him, that ministry would completely collapse.” They seem to have taken into account the fact that many of the speakers then listed on the AiG-US website are not actually employees of the ministry, nor do they do a substantial amount of regular speaking.)

Proposals for Reform of Creation Ministries

Having regard to the actions taken by Ken Ham and the US ministry in the Canadian controversy, and the growing concerns of Wieland and his colleagues about AiG-USA in relation to other matters, it is not surprising that Carl Wieland, anxious about the health and well-being of creation ministries generally, would take steps to bring those concerns to the attention of Ken Ham and the US board. Furthermore, to refrain to act in these circumstances would almost certainly bring down upon his head deserved censure if the situation were to deteriorate further. The action he took, and the proposals he made, were of a kind that responsible members of secular organizations use to put administration structures on a sound footing in democratic societies everywhere. For that reason, no doubt, what he planned to do was not something the Australian board at that time disapproved of, as indicated by their willingness for him to express the concerns and proposals in the two-part letter they vetted prior to sending. The Wieland proposals are so obviously beneficial for the administration of any organization, there would be very few, if any, secular or church bodies who would object to introducing reforms of that kind.

On l3 August 2004, with the Australian Board’s encouragement, a telephone conversation between Wieland and Ham took place. Wieland’s part in the conversation was recorded and later transcribed (Document 5). Some extracts:

“..the aim is for both of us…to fix the problem, fix the problem between us. I’ve sensed that I’ve been on the outer and basically past my use-by date as far as you’re concerned and that’s maybe an over-the-top statement but a simple summary of it for probably 1-2 years and…that problems have been escalating since that time. And somehow I feel …you’re threatened by me and I don’t understand why”
“What I mean is, if you look at the function of the ministry, the massive amount of money spent, the massive amount of staff spent, and the very little by proportion that comes out of it apart from you. In other words, that the production, the end result, the stuff that has to do with the ministry with apologetics as in relevance speaking, publications, writing, all sorts of things, leaving the museum to one side which is a team that is working really well. Bottom line is an immensely top-heavy organization.”
“Ken – I have never seen anything more obvious and I am not the only person in the world …who thinks that the whole thing is heading in the direction of Ken Ham ministries rather than Answers in Genesis. That’s the bottom line. You asked me years ago to tell you when I thought you had a pride and ego problem and I think, I think, now that time has come.”
“You know there’s all this marketing money flow…Big glitz and glamour and corporate high-flying stuff….Ken, it is 5 vice-presidents. I mean, yeah, what half a million dollars you know in salaries alone. For what? To do what? To generate what? Apart from the museum thing.”
“Any body who is allowed to look into it from the outside. And not just see the image, the glittering image, can see that there is huge wastage Ken.”
“Ken, every one of our guys that’s been over there has seen the culture. And I’m not talking about the US culture…I’ll tell you straight…All of the guys that have been there have, at some level or the other, sensed that there is a massively hierarchical, unhealthy corporate atmosphere…it’s all geared to the big guy at the top.”
“…every time one of our guys go over there, there are people who sit down and pour their hearts out. And I’m talking junior people – about how harassed they feel. And how pressured. And how unfair this is and that is. There is not a healthy open atmosphere.”
“…you have a habit of writing people off and, once they’re written off, then everything from then on, they can do no right…we saw it with so many people. Take Gary Bates. Instead of being willing to see that he could be of help in a few areas, he’s now written off…you’ve poisoned the well.”
“Prof [Rendle-Short] begged me at the beginning of my tenure. He said, ‘ Carl – look what happened with John [Mackay] and Ken [Ham]. Please, don’t build this up as a person.’ And I worked like crazy to make sure of that. And I’m glad I did.”
“Ken, hundreds of thousands [this refers to monetary savings – CB] could be saved every year. Hundreds of thousands. I’m concerned of it….and that’s why I’m just wanting the chance to demonstrate. But what I’m afraid of…and please prove me wrong – is that you won’t be able to handle that because you will see it as a personal failure. I’m begging you, put that to one side for the sake of the ministry."

This telephone conversation reveals that relations between the two men were not the warm and close relationship they once were. Wieland doesn’t shrink from raising his concerns and those of his colleagues, telling Ken Ham what he and the senior Australian staff members who visited America really think. But he does so in a civil and courteous manner.

On 19 Aug 04, six days after that telephone call, two letters (Documents 6 and 7) were sent to the US board by Wieland spelling out his proposals for structural reform of creation ministries, in particular those in the US and Australia, which would satisfactorily deal with his concerns and those of his colleagues. If implemented, they would bring about democratization for creation ministries and make them less dependent on one person or one national body. His proposals were supported by the letter from the four senior staff members of AiG(Aust) (Document 8) referred to above.

One day earlier, 18 Aug 04, Brandon Vallorani, Second-in-Command of AiG-USA, also sent a letter to the US board making similar reform proposals (Document 9). The letter was sent with the permission of Ken Ham who, having heard the proposals verbally from Vallorani, rejected them. However, he told Vallorani to go ahead and forward the letter to the Board.

These proposals from Wieland, the Australian senior staff members and 2-i-c Vallorani were all rejected by AiG-USA (Document 10) The documentary evidence shows that Vallorani was immediately fired (by his subordinates) at the instigation of Ken Ham and given a payout package on condition of silence. (Document 9A, Annexure 5) By inference, it is reasonable to assume that prior arrangements were made for Wieland, the 4 Australian staff members and Vallorani to send their letters at the same time to put more pressure on the US board and Ken Ham to agree to the proposed reforms. That initiative failed. Greater pressure than that would be required.

It was these proposals for reform which triggered the subject dispute between Australia and America and led to AiG-USA ultimately taking a number of actions against the interests of AiG(Aust) which were flagrantly unbiblical and unethical.

Strategies used by Ken Ham in Disputes

To identify and appreciate the motivation which produced unethical actions of the kind used by Ken Ham and AiG-USA it is important to see them from the perspective of what Ken Ham, supported by his Board, did in other disputes/controversies between the parties where Ken Ham’s power or influence was threatened. There is a common pattern:

Where an action is taken, or a proposal made, which Ken Ham perceives to be a threat to his position of dominance/power/influence in the creationist movement, it will trigger action by Ken Ham and/or the US board, to counter/eliminate the threat. (Strategy No. l)
Criticism/denigration of the person or organization responsible for the threat is usually a feature of that action. (Strategy No. 2)
All action deemed necessary/expedient to remove/punish /destroy/neutralize the person/organization responsible for the threat will be taken by Ken Ham and/or his Board. Biblical/ethical considerations will be sometimes ignored or not allowed to stand in the way of the action to be taken (Strategy No. 3)

This pattern of behaviour appears in the dispute rising out of the Gary Bates’ tour of Canada and the US back in December 2003 (Documents 75):

The training given by Bates to the Canadian staff and warmly embraced by the CEO, Richard Fangrad, was likely to generate results for the Canadian ministry which would make it less dependent on Ken Ham visits for financial stability in future years (Annexure 1).
Criticism of Richard Fangrad (and his wife) by Ken Ham, a skewed, misleading assessment of the Bates’ US tour by Mark Looy (AiG-US) and strong criticism of Bates by Ken Ham were prominent features of this dispute. (Strategy 2)
(a) An attempt was made to have CEO Richard Fangrad ‘supervised’ by Bonesteel, a protege of Larry Pierce, a director of the Canadian board and friend of Ken Ham. At that time Bonesteel was still under probation.
(b) Ken Ham, Larry Pierce and Mark Zovath, directors of the Canadian board, all resigned at the same time;
(c) An announcement was made that Canada’s credit line would be cut by AiG-USA (Strategy 3).

The only possible reason for Ken Ham to use strategies 2 and 3 in this dispute, strategies which would help to cripple rather than nurture the Canadian ministry, is that he regarded the Bates’ visit and its results as a threat to his future role and relationship with Canada.

---------------------

Reaction by Ken Ham to Reform Proposals.

In August of 2004, several months after the Canadian dispute, Ken Ham faced a bigger threat to his power and influence. The proposals for reform by Wieland and Ham’s Second-in-Command, Vallorani, were such that his power and control over the US ministry would be significantly reduced if they were accepted and introduced. The documentary evidence shows that what Ken Ham did to meet this new and far-reaching challenge follows the pattern of his behaviour in the Bates’ visit to Canada. However, this time it was more sophisticated. Efforts were made to disguise the strategies employed. But essentially they were the same.

The first move taken was to have AiG-USA politely reject the reform proposals. However, no reasons were given for rejecting them (Document 10). This is significant. One would certainly expect reasons to be given for rejection of proposals which are commonplace in the secular world for sound administration; and more so from a Christian organization committed to the future well-being of creation ministries world-wide. Especially considering that they came from someone who had been a very active member of the AiG-USA Board for many years, and closely involved in management issues. If AiG-USA were a truly independent Board, would it not feel obliged to give some reasons? It did not give its reasons because, as the documentary and oral evidence from witnesses show, the Board is not truly independent. It is firmly under the control of Ken Ham, as will be demonstrated from the documentary evidence later in this report.

