Walter Carson: Our GC Trademark Attorney

DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 2000

Over the past several years, we have heard
about Walter Carson. He has been in the General
Conference Office of General Counsel (OGC)
longer than any other attorney. This brief report
will provide you with some additional information
about this man, whom we now learn has been
at the heart of the General Conference trademark
lawsuits since their inception.

Walter E. Carson is 56 years old this year. We
know little about his background before he attended
college. After graduating from Columbia Union College,
he completed a history degree and a law degree
at a Catholic university.

Carson then worked as an assistant law director
for the City of Cleveland, Ohio. Later he was in the
State of Ohio attorney general’s office for a time. After
this he moved back to Maryland and worked first
as a congressional liaison for the U.S. Postal Service
and, then, as a Democratic congressional staff member,
working in the office of John J. Flynt, Jr. (D).

We will learn that Carson seems to find himself
at home with Democrats and Catholics. Later in this
article, we will learn his Democratic connections have
continued on down to the present time. (This is unusual;
since Adventists who oppose abortion, gay
rights, etc., generally are conservative Republicans.)

At the age of 32, Carson joined the General Conference
legal department (1976); and, with the exception
of one year, he has been there ever since. It
is called the Office of General Counsel (OGC).
In August 1981, Vincent Ramik initially suggested
to Neal C. Wilson the idea of trademarking the name,
Seventh-day Adventist, then waiting five years before
suing independent groups using it; for some reason
Carson was not bothered by the idea. While the
concept of routinely dragging Adventist believers into
court appeared somewhat abhorrent at first to most
of the other staff members, Carson was different.

For reasons discussed later in this report, it is likely
that Ramik also obtained his law degree at a Roman
Catholic school. At any rate, the two seemed to have
enough in common that they both could enjoy the
idea of financially ruining and destroying the faith of
Seventh-day Adventists.

Carson threw himself wholeheartedly into the
task of learning trademark law. He was in the prime
of life (37), and had five years in which to prepare.
During the mandatory waiting period before the actual
trademark suits could begin, he studied trademark
law intensively. There was nothing in his professional
work in Ohio or in the federal government
to quite prepare him for this; but, by 1986, Walter
Carson had become the only knowledgeable in-house
trademark attorney at the General Conference. He
had made himself invaluable, but at what a spiritual
cost to his own salvation.

We might inquire why the General Conference
did not have Carson carry on the court cases himself,
omitting Ramik’s expensive help. Perhaps it
looked better if outside attorneys did the dirty work.
Would it look good, to church members, if General
Conference workers were at the front line attack and
destroy team? Would it not look better if they were
perceived as only hovering silently in the background,
portraying themselves in the pages of the Review as
the hapless victims of these terrible independent
groups? At any rate, it was thought best to retain
Vincent Ramik’s expertise which, from years of courtroom
experience in patent and trademark litigation,
far surpassed anything Walter Carson would ever
have.

Carson is acknowledged, by the General Conference
legal staff, as the foremost expert on trademark
and intellectual property matters within the church.
From the beginning, he has played a key role in working
closely with Robert Nixon in the General Conference
and Vincent Ramik in prosecuting lawsuits
against hapless Adventists. Nixon would write conference
presidents, asking them to report on groups
in their jurisdiction which were using the name without
proper authorization. He would also reply to general
questions from church members. Ramik was
placed in charge of making threatening phone calls
and writing threatening letters. Carson, with his
trademark law knowledge, coordinated between
Ramik, Nixon, and Wilson in selecting and going after
specific targets.

If some of these men make it to heaven, they will
have some explaining to do to a number of the saints
who will be there.

It has been said that Walter Carson was always
willing to help when integrity in the General Conference
needed to be eliminated. Whether or not that is
true, we are shocked at his involvement in the trademark
suits. We are also surprised at how readily he
stepped forward, when an opportunity came to get
rid of the only whistle-blower remaining in the General
Conference: David Dennis.

In the fall of 1983, Adventist Health Systems had
passed $1 billion in debt. By the spring of 1985,
they had exceeded $1.5 billion! In August 1986, they
had reached $2 billion! But AHS, working closely
with the General Conference, came up with a satisfactory
“solution.” On April 5, 1989, AHS officers
met with General Conference officials—and voted
immense salary increases to AHS leaders!

