Revealing Echthros. Proud of our True Messenger: Christopher.

Proud of you

We couldn’t be prouder and more filled with love, appreciation and support of and for our True Messenger, Christopher.

We ask of those whom care about our work and our Messenger to reach out and support Christopher in any way you might anticipate of an appropriate response by him.

We will no longer hide the details of the court case or the true identity of “Echthros.”  Mr. Harry Dschaak is truly an enemy of the true God (of his true self), of ours, and of our work, a Marvelous Work and a Wonder®.  We have counseled Christopher to do everything within his power to silence Mr. Harry Dschaak in a court of this world’s law.

True to the definition of “Echthros” we applied to his name, Mr. Harry Dschaak is:

  1. hated, odious, hateful
  2. hostile, hating, and opposing another
    1. used of men as at enmity with God by their sin
      1. opposing (God) in the mind
      2. a man that is hostile
      3. a certain enemy
      4. the hostile one
      5. the devil who is the most bitter enemy of the divine government

Mr. Harry Dschaak’s true self no longer has any form of connective energy with which to inspire him in a course of goodness.  We have not of the past said this about another mortal, but Mr. Harry Dschaak is truly an evil man who has given his life over to Lucifer, the true god of this world.

Lucifer is “the Father of Lies,” and throughout the course of this court case it will be shown that Mr. Harry Dschaak is his child, a child of hell.  Mr. Harry Dschaak’s campaign of hate and vengeance will transform anyone who affords him audience and value “twofold more the child of hell” than he.

As was put forth well in the 23rd chapter of Matthew, verse 15,

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

For reference, we composed a Book of Mormon story of how a True Messenger is treated in a court of law.  The story of Abinadi is relevant and coalesces in meaning with the biblical trial of Inpendius (Jesus) by the courts of law established in this world.  It is not our desire, nor is there an expectation of Christopher’s success in a court of law in this world.  It has been our only desire forthwith to have our testimony, through him, recorded in an actual court of law.

By so doing, we have done what has never been done in the past recorded history of our world.  No True Messenger has had his words stated on the record in a court of law established and supported by the people of this world, words to which the world may reference, and by which this world will be judged.  Before the True Messengers of the past were able to give their testimony on a verified court record, each was killed.

Christopher is the first.

Any and all wishing to attend the trial in this matter, may at your desire.

From Christopher’s Daily Journal, dated November 5, 2018:


 

I’ve been mentored extensively for the past several days.  As a result, I will be filing the motions below in court today.

Because of the Idaho judge’s ruling that there is “material facts” that he (the law) have determined are true and support Dschaak’s (we will reveal his evil true name from hereon, as well as the details of the court case) claims of fraud and racketeering against me, the CEO of any company found by a court to possibly be a fraud or a person who engages in racketeering, is a liability to the company.  I am now unemployed.  Oh well,   Sigh … But anyways …

NOTE: The Idaho judge is obviously biased against me.  Regardless, we are going to press forward in whatever way possible to get the Real Truth and my testimony on the record.  We plan on appealing the trial judge’s decisions if he fails to treat me fairly and according to the law.  In regards to the judge’s dismissal of my motion for summary judgment to dismiss Dschaak’s counterclaim of fraud and racketeering, I am filing the following Motion To Clarify and Reconsider with a Brief In Support of the motion.

Here is what will be filed later today:


MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RECONSIDER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF POWER

(543 Bannock Avenue, American Falls, Idaho 83211)

 

CHRISTOPHER M. NEMELKA,

 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

 

vs.

 

HARRY DSCHAAK,

 

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RECONSIDER

 

 

Case No. CV 2016-389

 

 

Honorable Robert C. Naftz

 

 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Christopher M. Nemelka, pro se, respectfully 1) moves for clarification of the Court’s decision to deny my Motion For Summary Judgment based on its finding that there are material issues of fact that prevent the granting of the motion; and 2) asks the Court to reconsider its decision to deny my Motion For Summary Judgment and grant a dismissal of the Defendant’s counterclaim with prejudice.

  1. MOTION TO CLARIFY

The Court’s October 26, 2018 Order denied my Motion For Summary Judgment and based its decision on its finding that “there are material issues of fact that prevent the granting of the motion.”  However, the Court did not specify or clarify any of the material issues upon which it based its finding.  In order to allow me proper due process and a fair hearing of future motions in this case and in any appeal that I might pursue, I am entitled to a clarification of the specific material facts upon which this Court based its ruling.

Furthermore, when I asked the Court why it was treating me disrespectfully and “tersely,” the Honorable Robert C. Naftz admitted on the record that he was tired from being in court all day.