On the same day of the AiG letter rejecting the reform proposals, 7 Oct 04, Ken Ham sent a personal letter to Carl Wieland.(Document 11) It reads as a genuine plea for Ham and Wieland to reconcile, to restore trust in each other and to draw a line in the sand over past events. It is significant that here, too, no reasons are given by Ken Ham for rejecting Wieland’s reform proposals; it is solely concerned with looking at the relationship which is said to have once existed between them, and with pleas to restore that relationship.

Subsequent events, and actions taken by Ken Ham and/or the US Board, show that contrary to his letter he did not “sincerely want (their) relationship restored.” The letter was a sophisticated subterfuge which would mislead and cover up his real intentions:-

On 22 Oct 04, 15 days after Ham’s letter, Dale Mason of AiG-USA emailed Carl Wieland with a letter (Document 13) effectively putting an end to the co-operative ‘Style Guide’ discussions which had been previously taking place between US and Australia. This could not be expected to help restore the relationship.

On 2 Jan 05, Wieland spoke to John Thallon of the Australian board, who said he was ‘very despondent’ and ‘didn’t think there would be a meeting with Ken Ham this time.’ (Document 14) Ham was in Australia but, as sought to be explained by him later, the US board had given a directive that there be no meeting with Wieland. Can one seriously entertain the notion that had Ken Ham wanted to meet with Wieland to help reconciliation and the restoration of relations, he could not have done so or asked permission of the Board to meet for that purpose? Indeed, he himself said as much when Wieland telephoned him in Australia in December, 2004. (Document 20)
On 11 Jan 05 a button on the US website front page linking to an article by Wieland on the tsunami in Asia was altered so as to instead lead to a subsequent article by Ken Ham on that tsunami, no discussions having taken place between the two men about that. (Document l5). Hardly the action of a man wanting to reconcile and restore relations.

On 4 Feb 05 Wieland sent an email to Greg Peacock, Australian Board Chairman, reporting on a video conference he had with Dale Mason (AiG-USA) that morning. (Document 17). It includes the following remarks by Wieland concerning the meeting Wieland was to have with Ken Ham in December: “He himself [Dale Mason] raised the topic of Ken and said it would be good for Ken and me to sort things out and have what he called ‘détente’, and then without any reason just said, ‘Of course, that couldn’t happen in December because the Board had instructed him not to meet with Carl on that trip.’ I was amazed and said something like, ‘That’s funny, because members of the Board were encouraging me to meet with Ken in December, and one of the US-resident directors was encouraging the idea of me picking up the phone and calling him while he was here, which I did, and I talked with him about having a meeting which didn’t happen.’

On 9 Mar 05 (approx.) Wieland had a telephone conversation with Tim Dudley of the US Board at Dudley’s request. A few days later, Wieland recorded notes of what was said. (Document l6). Some extracts from these notes:
1. He [Tim Dudley] said that the Board members were all ‘terrified’ of earning Ken’s displeasure and thus being thrown off the Board. I asked him what he thought of such a situation, and he said it was ‘pretty unhealthy’.
2. I talked about the Brandon dismissal, and how amazing it was to have seen a Board have its testicles basically handed to it on a plate, by dismissing a senior staff member who had complained to the Board while the Board was still considering it. Tim said, ‘Yeah, that was a real nasty business what went on there.’
3. He [Dudley] said that the ‘spin’ (his words) is that Carl is trying to control everything, control the whole world. I pointed out how absurd that is, considering that I had recommended that I step down.
4. I said that I believed that the way forward was the new international arrangement, and then I described the suggested notion. He said, “That’s not too far from what Ken was thinking.” I said, “I don’t believe that Ken would go for it once he realizes that it dilutes and democratizes his power and makes it subject to peer review. If he does accept it, it solves the problem. If he doesn’t, maybe people will realize where the problem has been all along.

Document 18 consists of an exchange of emails in February-March 2005 in which it is suggested that the US should be given the right to change the text of articles written by Australian authors without consulting them. This is an amazing proposal, one which could only exacerbate relations, not make them better. As to be expected, this was not agreed to by Carl Wieland who nevertheless said “I would love a return to the warm cooperative relationship that we long enjoyed and in which normal courtesies and commonsense ruled.”

In April 2005 an application was made by AIG-USA to register the Creation magazine trademark in America without telling Australia (document 18A). This is certainly not the action of a man wanting to reconcile and restore relations.

A MegaConference for the US was organized in 2004 for 2005. Four Australians speakers were to be involved, including Carl Wieland. Wieland is shown on the American website of 14 June 05 as a speaker. On 12 July 05 his topic is removed from the website (Document l8B). What happened was that Ken Ham demanded that Wieland not be one of the speakers. Finally, in order to appease Ken Ham and seek his goodwill, Wieland acceded to Ham’s demand and he was removed as a speaker. This event shows that the one who wanted to restore relations was certainly not Ham. In an exchange of email letters with Ken Ham in May/June, 2005, where Ham asked Wieland to withdraw as a speaker, Wieland said this: “You have known for months that both I and the Aussie Board are keen for a meeting…without preconditions, simply two Christians and former friends and allies in ministry, to try to sort things out.” And again: “..someone has said that you might be coming here in June. Is that correct? Are you going to put a portion of a day aside for us to have that face-to-face session this time? Please let me know.” On 2 June 2005 Ken Ham replied : “I have sought much counsel (and we have prayed) concerning your request…For many reasons, my counselors (including the AiG USA Board) do not feel we should meet at the present time. They will be contacting the AiG Australia board concerning this.” (Document l8C) So much for reconciliation having any priority.

There is no document among the 600-plus pages of documents which indicates a real effort by Ken Ham to restore relations and reconcile with Carl Wieland. His stated desire to do this in his letter Document 11 is proved by subsequent events to be insincere, a charade. What we observe in this part of the dispute, however, is that strategy No 2 is varied from the use of direct criticism/denigration against the perceived threat, Wieland, to a policy of ignoring/treating with disdain or lack of respect for his position as CEO of the Australian ministry, and taking action to squeeze him out of his leadership role. The treatment accorded him is sometimes akin to contempt. We will observe this repeatedly as the dispute progresses.

Strategy No 3 is applied with a vengeance. It begins with AiG-USA embarking on a series of separation actions against AiG(Aust), and then drastically weakening it by an unbiblical/unethical seizure of its assets, causing huge financial loss. It is accompanied by the removal and suspension of Wieland as CEO by the Australian Board. When that is not sufficient to bring AiG(Aust) to its knees, and there is a renaming (forced) of AiG(Aust) to Creation Ministries International (CMI), an attempt is made by Ken Ham to relaunch AiG in Australia, and so weaken CMI even further, possibly to the point of bankruptcy and extinction. The new AiG in Australia, if successfully launched, would have a new organization and a new CEO all under the control of Ken Ham. This report will follow the course of strategies 2 and 3 used by Ken Ham in the dispute as they are played out over the next two years.

----------------------------------

In the history of the dispute we have reached early June, 2005. An uneasy stand-off exists between AiG(Aust) and AiG-USA. There is agreement for Wieland to step down as a speaker at the MegaConference and for the other three Australians to go as speakers. In May/June 2005, Wieland made another unsuccessful attempt to meet with Ham.

The Australian Board, Wieland and the US Board.

At this time, an important development in the dispute becomes clearer. The Australian Board is showing signs of ambivalence in its attitude to Wieland and his proposals to reform creation ministries. Formerly there was unqualified support for Wieland and opposition to Ken Ham. For example:

In the conversation Wieland had with a member of the Board, John Thallon, on 2 Jan 05 (Document 14) Thallon is recorded by Wieland (in notes made at the time) as saying “he [Thallon] had come to the conclusion that Ken [Ham] was (and I quote) ‘a user’.” Thallon also said that he wondered how long it would be before ‘those guys’ (meaning the US Vice Presidents) would also realize that they were being used. Later in that conversation when the discussion turned to the international AiG proposal that there be a much more team-based international management, with the US submitting to that arrangement, Thallon said, referring to Ken Ham, ‘How can that happen when on one side we have a petulant autocrat.’ Later, in an email to Greg Peacock and Wieland 8 Feb 05 John Thallon said : “In relation to rebuilding relationships with Ken [Ham] – my current feeling is that it appears there never was a relationship. Can you see any good reason for me to try to foster a relationship with him? My current inclination is to disinterest.” (Document 74)

In the first half of 2005, emails between Wieland and the Board indicate that Wieland gave time to shoring up/maintaining support of the Board for what he was trying to do. (There were, reportedly, many verbal discussions between Wieland and the Board about this.) The reasons Wieland put forward to his Board were essentially arguments for more democratization of creation ministries to protect them, and to give them the incentive to reach their full potential. (Document 20). However, it can be inferred from what happened subsequently that members of the Board became increasingly concerned about continuing support for a course of action which meant the constant hitting of their heads against a brick wall, that wall being the implacable opposition of Ken Ham.

