A Rood Awakening! | Why No Panel

This article is written solely for the purpose of clarification and explanation and not as a hand-grenade lobbed into an enemy’s camp. This letter is not intended to invoke or inflame anyone’s anger or wrath. Nor is this article intended to cast aspersions upon anyone’s reputation. Nor do I desire to hurt or alienate any of my brethren. I neither desire to make anyone my unnecessary adversary nor to burn any bridges. This article is written simply to explain why I agreed not to utilize the “goodwill” gesture of the brethren serving as a panel of judgment in the dispute between Jamie Louis and Michael Rood. I want to be clear from the start that very early on in this conflict we had offered to employ a PROFESSIONAL mediation group to mediate an amicable solution to this controversy. This offer was repeatedly rejected and ignored. Instead of a PROFESSIONAL mediator or arbitrator being enlisted, the present panel constituted themselves and presented themselves to us as the ONLY and FINAL solution to the conflict.

On 8/14/07 Neal Brenner under the name “Nachum Yankel” sent an e-mail to both Jamie and Michael on behalf of the “Elders of Beit Emet Ministries and HearOIsrael.org” desiring to establish a Beyt Din (House of Law) as described in the Torah.

Neal quoted: Devarim 1:9-18 as proof text.

Neal presented his case to Michael in regards to Michael’s consideration of a “Panel of Brethren” to help resolve the conflict. Neal suggested that there are those within “the movement” that are qualified to serve as “judges” who can “diligently inquire” and “rule” on “your strife” according to the will of YHVH. I agree that there are very competent people in the Messianic Hebrew Roots Movement. While many of the brethren contacted us with inquiries and promises of prayer most steered clear of conflict and did not desire to get involved with finding a resolve. After presenting his case to Michael, Neal then described his concept of what his Beyt Din (house of law) would look like.

Jamie and Michael would each pick one or two people that they were willing to submit to.
The chosen judges would jointly identify one more member so there would be an odd number.
No more than five members total on the panel.

The judges should be men of YHWH and Yeshua
Must follow the Torah
They should be leaders in their ministry
They should understand the mechanics of running a ministry.
At least one should be an administrator of his ministry’s Corporation Sole, or an attorney who understands the legal obligation and process of dissolving a Corporation Sole.
None should be involved in the leadership of any incarnation of “A Rood Awakening” or in the current employ of or serving on the advisory board of either group.

There should be no need for anyone to travel or for everyone to be physically present in the same place.
The participants should submit to these men (the judges)
The participants should give permission to question individuals, staff, advisors, book-keepers, accountants.
The participants should give permission to the Judges to examine records
An independent audit of financial records would be made.
The judges would then judge between the participants and dictate the path the participants would follow.
The Judges will prepare a report to be posted on the participants’ perspective web-sites.

“The alternative to this approach is for you to play out your dispute in public, trying to convince people through their flesh. This is a losing proposition that only gives opportunity to the adversary.”

Neal strangely seems to ignore the possibility of using PROFESSIONALS as Michael had offered or the use of the LEGAL SYSTEM as we ultimately deemed to it necessary to solve this LEGAL dispute. This aversion to professionals and the court system is a peculiar line of thinking, in that the basis of much of what the panel reports concerning Jamie’s rightful ownership of A Rood Awakening Corporation Sole is based upon his “LEGAL” documents, i.e. his Corporation Sole filed in the LEGAL SYSTEM of Arizona. It seems hypocritical to claim Jamie Louis has rights based upon his LEGAL documents filed in the LEGAL SYSTEM while at the same time discouraging or discounting Michael’s LEGAL right to protection and prosecution through the same LEGAL SYSTEM. The LEGAL SYTEM has always been a viable and preferred option instead of a self-appointed panel of unknown and inexperienced well meaning brethren. This aversion to using the LEGAL SYSTEM is evident in other members of the panel as we shall see later.

Let me now address a number of issues and discrepancies within Neal’s letter and his suggested process that caused us to reject the well meaning offer of these brethren.
.
First we must realize that the Torah is dealing with the GOVERNMENT of a NATION (Its LEGAL SYSTEM) and not a conflict within a congregation, fellowship or ministry. Moses was not able to effectively lead 2-3 million people by himself. Thus LEADERS or CAPTAINS were appointed to help govern the NATION of Israel. The LEADERS that were appointed were from among the recognized leaders of the various tribes and families of the NATION of Israel. These LEADERS, CAPTAINS, OFFICERS, and JUDGES were neither arbitrary, temporary appointments nor were they self appointed volunteers. We should also note that these LEADERS were appointed by Moses, the DIVINELY CHOSEN AND ANOINTED LEADER of Israel and not by the disputants involved in the conflict. Nor were these LEADERS and JUDGES self-appointed. We may also note that these LEADERS were not necessarily the same as the JUDGES as indicated by verse 16 where the JUDGES are charged separately. It must be clear that the JUDGES, like the LEADERS, were a part of a larger COURT SYSTEM and GOVERNMENT. The purpose of this COURT SYSTEM was to settle disputes quickly through RIGHTEOUS RULINGS. JUDGES were appointed in every city to provide for the quick and just resolution of disputes. If a case was too hard for a lower judge there was a HIGHER COURT that could decide the case. Ultimately the most difficult cases were brought to Moses, or in later times, to Jerusalem to the Kohen Gadol (the High Priest), where the dispute would be settled through DIVINE INTERVENTION.