  1. MOTION TO RECONSIDER

According to I.R.C.P. Rule 56, a summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

            As to “genuine issues”:

The material facts of this case are based on a disagreement between the Defendant and I about our religious beliefs and are not facts legally relevant to a claim.  The Defendant’s counterclaim is for fraud and racketeering.  Although it will be unequivocally proven at trial that I have never defrauded anyone or engaged in racketeering, the Defendant bases the entirety of his claims on my religious beliefs.

This Court has no legal right or precedence upon which to base any judgment or decision it makes on my religious beliefs.  Further, it is unconstitutional for this Court to make any law (a judge’s judgment and findings become law when he or she renders them) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Therefore, any of my religious practices, statements, authorities, implications, beliefs, or the establishment of these religious material facts cannot be found legally relevant to the Defendant’s claim by this court or any court in the United States.

Also, during the hearing of this matter on October 26, 2018 I respectfully, fervently, humbly, and with great passion asked the Court to please consider some new evidence that I had just received the previous day from the Defendant.  The Court acknowledged that if it were to consider this new evidence, it would have to reconsider my Motion for Summary Judgment at a different time.  This Motion to Clarify and Reconsider is this time.

This case has always been about the Defendant’s malicious campaign of hate and defamation of my character over the course of many years.  The Defendant is doing everything he can to muddy the waters and prejudice the Court against me before this matter goes to trial.

WHEREFORE,

            For the cause of justice and good cause shown , this Court should reconsider its Order denying my Motion For Summary Judgment and grant the motion dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaim with prejudice.

IF this Court also denies this motion, then I ask that this Court specifies and clarifies on which specific genuine material facts it based its decision to deny my motion on October 26, 2018, and on which specific material facts it is denying this Motion To Reconsider.

DATED this 5th day of November 2018.

/s/Christopher M. Nemelka

Christopher M. Nemelka, Pro se

 


BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RECONSIDER

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF POWER

(543 Bannock Avenue, American Falls, Idaho 83211)

 

 

CHRISTOPHER M. NEMELKA,

 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

 

vs.

 

HARRY DSCHAAK,

 

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

 

 

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RECONSIDER

 

 

Case No. CV 2016-389

 

 

Honorable Robert C. Naftz

 

 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Christopher M. Nemelka, pro se, submits this brief in support of my motion to have this Court clarify its October 26, 2018 Order denying my motion for summary judgment and to reconsider granting a dismissal of the Defendant’s counterclaim with prejudice.

As shown below, this Court cannot, as a matter of law, base any judgment or decision it makes on my religious beliefs, because it is unconstitutional for this Court to make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Furthermore, as it will be shown below and proven unmistakably at trial, in an attempt to prejudice this Court against me and my claims, the Defendant has submitted nothing in this case except non-admissible-at-trail, fraudulent and manufactured evidence, prevaricating testimony, as well as an opinion of a bias expert witness in an attempt to cloud the original issue and good faith purpose for which this case was originally filed.

Also, during the October 26, 2018 hearing on my motion for summary judgment I asked the Court why it was treating me disrespectfully and “tersely,” the Honorable Robert C. Naftz admitted on the record that he was tired from being in court all day.

Because of the Court’s ruling on October 26, 2018 I have lost my employment.  To further mitigate any more damages against me and to uphold the law and defend justice, the Court should consider the following facts, especially my personal Affidavit attached to this brief:

FACTS

My religious role and claims

On or about June 1991, while living in the State of Washington, I was recruited and asked to be the Messenger for what was formerly known as the Worldwide United Foundation (“WUF”) and which is presently known as a Marvelous Work and a Wonder® (“MWAW”).  I was asked by four persons who have chosen to remain anonymous and behind the scenes of the MWAW so as to relieve them of any public persecution that is usually present and associated with the message and claims that these four persons desired to proclaim to the world.  I call these four persons my “mentors,” “the Brothers [although two are ungendered]”, and have referred to them throughout the course of revealing the MWAW to the world as the “Three Nephites” and “John the Beloved”—allegorically proper for the religious institutions to which their message is primarily directed.  (Hereinafter I will refer to these four persons and the other three persons who constitute the overseers of the MWAW and the Board of Directors of the Humanity Party® “THumP®” as “Mentors”.)

Their claims are simple and straightforward: they represent the only true God that exists and the only true God that is involved with the human race upon this earth.  God desires to end worldwide poverty and inequality.  For this purpose alone, these four persons were called by God to work with others upon this earth to this end.

The evidence in this case will show that MWAW is the only true “work of the Father” as is described and prophesied in the Book of Mormon.  It was their claims, and mine as their Messenger, that convinced the Defendant in 2005 that the MWAW was the true God’s only sanctioned and viable work upon earth.

My association with the Defendant

On or about the beginning of 2005, the Defendant traveled with his family to San Diego, CA, where I was residing at the time, to learn more about me and the MWAW.  I allowed the Dschaak family to pitch a tent on my front lawn so that they wouldn’t have to pay for lodging at that time.  From his early associations with me, the Defendant became thoroughly convinced that the MWAW was a cause to which he should dedicate his life and to which he should subject his family.  For approximately the next four (4) years, there couldn’t have been a more dedicated and loyal follower of the MWAW than the Defendant.