Some members of the Australian Board were members of the US Board from the time AiG-USA began. This arrangement required visits to the US on a regular basis by those members. There was regular phone and email communication with US Board members and with Ken Ham. Over the years the strengths and weaknesses of the persons taking part in these meetings and discussions would become known to each other. One or two of the Australian Board members came to have a close relationship with members of the US Board, and with Ken Ham in particular. From Ken Ham’s perspective, Strategy No. 3 – removal of the Wieland threat to his power and influence, as Ham saw it, by removing him as CEO of AiG(Aust), or neutralizing him – required the support and assistance of the Australian Board. There could be little doubt that following receipt of the Wieland reform proposals, Ken Ham would have been using his persuasive skills and abilities to bring members of the Australian Board round to his way of thinking. (Over the course of the dispute we shall see he was able to do this very effectively with the people whose support he needed.) For example, he could stress that he was President of the largest and richest of the AIG ministries; that he and the US Board were building the largest creationist museum in the world, an impressive facility which would not only return Christians to the Word of God on creation, it would be a powerful witnessing tool for the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ concerning salvation; that people in their thousands were attending his seminars and talks; that AiG-USA had over 30,000 subscribers to Creation magazine; that because of all this, it should be accepted that Ken Ham and his Board had the right approach and the wherewithal to take creation ministries into the future. In this way the seed could be sown to encourage the Australian Board to join with the US, to further this plan by effectively dealing with/removing the stumbling block, Carl Wieland, the meddlesome ‘control freak’ (as he was painted by Ham, a description firmly rejected by Wieland’s senior staff) in charge of the Australian ministry, perhaps even replacing him with somebody sympathetic to the leadership of America under Ken Ham. What will not be mentioned by Ham is that this plan for the future means creation ministries are for all practical purposes to be under the unfettered control and influence of one person, Ken Ham. If this does happen to be noticed and raises eyebrows, it can be pointed out that Ken Ham is the Martin Luther for this age (as indeed an AiG promotional cartoon Annexure 8 depicts him) – his leadership doesn’t need checks and balances, and that Ken Ham is a man who can be trusted to always make the right decisions to further the interests of creation ministries.

One could not imagine a more dangerous arrangement than the one just described for creation ministries. History is littered with examples of movements and organizations bringing ultimate disaster on themselves and their supporters via the absence of sufficient checks and balances in their structures. And that is the structure which is in use by the US ministry. Irrespective of Ken Ham’s undoubted and well known abilities, his many achievements over the years and how well-meaning he may be toward the protection and well-being of creationist organizations, the future of the US ministry is not safe and secure whilst it continues to maintain a structure which is undemocratically faulty, i.e. lacking sufficient checks and balances. (My personal prayer is that the ‘movers and shakers’ of the creationist movement in the US will realize this before it is too late.)

Whether it was the persuasive rhetoric/tactics of Ken Ham or other considerations e.g. the possibility of the growing deadlock between Wieland and Ham proceeding interminably – or a combination of both – which was the determining factor in the decision made in mid June to remove Wieland as CEO, it was a gamble the Australian Board decided to take, no doubt hoping it would be accepted. They didn’t have long to wait for that to be tested. There was near-unanimous opposition by senior staff; the Board had to rescind that decision the following day. Business went on as usual but there were now growing undercurrents of concern on both sides. (See below.)

Part of the business that went on as usual was the continuing effort by Wieland and David Denner of the Australian Board to put together a workable system for the weighting of votes in connection with a proposed international AIG. (Documents 3, 4 and l9) There must have been some faint hope remaining in the Board for a structure along democratic lines. It was completed to an extent in mid-September and was on the agenda for consideration by the US and Australian Boards at their planned meeting in the US in October, 2005. If accepted, it meant that no one national body could control the others. The proposed system involved weighting of votes, but of course this means in principle that any one of the national ministries could be outvoted on any issue by some combination of the others. Predictably, this was anathema to Ken Ham. He had already announced at a church meeting under the auspices of Sunnybank Baptist Church in July, 2005, that there was no way he would permit USA to be outvoted on anything. (Document 25) The proposal for an international AiG was removed from the agenda for the October meeting. That particular threat to Ham’s power was now eliminated. It was dead in the water. At the same church meeting Ham also sowed a seed for the separation of AiG ministries by declaring that if an AiG country disagreed with anything supported by US, it could always change its name. (Document 25) (Future developments in the dispute would mean that AiG(Aust) was obliged to organize a name change; it was forced by the US to do this to survive. See later). It is clear from this, especially with hindsight, that if Ken Ham had anything to do with it, the US would be the dominant partner in any AIG International, and with unfettered power. With no checks and balances to worry about, AiG-USA, or more accurately, Ken Ham, could do as he wished in the exercise of that power.

Conciliatory Letters from Wieland and Senior Staff to Ken Ham.

Another important happening in the dispute which should be noted here is that on the day the Board rescinded its decision to remove Wieland as CEO, Wieland and the four scientists/speakers of AiG(Aust) wrote conciliatory letters to Ken Ham.(Document 22) in an effort to heal the rupture caused by the letters they wrote to the US Board in August 2004. That act of appeasement did not achieve its intended result. There was no response from Ken Ham. However the Australian Board heard back from Ham. It was to the effect that Ham had not had a response in writing from Wieland in response to Ham’s letter of 7 Nov 04 (Document 11). What had happened back then was that Wieland conveyed his warm thanks to Ken Ham for his letter and the sentiments expressed therein, through the Australian Board verbally. After learning about the complaint from Ham to the Board about not writing, Wieland wrote two further conciliatory letters (Documents 24) dated l9 June 2005; one to Ham, one to Don Landis as AiG-US Chairman. The letter by Wieland to Ham reads as follows:

“Dear Ken,

I want to sincerely apologize for not having responded in writing to your letter before now.

I was aware that some of the directors who watched me read your letter had transmitted my response, and my heart in the matter, to you personally. I had (wrongly) assumed that leaving it at that would be the most appropriate thing until we actually met.

I am sure that after we have had the chance to work through the issues face to face, the above will not be the only wrong assumption, inappropriate action, and more, that I will want to apologize to you for.

Reading your letter highlighted for me how much I want reconciliation, not only for the ministry’s sake, but for the sake of the many years we have shared in this battle.

I think that despite being a vital step, getting together at our December meeting will be very painful and awkward at first, for both of us…….

I want to be able to give you the opportunity to pour out and share in depth the things that have caused pain and distress – even anger – without fear of retaliation or withdrawal, hoping (and trusting) you will do the same for me.

I will also try to provide you with the reassurance, at that meeting, that I am not, and never have been, motivated to cause you personal harm. Like you, even if perhaps in a different way, I see this as involving inter alia, an exploitation by the Enemy of any chink he can find, to undermine the powerful synergy we had and replace it with antagonism.

What makes it harder in one sense (but could, the Lord willing, end up making it easier) is that we both know each other so well. As your letter indicates, it is important for us both to try to restore as much trust as possible.

In that spirit, then, my open hand is extended back to you.”

Again, there was no response by Ken Ham to this letter from Wieland. (This failure by Ham and/or his Board to answer or respond to letters happens repeatedly during the course of the dispute.) Wieland later learned that Ham wanted a total withdrawal of every point in Wieland’s letters to the US Board (19 Aug 04) putting forward reform proposals, prior to meeting. Wieland declined to comply with that request, regarding it as unacceptable if he was to be true to his conscience. Six months later Ham hid behind a directive of his Board not to meet with Wieland in Australia in December 2005; he made no requirement for a total withdrawal of all the points in the Wieland letter before meeting. (Document 18C) This changing scenario to avoid meeting carries all the hallmarks of playacting/stalling by Ken Ham for ulterior purposes. More time was needed for his Strategy 3 to achieve the required result. The trump card in Strategy 3, an MOA/DOCL executed by the Australian Board to give the US ultimate control over Australia, would be planned and organized in the next 2 to 3 months and expertly played by Ham during the joint meeting of the US and Australian Boards in October 2005 (See below)

Undercurrents of Concern.

Mention was made above of the existence of undercurrents of concern in the Board/Management relationship following Wieland’s return as CEO on 15 June 2005.

One issue which arose causing considerable concern was a problem in connection with Answers in Genesis International. This body had been formed in 2002 (Document 19) and was owned jointly by the Australian and US AiG ministries.