But when Dennis wrote Wilson a pleading letter
on April 17 to rescind this action, it led to Dennis’
later firing. He had become the problem, and problems
must be eliminated. (See our book, Collision
Course, 56 pp., 8½ x 11 $5.00 + $1.50 p&h.)

That December (1986), John Marik was jailed
in Los Angeles for having refused to stop calling his
nine-member group “Seventh-day Adventists.”
Carson, Ramik, and Wilson were jubilant. The experience
so shook Marik that he later left religion
entirely. Yet, from 1981 to 1990, all in-house trademark
expenses have been paid from the sacred tithe.

From 1990 up to the present day, all other trademark
costs have been paid from other church funds
(which would have to be Ingathering or overseas
missions).

You will recall the incident, back in late July
1990, when newly elected President Folkenberg was
trying to find ways to secretly get money to his wife
and Al McClure’s wife. When Donald F. Gilbert, then
GC treasurer, said that this would be unethical, Ron
Wisbey, president of the Columbia Union, arranged
to have the money laundered through their “Worthy
Student Fund” and secretly given to the two wives.

(In our recent report of the Shady Grove Hospital
salary scandal, we reported on how Wisbey was handsomely
rewarded for this money laundering scheme,
by being later transferred to extremely lucrative AHS
executive positions. In 1996, his salary was
$161,000; in 1997, $447,000; and, in 1998,
$364,000. When he tried to silence the Washington
Post for an article they printed, they investigated and
published data on many high salaries he had approved
in committee.)

The payments to the two wives would have continued
down to the present day, if David Dennis had
not reported the situation. Embarrassed by the disclosure,
in a June 19, 1991 letter to Gilbert, Folkenberg
wrote that he had asked the Columbia Union
to discontinue this unethical action because “I only
know that it is vital that my integrity be unsullied.”

He was not worried about his integrity until he was
found out. The wives had by that time collected
$20,520. Once again, it was David Dennis who was
blamed as the troublemaker. Was it not he who had
dared to mail an auditor’s report of the scheme to
every officer in the Columbia Union Conference?

Two months later John Marik, who had been
hounded by the General Conference trademark attorneys
for four full years, abandoned Christianity
entirely. Who will answer in the judgment for what
happened to him?

Two months after that (October 1991), a Los Angeles
federal court decided in favor of Kinship. This
put all further GC trademark suits on hold till they
could find a suitable group for another frontal attack.
But what would happen if David Dennis ever
learned about the latest money-laundering scheme,
the one with James Moore which, by 1984, had already
involved many letters and phone calls? (More
about this below.) Dennis must be eliminated.

In October 1984 at the age of 40, Carson was
very willing to accept the assignment of leading out
in verbally attacking David Dennis, calling him a liar,
a child abuser and adulterer—in order to get Dennis
fired. Without corroborating evidence, Carson
charged Dennis with having had a long history of
sexual misconduct. But he was careful to make those
charges in a closed meeting where the promised
court reporter was told not to appear.

“On October 4, and with Mittleider present,
Dennis was called in to Carson’s office. Dennis
was presented with the affidavit which Carson
got Adels to sign and summarily told that he
must resign his post.

“Dennis refused. It is an interesting fact that,
when church workers are framed by false
memory syndrome charges, leadership generally
sides with the defendant—not with the accuser.
But Dennis was different.

“The next day David was again called in for a
second interrogation by Carson and Mittleider.
This time a different approach was used. Dennis
was accused of alleged improper financial
dealings and other accusations! They were untrue,
and he refused to resign. Every possible
avenue of impeaching his character and frightening
him into quitting was being attempted.

“On October 9, Dennis was again ordered to
meet with his persecutors. This time a third
tactic was used. He was summarily told that
the General Conference leaders could, and
would, destroy his reputation if he did not resign
immediately! When he said the charges
were untrue, he was called a liar. Once again,
he was told that leadership intended to totally
destroy his reputation and slander his character
if he did not immediately resign.

“Two days later, on October 11, in desperation
a fourth tactic was employed. This time,
Dennis had engaged an attorney with him, who
listened, by conference call, while Dennis was
Walter Carson: Our General Conference Trademark Attorney

told that he must resign immediately—because
the General Conference now had documentary
proof of each and every charge leveled against
him. David knew this claim was as unfounded
as all the others, and he challenged them to
produce the documents. At this, in bursts of
anger they demanded his immediate resignation.