However, as the evidence in this case will show, I was leery of the motives for which the Defendant was involving himself so fervently in the MWAW and voiced my concerns about him, stating since the first time that I met the Defendant without revealing his identity that, “There is a Judas among us.”  I allowed the Defendant to remain involved in the MWAW until he began to abuse other people and take advantage of others financially.  I was instructed by my Mentors to disassociate myself from the Defendant to mitigate any further abuse to the MWAW and to those whom had embrace the MWAW and its purpose.

On or about May 1, 2007, L. Kurt Smith (“Kurt Smith”), being convinced that the Defendant had an important role to play in the MWAW, “purchased equipment for Harry to use and gave him and his wife Jodi money of approximately $50,000, helping him establish a business of hauling wood … I put my family in debt over $90,000 because of my decisions [to help the Defendant].”  (See attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Exhibit B, Affidavit of L. Kurt Smith, paragraph 6.)

The Smiths had been convinced by the Defendant that the Defendant had a special role to play in helping my Mentors and me spread the message of the MWAW.  (See attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Exhibit B, Affidavit of L. Kurt Smith and Affidavit of Monica R. Smith, also filed separately with this court on November 5, 2018.)

On or about March of 2009, after I became aware of the money that people were funneling to the Dschaaks, I began to publicly distance myself from the Defendant because of the way that he and his family were taking advantage of the people with whom the Dschaaks shared a mutual belief and association with the MWAW.  His wife and son claimed that they possessed special healing powers and his wife had convinced many people to travel to Idaho seeking her special healing power for money.

The evidence in this case will overwhelmingly show that the Defendant publicly presented himself as someone special involved with me and the MWAW, often taking over public and private meetings talking about himself, his experiences, and how special and unique his family was.

To stop people from giving money and support to the Defendant and his wife, I began to confront and denounce the Dschaaks in a series of public emails I posted on an online blog associated with the MWAW.  (See attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka and its supporting documents, also filed separately with this court.)

Although the Defendant started to publicly denounce me on or about June 2009 after I had called out him and his family, except among others whom had become friends with the Dschaaks through their mutual associations with the MWAW, the Defendant did not begin his public campaign of hate and defamation against me until after about February 21, 2010.

The Defendant began his campaign after I informed his then best friend and business partner, Kurt Smith, that I wanted nothing further to do with the Smith family in order to distance myself from a business debt of over $90,000 that the Smith family had acquired doing business with the Defendant.  (See attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Exhibit C, email I sent to the Smiths in February 2010.)

The evidence of the Defendant’s underlying motivation behind starting his campaign of hate and defamation was provided by the Defendant himself in his November 27, 2017 Answers and Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.  (See attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Supplemental Exhibits, ANSWER NO. 1.)

The Defendant claims that because of my “undue influence over the minds and lives of Kurt and Monica Smith who were residing in Melba, Idaho … [the Defendant follows with a manufactured hearsay lie about how the Smiths reacted to the email I had sent the Smiths, and continues] … caused the Defendant and his family a great amount of anxiety and suffering, not to mention placing them in a financial predicament they were hardly prepared for, in the dead of winter.”  (The evidence in this case will show that all of these statements are false.  Refer specifically to the Affidavit of L. Kurt Smith and the Affidavit of Monica R. Smith attached to my affidavit and also filed with this Court.)

Since being called out for abusing other people and taking advantage of other for his personal financial gain and leaving the MWAW, the Defendant did not choose to move on with his life and simply ignore me and the MWAW, as most reasonable and prudent people do once a religion no longer works for them.  Although I asked the Defendant many times over the years to cease and desist from making defamatory statements against me, he continued and will continue unless the Court orders him to stop.  I filed this case solely for the purpose of stopping his defamation.  In response to my filing this lawsuit, the Defendant filed his counterclaim.

As implied above, and will be proven by overwhelming evidence I intend on presenting at trial, very few of the “facts” presented in the Defendant’s filings in this case will be proven true.  Most are manufactured from the Defendant’s wild imagination and malicious design to vengefully malign me and the MWAW.

The Defendant claims that he suffered “Complex PTSD in which [the Defendant] experiences terminal aloneness, intense emotional flashbacks, loss of faith, hopelessness, and helplessness.  In addition [the Defendant’s] involvement with this group has produced an intense level of fear.”  (See Affidavit of Leeann A, Turpin attached to this motion and filed in this case.)