In September 2005 it was discovered that the Australian Board Secretary, John Thallon, who had the responsibility to form the AIGI Company, had not properly complied with the Board Minute which authorized its establishment. Instead of putting the ownership of the company into the names of the two AIG ministries, he (a qualified accountant) put it – inadvertently it was claimed – into the names of two individuals on the Boards of those ministries, John Thallon and Mark Jackson, a potentially dangerous situation. Wieland wrote to the chairman of the Board, Greg Peacock, requesting that urgent steps be taken to correct this. Peacock found himself ‘irritated’– his word – by this letter, seemingly interpreting it as an attack on the Board, an interpretation which is negated by an objective reading of the letter. Nevertheless this letter, as necessary as it was, would not have improved the strained relationship between Board and management. (The exchange of emails is numbered 27A.)

In this troubled month of September 2005, the uneasiness of the Australian management about what the Board might do or sign in America in October had reached the point where some of the senior staff took it upon themselves to question members of the Board about their relationship with Ken Ham and how that might affect the Board’s responsibilities under Australian law to safeguard the Australian ministry. On one occasion the staff expressed to the directors a fear that the Board would ‘sign something’ when they visited the US. In the presence of several members of the senior staff, the reply was that nothing would be signed in the US without consulting the management.

The MOA/DOCL Documents.

Just prior to the departure of the Board for the US in October 2005, two documents were handed to it, the first from Wieland dated 4 October 2005 headed ‘Request for urgent structural reform to the ministry’ and the second from nine members of the senior staff supporting the Wieland letter (Documents 28 and 29). It is possible that these letters had the reverse effect on the Board directors to what was intended. Instead of shoring up/attracting support from them for structural reform to AIG(Aust) to give it more checks and balances – which CMI has now introduced – and perhaps provide an example for the US and others to follow, these letters may well have exacerbated the tension between management and Board and sealed the fate of the Australian ministry. The Board could well have interpreted the letters as further reasons to move against the ideas of Wieland to those of Ken Ham – without really understanding what that ultimately meant – and so to sign the MOA/DOCL documents (Documents 30 and 32), which virtually gave control of AiG(Aust) to AiG-USA and Ken Ham.

The damage occasioned to Australia by these documents signed by the Board was huge. Annexure 2 is a copy of documents 31 and 33 which accurately describe the damage inflicted on CMI by the MOA/DOCL (and some of the damage from subsequent developments).

[editorial insertion: the Annexures mentioned in the report have mostly not been posted on the web, but are available for perusal and study in CMI’s Brisbane office in the event that these findings are the subject of any serious and bona fide formal challenge, research, etc. However, Annexure 2 is posted as the two separate documents mentioned here: Document 31 = a short list of the ways in which the documents signed damaged the Australian ministry, and Document 33, a pdf extract from one of the documents, highlighting one portion of serious ethical concern in large blue font.]

Both the MOA and the associated DOCL documents were prepared behind the backs of the Australian management staff by solicitors under instructions from the US. Apparently unperturbed by this fact, the Australian Board members went ahead and signed the documents. However, it is quite obvious from an examination of them that the Australian Board did not read, or carefully read, these documents before they signed them. Had they done so they would have seen that by signing them, they were warranting that they had obtained the consents of the authors of articles in AiG(Aust) magazines to give away their moral rights in those articles. The Australian Board well knew they had not obtained consents from them for anything. Nevertheless, up until the present time the US has continued to put this document forward, not only as a ‘good and legal’ document, but also as a ‘godly document’ despite the obvious false warranty it contains. (See Annexure 2 for other features highly detrimental to Australia.) It would be important to know what exactly the pressures on the Board were, what exactly were the reasons in the minds of Board members which caused them to sign those documents. Unless and until the former members of the Board come forward to tell the truth of what took place, these things can never be ascertained or inferred from other sources with any degree of certainty. They declined/ignored an invitation to do this before the Briese committee. In the meantime there can be only speculation as to the real causes for this extraordinary action on the part of the former Australian Board.

It should be noted here that one member of the Australian Board, John Thallon, did advance two reasons for the Board signing the documents. They were different reasons on separate occasions:-

1. When the Board returned from the US, John Thallon met with Wieland and gave him the signed documents. In the presence and hearing of the other Board directors and Paul Salmon, Thallon told Wieland the Board had no choice in the matter. If they didn’t sign, he said, they faced a ‘hostile separation’ from AiG-USA. (The Board was firmly against a separation of the ministries.) If that statement represented the reality of the situation which the Board faced, there is great irony here, because the documents were designed by Ken Ham to effect a separation. The only reason the US ministry would not be ‘hostile’ in this particular separation is because in signing the MOA the volunteer members of the Board weakened Australia to a dramatic extent by surrendering to AiG-USA valuable assets and rights which could have been used as strong negotiating and bargaining ‘chips’ for Australia in resisting separation.

2. Subsequently, Dr John Hartnett, an associate professor and volunteer speaker for CMI, telephoned Thallon to get answers for what had happened. Thallon said words to the following effect: ‘We had no choice. If we didn’t sign, Ken Ham would not have bought the next issue of the magazine.’ (There were approximately 35,000 US subscribers to the magazine and the journal.) (Documents 38)

Whether these excuses offered by John Thallon for signing constitute the real reasons, or some of them, for the decision by the Board to sign must remain speculative questions. On the surface they have plausibility, but in the absence of evidence from Thallon and the other directors, one cannot be absolutely sure where the truth lies.

Several months later, on March 30 2006, senior staff member of CMI, Don Batten, met with one of the former members of the Board, Jim Kitson. Following that meeting Batten sent an email to Kitson (Documents 54A) in the following terms:

“Thanks so much for meeting me today. It helped heaps.

“I was so pleased to find out that you had signed the Deed of Copyright License without realizing its ramifications. I recognize that it is a difficult ‘legalese’ document and it would not be easy without considerable effort to work out precisely what was being agreed to. As I respect you as a person of integrity, I am glad that you confirmed to me that you had not knowingly signed off on the lie (nor would have, had you known) that you and the other Directors had obtained consents from all the Creation magazine and TJ authors that permitted AiGUS to override their moral rights regarding their articles. And also that you were unaware of how the License makes the Australian ministry liable for any damages incurred by the US ministry if they offend the authors of articles by assigning another author’s name, or otherwise changing it without reference to the author, such that the author sues them.

“I was also happy that you said you could see no basis for any accusation of ‘Board rebellion’ regarding Carl. We have been mystified as to the basis of these slanderous charges that have been put up to third parties as an excuse for not talking to Carl.

“As I mentioned, Don Hardgrave is meeting with Greg Peacock. Now that I have spoken with you, I am contemplating getting in contact with David Denner. Would you mind if I mentioned that I have met with you?”

On Saturday, l April 2006, Batten received a reply by email in the following terms:

“Hi Don,

Lovely to renew fellowship with you.

Feel free to mention to Dave Denner that we have met.

Jim”

The necessary inference from this email by Kitson is that he implicitly agreed with Batten’s account of the meeting they had on March 30 2006. And if what Kitson told Batten at their meeting is true, then it suggests the possibility that Kitson (probably all the Board members) were persuaded to sign the MOA/DOCL simply on the say-so and assurances given by Ken Ham and his Board, without carefully reading and checking the documents themselves.

However, as with the excuses for signing the documents proffered by John Thallon (above), unless and until Jim Kitson and the other members of the old Board come forward and truthfully reveal what happened, there can be only speculation about the real reasons for the signing of the MOA/DOCL documents.

As for the other party to the agreement, AiG-USA, the reasons which Ken Ham and his Board had for organizing the preparation and signing of the documents are known with some certainty. Ham, himself, divulged them in letters to people shortly thereafter. On 31 October 2005, 18 days after the signing of the documents, Ken Ham emailed John Hartnett (Document 34) and inter alia, let it be known to him that the US and Australia were no longer sister ministries. The following day, 1 November 2005, Ham wrote to the CEOs of all AiG ministries, which included Carl Wieland, to ‘outline the new arrangements between AiG-USA and AiG organizations’ which were to apply following execution of the MOA/DOCL documents by the Australian Board. (Document 35) Ham pointed out in that letter that this had taken place because of ‘irreconcilable differences regarding the philosophy of ministry between the leadership of AiG-USA and AiG Australia.’ These differences, I assume, must include the differences concerning structure for creation ministries, as discussed earlier in this report.

It is necessary to remind ourselves here, that immediately after AiG-USA received the reform proposals from Wieland in August 2004, proposals which relate to the above differences, Ken Ham and his Board commenced a strategy of separation actions against AiG(Aust) and Carl Wieland. The organization, preparation and signing of the MOA/DOCL documents constituted the most daring, unethical initiative yet ventured by Ken Ham in the employment of that strategy. It can be rightly seen as the culmination of the many separation initiatives undertaken over the previous 12 months. Australia and the US were now separate ministries. Carl Wieland was effectively neutralized and his reforms put on the shelf and forgotten. Strategy 3 had delivered the desired results.