“In the months which have passed since then,
none of that supposed evidence has ever been
presented. This is because no such evidence
exists. It was a lying report.

“Documents and paperwork were fabricated,
and slanders continue against Dennis and his
family. No proof has been found to support
these charges, and Dennis staunchly and consistently
maintains his complete innocence.”—
Collision Course, p. 41.

On December 29, Dennis was fired. Carson had
done his part, and Folkenberg was proud of him.
After the 1992 money-laundering scheme to the
wives had failed, Folkenberg went to Walter Carson
and asked him to figure out another way to privately
get money into his, Folkenberg’s, hands. Of course,
this was highly unethical; and, in the manner in
which it was done, it was far worse in scope than
the sneaky “Worthy Student” scheme had been. The
two knew it would have to be done in utmost secrecy;
otherwise it would ruin both of their reputations
in the church.

In mid-1992, at Carson’s request, the Chicago
law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal (SN&R)
set up the Elder and Mrs. Robert S. Folkenberg
Trust. The objective, obviously, was to provide a secret
money channel to Folkenberg. In return, he
would provide special favors to donors.

Such a practice would be enough to ruin a highplaced
Adventist leader, if discovered. But Folkenberg
had always been a risk taker. And, after working
in the General Conference for years, doing “the
Lord’s work” in suing faithful Adventist believers,
Carson had become hardened. Whether it involved
working up documents on David Dennis or dragging
innocent people into federal court, Carson was
ready to brave his way through the latest leadership
project presented to him.

One of the men who wanted to funnel money
through that Chicago trust fund to Folkenberg was
none other than James Moore, the Sacramento businessman
who had been imprisoned from 1989 to
1992 on eight counts of grand larceny. (“Larceny” is
the crime of unlawfully taking away another person’s
property, with the intent of depriving him of it permanently.
Theft of money is frequently involved.

Folkenberg knew all about this; but, in the hope of
personal profit, he continued working with James
Moore in spite of it.)

In order to render the fund even more secretive,
Carson set in motion arrangements to transfer the
moneys from the Chicago fund to a Channel Islands
fund on June 15, 1992. (The Channel Islands are
located in the English Channel, south of Britain. Like
a number of other locations in the world, it is a financial
haven for people who want to hide financial
transactions.)

Thomas Opferman, a SN&R attorney, sent Carson
and Moore a draft of the Trust agreement and a
Ruling Request. Upon receiving those papers, Moore
told Opferman that he would send the documents
to his Channel Islands lawyer, who would draft documents
to set up a new foundation there to receive
donations to the Folkenberg Trust.

But Opferman sent a letter, dated June 24, 1992,
to Carson, informing him that this new account
would have to be cleared by the IRS, and they might
give it very careful scrutiny. Whether this worried
Carson and Folkenberg is not known. But we do
know that the Channel Islands Trust was never set
up. (The present writer has the impression that
Moore regularly stalled Folkenberg, in order to get
as many favors as possible with the least payment
of money.)

If it had been, the plan provided for a check for
$700,000 to have been immediately placed in it by
Moore, for making “distributions at least quarterly
to Elder Folkenberg.”

That same year, Robert’s brother, Donald Folkenberg
was hired without approval as an “associate
treasurer.” His assignment: disbursing all overseas
money for Robert’s new project—Global Mission.

(Some now believe that Global Mission was an invented
project, to provide Donald a treasury to be in
charge of.)

By November 1992, the man who had been
trained by Jesuits could no longer take the sharkinfested
environment at world headquarters. Walter
Carson tendered his resignation and went back to
Ohio and entered private practice.

Without his help, Robert Folkenberg relied more
heavily on secret phone calls to James Moore which,
unknown to him, Moore was secretly taping. (When
you go into financial partnership with a man earlier
convicted of larceny, you should expect some unusual
treatment.)

As Folkenberg’s involvement in Moore’s Kanaka
Valley Associates mess deepened, he pled for Carson
to return, which he did in December 1993. He also
needed to streamline his personal messenger-boy
services, on behalf of Moore, on church-paid flights
to national leaders throughout the world.