The Defendant is currently seeking a Summary Judgment from this court for these claims of emotional distress.  Yet, at no time prior to April 2, 2018, almost a year and a half after I filed my claims against him, and almost a decade (10 years) after he claims that he found out that I was a fraud, did the Defendant seek professional help for what he alleges was emotional distress.  It will be shown at trial that after the Defendant hired his current counsel, Norman Reece (“Reece”), in November of 2017, and that Reece suggested that the Defendant seek counseling to substantiate his claims of emotional abuse alleged in his counterclaim.  It will be shown that the counselor to whom Reece directed the Defendant, LeeAnn Turpin (“Turpin”), was not known previously by the Defendant, but was personally known by Reece and had worked with him on other cases.

Further, in her assessment of counseling with the Defendant beginning on April 2, 2018, Turpin indicates that the Defendant is still involved “with this group.”  Turpin writes,

“Mr. Dshaak experiences within a system of religious variation and devotion directed toward a particular figure and his decision to leave this group, has and continues to traumatize him, causing intense and prolonged psychological distress.  Mr. Dschaak’s ongoing involvement with the judicial system and the leader of the previously mentioned group contribute to his feelings of hopelessness and helplessness.”  (See Affidavit of LeeAnn Turpin, Exhibit B, paragraph 3.)

The Defendant has been given ample opportunity to end this case by simply agreeing not to write libelous statements about me that include the words, “predator,” “sexual predator,” “murderer,” “rapist,” “pedophile,” “cult leader,” among other defamatory statements that the Defendant knows, and which will be proven at trial, are false.  During his deposition on November 10, 2017, without counsel, the Defendant admitted that he has no intention of stopping until I died, and that he would enjoy to see me suffer an cruel death.  Further, during the taking of his deposition on November 10, 2017, the Defendant was defiant, hateful, malicious and did not demonstrate nor claim any of the symptoms that are described above.  (See Deposition of Harry Dschaak, page 144, lines 2 thru 5; and page 78, lines 7 thru 22, also attached and averred to as a true and correct copy in the attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, as a Supplemental Exhibit)

In court on October 26, 2018, the Defendant sat disrespectfully, jokingly making faces to the people attending court, mocking me as I presented my case.  (NOTE: for this very reason I previously moved this court for an Order allowing me to video tape the Defendant when he is in my presence.  Had the Court been able to see the way that the Defendant acts, it is my belief that the Court would see that a person who suffers from the above mentioned symptoms does not act the way that the Defendant does.  The Court denied my motion to video tape the Defendant.)

Also, and most importantly, the Defendant’s own writings over the course of many years defaming me will prove that the Defendant was not suffering any of the above symptoms but is putting on an act out of hate and malicious intent to seek vengeance for losing the value that he once had being involved with me and the MWAW.  It will be proven at trial that the Defendant’s claims of emotional distress are manufactured and that the Defendant is putting on an act, advised by his counsel to do so in order to mitigate any judgment that the Court might render against him and substantiate his counterclaim.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

The Court’s October 26, 2018 Order denied my Motion For Summary Judgment and based its decision on its finding that “there are material issues of fact that prevent the granting of the motion.”  However, the Court did not specify or clarify any of the material issues upon which it based its finding.  In order to allow me proper due process and a fair hearing of future motions in this case and any appeal that I might pursue, I am entitled to a clarification of the specific material facts upon which this Court based its ruling.

  1. MOTION TO RECONSIDER SUMMARY JUDGMENT

According to I.R.C.P. Rule 56, a summary judgment is proper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

As to “genuine issues of material fact”

All of the material facts presented in this case are based on a religious disagreement between the Defendant and I, and are not facts that can be legally relevant to any claim.  All of the facts of this case are protected under the right of religious freedom as put forth in the United States Constitution.

The Defendant’s counterclaim for emotional distress is largely based on his staunch religious beliefs that he has since disavowed.  (See Turpin’s comments above.) The Defendant’s counterclaim for fraud and racketeering is entirely based on my religious beliefs, which beliefs were once enjoined with the Defendant’s and eventually rejected once I called him out as the “Judas” to whom I referred since the first day that I met him.  The Defendant appears to have no other value for his life than to prove that the MWAW is a bad thing.  The evidence in this case will overwhelmingly show that the MWAW has done nothing but good in this world.

In fine, the Defendant bases the entirety of his claims on religious beliefs.

This Court has no legal right or precedence upon which to base any judgment or decision it makes on religious belief.  Further, it is unconstitutional for this Court to make any law (a judge’s judgment and findings become law when he or she renders them) respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Therefore, any of my religious practices, statements, authorities, implications, beliefs, or the establishment of these religious material facts cannot be found legally relevant to the Defendant’s claim.

Furthermore, I have provided evidence that the Defendant has tried to have his claims of fraud investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, only to be told that “they wouldn’t be investigating it.  He’s a religion.”  (Refer to Deposition of Harry Dschaak, page 53, lines 14 thru 18; also to Exhibit B of Reply Brief to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed 18 October, 2018.)