Reaction to the Signing of the MOA/DOCL Documents.

One of the problems for the Australian Board when considering the MOA/DOCL documents, was correctly anticipating the reactions of Wieland and the senior staff if the Board went ahead with signing them, and how they might be handled. It was aware of the huge opposition generated by its removal of Wieland as CEO in June.

But here was a different situation. (Or so it may have seemed at the time.)

First, the documents make no reference to the position of CEO of AiG(Aust). Carl Wieland would remain the CEO under the MOA. Second, the documents are framed to give the impression, if the examination of them was only cursory, that Australia was to get a proper quid pro quo for the assets it was giving to the US under the agreement. The Australian Board could therefore reasonably assume that whilst the MOA/DOCL might not be entirely approved of by Wieland and the senior staff, it would not generate the strong opposition experienced when it removed Wieland as CEO in June. If that was their thinking, they were mistaken. The error made by the Board directors was that they didn’t carefully read and understand how much the agreement seriously damaged and disadvantaged AiG(Aust). Wieland and the senior staff saw this immediately. The agreement gave away valuable assets to the US, and Australia received almost nothing in return. They saw, too, that the MOA contained the blatant lie that AiG(Aust) had obtained the consents of the authors of articles for the Australian magazines to give away their moral rights in those articles to AiG-USA. Other clauses also were seriously detrimental to Australia. (Annexure 2) Overall, the agreement was badly lopsided in favour of the US and this is obvious to anyone taking the time to read the documents. Simon Fisher, barrister-at-law for CMI, confirmed that to be so in these words:

It is quite clear from even a cursory review of the Memorandum of Agreement and the Deed of Copyright License that both of these documents are quite disadvantageous to Answers in Genesis Ltd and very advantageous to Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc. In particular, the Deed of Copyright License is a quite one-sided document which is skewed quite heavily in favour of Answers in Genesis of Kentucky, Inc.

It is not surprising that Wieland and the senior staff were shocked when they read these documents and saw how AiG-USA had taken advantage of the Australian Board’s failure (presumably) to take the time to understand what they were signing, to deprive AiG(Aust) of valuable assets and give so very little in return. There was certainly no quid pro quo. Far from it. Wieland protested to the Board by email that the agreements signed by it had precipitated a substantial crisis and he requested a meeting with the Board (Documents 37).

The Suspension of Wieland and Senior Staff.

On 7 November 2005, while the senior staff was waiting for the requested meeting with the Board, John Thallon, one of the directors, entered the office of AiG(Aust) and informed Wieland that he had just been removed as CEO. (Document 36). Wieland was asked to give instant allegiance to John Thallon, the new CEO. Wieland asked for time to consider his position and was then immediately suspended. Five members of the senior staff were also suspended that day, or subsequently, for failing to swear allegiance to Thallon in person or for ‘disloyalty to the ministry’ by letter. (The way these suspensions were handled by Thallon was contrary to industrial law.) Part-time speakers and Support Group leaders, shocked by what had happened, withdrew their services pending re-instatement of the suspended staff (Documents 36A). The ministry was in crisis. Whatever the Board’s expectations might have been, this suspension of Wieland and senior staff precipitated a greater storm of protest than occurred with the removal of Wieland as CEO five months earlier in June. It was Australia-wide, with supporters of the ministry up-in-arms over the suspensions and the role of the Board in the plunder of Australian assets by the US. The magnitude of the opposition to the Board’s actions, together with a belated recognition (probably) by Board members that they had placed themselves in financial jeopardy, was no doubt the reason for the Board moving to consult with its solicitors. Solicitor Corney either advised them to resign, or supported them in their own decision to resign, providing they were given an indemnity from the new Board for what they had done. Acting on that advice, and with some soul-searching apparently having taken place, they instructed Corney to inform Wieland that they believed Wieland should be the managing director of the new Board with the right to choose the three replacement directors to make up a new Board of four. The evidence from Wieland and the three other senior staff who heard the statement is that Corney advised Wieland that “They (the old directors) think you are the best person to run the ministry and if you had been on the Board this mess wouldn’t have happened.” This conversation took place on Remembrance Day, 11 November 2005.

A New Australian Board.

Wieland accepted the proposal by the old Board, including the granting to its members of an indemnity, and in consultation with senior staff, he proceeded to choose three people (two from AiG-Aust Support Groups and one of the members of the earlier Plimer enquiry committee) to join with him as directors of a proposed new Board. Whilst waiting for the formal handover to take place, Wieland discovered, by chance, that a rearguard action by members of the Ham family and their supporters had been taking place to select people for an alternative new Board. The old Board consented to meet with the persons they were proposing as the future Board and a date was fixed to meet with them.

In this scenario the strong probabilities are that there would have been consultations by Ken Ham with members of the Ham family and with the old Board concerning these developments. In the light of past history, it is certain that Ken Ham would not have wanted Wieland to be the Managing Director of a new Australian Board. (Ham and the US Board would later show their disapproval of Wieland by criticism of him which was often false, sometimes defamatory and sometimes scurrilous. They would have little respect for him in his role as Managing Director of the new Board.) If Wieland was to be made Managing Director of a new Board selected by Wieland, Ken Ham would see that as his Strategy 3 coming unstuck. The old Board’s proposal to give power to Wieland as Managing Director of a new Board had to be addressed. Immediate action was required for an alternative, prospective Board to be assembled, one sympathetic to Ken Ham and his Board. Members of the Ham family and their supporters in Brisbane were enlisted to arrange for that to be done and have the old Board hand over power to it, not the Wieland group. However, at the end of the day, this rearguard action by the Ham family was thwarted by strong advice to the old Board from solicitor Corney and a long talk by an administration staff member, Paul Salmon, with the chairman of the old Board. They would presumably have been told that the effect on the Australian ministry (since the documents show that the scientific staff, the core of the ministry, would never have consented to work under such circumstances) would have been devastating. The efforts by the Ham family to assist Ken Ham in getting rid of Carl Wieland failed. Handover to Wieland and the people selected by him went ahead.

On the day following that handover, Wieland immediately sought reconciliation with Ken Ham and his Board and wholeheartedly commenced efforts to settle the dispute with them. The documents before the committee indicate a large number of attempts being made by Wieland and the Australian Board to achieve reconciliation and settlement of the dispute over the next 12 months, all to no avail. On the other side, there was unrelenting resistance by Ken Ham and his Board to reconciliation and a settlement of the dispute on any basis other than that of the status quo being confirmed. This meant a settlement based on the documents (MOA/DOCL) being affirmed as ‘binding’, and AiG-USA being permitted to keep all the assets it had unethically obtained under those agreements from Australia. (Even worse was to happen. In coming months Ken Ham and his Board, by flagrant, unethical action against Creation Ministries International (CMI) (as it was soon to be renamed) and its magazines, would massively damage the Australian ministry.)

The documents before the committee clearly establish the situation to be as follows with regard to reconciliation and settlement of the dispute:

Documents showing Genuine Efforts to Reconcile/Settle the Dispute.

By AiG(Aust)/CMI

1. 15 Nov 05 (The day after changeover to the new Board). Email of a letter by Wieland to Tim Dudley (copy to each member of the US Board and Ken Ham) headed ‘Olive Branch + invitation for a visit.’ The last paragraph states: “…I would like to talk about putting all that behind us and moving forward. Why don’t we get on with sorting out a way to work together (or separately, with mutual respect) with peace and honour – a way that has management talking to management, as I respectfully suggest was always appropriate, and may have spared much pain for the former directors and many others, myself included. It would be great to be face to face so you can ‘read’ for yourself my heart and that of others in the matter and it may be a great first step, and a short-circuit to healing. Not ‘mushy’ type healing, but real practical stuff that advances ministry.” (Document 39).

