David Hyles being sued

I guess it depends on what would constitute a victory. If the goal was to bring this issue to light in a very public way, then she has already won. If she expects the church to acknowledge and apologize - maybe. If she expects some type of settlement - I just don't know.

TheRealJonStewart said:
I too unfortunately see this being thrown out or not a victory for Joy as much as I want it to be. The leadership that existed when Joy was raped is simply no longer there or even at this point alive. (Jack Hyles)
Click to expand...
 
Joy shared this quote on Instagram Wednesday. I don't think she cares about money.

"The sheer act of making the truth public is a form of justice" - Desmond Tutu
 
Least of These said:
Joy shared this quote on Instagram Wednesday. I don't think she cares about money.

"The sheer act of making the truth public is a form of justice" - Desmond Tutu
Click to expand...
Yes that spiritual giant Desmond knows all. what a joke.

"I'd rather go to hell that a homophobic heaven" - Desmond Tutu
 
TheRealJonStewart said:
I too unfortunately see this being thrown out or not a victory for Joy as much as I want it to be. The leadership that existed when Joy was raped is simply no longer there or even at this point alive. (Jack Hyles)
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I assume that the sinful culture of the past has been replaced by current leadership.
it appears to me that her goal is not ultimately money but to shine a spotlight on the past corruption and immortality.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Agreed.
I assume that the sinful culture of the past has been replaced by current leadership.
it appears to me that her goal is not ultimately money but to shine a spotlight on the past corruption and immortality.
Click to expand...

So the Schaap scandal didn't do that? So let's bring a lawsuit that affects NO ONE today that's in the church? A church that has worked to right the wrongs of the past, and as far as anyone can tell, is doing a good job of that?

This happened 40 YEARS AGO!

Can you imagine being a local assembly and having a lawsuit thrown at you for an event that happened 40 years earlier? I would feel bad for ANY church to have that happen to them, even Tarheel!
 
Twisted said:
So the Schaap scandal didn't do that? So let's bring a lawsuit that affects NO ONE today that's in the church? A church that has worked to right the wrongs of the past, and as far as anyone can tell, is doing a good job of that?

This happened 40 YEARS AGO!

Can you imagine being a local assembly and having a lawsuit thrown at you for an event that happened 40 years earlier? I would feel bad for ANY church to have that happen to them, even Tarheel!
Click to expand...

Evidently this lady doesn't feel like the Schaap scandal 'did that'.
It happened 40 years ago...to how many victims who were bullied or paid off to keep quiet...while dave kept on keeping on?
The victim's only consolation was that Dave always preached in a suit and always used the 1611 KJV (Haymannn)!

IF it were me, I don't think I would bring a suit 40 years later against people who (for the most part) weren't involved.
I'm not a defender of this lady, just commenting that money doesn't seem to be her prime motivation.

And, should you ever find a church that would follow your leadership, I'd suggest that you be opposite of Jack Hyles and be a moral, biblical example of leadership.
But, Jack did always wear a suit and preach from the 1611 KJV...Haymannnn!
 
Why do the lawsuit now? This is my big question. She became very vocal about her story of abuse years and years ago. Why wait until now to file the lawsuit? I do understand the lawsuit against DH. He has never faced any legal penalty. But why include the church? That leadership is gone. It is a new place there now.

Also - the news article stated that WE was awarded a better job in exchange for his silence, which just isn't true.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Do you doubt that she was raped?
Click to expand...

Non-Statutory? This is a newer more recent allegation as was the drugging allegation. This was not part of the original issue. Dave Hyles was not "sent away: for Non-consensual rape in the non-statutory sense.

IF she was under 16 at the time of any consensual fornication then yes I believed she was Statutory Raped because under 16 years of age cannot give consent and that is the law at the time and there was no consideration/aggravation at the time for position of authority.

Proving at what age she was when these things occurred will be complicated. The Only "Eye Witness" that I have ever heard of was Dr. Evans and as the story goes at the time was that he actually followed her and caught them together at the hotel and this was also well after she was 16. This is wholesale different than the story in the court document.

There are many witnesses that saw her hanging around Dave and constantly calling etc but I am not aware of anybody seeing anything more than that.

More than 50 times will be problematic

BTW Dr. Evans was already President of the College at the time so the whole lucrative position is in error.

Tarheel Baptist said:
Do you doubt that Dave was a serial sexual predator enabled by his Dad?
Click to expand...
I never doubted that Dave Hyles is a serial fornicator/adulterer. Keep in mind that the women in Texas were mostly Married and I do not know of any other under age situation nor forcible situation. IMO The "Enabled by his Dad" thing was the unintentional result, not done purposefully. Dave really did not need an "enabler". He was the smoothest talking son of a gun that ever donned a seersucker suit. The women/girls ate it up.
 
Binaca Chugger said:
Why do the lawsuit now? This is my big question. She became very vocal about her story of abuse years and years ago. Why wait until now to file the lawsuit? I do understand the lawsuit against DH. He has never faced any legal penalty. But why include the church? That leadership is gone. It is a new place there now.

Also - the news article stated that WE was awarded a better job in exchange for his silence, which just isn't true.
Click to expand...
One would think that WE would come out and refute this.
 
TidesofTruth said:
Non-Statutory? This is a newer more recent allegation as was the drugging allegation. This was not part of the original issue. Dave Hyles was not "sent away: for Non-consensual rape in the non-statutory sense.