As to “a matter of law”:

In the facts presented above, I have provided the Court with substantial evidence that establishes genuine material facts that I have had nothing to do with the Defendant, nor he with my religion, since on or about June of 2009; and that the Defendant began his campaign of hate and vengeance claiming that I was a fraud after February of 2010, and only after I had interceded and attempted to stop him from taking financial advantage (in the name of my religion) of an Idaho family of eight children of L. Kurt and Monica Smith.

The law specifically prohibits the Defendant from filing a claim for damages outside of a two-year window after the Defendant found out and began to claim that I and my religion were a fraud.  I.C, d 5-219(5)  This is the “matter of law” that entitles me to a Summary Judgment of dismissal with prejudice against his claims.

In the Defendant’s current motion before the Court for summary judgment, the Defendant claims that the offending statements he published about me were all originally published outside the limitations set by the legal two-year window for a defamation claim.  However, even after the Defendant was contacted by my previous counsel in 2016, before filing my lawsuit, and served with a cease and desist letter demanding that he take the defamatory statements off of his public website, the Defendant was defiant and refused to do so until after we filed the lawsuit.

It is well documented that the Defendant continued well after he was served a cease and desist letter in 2016 to communicate information about me that was defamatory.  Through counsel, the Defendant has provided the Court with “CASE LAW OF DEFAMATION” in his supporting brief for summary judgment that outlines perfectly that the statements made by the Defendant and published on his website in 2016 “(1) tends to harm [my] reputation by subjecting [me] to public ridicule, disgrace, or contempt, or (2) adversely impacts [my] business.  (See Defendant/Counterclaimaint’s Brief in Support of Summary Judgment, page 6, paragraph 8.)

  1. SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL DAMAGES AND REPERCUSSIONS

Because of the October 26, 2018 Court decision and ruling that it found “material issues of fact that prevent the granting of the motion,” I am now legally viewed as a person whom this Court has determined might have engaged in fraud and racketeering and/or a cult leader, which the facts of this case do not support.  (I have every intention of cross-examining Rick Ross, the Defendant’s expert witness on cults, to show Ross’s abject bias and the fabricated evidence on which Ross establishes his expert opinion.  Because of the Court’s decision to not grant me a summary judgment of the Defendant’s claim, I was forced to resign from the company that has employed me for over 5 years.  I was making a substantially amount of income from being the CEO of this company.  (See Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Exhibit I.)  My loss of income will become part of the damages that I will be presenting at trial.  My loss of employment is directly related to the Court’s ruling denying my motion for summary judgment.  My former company, Filtagreen International, LLC, has retained its own counsel to represent and protect Filtagreen’s interests in this matter.

  • Manufactured, Fraudulent, and Inadmissible Evidence

(NOTE: The following facts and evidence are vital to the Court’s reconsideration to accept the discovery testimony provided by the Defendant that warranted the Court’s decision that there are “material issues of fact” that prohibited the Court from awarding a summary judgment on the Defendant’s counterclaim on October 26, 2018.  The following will explicitly impeach the Defendant’s testimony and call into question anything that he has presented as a fact in this case.)

During the hearing of this matter on October 26, 2018, I respectfully, fervently, humbly, and with great passion asked the Court to please consider some new evidence that I had just received the previous day from the Defendant.  The Court acknowledged that if it were to consider this new evidence, it would have to reconsider my Motion for Summary Judgment at a different time.  This Motion to Reconsider is this time to reconsider the evidence.

On October 25, 2018, I received the Defendant’s Answers and Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.  The Defendant was asked,

“Please state in detail any and all facts upon which you rely in asserting your allegation contained in Paragraphs 23 through 48 of your Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Verified Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim.”

(See Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Supplemental Exhibits.)

According to I.R.C.P 9(b), the circumstances constituting an allegation of fraud must be stated with particularity.*  The Defendant reaffirms that his statements established “particularity” and comply with this Rule.  As for the documentation which support his statements alleging fraud, the Defendant responds,