2. 19 Nov 05 Wieland email to Don Landis with copies to other Board members and Ken Ham. Extracts: “All four Board members unanimously affirm our desire for a peaceful, cooperative relationship with all AiG ministries, with dignity and equality, in the prayerful hope that this may be restored”; and “An expression of willingness on both sides to ‘start again’ would be helpful…..Even if it turns out that we can’t work under the same banner, surely we can sit down and work out the most peaceful and mutually helpful way to still cooperate at some level.” (Document 39A) (See response below)

3. 26 Nov 05, in response to an email which was a draft of a letter very critical of the Australian ministry (see extracts from it later) and inadvertently sent by the US staff author to Don Batten instead of Don Landis, Kerry Boettcher, Chairman of the new Australian Board, emailed the US Board via Don Landis with a letter to allay their fears and concerns. The last three paragraphs state: “It is appropriate, and it is our desire, for AiG-USA (and/or your management) to resume formal discussions with our MD (and his staff as required) on the future relationship….I extend an invitation to you, to send one or several people from the Board and management to come visit us, to sit down and calmly talk things through jointly with our Board and management. We will willingly provide all the hospitality, food etc. We are all prepared to freely and openly discuss all the matters you raise in as much depth as needed to resolve them. It is certainly our desire to see these tensions settled and to have us spend more time on the battle with the real Enemy…..We believe that with Scripture as our guide we can work toward suitable resolutions, and get back to concentrating on doing what the ministry of Answers in Genesis exists for.” (Document 41) (See response below).

4. 20 Dec 05. Wieland emailed a Without Prejudice letter to US Board setting out the legal and ethical concerns of Australia and responding to the critical email from the US dated 30 Nov 05. At the end is a two and a half page section headed ‘Conciliation’. The first paragraph on the last page reads: “….all it would take would be a willingness to discuss ‘in principle’ the sort of thing I have referred to. If you want to do this, as we would sincerely hope, please nominate whoever in management you want to be the contact person – someone who would be willing to talk to me per email, phone, video-phone, whatever it takes – and someone who would be suitably authorized to negotiate for and bind AiG-USA to any subsequent documentation. We undertake to be very reasonable and conciliatory, hoping for the same in return. You may be surprised at the degree to which you would achieve most things AiG-USA sought to achieve in the MOA.” (Document 44) There was no response by the US Board.

5. 28 Feb 06. Wieland emailed an “Open Letter’ to the US Board which commenced as follows: “We regret that the offers and the conciliatory approach in that ‘without prejudice’ letter [Document 44] were not taken up. The purpose of this letter is to place AiG-USA on notice that in addition to our serious ethical concerns at the actions undertaken, we have serious commercial and legal concerns relating to the terms and enforceability of both the MOA and subsequent transactions contemplated within the same” After setting out in great detail those concerns Wieland stated: “It pains me personally to write this sort of letter to former brothers-in-arms, as it were. It would never have been necessary if only the ‘circle the wagons, refuse to meet or talk directly’ approach had not been thrust upon us all.

“Your carefully crafted series of actions has failed to achieve what we believe were the desired results (whether or not all of your directors were fully aware of what they were signing is another matter, as we do not know how they were informed by your management) – namely, the weakening of our organization, inter alia. It is a pity that when this became apparent, you chose to reject any of the alternative paths that were so openly offered, even rejecting those reasonable ‘without prejudice’ discussions we proposed which had the potential to sort these matters out promptly and smoothly.” (Document 45).

6. 28 Feb 06. After sending the above ‘Open Letter’ Wieland emailed a further ‘Without Prejudice’ letter which commenced as follows: “You would by now be in receipt of our ‘open letter’ sent earlier today. The purpose of this ‘without prejudice’ letter is to extend once again a wholehearted invitation to have a sensible and comprehensive settlement in order to put all legal matters between us (commenced by that astonishing ‘agreement’ and the associated documentation, the full implications of the wording of which some of you may not have realized fully) to bed, once and for all.” It later went on to state: “Our total willingness to negotiate sensibly and to make substantial concessions, including our willingness to give you many of the things you sought.” At the end of the letter Wieland said: “We would therefore once again, in this ‘without prejudice’ context, ask that you give urgent consideration to a process of negotiation. We are not talking about settling personal hurts, etc. or any other issue for now, just putting out the flames in a practical and legal sense. I think you would be amazed at how simple and straightforward we want the process to be, and how simple and painless it can be………Can we at least encourage you to try dipping your toe in the water, as it were?” (Document 46) Once again there was no response to the Open Letter or to this second ‘Without Prejudice’ letter, document 46.

7. 12 March 06. Gary Bates, Head of CMI Ministry, sent an email letter to Ken Ham (copies to the US and UK Boards), expressing concern about US subscribers to Creation magazine not being given a choice to continue receiving that magazine. (See later about this action by AiG-USA which greatly damaged CMI.) The letter courteously requests that “in a spirit of openness and honesty, and in an effort to be fair to all parties”, the US takes steps to correct this. Item D on the last page reads “In addition, we remind you that we are still waiting for specific responses to our two letters of 28 th February 2006. As stated in our without prejudice letter, there are many aspects that could be settled by amicable negotiation. However, continued silence and lack of response may lead us to presume that you are rejecting the concerns raised in those letters. It would be unfortunate if this precipitated further action on our behalf.” (Document 52) Once again, there was no response.

8. 20 Mar 06. Wieland responded by email to an email invitation by the US Board dated 19 Mar 06 to meet in Hawaii for discussions, but discussions on the basis that the MOA is non-negotiable. Inter alia, Wieland said: “We find it difficult to understand why, to this point, you have not wanted to take up our invitation to discuss the issues, freely and openly on a without prejudice basis, including our stated willingness to be very conciliatory. (We can only assume that you have not been fully advised as to what without prejudice really means in this context, and why that approach is necessary.) Instead, even in this letter, you seem to be insisting that the agreement per se is ‘not negotiable’ in principle. Thus there seems to be no point in meeting until you agree that you may PERHAPS be willing to at least LOOK at those matters with an open mind, since it is the agreement that is the matter where we claim a violation of biblical ethics has taken place. Some of the clauses in the agreement make claims that are not even true (again you may not be aware), so nothing can be a more obvious violation of biblical ethics than that. We again are assuming a sincerity in your statements, and therefore presume that you would want to at least talk and find out our position and why.” In connection with the dates suggested for meeting in Hawaii, Wieland said “This sounds genuinely encouraging, save only for the fact that you appear to have already rejected any discussion of the agreement itself. We ask you to reconsider. Remember that a ‘without prejudice’ discussion simply explores possible resolutions and does not jeopardize your rights if those discussions do not lead anywhere. Therefore, in a spirit of genuine desire for resolution, we make the following counter-suggestion, namely that before a meeting in person, a meeting take place via conference-video-phone between two representatives on other side, one Board member and one staff member…..Then, if required, a Hawaii meeting could follow. We think it likely that the whole thing can be rapidly defused, and that a subsequent person-to-person meeting (eg Hawaii) could take place on a much more comprehensive and productive footing following such a preliminary exploration, and a time could be arranged for it that is suitable to all.” Wieland concluded his remarks with “IN A NUTSHELL: We are very keen to explore resolution with you provided you are open, at least in principle, to the possibility of reconsidering and renegotiating the signed agreements which are really at the core of the differences between us. We greatly look forward to a positive response from you to our request/offer to have a ‘without prejudice’ exploration of the situation via direct videophone discussions. Such would also be good stewardship of the resources of both ministries. In the meantime we reserve all our rights in relation to the issue.” (Documents 49.) There was no response to this counter offer, no reply of any kind.

9. 28 Mar 06. Wieland emailed a further ‘Without Prejudice’ letter to Ken Ham (with copies to the US and UK Boards), pointing out there was no response to the letter of 12 Mar 06 by Gary Bates (Document 52) concerning the dropping of Creation magazine. (He also queried the reasons being put out to enquirers for the US not meeting with Australia.) In his last paragraph, Wieland stated: “We also remind you….that since your offer to meet in Hawaii (unfortunately, on the unreasonable proviso that the ‘agreement’ that has caused all the problems was non-negotiable) you have not yet responded to our counter-offer of 2l March 2005 to have a preliminary phone discussion ‘without prejudice’ with all the important matters on the table, concerning which discussion we have flagged a willingness to be very reasonable. That matter is also now urgent….” (Document 50.) There was no response to this letter.

10. April 2006. By invitation from the US, Pastors Evans and Hinds of Baptist churches at Sunnybank and the Gold Coast – members of the Ham family are attached to both churches – together with Murray Wood, a layman from Sunnybank Baptist, went to the US ‘to hear their side of the dispute’. Upon their return they asked CMI (Wieland, Bates and Batten) what it would require to settle the dispute. The pastors were given a ‘without prejudice’ offer in writing, in the form of a Draft Heads of Agreement (Part of documents 49). The pastors considered the CMI offer to be very reasonable. There was no response from the US to this proposal (Documents 49)

11. May 2006. Pastor Evans of Sunnybank Baptist church gave a document to CMI (Wieland, Batten and Bates) which, Evans said, came from John Pence (US in-house lawyer) and Ken Ham, not the US Board. It was headed CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL (Without Prejudice). According to Wieland, Bates and Batten, Evans was immediately given a verbal reply by Wieland to the effect that many of the proposals were acceptable to CMI and a few were not, giving reasons. (For example, one of the clauses on page 1 of this document (Part of documents 49) required an immediate transfer by CMI to AiG-USA of the trademarks for the name ‘Answers in Genesis’ in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, India and Nigeria and in return AiG-USA would agree not to set up a ministry in any of those countries under the name ‘Answers in Genesis’ for 12 months, a minimum period unacceptable to any reasonable person.) Neither Ken Ham nor John Pence responded.

