Here is a document that is addressed to Christian women who are tempted to do the work of Satan, thinking they’re doing God a favor. The events depicted in this document portray the wife’s destruction of Jesus’ Lordship over her Christian home in a heart-rending story that is not unusual. Tragically, this story is being repeated everyday in the Godless courts of the USA and beyond. Before you enter into this drama, which is an excerpt from a larger volume, please consider the words of this woman’s Covenant to her husband and her God at their wedding ceremony 11 years earlier:
“Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me,” Ruth 1:16-17.
Then, to add insult to injury, Christian leaders and laymen empowered the anti-Christ judge and his tyranny. This is another episode in the apocalyptic war against the saints.
“HUSBAND’s religious zeal and devotion to that kept him from being the parent and father he could have been … HUSBAND is a robot, radical and off-balance, obsessed with his religious activities at the expense of his family … HUSBAND’s commitment to his religious ideologies and goals has been the focus of difficulty in this marriage … The court orders that time with his children is not for the purpose of conducting activities to further HUSBAND’s religious aims and beliefs.”
Husband did not grant jurisdiction
|September 1, 1989
Judge Means, St Joseph Superior Court, South Bend, Indiana
Sally Schlueter, Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau
The marriage of HUSBAND ****[redacted] and WIFE ****[redacted] ****[redacted]
On 7Jul89 HUSBAND and WIFE were referred to the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau by Judge Means for a domestic investigation. The referral requested assistance with visitation determination for the 3 children: Son1, age 10; Daughter1, age 8; and Daughter2, age 7.
Accordingly, appointment letters were sent to HUSBAND and to WIFE on 14Jul89. WIFE contacted this office and was seen on 26Jul89 for approximately 1 hour.
The children were seen on 31Jul89 in this office for approximately 15 minutes each [False. Daughter2 declined to testify, p7¶2].
A second notice appointment letter was sent to HUSBAND on 4Aug89. In a letter received by this office on 15Aug89 HUSBAND declined to contact this office for an appointment. A copy of HUSBAND’s letter is attached to this report.
WIFE signed a waiver of confidentiality to allow contact with Rev Jack Crothers, Fish Lake Mennonite Church, and provided this office with unsolicited copies of a letter from Frank Bishop, Cornerstone Counseling and a letter written by HUSBAND. Copies are attached to this report. [WIFE was not authorized to waive confidentiality on HUSBAND’s behalf.]
Marital situation and petition background
HUSBAND and WIFE married on 20May78. Son1 was born on 2Aug79; Daughter1 was born on 12Mar81; and Daughter2 was born on 15Aug82. Thr couple separated on 16Aug88 [there is no mention that on that day, 16Aug88, WIFE abandoned the children and her HUSBAND, and never returned home again]. On 21Jun89 WIFE petitioned the court for a legal separation. On 7Jul89 a hearing was had and as reflected in the court docket (in part):
WIFE is granted the temporary care and custody of the 3 children. HUSBAND is granted visitation with the children on each Saturday between the hours of 9am until 8pm commencing 15Jul89, and on each Tuesday between the hours of 5pm and 8pm commencing 18Jul89. The court directs HUSBAND that said visitation times are for the purpose of carrying out visitation with the children and not for the purpose of HUSBAND conducting activities to further his religious aims and beliefs. [This is child abuse; part of missionary children’s Godly heritage is to be able to work with their father in the work of the Lord]. HUSBAND is ordered to pay to WIFE the sum of $336 per month as spousal support. [She never got a cent from me, as I forewarned her on 20May89] and the sum of $532 per month for the support of the children, for a total of $868 per month to the clerk of the court, together with the clerk’s annual docket fee. [I paid neither WIFE nor the court. The children received regular money, see Checks and Commentary, p?]
Interview with mother
WIFE was born in Plymouth, Indiana, the middle child of 3 children. She described her family as a very conventional and traditional farming family where the virtues of industriousness and conscientiousness were emphasized. [There is no mention of them taking by force on 6Jun89 what I had offered to them the evening prior].
WIFE described her father as an authoritarian figure. She said her mother returned to school to get her teaching degree while WIFE was in the 3rd grade, noting that her mother has just recently retired from the teaching profession. [No mention that Marie would have been fired had I not gone to her Principal and Superintendent to defend her being allowed to finish the year and retire honorably].