“A considerable amount of such documents were delivered to Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s prior counsel on November 17, 2017.  These documents were provided as follows: (1) one 3 ½-inch red binder marked ‘CV-2016-389 Nemelka v. Dschaak Exhibits E thru Z’; (2) one 3 ½-inch red binder marked “CV-2016-389 Nemelka v. Dschaak Kyle Files Exhibit D 131 Letters/Emails 2002 – 2006’; (3) one 2 ¼-inch purple binder marked ‘Autobiography of Christopher M. Nemelka 2004 (Affidavit on page 296)’; (4) one blue, comb-bound document marked ‘Christine Marie Affidavit Exhibit M’; (5) one blue, comp-bound document marked ‘Christine Marie Affidavit Supplemental Exhibit M-4; (6) one blue comb-bound document marked “Pulpit Podcast Interview 03/04/17; and (7) one comb-bound document marked ‘Bryce Blakenagel Interview 04/16/17.  In addition to the documents previously provided, Defendant/Counterclaimant may offer the following as trail exhibits: (1) Email from chrisnemelka@yahoo.com to nemelkaj@yahoo.com dated December 27, 2000 (copy attached); (2) Email from chrisnemelka@yahoo.com to truthshallsetyoufree@yahoogroups.com, dated December 11, 2007 (copy attached); (3) Wells Fargo Bank receipts dated 09/25/08 ($2,500.00), 08/24/09 ($2,000.00), 08/14/09 ($1,200.00), 09/16/009 ($3,000.00), 09/24/09 ($4,000.00), 09/29/09 ($7,500.00), and 10/13/09 ($1,000.00) [copies attached].”

FIRSTLY, none of the affiants who are mentioned by the Defendant, “Kyle,” “Christine Marie,” or “Bryce Blakenangel, along with their related “documents” mentioned above, are committed to attend trial, thus making none of their statements, affidavits, emails, etc. admissible because they cannot be cross examined.  Further, none of these has provided a properly verified affidavit in this case.

Fabricated evidence that the Defendant has presented of fraud.

SECONDLY, and most importantly, in paragraph 17 of the Defendant/Counterclaimaint’s Verified Second Counterclaim, the Defendant alleges,

As [the Defendant] continued his affiliation with Nemelka’s movement or organization, [the Defendant] donated some $20,900 to financial accounts as requested by Nemelka.  These cash donations and payments commenced in September of 2005 and continued through October of 2009.”

The Defendant’s documentation evidence of these alleged cash donations and payments were finally submitted on October 25, 2018, a day before my motion for summary judgment was considered by this Court.  This documentation was attached to the Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Answers and Responses To Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.  (See attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Supplemental Exhibits.)  These are false and fraudulent cash receipts for the *“particular” incident that the Defendant alleges in his claim of fraud.  The Defendant is using these receipts for the purpose of evidence of fraud and racketeering, as alleged by the Defendant.

The Defendant’s attempt to defraud and manipulate the Court is obvious: the receipts provide their own verifiable proof of money being deposited in the Wells Fargo bank account of L. Kurt Smith.

Before court on October 26, 2018, I confronted the Defendant’s counsel about this obvious fraud.  He did not respond to me and walked away.  I observed the Defendant’s counsel speaking immediately thereafter in private with the Defendant.  After the hearing, in which this Court refused to allow me to present this important evidence to impeach the Defendant’s affidavits and testimony filed with this Court, which affidavits might have provided apparent genuine material fact upon which the Court could base the Summary Judgment for which I moved, the Defendant approached L. Kurt Smith inside the courtroom and tried to justify why he was using cash receipts for deposits made into L. Kurt Smith’s account to prove his allegations of fraud as outlined in paragraph 17 of his Verified Second Amended Counterclaim.

To further prove the Defendant’s blatant fraud in trying to deceive this Court by submitting bank receipts that have nothing to do with me or the MWAW, on October 31, 2018, I received the Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Fourth Set of Interrogatives and Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff/Counterdefendant.  (See Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Supplemental Exhibits.)

INTERROGATORY NO. 21 asks,

“For the time period of December 2005 through December 2009, please set forth each and every financial institution (including any credit card company) from which money was transferred from L. Kurt Smith or Monica Smith, their agents or representatives acting on their behalf, into any account (including any credit card company) in which you had, at the time of the transfer, any type of ownership, proprietary, legal, or beneficial interest and please specify the following: (a) the name, address, and telephone number of each financial institution involved in such transfer; (b) the name, address, and telephone number of the transferring party; (d) any and all account numbers associated with or pertaining to such transfer; and (e) the date and amount of such transfer.”

My answer to INTERROGATORY NO. 21 and to which I will testify at trial is this:

During the time period of December 2005 to December 2009, I only accepted a loan of $6000 from L. Kurt and Monica Smith, one time, which I paid back to them in full in a few days.  Besides that, I did not accept nor receive any other money of any kind, of any type from either L. Kurt Smith or Monica Smith during that time period.  In fact, the Smiths once sent me a check for $35,000.00 for me to use as I wished.  I returned the check to the Smith family, offering to pay any interest on the withdrawal that they made and indicating that neither I nor the MWAW wanted their money.

Filed with this motion and with my attached Affidavit, L. Kurt and Monica Smith have provided their own personal affidavits about their dealings with the Defendant and also about the receipts that the Defendant presented as evidence of cash payments to me or the MWAW indirectly coming through them.  The Smiths testify that they never gave me a penny that I kept and did not immediately return to them during the time period of December 2005 to December 2009; that they voluntarily sent me $35,000 to help further the MWAW, which was returned to them with the offer to pay any interest that they had lost because of the withdrawal of funds.  (Going through years of documentation to provide evidence for this case, Monica Smith found a copy of the $35,000 check that the MWAW sent the Smiths and which they deposited back into their personal account.  [See attached Affidavit of Christopher M. Nemelka, Exhibit E, copy of this cashed check.)