In 1994, Carson submitted a Trust funding proposal
to the board of Geometra, Inc., another of
Moore’s business interests. In a memorandum dated
September 8, 1994, addressed to Moore as an executive
committee member of Geometra, Carson
proposed opening three foreign bank accounts in
the name of “Foreign Geometra, Inc.” The letter further
stated that it would be set up in one of the 57
countries which had signed the Patent Cooperation
Treaty, “thus providing confidentiality on banking
matters and financial affairs” (i.e., even more secretive
fund transfers to Folkenberg).

Why did Folkenberg need so much extra money?
Why did James Moore want to give him so much?
When Folkenberg was ousted in 1999, it was disclosed
that he had not only arranged for Moore to
visit key national leaders in other nations,—but even
went along to introduce him! This gave Moore opportunity
to arrange many lucrative business deals.

(Example: In an August 1, 1994, letter to
Desmond Tutu, Folkenberg attempted to sue the GC
president’s office to legitimize Moore and the “humanitarian
potential” of his activities.

(Example: A memorandum to Shareholders of
Geometra Engine and Fuel Systems, Inc., from
Nicholas LaPolla, secretary of Geometra. La Polla
was sitting in Moore’s office on January 30, 1995,
when Moore received a phone call from Folkenberg.

La Polla overheard Folkenberg tell Moore that he
had set tentative appointments for Geometra to show
its equipment to the presidents of Malawi, Tanzania,
and Uganda and that Folkenberg would try to
secure appointments for Geometra with the presidents
of Pakistan and Egypt when he met each of
them in a few weeks.)

This is what our General Conference president
was doing. And the man he was working with was
James Moore, a faithful Roman Catholic, who among
other duties, was on a Vatican-owned corporate
board, Vicariatus Urbis Foundation! (See our book,
Robert Folkenberg’s Resignation, third edition, 70
pp., 8½ x 11, $4.75 + $1.50.)

Moore was known to have given a number of large
donations to high-placed Catholic entities. Folkenberg
and Carson knew this, but continued working
with him. Carson’s letter further specified that certain
directors of Sharing International Tennessee
would have authority to access these foreign accounts
for several purposes, including “to provide funding
of the ___ Trust.” Blank lines were typed in by Carson
to add to the secrecy; Carson well-knew that church
leaders would never tolerate this secret slush fund
if they ever learned about it.

Yet, when later called upon to explain his relations
with Moore, Folkenberg said that his association
with him did not involve “any expectation of any
personal profit.”

What did Folkenberg gain from being Moore’s
errand boy, traveling all over the world to promote
his business? Consider this example: One month
after Folkenberg wrote to Desmond Tutu in South
Africa, Walter Carson submitted a proposal to Moore
for funding the Folkenberg Trust through foreign
bank accounts—in order to keep the transfer of
money to Folkenberg secret. How much was transferred?

It is difficult to ascertain the full scope of
this, since the overseas accounts were so carefully
placed and so many devious methods were used to
transfer funds.

Walter Carson must have been a beneficiary also.
Surely, he was not carrying on such a personally risky
operation for his health. Although Carson was fully
implicated in all these transactions, only Folkenberg
was fired. A primary reason was that Carson is the
only in-house expert in trademark and property
rights litigation in the General Conference. They
needed him in order to continue with their efforts,
to erase Adventism from the hearts of faithful believers;
ostensibly, “to protect the Adventist name.”
It is interesting to note that, on December 8,
1992, the GC Executive Committee voted to approve
new guidelines for the operation of the Office of General
Counsel (OGC; the GC legal department, in
which Carson worked), which included the following
stipulations:

It “will provide or coordinate all legal services
[including trademark suits] to the General
Conference entities operating within the
General Conference complex . . and will provide
legal services, as requested, to General
Conference institutions and world divisions.
Additional legal work will be limited to other constituent
church organizations and institutions.

Staff lawyers shall not have private legal practices.”

Although the OGC held a staff meeting once a
month, when the attorneys could discuss their activities
and counsel with one another, Carson never
mentioned his involvement in helping to launder
funds through foreign banks, to secret Folkenberg
accounts.