WIFE graduated from LaVille high school in 1970 and went on to graduate from Goshen College in 1974 with a teaching degree. She obtained a M.A. in Education from Ball State University in 1979 [no mention that HUSBAND helped WIFE finish her final courses and for years helped pay off her outstanding education loan]. WIFE is curently unemployed but stated she is about to begin seeking employment in the field of education. She stated she is currently living in her sister’s rental home but that it is a temporary situation. WIFE gave her address as 429 Lake Avenue, Plymouth, Indiana and said Son1, Daughter1 and Daughter2 live there with her [no mention that on the day WIFE left, the children were with HUSBAND/FATHER].
WIFE related that she and HUSBAND met in 1976 and married approximately 1½ years later. She stated she and HUSBAND have had problems throughout the marriage, but she was not able to define the root of those troubles for some time, blaming them on such things as finances, the pressures of supporting a famly with 3 small children, etc. WIFE said she now feels HUSBAND’s religious zeal and devotion to that kept him from being the parent and father he could have been and has been an important factor in their troubles [False. WIFE abandoned HUSBAND and the children while he and the children were together. This proves WIFE had no misgivings as to HUSBAND’s parenting and fathering qualities. This is spiritual treason].
WIFE noted that HUSBAND had spent 4 years in Europe prior to their meeting one another and he speaks 6 languages. She stated HUSBAND has told her he intends to return to Europe (quite probably Russia) to carry out his ministry and that it had been his goal to learn the languages and use them in his ministry [by premarital agreement WIFE agreed to return with HUSBAND to God’s work in Europe, p18].
WIFE said that throughout their marriage HUSBAND has had temporary jobs [False. HUSBAND had worked 2 years at Mossberg Printing Company prior to WIFE leaving, plus he got job offers that WIFE vetoed] and they have lived in rental homes only [no mention of HUSBAND drawing up house plans and buying property in the country at the moment she left. WIFE said: I’ll never live in a house HUSBAND builds”]. WIFE said she thinks HUSBAND does not want to have any encumbrances so that he will be able to leave “when the Lord calls him” [It was WIFE who left her family, claiming she was following the Lord, not HUSBAND].
WIFE said they had continually faced financial pressures because not enough money has come into the household to meet their basic needs [False. HUSBAND had paid $5000 on property in the country before WIFE left and paid $500 per month thereafter]. According to WIFE she did a variety of things to cope with their financial situation. She stated she made bread and pizzas which she sold out of the home [no mention that HUSBAND underwrote all WIFE’s business efforts and helped her as needed]. She also noted she always had a big garden and froze food to get them through the winter months [False. The big organic garden in the country (40×100 feet) was 5 miles away. Gardening, canning and freezing were primarily for health and not for saving money]. She alleged that in spite of the scarcity of money HUSBAND found it appropriate that he spend $60 on a telegram sent in support to a man in Florida who had bombed an abortion clinic [no mention that abortion kills little children].
According to WIFE it became more difficult living with HUSBAND over the years. She described him as a person who has great self-control and that he sees it as a virtue to be in control. She said that emotionally, HUSBAND is a robot and responds to her and any of her feelings in that manner. WIFE said HUSBAND was always logical, that he controlled and manipulated their conversations and she felt totally dominated by him [no mention that a Christian man is expected to keep his body under control and keep rule over his household]. She noted that when she was pregnant with their son, Son1, HUSBAND wanted to visit Europe. According to WIFE, when she told him she did not want to go he told her he would go anyway and she could remain behind and have the baby [False. Returning with HUSBAND to his work in Europe was by pre-marital agreement, p 18].
WIFE stated that HUSBAND does not see the family as his focus. Rather, his ministry and himself are his focus, which comes at the expense of the family. She recounted an incident after their separation in which HUSBAND had the children for the weekend. WIFE said she was expecting the children home at 8 pm. When HUSBAND finally arrived at her home with them at 11 pm he told her he had the children with him while he was “ministering to a woman in need” and told WIFE “you should pray for her too” [HUSBAND was not obligated to take the children back to WIFE, except out of willingness to reciprocate. It was not HUSBAND but WIFE who abandoned the children. Furthermore, WIFE is trying to prove: “HUSBAND’s family is not his focus.” WIFE makes no mention that HUSBAND withdrew from public outreach 5 years before she left in order to devote himself to family concerns and that after she left HUSBAND waited another 6 months for WIFE to come home. Eventually he returned to public outreaches, like the one referred to here, which was held at the University of Notre Dame, accompanied by the family’s most longstanding friend, Peter Helland].