Further, the Smiths testify that the Defendant caused them to go in debt while they were in business with the Defendant for over $90,000 dollars, all of which I eventually paid off for the Smiths from my wages as CEO of Filtagreen International which are mostly donated to the MWAW.  (See Exhibit ///, copies of the checks I sent to them to pay off the Smith debt.)  I felt I had an obligation to do this because of the deception and actions of the Defendant towards the Smiths and their association with the Defendant, whom I knew was a deceiver from the moment I met him but did not warn the Smiths properly, and as a result of their mutual interest in the MWAW.  (See filed affidavits of L. Kurt and Monica Smith filed with this Court and this motion.)

The Smiths were available to testify in court on October 26, 2018 about the receipts provided by the Defendant as evidence of his cash payments to me, but the Court refused to consider this new evidence of the Defendant’s deceit.

This new evidence could have impeached the Defendant’s testimony and called into question any and all of the facts to which he averred previously in his affidavits upon which this Court might have relied as “material issues of fact” to issue its denial of my motion for summary judgment.

            Furthermore, the Honorable Robert C. Naftz admitted during the hearing held on October 26, 2018 that he was very tired from not having a break all day and was the reason and cause as to why he was treating me tersely with disdain and impatience throughout the hearing.  However, the Honorable Naftz was treating the Defendant’s counsel, Norman J. Reece, with the expected professional decorum that a judge should show counsel.

  1. RELIGIOUS AFFIRMATION AND BELIEF

The Defendant has alleged that I have admitted that I knew that my religious claims were not true when I made them; that he relied on the claims that I made as a substance of his own religious affirmation and belief.  Although this Court should not make any decision nor accept any genuine material fact based on religion, if it so pleases this Court to understand some principle religious beliefs upon which my former, present, and future actions were, are, and will be based and upon which the Defendant based his belief and support of the MWAW.

I offer the following testimony, which I proclaim to this Court as I always have to the public:

My Religious Beliefs and Statement

The early Mormon people rejected Joseph Smith, Jr.’s original message and the original intent and purpose for the Book of Mormon.  In his own words, Joseph Smith wrote of the purpose of the Book of Mormon:

“[The angel Moroni] called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.  He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.  He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;  Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted ‘seers’ in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.”  (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1:33–35.)

The mentioned “fulness of the everlasting Gospel … as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants,” contained in the Book of Mormon, was the New Testament Sermon on the Mount given by Jesus Christ, word for word, the same in the Book of Mormon and it is in the New Testament.  (See Matthew, chapters 5, 6, and 7; and the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, chapters 12, 13, and 14.)

The early Mormons rejected the Sermon on the Mount as the “fullness of the everlasting Gospel” of Jesus Christ and formed a church: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“LDS/Mormon”).  Nothing about the “gospel” taught to the world by the LDS/Mormon Church is centered in, on, or about the Sermon on the Mount.  The LDS/Mormons rejected Joseph Smith, Jr.’s original message and set up a church that has become the wealthiest church upon earth.  The LDS/Mormons have sold out their humanity and the true “everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ,” for money.

Because this world has rejected the pure and simple Gospel of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount as related in the New Testament, Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7; and because this world has killed the prophets (Joseph Smith, Jr. being a prophet of the past who was murdered) whom God had sent forth to proclaim this pure and simple everlasting Gospel of the Lord, Jesus Christ; because the people of this world are a prideful people and despise the words of plainness as given by Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, and because the people of this world seek for things that they cannot understand, I was called by God’s true servants and asked to be one of His True Messengers.  I am mandated by God’s servants who recruited me to deliver unto those who follow the MWAW many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it.

The Defendant fervently believed in the Book of Mormon, that it was God’s word and will to the world.  The Defendant desired everything that he was delivered to him through Joseph Smith, Jr. and through me by those who oversee the MWAW.  Everything that was said and presented the way that it was came directly from mandates received from the only true God.  Because the Defendant desired the things that he did, the Defendant stumbled, exactly like God wanted him to stumble:

“But behold, [the people who received and believed in the Book of Mormon] were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed [Joseph Smith, Jr.], and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.”  (See the Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:14)

Similar to children with eyes full of hope because of the Spirit of Christmas, the Defendant and hundreds of others looked to the MWAW full of hope because of the Spirit of Christ.  This “Spirit of Christ” is the spirit of “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.”  (See Galatians 5: 22-23.)  This “Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil.”  (See Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:16.)