12. 24 May 06. Wieland sent an email letter to Ken Ham to request Ham, firstly to respond specifically and urgently to the draft Heads of Agreement document sent to him via the pastors; and secondly to ask that when Wieland and his wife are in the USA, Ham would meet with Wieland to talk about major issues, saying “We genuinely want to put an end to all of this.” He concluded by saying “Please let me know why you could not accept the draft Heads of Agreement, given that it purports to give you virtually everything anyway. Much would be defused by such a simple act” (Documents 56).

In an email response dated 24 May 06, i.e. the same day, Ham said “We are not going to discuss any of the board matters during your visit. These have been dealt with by our board and our staff does not have any authority to reopen any of them.” (Documents 56) So any fond thoughts Wieland might have had for talks with Ham about settlement of the dispute were promptly put to rest by Ham. The clear inference is that Ham and his Board were not interested in negotiations for settlement of the dispute.

13. 10 Aug 06. The CMI Board sent an email ‘Without Prejudice’ letter (signed by all 6 directors) to the US Board with the following heading: “A PROPOSAL FOR ALL OF US TO SUBMIT TO BINDING ARBITRATION” (Document 62). Read objectively, this was a proposal for binding Christian arbitration based on fair terms. Following the now usual pattern, there was no response from the US Board. In an email dated 30 August 2006, Dave Christie of the Australian Board reminded two members of the US Board, Tim Dudley and Dan Chin, that there had been no response to the CMI proposal for arbitration in the following terms: “Our Board has agreed that our ‘without prejudice’ offer to submit to binding Christian arbitration, forwarded to you in our letter to you …dated August 10, 2006, and to which you have not yet responded, will remain on offer for a further two weeks…..Please remember that if you accept it ‘as is’, it immediately commits and binds us as well, such that all parties would then be bound to accept the ‘Christian umpire’s verdict’ as final and with no recourse to appeal.” Again there was no response from the US Board.

If any further confirmation was needed that Ken Ham and his Board had no interest in negotiating a settlement of the dispute, this refusal to even so much as consider binding Christian arbitration must surely be that confirmation. The history of offers from CMI to negotiate a settlement, followed by the failures of the US to respond, shows that Ken Ham and his Board had no desire to renegotiate the harsh and false terms of the MOA. They did not want the biblical and ethical wrongs committed by them in connection with the MOA documents and the dropping of the Australian magazines to be examined, whether that be by mutual agreement, by a fair system of binding Christian arbitration or in any other way.

Despite the history of resistance/refusals by Ken Ham and the US Board to settle the dispute by mutual agreement or Christian arbitration, CMI in March 2007 gave them one last opportunity to do that before taking legal action to have the serious biblical and ethical wrongs committed by them examined before a judge. This offer, too, was rejected. (See later)

--------------------------------------

By AiG-USA

There are NO documents from the US which can be interpreted as being GENUINE efforts to reconcile/settle.

There are documents which at first glance suggest attempts (two) by the US to settle the dispute. On closer examination they reveal they were not genuine attempts. They were nothing more than insincere window dressing – by AiG-USA in the first instance and by Ken Ham and John Pence in the second – to give the impression they were interested in settlement, when their real attitude was that, having seized/obtained all they wanted from CMI, settlement was something to be avoided:-

1. The invitation by AiG-USA to meet at Hawaii was issued on the basis that the MOA, the subject of the dispute, was a ‘good and legal’ document, a ‘godly’ document. It had to be accepted by CMI as non-negotiable at the outset. Such an invitation could not reasonably be regarded by CMI as a bona fide invitation to settle/negotiate. Nevertheless CMI responded to the invitation by suggesting a preliminary phone conference to explore the possibilities for settlement before meeting. It was a logical and sensible counter proposal which did not exclude meeting in Hawaii if the phone conference produced grounds for believing that a meeting in Hawaii could lead to settlement or be profitable in some way. There was no response to this counter proposal despite reminders from CMI. It was completely ignored. (Documents 49; see Item 7 under the last heading.)

2. Item 10 in the previous section refers to the Confidential Settlement Proposal from Ken Ham and John Pence. (Documents 49) It was given by Pastor Evans to Wieland, Bates and Batten who provided an immediate verbal response, accepting many of the proposals and giving reasons why others were not acceptable. If this document was a genuine proposal for settlement, one would expect Ken Ham or John Pence to come back to Wieland with the courtesy of some sort of a reply. There was no reply. That being the case, it is impossible to regard this incident as a genuine attempt by Ken Ham to settle the dispute.

-----------------------------------

Documents Showing a Resistance/Refusal to Reconcile/Settle.

By AiG(AUST)/CMI

There are none.

----------------------------------

By AiG-USA / Ken Ham.

1. 25 Nov 05. Draft of letter from US Board “approved unanimously by all AiG-USA board members” to the Australian Board, apparently in response to the emails from Australia dated 15 Nov 05 and 19 Nov 05 seeking reconciliation and ‘starting again.’ The draft gives a clear indication of the prevailing attitude of the US Board to Wieland and the Australian ministry staff and completely ignores Wieland’s pleas for reconciliation and ‘starting again’. The letter states:

“We have put up with attitudes and accusations which are similar to the issues described below [ Sarfati’s email criticisms (see later) of what the US did to the Australian ministry – CB] for the last two years, and it is, simply and unequivocally, time to end this continual attack on the integrity of our staff and ministry.

“(You may not be aware that over the past two years Carl Wieland, with support from various staff under his leadership, has led what we can only describe as a ministry-inhibiting power struggle concerning the overall operation of the Answers in Genesis-USA ministry, and we can document this through papers and witnesses.

“To boil it down, this has been the crux of the issues of the past two years not only for ourselves but also for the previous AiG-Australia board – these good men knew and worked closely with AiG and Carl Wieland for around 20 years – who have struggled with these issues…….

“From our perspective these unpaid servants were unwilling to see Carl ’s ongoing power struggle denigrate the good name of the ministry that the board had selflessly helped to build. Earlier this month that board was, in our view, threatened into capitulation to Dr. Wieland’s spiritual-sounding demands and justifications for absolute control.

“AiG-Australia is now being led by an extremely articulate and unrelenting man who was unwilling to come under the authority of a duly authorized board.

“It is clear from our vantage point that Carl Wieland was able to orchestrate a smear campaign against the members of that board and of the USA ministry.”

The draft letter goes on to trenchantly condemn Sarfati’s criticisms of the US and what the US did to Australia, and then continues as follows:

“Understand that we, the board of AiG-US are committed to protecting the reputation and integrity of our staff and ministry.

“We will protect ourselves from this kind of slander [the Sarfati emails. See later.] physically (blocking emails), spiritually (asking for the Lord’s grace and guidance) and legally (if this does not immediately cease). [The underlining is my emphasis to point out that AiG-USA’s threat to take legal action for slander clearly shows that its pious condemnation of Australia for taking legal action to have AiG-USA brought to account for the serious wrongs it has done to CMI is nothing more than pharisaical hypocrisy – CB.]

“There is one scenario that would enable us to move beyond just a business relationship with AiG-Australia – our simple requirement would be that Dr. Wieland adhere to biblical principles, and both personally and publicly apologize for his many false accusations towards Ken Ham over the past two years as well as his attempted take-over of the AiG-USA ministry for which we have substantial documentation and witnesses.” (Document 41)

There is no document in the 600+ pages of documents before the committee which supports these allegations. Indeed, the documents show the very opposite to be true. (See below in the section titled ‘Allegations against Wieland’) Furthermore, AiG-USA declined to participate and produce ‘the substantial documentation and witnesses’ it allegedly has in its possession or available to it, before the Briese committee, when invited to do so. (It will now have a further opportunity to do that, if it exists, in a court before a Judge.)

2. 30 Nov 05. Email letter from US Board of Directors to ‘Dear Kerry and AiG Australia Board.’ Extracts from that letter state as follows:

“Misunderstandings and conflicts between the US and Australia ministries have occurred for almost two years. We believe that attempting to resolve all of the past issues is not wise or even possible at this point.

“…….If you, as new members of the board, desire to hear our viewpoints, we would invite you to come to visit with us and see the AiG-USA ministry first-hand. We have no doubt that an opportunity of face-to-face sharing would help disperse many if not all the rumors you and others may have heard. [note that Wieland was to be excluded – only the ‘new members’ were welcome, who of course did not have any significant background knowledge at that time – CB]

“The agreement executed in October 2005 with the Australia board is a good and legal agreement. That agreement separates our ministries…….