WIFE stated that HUSBAND did help out with the children and that he did spend time with them but that it seemed like “duty with no love” [no mention that the children all bonded with their father and that HUSBAND fathered and mothered them for years while WIFE was suffering from fatigue, weak pulse and shortness of breath]. She further stated that while he was never physically abusive to the children he was more strict than she was with them and on one occasion when she asked where he learned his discipline tactics, he replied “from training farm animals” [no mention that the children are articulate, happy, well-behaved, well-adjusted, and that training farm animals was HUSBAND’s greatest asset in establishing communication and rapport with the children before they were able to talk English. This very document (p5¶2) mentions this fine training: “Son1’s behavior and language while in this interview were quite mature. He was articulate and expressed himself in a very adult manner, which is unusual for a child his age.” WIFE could also have mentioned that HUSBAND was studying electronics with Son1, and reading the encyclopedia to all the children at the moment she abandoned them].
WIFE said that she and HUSBAND had been in numerous counseling situations after their separation with no apparent succuss in resolution of the issues [In the presence of the judge on 6Jun89 WIFE’s attorney claimed: “(HUSBAND) refused to accept any counseling, p.9.”This direct contradiction further demonstrates the unreliability of the testimony]. In spite of all that has gone on, WIFE indicated she wanted the marriage to work and had hoped they could reconcile if HUSBAND would work on some pertinent issues. However, she noted HUSBAND has not given any indication that he wants to cooperate [Impossible for this marriage to work as long as WIFE insists on being the husband] and that further, he has not seen the children in 2½ to 3 months [no mention that WIFE had stated that HUSBAND loved the children too much and that HUSBAND distanced himself from them to allow WIFE time for reflection].
WIFE expressed a fear that HUSBAND will possibly take the children and go to Europe with them. She said that with his ability to speak numerous languages, she is afraid he will simply disappear with them. She stated she has found notes [no mention that these notes were from HUSBAND’s personal diary that WIFE broke into his house and stole] written by HUSBAND indicating that he intends to return to Europe and that he has considered taking the children [to take his children is a missionary’s responsibility]. WIFE said that HUSBAND is radical and off-balance. She fears that if he were to have overnight visitation with the children he could use it as an opportunity to disappear to Europe [False. HUSBAND had the children overnight on 15Apr89 and didn’t disappear with them to Europe; see this document, p3¶5: “HUSBAND had the children for the weekend.” This is further evidence that this testimony is unreliable].
WIFE said she is not trying to deny HUSBAND an opportunity to see the children but under the circumstances wants visitation restricted (no overnights) and supervised [this is part of the malicious effort on WIFE’s part to maintain dictatorial control over the children and to barricade them from a meaningful relationship with their father]. She suggested HUSBAND could meet with the children at her parents’ home as she felt they attempted to be level-headed about the entire situation [There is no mention of Bachtel’s assault against HUSBAND’s house, car and property just after he offered them everything, free for the taking].
Interview with the children
Son1 **** is 10 years old. Like his 2 younger sisters, he does not attend public or private school, but receives instruction at home from WIFE. Son1’s behavior and language while in this interview were quite mature. He was articulate and expressed himself in a very adult manner, which is unusual for a child his age. [There is no mention that home schooling was HUSBAND’s initiative (referred to by HUSBAND as “school by correspondance” in 1977 prior to marriage) so the children could receive schooling while accompanying their father on his missionary journeys. HUSBAND spent time teaching his children in all the areas he himself was involved in: engine rebuilding, auto body work, shop tools, electricity, electronics, computers, soldering, printing, book making, carpentry, gardening, small engine repair, music, art, public speaking, etc. plus regular times spent reading together out of the encyclopedia].