The Book of Mormon specifically states that a person with the “hope in Christ” in his or her heart will compel a person to do everything in his or her power to end poverty and inequality throughout the world—the overall purpose of the MWAW:

“Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.  But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.  And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.  (The Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:17–19.)

Because of the Spirit of the MWAW and a hope in the real Christ, many people have changed their lives and become filled with more love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.  Some of these people whose lives have been greatly and positively impacted will be testifying at trial.

The Defendant is the only one of many people who have read and accepted the Book of Mormon and its Sealed Portion as the word of the true God who has turned on me and the MWAW in a vehemently vicious manner.  The only one.  Although the Defendant alleges there are others, it will be proven at trial that there are not.  He is the only one!

I was contacted and conscripted under God’s true authority, which is vested in four mortals who have lived upon this earth since the beginning of time and were made immortal, along with three other advanced human beings, also known as, “angels of God.”  (The angel Moroni is an advanced human being.)  These human beings “are as the angels of God, and if they pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus, they can show themselves unto whatsoever man it seemeth them good.  Therefore, great and marvelous works shall be wrought by them, before the great and coming day when all people must surely stand before the judgment-seat of Christ”  to be judged as explained in the 25th chapter of Matthew.  “Even among the Gentiles (American and European Christians) shall there be a great and marvelous work wrought by them, before that judgment day. … And behold they will be among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles shall know them not.  They will also be among the Jews, and the Jews shall know them not.”  (See Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, chapter 28.)

God’s only true servants’ work is called a Marvelous Work and a Wonder® as specifically detailed and explained in the Book of Mormon.  It is “a great and marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also unto destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.”  (BOM, 1 Nephi 14:7.)

Wherefore, because of this world’s blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark set by Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, the people of this world must fall; for God has taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it.  And because they desired it God has done it that they may stumble.  I was called as one of God’s prophets to put stumbling blocks in the way of the people of this world.  (See Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:14.)

I am one of God’s True Messengers.  I was not called of God.  I was called of God’s earthly servants and the advanced humans who oversee what is happening on this earth (not aliens as they do not live in this universe).  In November of 2003, I was called and sent forth and mandated by God and His true servants to deliver to this people many things that they could not understand, because they desired it.  And because they desired it, God and His servants* mandated that I give these things to the people that they may stumble in hopes that through their stumbling they might see and understand the true Spirit and Hope of Christ, which is the Spirit of the MWAW.

Finally, in 2012, gradually, line upon line, precept on precept, I was commanded by God and His servants to take away the stumbling blocks that not only I, but which Joseph Smith, Jr. had placed in front of the people so that they might stumble as God had commanded us.  (Also see Book of Mormon, Jacob 4:14.)  It was God’s hope that the people of the world, with the stumbling blocks removed, might act according to God’s will, which will and purpose is specifically described in the New Testament, Matthew, chapter 25: to end worldwide poverty.  Towards this means the MWAW exists.  There is no other purpose, no other goal, no other object of the MWAW or of my role as its True Messenger under the authority of God’s only true servants*.

Neither the LDS/Mormon prophet nor the Catholic Pope, both who claim a direct line of revelation and communication with God as God’s only true messengers, have presented a plan to eliminate poverty throughout this world.  If these two prophets actually had a communication line to the true God, wouldn’t God tell them how to solve poverty so that the their followers are not judged as outlined in Matthew chapter 25?

The MWAW has presented God’s plan to end worldwide poverty.  The Humanity Party® is a political movement under the MWAW.  It has presented an unchallengeable plan to eliminate poverty and has offered a $100,000.00 challenge to anyone upon earth who can logically explain why this plan (God’s plan, i.e., the Father’s work) will not work to end poverty and comply with God’s will and avoid God’s judgment as outlined in the 25th chapter of Matthew.

And the most important part of the MWAW is that there is no solicitation for donations to meet the purpose and end goal of the MWAW.  Many people who have found the MWAW have approached me and offered me tens of thousands of dollars of cash, almost all of which I have refused.  It will be proven with undeniable evidence at trial that the Defendant has lied about giving cash to me in the amounts he has averred to.

WHEREFORE,

            For the cause of justice and good cause shown, and the evidence presented that shows the Defendant’s propensity to lie and present fraudulent and manufactured “material fact” in this case, this Court should reconsider its Order denying my Motion For Summary Judgment and grant the motion dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaim with prejudice.

This case has always been about the Defendant’s malicious defamation of my character made over the course of many years.  The Defendant is doing everything he can to muddy the waters and prejudice the Court against me before this matter goes to trial.

IF this Court also denies this motion, then I pray that this Court specifies and clarifies on which genuine material facts it based its decision to deny my motion on October 26, 2018, and on which specific material facts it is denying this Motion To Reconsider.

DATED this 5th day of November 2018.

/s/Christopher M. Nemelka

Christopher M. Nemelka, Pro se