Saturday, June 16, 2012

Glad You Asked!

 Muckraker asked great questions yesterday and I'll address them on this post.

Julie Anne: What does it mean "reviews are slowly being removed"? Who removes them?? Google? The church requests it? Or demands it with some kind of legal pressure?

I thought the whole point of online reviews is that "customers" can FREELY post their OPINION of a business.

If my memory serves correctly, I am pretty sure the church's reviews were numbered somewhere around 960.  Now they are at 933.   I assume that Google removes them.  I don't know if the church requests it or not.  I do know that Chuck removed some of my Google reviews from a while back and he admits it here in his declaration which was submitted to the court  (public information):

JA's side note# 1:  I would disagree that he removed only 2 or 3 - give me a break
JA's side note #2:  he asked Google to remove "defamatory" comments which supported his claim to sue, so he basically asked Google to remove the evidence?   mmmmkay.   Excuse me for a sec:

Perhaps someone complained about the Streisand Effect that occurred, that most of those new reviews are from people who have not attended the church and only responded because of the media.  I don't know if that is part of the Terms of Service or not (whether one must visit an establishment before reviewing), but it very well could be.  Someone told me that removed quite a few comments, too.  What a colossal waste of time to go one by one, removing reviews.

All I know is many of my Google reviews were removed over the 2-1/2 yrs.  I had to rewrite it from scratch and then finally got smart and saved it on my computer, anticipating their removal.    For a time, I was unable to post any Google review on the church's review site.  That was strange. 

I don't understand how he was able to get them removed because I, too, tried to get Google to remove a few reviews which I believed to be defamatory, not only that, they were reviewing ME, not the church.   I received these generic responses from Google:

Feb 29 (2012)


Thanks for reaching out to us!

We have received your legal request. We receive many such complaints each
day; your message is in our queue, and we'll get to it as quickly as our
workload permits.

Due to the large volume of requests that we experience, please note that
we will only be able to provide you with a response if we determine your
request may be a valid and actionable legal complaint, and we may respond
with questions or requests for clarification.  For more information on
Google's Terms of Service, please visit

We appreciate your patience as we investigate your request.

The Google Team

And then I finally received this response nearly 1-1/2 weeks later:   

March 9, 2012

Thanks for reaching out to us.

Based on the current information, we are not in a position to adjudicate the validity of the claims alleged by your note. If you're concerned about the content, we suggest that you directly address your concerns with the author of the content in question.

If you choose to pursue legal action against the individual who posted this information and that action results in a judicial determination that the material is illegal or should be removed, please send us the court order so that we can take appropriate action. In cases where the author is anonymous, we can provide you with user information pursuant to a valid third party subpoena or other appropriate legal process against Google Inc.

The Google Team

Some attorneys I spoke with said that he could have had an attorney write a letter on behalf of the Church requesting they remove reviews or face legal action.  It would probably be easier for Google to remove the reviews than face possible legal action.  Who knows!  I wonder how much it would cost to pay an attorney to write up a threatening letter? 

Some people also uploaded some crazy pictures to the church's Google review site during the media frenzy and most of those have been removed (devils, witches, and bizarre stuff).   How did they get removed?  The same process?  A photo of Josh Groban is currently posted and I really wish Josh Groban would stay out of that church for the time being.    The picture below was one that was removed and was my favorite (and the only one I saved).  Notice the names on the sign:  "TODAY'S HERETICS:  MR. AND MRS. SMITH" - lol.  I have been told that I have a warped sense of humor.

So, evidently, Muckraker, Google will yank posts if someone requests it, but I don't know how to work that process.  I certainly wasn't going to hire an attorney to threaten Google.  Maybe my former pastor did.  I find it interesting that Google tells me that I have to provide the court order for them to remove posts, but they didn't require it from the pastor (because there wasn't and isn't a court order as of this posting).   I also still don't understand why they allowed the reviews of ME.  Below are a couple examples that I sent to Google and show how Chuck and Stephanie were reviewing me and not using the review forum appropriately to review the establishment. 

 Stephanie said:  "Nov 18, 2009 Beware! Negative reviewer is currently under church discipline.  JulieAnne, the other reviewer is currently under church discipline."


LANGDON who is likely JulieAnne, is wielding 1 Cor. 6:7-8 in order to further defame BGBC and Pastor Chuck O'Neal. It is convenient to wage a three and a half year war of reviling defamation in which you and those with you ACCUSE THE PASTOR AND CHURCH OF HORRIFIC CRIMES AGAINST GOD AND MEN, to then hide behind 1 Cor. 6:7-8.

JA's side note #3:  Has anyone figured out what kind of horrific crimes I have committed?  (BTW, is that defamatory?)  When I think of horrific crimes, I think of murder, rape, armed something or other.  Meanwhile, I sit at home, make mac n' cheese for the kids, do laundry, read stories, yell at kids to quit fighting over the Wii controls.  If that's criminal activity,  all moms are busted.