Many of Son1’s statements appeared to be quite categorical and negative in respect to his father. Son1 indicated that among other things, he felt his father was selfish, wanted his own way, was not accepting and did not love Son1 [False. This is evidence of brain washing. One of WIFE’s initial complaints when she left was: “HUSBAND loves the children too much”]. Son1 appeared unemotional when providing this information about his father and the perfunctory manner and lack of apparent feeling give cause for concern regarding Son1’s mental outlook regarding his father [no mention that Son1 was perfunctory and unemotional because he had been brain washed by WIFE and didn’t believe a word he was saying].
Daughter1 **** is an attractive 8 year old. Her conversation indicated that WIFE has conveyed to the children her fears that HUSBAND may attempt to take them out of the country [Correct. WIFE has conveyed her fears to the children, better known as brain washing]. Like Son1, her recollections of her father indicated a relationship devoid of love and affection.
Lengthy inset: [False. This is brain washing. HUSBAND is Daughter1’s Papa. He delivered Daughter1 at home. Her Papa walked and patted her during her long nights struggling with colic as a newborn and to comfort her he made up a song for her to the tune of Blue Danube. He gave her the name “Tasche” meaning “my little pocket” for endearment. Daughter1, as an infant, like all the children, was fed like a little bird off Pa’s lap during mealtime. At bedtime Pa would bounce the children in their beds as they were going to sleep. Daughter1 loved silky ribbons. She and Pa would go to the fabric shop to buy a new one when her old one wore out or got lost. When Daughter1 fell and needed stitches on the bridge of her nose right between her eyes, the emergency room physician wanted to put her in a straight jacket. HUSBAND assured him that wouldn’t be necessary, that Daughter1 knew her father’s voice and that she would lay perfectly still for him to work so close to her eyes with the needle and stitches. Daughter1 had a cloth put over her eyes so she couldn’t see the needle. Pa got under that cloth to talk to her and comfort her. She performed magnificiently. She didn’t move a limb through the whole scarey procedure, then after it was over she cried freely. Daughter1 also loved playing beauty shop with her Pa. The bonding between all the children and their Pa was extraordinary. One of WIFE’s initial claims was: “HUSBAND loves the children too much.” Daughter1 told her Pa by telephone in the Fall of 1988: “Pa, I keep falling down and hurting myself because you’re not here.” This little girl is expressing the deep anguish of her soul. Who is willing to hear her? Then that Christmas (1988) the children got to spend the night at Pa’s house for the first time because Daughter1 smuggled this note to him: “Mare crismis, to papa from Daughter1, I love you papa, I wont to sspod spent the ninit at your haws, love Daughter1 you.” While she was at his house, the day after Christmas (26Dec88), she wrote this note: “From Daughter1 to papa, I like your house and your excitements.” Later she smuggled this note to him: “A note to Papa from Daughter1, would you cum on Saturdays and Tuesday and please write to mama, Son1, Daughter1 and Daughter2, to papa from HMS.” (see p ii) ¶Daughter1 has endured the loss of her Pa. His flowers and letters and music and visits and gifts have all been blocked. She wants him to come. She wants to be with him. She likes his house. She wants to spend the night at his house. She wants him to write to her. She feels disconnected so that she falls down out of loneliness for him. (Pa wrote 200 letters to his children that never reached them. The florist who tried to deliver Papa’s flowers to the children was threatened and ordered never to come back). ¶Daughter1 has been subjected to this kind of trauma, yet the incompetent interrogator does not press beyond this little girl’s mind and into her heart].
Daughter1 indicated that HUSBAND was not physically affectionate and that he “hollered”at them. She conveyed she has not been unhappy with her father’s absence from their lives in the last 2½ to 3 months [False. This is brain washing].
The youngest child, Daughter2 ****, soon to be 7 years of age, did not want to be interviewed. She appeared to have a mutually fond relationship with WIFE when observed in the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau office.
All 3 children expressed fondness for WIFE and exhibited a general lack of warmth and feeling in their statements about their father [False. Daughter2 refused to testify. This lie gets repeated which demonstrates the fraud and deception that was used to stack the deck against HUSBAND]. This counselor received the impression that many of the childrens’ observations and statements regarding their father’s obsession with his religious activities (at the expense of his family) have been INFLUENCED BY THEIR MOTHER’S PERCEPTIONS and OPINIONS [responsible people would have recognized this as brain washing and would have halted all proceedings]. However, there was an undeniable lack of positive feelings when talking about their father and their involvement with him [this incompetent interrogator did not press beyond the brainwashing of the mind and into the children’s heart].