Carson’s September 6, 1996 letter, completing
the Settlement Agreement, by which he and Folkenberg
pulled out of the Kanaka Valley Associates
scheme, greatly angered James Moore, and he vowed
to sue both men.

In a letter dated October 31, 1997, Moore angrily
told Folkenberg that he wanted more money.
“I want some income stream, Robert; and I want
it now. I don’t want to be made [to] feel like a heel
with my business associates due to non-timely payments,
when in fact it is not due to my doing; rather
to the mishandling on the part of Carson through
the [Kanaka Valley Associates] settlement agreement
for your benefit.”

Although Folkenberg and Carson had not wanted
to displease Moore, they got out of the Kanaka
scheme just in time to avoid a lawsuit against the
General Conference by one of the investors who had
been defrauded of a large amount of money. (Kanaka
Valley is a waterless, useless valley in the Sierra Nevada
foothills, above Sacramento, which Moore extracted
money from investors to develop.)

In that same letter, Moore demanded that Folkenberg
pressure ADRA (Adventist Disaster Relief
Association) to become involved in one of Moore’s
financial schemes. Folkenberg dutifully applied pressure
to ADRA (which handles more money than any
other single church entity), but they refused to associate
with Moore.

Moore finally went ahead with his threatened lawsuit
against Folkenberg, Carson, and the General
Conference. Papers were served at world headquarters
on December 28, 1998; and an “earthquake”
was produced.

Phil Hiroshima, a conscientious Sacramento
Adventist attorney, was hired by the General Conference
to investigate the matter. The massive amount
of information he uncovered has helped provide data
for this present report.

In February 1999, Robert Folkenberg resigned;
and, in March, Jan Paulsen was elected president
by the Spring Council.

Because so much incriminating evidence had already
been uncovered (linking Carson closely to the
entire Moore-Folkenberg affair) immediately after his
election, Paulsen appointed an Ad Hoc [special purpose]
Group to look into Carson’s conduct and make
a recommendation as to what action should be taken.

Ralph Thompson, the secretary of the General
Conference, chaired the group. The other members
were Matthew Bediako, a GC vice-president, and B.

J. Christiansen, assistant to the North American Division
president. But they had a problem: Carson
was the only in-house attorney able to keep the trademark
suits going. So it was decided to ask Robert
Nixon to survey church leaders, to see if Carson still
had their trust. Nixon and Carson had been working
closely for years on the trademark lawsuits and
were extremely close friends. Nixon reported back
that most of the leaders felt that Carson could remain
if he showed enough remorse.

When the Ad Hoc Group reported back to Paulsen,
essentially on the basis of Nixon’s conclusion
he issued a report to the General Conference Administration
Committee (ADCOM), which on May 18,
1999, approved the following action:

“As a result of Walter E. Carson’s role in the
dealings with James E. Moore and the Moore/
Folkenberg connection while in the employ of
the General Conference Office of General Counsel,
it was “VOTED, To stipulate that Walter E. Carson’s
continuing employment in the Office of General
Counsel will be contingent on the following:
“1. A letter of reprimand placed in his file.

“2. A six-month probationary period for his
employment, at the end of which his standing
will be reviewed by the Legal Affairs Committee.

“3. An acknowledgement of his mistakes and
poor judgment in dealing with James E. Moore.”

Nixon, head of the Office of General Counsel and
one of Carson’s closest friends, stated that he was
satisfied with the disciplinary measures and very
pleased that Carson would continue working in his
department.

Carson was privately told what ADCOM was going
to decide,—before they decided it. So, in a letter
dated the day before (May 17), Carson wrote a letter
of remorse to President Paulsen. It was accepted,
and Walter Carson’s probationary period ended satisfactorily
in the middle of last November. One OGC
attorney privately noted that it all amounted to nothing
more than a “slap on the wrist” of the repentant
Walter Carson: Our GC Trademark Attorney
Carson.

As for the first condition in the ruling, the “letter
of reprimand” was never written. Ray Dabrowski,
the GC public relations officer, said that a later committee
action decided to rescind that requirement.

Without that letter in his employment file, no prospective
employer would ever learn about what
Carson had done.

The 1993 General Conference guidelines had
stated that its attorneys were not to carry on private
practice outside of their work for the church. Carson
had clearly violated that guideline.