“…..due to the depth of disagreements between us and the inability to resolve these despite the significant amount of prayer, time and effort, the time has come for us to move on as a separate organization. The leadership team of AiG-USA is unanimously in support of this decision by the board.” (Document 42)

Reconciliation and settlement of the dispute are far-removed from the minds of members of the US Board and its chairman, Pastor Don Landis.

---------------------------

Allegations against Wieland.

As stated above, the draft letter of 25 Nov 05 to the Australian Board from the US Board was inadvertently sent to Don Batten (scientist/speaker with CMI). That it would have been forwarded to the Australian Board by Landis, if not preempted by a letter from Kerry Boettcher, is implicitly accepted by Landis in his letter 30 Nov 05 to Boettcher. The documents before the committee show that none of the allegations in that draft letter (see above) are true:

They show that the dispute began by Wieland and Vallorani (2 I C to Ken Ham) putting before the US Board what people of average intelligence would think were sensible proposals for reform of creation ministries for their serious consideration. They were summarily rejected by Ken Ham and are now falsely interpreted as being an attack on Ham by Wieland who is now portrayed as a person who was seeking ‘absolute control’ of the US ministry. The documents show that the very opposite was the case. The proposal was for both Wieland and Ham to step down from management as CEOs and be given a more ‘elevated’ role, and for creation ministries to be democratized so that no one person or ministry would have absolute control (Documents 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 19, 20, 28, 29 Annexure 4)
They show that far from denigrating the good name of AiG in the US, Wieland (and Vallorani) sought to improve its already good image by the above reforms. They show, too, that senior figures and leaders in the creationist movement world-wide had a very high regard for Wieland and his role in, and concern for, creation ministries. Until this dispute erupted, the former Australian Board had this opinion of him (Document 1. See the quotation from it earlier.) To give another example, on l4 Sept 05 Dr Monty White, Chief Executive of the UK ministry wrote to Wieland as follows: “ Carl, I am sorry to have to keep sending you stuff. I feel that I am forever sending you things to check or to read or to comment on. I want you to know that I really appreciate it. I believe that one of the things that makes AiG so strong is having you (often in the background, as it appears in the UK) looking at things, commenting, advising, encouraging and, sometimes, warning. Thanks.” (Document 78)
They show that the previous Australian Board acted against the interests of AiG-Australia in signing the MOA. It surrendered to AiG-USA valuable assets and rights owned by Australia and very little, almost nothing, was received in return. They further show that capitulation of the Board was brought about by massive opposition from creation supporters Australia-wide to what the Board had done in signing the MOA and suspending Wieland and the scientist/speakers who formed the core of the Australian ministry. They do not show that Wieland was ‘unwilling to come under the authority of a duly authorized board.’(Documents 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 36A, 37, 38)
The documents do not show that Wieland orchestrated a smear campaign against the members of the (Australian) board and the USA ministry. What they do show is that Wieland and his staff pointed out, in emails and in documents they prepared, how the MOA and the dropping of the Australian magazines (see next section) caused huge damage to CMI by actions on the part of the US Board and Ken Ham which were unethical/unbiblical/unlawful. (For example, documents numbered 31, 33, 48) These sober, analytical documents are apparently interpreted as part of the ‘smear campaign’.
They show that throughout the course of the dispute, Wieland stoutly adhered to Biblical principles. In return he was often defamed, vilified, pilloried and falsely accused of all manner of things of which the draft letter is but one example.
They show that AiG-USA and Ken Ham should apologize to Wieland and CMI for what they have done to them. They further show that Wieland did nothing of any consequence to warrant an apology from him to Ken Ham or AiG-USA. I believe this report, based on documents, amply demonstrates the truth of both those statements.

The dropping of the Australian Magazines.

I return to the history of events which took place during the course of the dispute.

Following the handover by the old Australian Board on 15 Nov 05, we saw from the documentary evidence that the new Board gave high priority to the reestablishment of good relations with Ken Ham and the US Board, and to negotiating a settlement of the dispute with them.

These documents also show that the US had a very different priority. Having obtained all it desired from Australia under the MOA/DOCL, it was not in the interests of the US to have that agreement renegotiated and it acted accordingly. It did what it could to ignore/resist CMI’s efforts in that regard. The priority which the US had, and showed by its actions to be of overriding importance, was to complete the separation of the two ministries effected by the MOA/DOCL documents.

Preliminary steps were taken by the US in December, 2005, to have the Australian magazine Creation which it distributed in the US, replaced with its own magazine. A confidential web survey was conducted by a professional firm for AiG-USA (Document 43). The format of the survey shows it was designed to produce the desired outcome i.e. approval by US subscribers for a new magazine with articles by authors different to those writing for Creation. The result was a foregone conclusion. A new magazine was approved by the US subscribers.

The US had a perfect right to drop the Australian magazine and replace it with one produced by it, provided it followed proper procedures in so doing. What it was not ethically/lawfully entitled to do, but nevertheless did do, is set out in Annexure 3, a document tendered to the committee by CMI. It is a factually accurate summary of the instances of deceit and breaches of contract by the US in its replacement of Creation with its own magazine. It also gives some idea of the huge financial damage occasioned to CMI in the way Creation and, very soon after, Journal of Creation, were dropped by the US. Had CMI been given some notice, formal or otherwise, by the US of its intention some time in the future to cease distribution of the Australian magazines, and had it advised its US subscribers that they now had a choice, to take a new magazine or continue with Creation, or even to take both, there could be no objection to that. However, neither of these ethical/lawful requirements was complied with. On 17 Feb 06 a peremptory announcement appeared on the US website that Creation would be dropped in favour of a new magazine, that it was ‘not possible’ for the US to distribute Creation and giving the impression that Creation was no longer available in the US. The Briese committee had before it many letters, from former US subscribers rediscovering Creation, that that is what they had been given to understand. As the US kept and maintained the list of subscribers for America, and Australia did not have a copy, Australia could not let these subscribers know what their options were. For its own purposes, the US deliberately refrained from properly advising them. Annexure 3 summarises the highly unethical way in which the US dropped the magazines and the damage that caused to Australia, being of the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone outreach lost. (A corollary of the damage to Australia is that the 35,000 US subscribers did not get any magazine for the March, 2006 quarter. It was not till June that they received the new magazine.) (The extensive email exchange between Australia and US which preceded AiG-USA’s dropping of the magazines are Documents 47.)

By inference the strong probabilities are that the Australian magazines were substituted and dropped in the manner described in order to assist the US to retain every subscriber and to inflict maximum financial damage on CMI. In line with his Strategy 3 it would help Ken Ham to destroy CMI. (As a confidential senior staff meeting of AiG-UK was informed by CEO Monty White, on 2 March 2006, 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.)

New Name: Creation Ministries International (CMI)

It was at this time (1 Mar 06) that AiG(Aust) was renamed Creation Ministries International (CMI). There were two main reasons:

First, the efforts by Wieland and AiG(Aust) in 2005 to set up a democratic system for Answers in Genesis International came to naught when Ken Ham announced he would not permit a system whereby the US could be outvoted on anything. This meant that if AiG(Aust) didn’t wish to be dominated by the US or have Australian supporters confused about what Australia’s position on any particular matter might be, Australia had to consider a different brand name with a different web site. The other CMI countries were in the same position.

Second, the letter from the US Board of 30 Nov 05 (Document 42) informed Australia, as part of its separate-from-Australia strategy, that it should set up its own website by the end of December, 2005. There could not be two ‘Answers in Genesis’ websites in the world, with different philosophies and saying different things, a recipe for total global confusion. After taking legal advice, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa made the decision to rebrand and set up a separate website in February 2006.

The new name of Creation Ministries International was effective from l March 2006.

----------------------------------

Attacks on the Private Life of Carl Wieland.

Concentration by Ken Ham and his Board on the task of completing the separation of the US and Australian ministries did not mean that other initiatives under Strategies 2 and 3 would be put on the backburner. Additional action to injure or bring down the Australian ministry under Wieland would continue to be considered.

In April, 2006, a new effort was made by Ken Ham to blacken the character of Wieland by suggesting there were unsavoury aspects to Wieland’s divorce and remarriage. Ken Ham well knew there was not a shred of credible evidence to support allegations of that kind because these matters had been thoroughly investigated years prior when Ham was himself a member of the Australian board. Ham’s statement about this, written c. l997/8, is as follows:

“The AiG board in Australia investigated this matter thoroughly. They also invited independent people (including a couple of very conservative pastors) to also investigate all aspects of this situation. They had access to all involved intimately and those associated with the Wieland family. Over the years, the board also allowed some others outside of AiG (including a family from the USA) to also have access to all the information and people involved. Those who have investigated this matter support Carl and agree that Bibl