IF she was under 16 at the time of any consensual fornication then yes I believed she was Statutory Raped because under 16 years of age cannot give consent and that is the law at the time and there was no consideration/aggravation at the time for position of authority.

Proving at what age she was when these things occurred will be complicated. The Only "Eye Witness" that I have ever heard of was Dr. Evans and as the story goes at the time was that he actually followed her and caught them together at the hotel and this was also well after she was 16. This is wholesale different than the story in the court document.

There are many witnesses that saw her hanging around Dave and constantly calling etc but I am not aware of anybody seeing anything more than that.

More than 50 times will be problematic

BTW Dr. Evans was already President of the College at the time so the whole lucrative position is in error.


I never doubted that Dave Hyles is a serial fornicator/adulterer. Keep in mind that the women in Texas were mostly Married and I do not know of any other under age situation nor forcible situation. IMO The "Enabled by his Dad" thing was the unintentional result, not done purposefully. Dave really did not need an "enabler". He was the smoothest talking son of a gun that ever donned a seersucker suit. The women/girls ate it up.
Click to expand...

Is there a ‘yes Dave was a pervert predator‘ inside all of that bloviating?
 
Twisted said:
At least he got that part right.
Click to expand...

Dr Hyles stood true to the fundamentals of your faith...suits and ties, KJVO, no CCM etc.
And he did that all the while fighting off those pesky accusations of immorality, home wrecking and enabling serial sexual predators. Those things didn’t matter...as long as he held on to the truth! Haymaan.
 
Starlifter said:
One would think that WE would come out and refute this.
Click to expand...

WE is not well. His health has been waning for many years and his mind is no longer what it used to be. His memory is no longer strong. Any testimony could easily be compromised by his confusion and would probably be seen then as inadmissible.
 
TidesofTruth said:
Non-Statutory? This is a newer more recent allegation as was the drugging allegation. This was not part of the original issue. Dave Hyles was not "sent away: for Non-consensual rape in the non-statutory sense.

Proving at what age she was when these things occurred will be complicated. The Only "Eye Witness" that I have ever heard of was Dr. Evans and as the story goes at the time was that he actually followed her and caught them together at the hotel and this was also well after she was 16. This is wholesale different than the story in the court document.

There are many witnesses that saw her hanging around Dave and constantly calling etc but I am not aware of anybody seeing anything more than that.

More than 50 times will be problematic

BTW Dr. Evans was already President of the College at the time so the whole lucrative position is in error.


I never doubted that Dave Hyles is a serial fornicator/adulterer. Keep in mind that the women in Texas were mostly Married and I do not know of any other under age situation nor forcible situation. IMO The "Enabled by his Dad" thing was the unintentional result, not done purposefully. Dave really did not need an "enabler". He was the smoothest talking son of a gun that ever donned a seersucker suit. The women/girls ate it up.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me. Linda has the same habit of making proclamations for the safe of grandiosity that are simply not true. The claims seek to cause the uninformed to develop more of an emotional opinion and paint the situation for something that it was not. When a witness brings such accusations, knowing that they are not true, how can you trust their testimony in other accusations? When she publicly shared her testimony in efforts of getting Dave locked up, starting a non-profit to help other victims, etc, we never heard about being drugged or the like. Now, suddenly it shows up. Are we really expected to believe that she just recalled it? Or, is this just like other testimony that has been obviously exaggerated.

I do believe she was abused. But falsifying your testimony doesn't help you get a conviction and puts the whole effort into question.
 
Binaca Chugger said:
But falsifying your testimony doesn't help you get a conviction and puts the whole effort into question.
Click to expand...

As this is a civil lawsuit, there is no "conviction", which still raises the question of what does she want? Money? How much? From whom?
 
We are told that FBC-Hammond is "A church that has worked to right the wrongs of the past, and as far as anyone can tell, is doing a good job of that?" If true, let's hear more about that - let's have some documentation, so we can give credit where credit is due.

Has anyone at FBC-Hammond issued a statement disavowing and apologizing for the errors and abuses of the past? Has there been a "mistakes were made" admission? Something along the lines of Pastor Bob Gray II''s "Spiritual PTSD" sermon on April 7, 2019 in which he officially repudiates the past abusive practices at Longview Baptist Temple under his own father, Bob Gray Sr.?

IF I am hauled into court for any kind of criminal or civil offense I allegedly committed years ago, it is a valid defense for me to tell the court that "I am no longer doing the kind of stuff for which I am now charged, so you should not be picking on me like this?"
 
Twisted said:
I predict this will be thrown out of court.

If there was any evidence, the DA would be involved and a grand jury would indict, and it would be a criminal case.

As it stands, it appears its just sour grapes for a girl who was, sadly, manipulated and abused forty years ago.

I'm surprised she found an attorney to take the case. She surely isn't paying for an attorney and that means this is done on contingency, so some guy must actually think they can get a settlement.

Is there a dollar amount that has been disclosed? If they actually do settle, the church has insurance that might cover the cost.
Click to expand...
Really? On several points...Sour grapes...wow that's just cold and heartless. You've heard of the Catholic Church, right? Hmmm....and how many years ago were those victims abused? And what kind of "proof" did they have? You do know bucu law suits were won by the victims, right?

If anything, she is bringing to light more perverts in the IFB mess. Its NEVER to late to call people out for the damaging so many individuals. Hmmm...gotta wonder why people seem to protest this so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top