In addition, he had carried on activities which
no church worker should engage in. For several
years, he had been the person who arranged for secret
payments of money through offshore banks to
be paid to Folkenberg; part of it, very likely, was split
with him.

What Walter Carson had repeatedly done was
definitely not in the best interests of the church. Indeed,
church leaders were totally shocked when they
learned about the Folkenberg/Moore activities which
he had been coordinating.

Someone may say that Walter Carson did not
realize the seriousness of what he had been doing.
Yet he was very well-aware of the importance of preserving
the “good name” of the church. In a Review
interview, dated June 25, 1998 (ironically, only two
months before Moore filed his lawsuit), Carson defended
the right of the General Conference to carry
on its systematic trademark attacks on small groups
of Adventist believers. He said this in defense of that
ongoing persecution:

“A name, particularly the name of a faith community,
identifies it and its value system as distinct
from all others. Those who could co-opt
that name or trade on its potential for goodwill
are acting unethically and illegally. They confuse
the public, the media, and at times, even
our own members.”

Ironically, while he was managing frontal attacks
against small groups of Adventists “to defend the
good name of the church,” he was secretly overseeing
secret activities which were well-able to destroy
the confidence of many—in and out of the church—
in that name.

Yet another tragedy is that, ultimately, the ongoing
trademark lawsuits are likely to destroy the confidence
of many in the church in the basic integrity
of leadership. The denomination, especially in North
America, is more likely to destruct—rip to pieces—
because of the many wrong things that are being
done, strangely enough, in order to hold it together.

Things like women ministers and church officers,
Pentecostal Celebration church services, trademark
lawsuits to eliminate competition, and high salaries
to a few.

At the Florida Trademark Lawsuit on March 13-
16, 2000, Robert Nixon, head of the OGC, was a
witness and Walter Carson, the attorney who had
been in OGC the longest, was the General Conference
representative. Although he knew more about
trademark law than anyone else in world headquarters,
it was Vincent Ramik, sitting beside him, who
wrote the notes, nodded his head in signals, and
directed the plaintiff’s attack throughout the trial.

As a key member of a special hit squad, Walter
Carson will have to answer for it in the Judgment.

At that trial, one of their key arguments was that
the notorious U.S. Supreme Court decision in the
Oregon Smith case was that government can overrule
the individual practice of religion! Therefore,
the General Conference had a legal right to trample
on the rights of conscience. (See our book, Florida
Trademark Trial, 100 pp., 8½ x 11, $7.50 + $1.50.)

Before concluding this brief paper, do you sense
as I do that very real trouble is ahead? Does it not
seem that retribution will eventually overtake each
of the primary leaders in this nefarious trademarking
persecution of innocent Seventh-day Adventist
believers? This is a very real possibility. The God of
heaven guards His own, and He will take vengeance
on those who attack His defenseless ones.

As I write these words, there comes to mind a
passage of Scripture. Looking it up, I am struck with
the words. Carefully read it for yourself: Patriarchs
and Prophets, page 300. It tells of another group,
many years ago, which decided to harass and injure
God’s faithful—and frequently so defenseless—
people. It is possible to err in many ways, and we all
err frequently. But when a group of men set their
hand to deliberately and systematically destroy God’s
little ones, trouble will inevitably return upon their
own heads.

“Concerning this wicked people the Lord declared,
‘The hand of Amalek is against the
throne of Jehovah.’ Exodus 17:16, margin.

“The Amalekites were not ignorant of God’s
character or of His sovereignty, but instead of
fearing before Him, they had set themselves to
defy His power . . They had taken oath by their
gods that they would destroy the Hebrews, so
that not one should escape, and they boasted
that Israel’s God would be powerless to resist
them. They had not been injured or threatened
by the Israelites. Their assault was
wholly unprovoked. It was to manifest their
hatred and defiance of God that they sought to
destroy His people. The Amalekites had long
been high-handed sinners, and their crimes had
cried to God for vengeance, yet His mercy had
still called them to repentance; but when the
men of Amalek fell upon the wearied and defenseless
ranks of Israel, they sealed their
nation’s doom. The care of God is over the
weakest of His children. No act of cruelty or
oppression toward them is unmarked by
Heaven. Over all who love and fear Him, His
hand extends as a shield; let men beware that
they smite not that hand; for it wields the
sword of justice.”—Patriarchs and Prophets,
300.