Keep in mind when the above reviews were added, it also upped their rating because they were rated 5-stars.  Now, if they were rating me, Julie Anne,  as 5 stars, that's one thing, I guess Google would need to give me a review site.   But their 5-star review of "me" bumped up the church's positive ratings (and of course it was significant at the time there were only a few reviews on the site). 

Crazy stuff, I tell you.  Well, Hannah and her boyfriend will be visiting this weekend.   I can't wait.  It's supposed to be 90 today and in the 80s tomorrow.  We'll be doing some co-ed swimming at the pool and our swimsuits don't look like this:


Have a great weekend, everyone!  :)


  1. Jenn (or should I say JENN)June 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

    You can always identify something CHUCK O'NEAL has written because of the way he uses CAPITAL LETTERS, which is like SHOUTING IN WRITING. Ai-yi-yi, it is an ASSAULT on MY EYES.

    1. It was an assault on my ears during sermons, too.

      It would have been labeled as "authoritative" preaching, most likely. That was a common theme from the pulpit - about other pastors not preaching authoritatively and that was why this church was better than everyone else.

      So much for humility.

    2. Don't be too hard on him, Julie Anne. He just wanted to make sure that all of the people sneaking out during the service could hear him in the nursery, hallway, restroom, and parking lot...

  2. Julie Ann,

    I wonder if Chuck O'Neal ever thinks about James 3:1: "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."

    How could you be both "wielding" AND "hiding behind" 1 Cor. 6:7-8? (That doesn't seem logical.)

    1 Cor. 6:7-8 "Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren."

    Maybe they started "reviewing you" because THEY were "hiding FROM" 1 Cor. 6:7-8?

  3. That modest swimsuit is just horrid and looks completely out of place on the beach. If my wife wore that I would be embarassed. Where am I supposed to put the sunscreen, on her wrists? Oh wait, she's wearing a watch -- gotta make sure we get back to shore in time for Bible study led by Chuck. Ok, how bout a romantic walk afterwards, just the two of us? Oh that's right, Chuck is storming the beach with a team of gospel warriors for some D-Day evangelism. Campfire with the kids later? Right, church bonfire and hymns singing Chuck's greatest freakin' hits, such as "A Mighty Fortress", and "Onward Christian Soldiers"...

    1. Look at the bright side, Neo, just think of how much $$ you would save on sunscreen!

  4. Julie Ann, can you remind us as to when your next court date is? I think is should be soon... Can you also answer a question? In Oregon, are pastors’ not mandatory reporters regarding child abuse? If not, this is a law that you might want to get changed. I do find it interesting that your pastor thought he was an expert in knowing how to handle such a problem. Did the child who had been abused get the help she will need? I am also thinking that if your pastor had gone to seminary he might have had a heads up and been more prepared in handling the abuse situation and your situation. Yet, it appears that he dances to his own drum…even John Macarthur’s public statement hasn’t reminded him that God says “vengeance is mine…” Julie Ann, do hang in there. You’ve got lots of people praying for you. Sit back and watch God and the justice system work. Remember it is your job to ezpose, encourage others, help them heal and allow God to tend to what concerns you. Hugs form me, someone who really “gets it.”

    1. The court date is Friday the 13th :) (of July)

      Pastors are mandatory reporters, but it looks like there is some sort of loophole for clergy, attorneys, etc. I agree, this is something that should be changed. Who wants to take that on? I'm a bit tied up.

      The sex offender was convicted (I was told rape and other counts) and is serving time.

      Thank you for your kind words, Anonymous. It is interesting because one very popular theme he preached on was persecution and how Christians should expect to be persecuted. In his Google reviews (where he reviews me on his church review site - haha), he claims I am waging war with God, the church, etc. So, if he truly feels this is persecution, that I'm going against God, why would he be taking me to court? Why isn't he standing firm under "trials and tribulation", trusting that God will be victorious through his "trial". If you look at the whole Christian persecution idea that was taught, suing 3 women is pretty weak and certainly not very manly. He also didn't like weak men! hmmmm

  5. The way I see it, there are nany factors involve when someone abuses another. And I think it falls into being abusive when there is a cover-up. Others are not protected, the one who has been abused doesn't get the proper help they need, the one who has done the abusing doesn't get professional help and accountability they need. People go to school for years to know how to meet these needs and to help people move forwars in their lives. How any why would your pastor assume he could manage this? These are people's lives !

    1. "How any why would your pastor assume he could manage this?"

      I believe it has to do with the whole system he created for himself. He has no need to listen to anyone else because everyone else is inferior to him (evidently even John MacArthur/Grace Community who he went to for counsel).

  6. Julie Anne,

    I saw this story about Google censorship (Google has released a report on what governments have asked for items to be removed) and thought it might be of interest.


  7. You should check out They have some nice looking modest suits too. They also have more styles and colors to choose from.


Please refrain from using "Anonymous" as your user ID. Instead, click on Name/URL. In the "name" field, type your pseudonym, ie, Fred Flinstone.

You may leave the URL field blank. Thank you for commenting!

I reserve the right to remove or not publish disruptive and/or rude comments.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.