In a telephone conversation with Rev Jack Crothers of Fish Lake Mennonite church on 2Aug89 he related that he had counseled HUSBAND and WIFE jointly on one occasion. He noted that HUSBAND chose not to pursue further counseling but that Jack met with WIFE on several other occasions [no mention that Jack and his wife took WIFE into their home the day she abandoned her family and conspired with her].
Jack’s impressions were that WIFE was discouraged but desirous of making the marriage work. Jack said he felt that HUSBAND was unwilling to make any changes or accomodations [no mention that the changes required were for HUSBAND to become WIFE’s wife (sic)].
Jack described HUSBAND in religious terms as a “pharisaical” person (a person who is noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law) [note that Jack accuses HUSBAND of: “strict observance of the law” (Pharisee) then later he accuses HUSBAND of non observance of the law: “regardless of what the law provides” (see: next ¶). Such contradiction demonstrates the unreliability of Jack’s testimony]. He also said he saw HUSBAND as a “cold” person, noting HUSBAND says and does “right” or “correct” things but there appears to be no feeling involved.
Jack related that at the time he counseled the couple together, it was disclosed that WIFE was wearing HUSBAND’s undershorts as that was all she had. Jack said HUSBAND did not see that as inappropriate and indicated he felt his family’s needs were sufficiently met [no mention that WIFE was in charge of the budget, HUSBAND was not overdrawn in his categories, and she could wear anything she wanted].
Jack related that it concerned him that HUSBAND has definite ideas what is “right” and has a tendency to act on those values and standards regardless of what others think or what the law provides [no mention that any law against loving people is an invalid law. Some people love the law or what others think more than they love people who are hurting, for whose benefit the law was intended. Exactly those people are the true pharisees; people who refuse to break a law that stands in the way of helping people who are hurting]. He indicated while he feels it is wrong to deny visitation for HUSBAND, he also fears that if HUSBAND felt it was “right” for him to take the children and leave the country, he would do so without hesitation [a Christian father should never hesitate to do what he feels is right for his children. This indicates Jack is using non-Christian thinking].
Child support payment history
In a telephone conversation with WIFE on 27Aug89 she stated that HUSBAND has been paying child support directly to her and has sent her a check for $133 every week with the exception of the last 2 weeks [False. WIFE failed to follow instructions regarding a $496 U.S.Treasury check which HUSBAND sent to the children for those 2 weeks]. She further stated that to-date HUSBAND has made no spousal maintenance payments either to her or to the court [Correct. Neither WIFE nor her attorney nor the court ever got a cent from HUSBAND, just as he had stated to WIFE beforehand on 20May89].
In summary, a complete investigation was not made in this case because HUSBAND declined to cooperate with this office [Correct. This office is without jurisdiction]. WIFE and the children were interviewed [False. Daughter2 declined to be interviewed (p6¶2). The repetition of this lie demonstrates that this interrogator has a problem and her findings are unreliable]. Information from them as well as information from Jack has been included. From the information gathered it appears that HUSBAND’s commitment to his religious ideologies and goals has been the focus of difficulty in this marriage [WIFE betrayed HUSBAND before the ungodly on account of his Christian commitment].
Son1, Daughter1 and WIFE spoke of interpersonal relationships with HUSBAND that were apparently devoid of feeling and warmth.
WIFE fears that HUSBAND may take the children out of the country and her and Jack’s description of HUSBAND’s attitude suggest that HUSBAND would have few reservations in carrying out such a plan if he felt it was justified.
In light of the information contained in this report this counselor suggests that the court may want to consider supervised and restricted visitation [this means that the children are to be barred from their father except under the control, surveillance and supervision of WIFE].
Sally Schlueter, counselor/caseworker
John Cimino, director
ENDNOTE: If my testimony could be of any help, I am this man’s second wife, of 21 years now, and I feel I have inherited a great blessing. We have 5 children and together we are loving our neighbor and occupying Jesus’ Lordship until he comes. This endnote makes everything sound like an idyllic ending, but you must know that this story is unbelievable.