Some may say that only a few men are trying to
remove Adventism from the public worship of faithful
believers. But when lower echelon officers, and
church members alike, do nothing to put a stop to
these horrible trademark lawsuits, the responsibility
for these actions spreads. This is a very serious
matter.

If I told you that you could no longer be a Seventh-
day Adventist, what effect would that have on
your life if you obeyed me? That is what these men
are trying to do to God’s little ones. They will pay for
it. Mark my word, for I have the authority of God’s
books underwriting it.

One would expect that this report would end
here. But Walter Carson’s latest adventure is to eliminate
one of the anti-abortion, anti-gay members of
the U.S. House of Representatives! As every thinking
American knows, it is only by a very slim majority
that conservative Republicans continue to hold
on to the House. Both the Senate and Executive
Branch are essentially liberal.

We have in hand an undated Spring 2000 news
clip from a Maryland newspaper, which reports that
Walter Carson has been trying to unseat Roscoe G.
Bartlett, a Seventh-day Adventist Republican U.S.
Congressman from the 6th Congressional District
in Maryland.

As you might expect, Carson is running on the
Democratic ticket, and is one of four contenders for
the Democratic slot in the 6th Congressional District.

Bartlett, in contrast, is a very conservative Republican.

We have watched Mr. Bartlett from a distance
and have noted that he has appeared to be quite
consistent in his defense of the right in his statements
and votes in the U.S. Congress.

As we already knew from other sources, this
news clip mentions Walter Carson’s history and law
degree training from Catholic University of America
(located in the District of Columbia), and also mentions
his “Civic activities: Active in Rotary.” Why is
he active in the Rotary Club, a very secular organization,
when all his work is supposed to be exclusively
done for the General Conference?

Walter Carson obtained his graduate degree (MA)
from one of the most prestigious Jesuit university
in the U.S. After completing it, he liked the people
there so much that he remained for additional years
of training and earned a law degree.

Why would a Seventh-day Adventist attend Catholic
University of America, when he could just as
easily drive down into the District and go to American
University?

While in attendance at the Adventist Seminary
in Washington, D.C., I regularly drove by CUA and
saw the Jesuit priests walking in the garden, as
Ignatius Loyola instructed them to do each day. In
my 1981 research on the Jesuits, I concluded that
every Jesuit university seeks to cautiously recruit
agents from among its students. Young Adventists,
once they obtain their degrees, make excellent agents!

I cannot help but wonder how many other graduates
of Jesuit universities are employees of our
church. (Catholic University of America is situated
rather close to Takoma Park.)

In a recent statement on the internet,

Tom Wetmore, another OGC attorney, inadvertently gave
significant information when he told that he has also
worked extensively on the trademark cases! Only
the Judgment will reveal the full extent of those lawsuits
and the full cost in damaged and destroyed
lives.

The other trademark attorney managing our ongoing
trademark litigation also has a Catholic background.

After we revealed, early on, that Vincent
Ramik was said to be a Roman Catholic, it was later
claimed that Ramik had been a faithful Protestant
all his adult life! What are the facts on this matter? I
mention this again, because it is so frequently controverted
by church leaders.

The September 17, 1981, issue of the Adventist
Review said he was a Roman Catholic. (You will find
those articles reprinted on pages 53-54 of our book,
The Story of the Trademark Lawsuits.) In that issue,
twice the Adventist Review said Ramik was a
Roman Catholic, and twice Vincent Ramik said he
was a Catholic! Are we then to believe Nixon’s 1990
statement, that Ramik had been a Protestant his
entire adult life?

The following statements, from 1981 contrasted
with 1990, clearly do not agree. Here they are:
1981 ADVENTIST REVIEW: RAMIK IS A
ROMAN CATHOLIC—“Vincent L. Ramik, senior
partner of Diller, Ramik & Wight, Ltd, a
lawyer who practices patent, trademark, and
copyright law in Washington, D.C. . . Ramik, a
Roman Catholic, spent more than 300 hours
researching 1,000 relevant cases [for the E. G.
White plagiarism issue].”—“Ellen White’s Use
of Sources,” Adventist Review, September 17,
1981, p. 3, para. 1, 3.

“Ramik: Mrs. White moved me [as I read her
writings]! In all candor, she moved me. I am a
Roman Catholic; but, Catholic, Protestant,
whatever—she moved me.”—Op. cit., p. 2, para.
18.

“I’m not a practicing Roman Catholic. I was
born one; but my wife happens to be a Protestant;
one child is baptized a Catholic, one is
baptized a Protestant. I guess you could say we
are an ‘ecumenical’ family!”—“There Simply Is
No Case,” p. 4, para. 22.

“Review: Did the fact that Mr. Ramik, a Roman
Catholic, would of necessity have to read
The Great Controversy in its entirety (which
some Catholics find personally offensive) concern
you as you contemplated retaining him?
“Johns: We recognized that some Adventists
might wonder about whether he could be objective.

But, on the other hand, if we hired an
Adventist lawyer and he came up with a favorable
conclusion some perhaps would say, ‘Oh,
well, he had an ax to grind—what else would
you expect?’ Anyway, we already knew Mr.
Ramik to be highly professional and objective,
and, most important, we wanted to know the
truth—let the chips fall where they might.”—
Op. cit., p. 7, para. 7.

Next, we turn to the 1990 statement, issued by
Robert Nixon:

1990 GENERAL CONFERENCE STATEMENT:
RAMIK HAS NOT BEEN A ROMAN
CATHOLIC FOR OVER 25 YEARS, BUT HAS
BEEN A PRESBYTERIAN FOR 25 YEARS—
“You may also wish to know that our trademark
counsel, Mr. Vincent Ramik, who is often described
as a Roman Catholic by independent
publications, is a Presbyterian. Mr. Ramik was
raised in a Roman Catholic family, but abandoned
those beliefs as a college student. After
marriage, he and his wife joined a Presbyterian
church, of which they have been members now
for a quarter century.”—Robert W. Nixon, Associate
General Counsel to the General Conference,
letter dated February 8, 1990, paragraph
4.

The chief architect of the trademark lawsuits is
an individual who said he was Roman Catholic. After
we disclosed Ramik’s religious affiliation, he denied
the fact, declaring he had been a Presbyterian all his
adult life! If that is so, then either he told a mistruth
to our General Conference and Review leaders, or
they lied out of whole cloth. But why should we expect
anyone to have fabricated a claim to lifelong Catholicism?

If Ramik’s wife has been a Protestant all her adult
life, and Vincent has been a Protestant all his adult
life—why did they arrange to baptize one of their two
children as a Roman Catholic?

Now we learn that the chief in-house architect of
the trademark lawsuits received his graduate and doctoral
training in a leading Jesuit university. Carson
and Ramik have worked closely on these cases for
nearly twenty years.

We have been asked about the latest news on
Robert Folkenberg. We know that both he and his
brother, Donald, have moved their families to southern
Virginia, where they are involved in a land development
project south of Roanoke. Robert remains
on full salary and benefits till July 1; and friends,
who he earlier helped move into key offices, are trying
to get a nice church job for him, so his salary can
continue. By the time this tract set is printed, more
news may have surfaced.

Meanwhile, church leaders have inexplicably been
quite concerned to bring Robert back into the spotlight.

Conference presidents have been arranging for
him to speak at camp meetings in various places, in
both summers of 1999 and 2000 and at various occasions
throughout the year. Why this is being done
is somewhat of a puzzle to us.

So many things are being done to hold the church
together, which are tended to controversy and dissolution.

Surely, this is a time for earnest prayer. The Final
Crisis of the Sunday Law cannot be far off. The
church will appear as about to fall, but it will not.

The church, which we are told are the commandment-
keeping people of God, will be greatly lessened
in the Sunday law crisis; but, purified, it will go forth
and give the final warning to the world and many will
come in.

How very thankful we are that the God of heaven
is in charge! Fear not, little flock. Look up, for your
redemption draweth nigh!

News note: We have learned that Walter Carson did
not win the Democratic primary. He did not even get 2%
of the vote! He also served as “Parliamentarian,” to decide
all procedural questions at the Toronto 2000 Session.

More WAYMARKS - from ——————————
PILGRIMS REST HCR 77, BOX 38A - BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN 37305 USA

Source:http://sdadefend.com/MINDEX-T/Trademark-lawyer.pdf

.