It was the reality of the appeal process and the ultimate potential of DIVINE INTERVENTION that gave the people confidence in their COURT SYSTEM. Without this reality, the disputants were at the mercy of mere men and their limited understanding. What is important to understand in this system is the fact that YHWH was directly involved in the appointment of LEADERS and JUDGES as well as their rulings. It is also important to understand that these LEADERS and JUDGES were the government of the people and not merely temporary appointments made with each dispute that arose. These SHOFTIM or JUDGES were the LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL. Disputes between brethren were taken to the COURTS of the NATION. There was nothing arbitrary or temporary about these JUDGES. The laws these JUDGES were to follow were clearly defined in the Torah and recognized by the whole NATION. The Torah was the CONSTITUTION of the NATION OF ISRAEL. The Torah was to be the basis for all judgments given. While the disputes that occupied the LEGAL SYSTEM of Israel may have been of a diverse nature the LEGAL SYSTEM and its LAWS were clearly defined and recognized as the authority for all of Israel. This all changed of course, when Israel went into exile, and was subjected to the imposition of foreign rule even in the land of Israel.

This is an extremely different situation than what was suggested in Neal’s self-appointed panel. The Mr. Brenner’s self appointed panel clearly did not fit the Torah’s requirements and was of a rather ambiguous and dubious nature. The suggested self-appointed panel was also lacking all necessary authority to resolve the numerous LEGAL and CONTRACTUAL issues of this conflict. While ALL of the participants in this conflict may identify themselves with the Children of Israel, the sad fact is that we are living as exiles in other nations and are therefore subject to the LAWS OF THE LAND of our exile. Because we (the Children of Israel) failed to keep the COVENANT we are no longer in OUR OWN LAND, living by OUR OWN CONSTITUTION and judged by OUR OWN COURT SYSTEM. As a people we are no longer ruled solely by our own LEADERS, CAPTIANS, and JUDGES. While we strive to keep as much of the TORAH, the CONSTITUTION of our NATION, as we are able, we must still resign ourselves to the sad fact of our exile. We must recognize that we carry out our calling as ambassadors, evangelists, and minister of the Torah only to the degree that we are permitted to do so by the LAWS OF THE LAND of our exile.

It is indeed unfortunate that we, as the Children of Israel, and followers of Yeshua the Messiah, do not have an established LEGAL SYSTEM to hear our cases, conflicts and disputes or to govern our people. Possibly, this is the fruit that will one day come out of this conflict with Michael and Jamie, the establishment of a school to train up leaders and SHOSFTIM to serve as a true, recognized and established Beyt Din for the movement. At present there is little recourse but to avail ourselves of the court system of the land of our exile. One cannot hold Michael, Jamie, or this panel accountable for the shortfall of the whole Messianic Hebrew Roots movement to provide for itself such necessary leadership among the children of Israel in exile. In this we must all share the blame of such shortsightedness.

It is also important to recognize that the LEADERS, OFFICERS, and JUDGES referred to in the Torah were known and respected among the people of Israel, as well as among their own tribes. This would seem to indicate, in some sense, a “jury of one’s peers.” JUDGES from the tribe of Judah heard disputes between the brethren of Judah. JUDGES of Dan heard the disputes between the brethren of Dan. Thus each TRIBE judged its own. In this regard it is plausible to follow a similar model to resolve disputes that arise between brethren within the boundaries of an individual congregation (tribe) but it is quite problematic when we try to apply such a model in the case of a dispute within an international ministry.

The diversity found in the “Messianic Movement” or the “Hebrew Roots Movement” is no different than the diversity found in Judaism, Christianity or Islam. None of these world religions could be described as a unified world movement. While there may be some basic tenets that are shared among the adherents of each of these religions, each religion is divided into numerous sects, denominations, and factions which in many respects compete with one another for dominance in their respective movements. To have the Vatican sit in judgment over a dispute between a Southern Baptist and a Jehovah Witness would not be a jury of peers though all involved may claim to be Christian. To have Sunni Muslims hear a Shiite dispute would never be accepted as justice in the world of Islam. To have the Ultra Orthodox Jewish Rabbis determining if a Karaite Jew violated the Torah would be a travesty of justice. The same may be said of the Messianic/Hebrew Roots movement.

This modern Messianic Movement is divided over issues as profound as the identity and nature of Yeshua, the virgin birth, the Calendar, the number of Torahs, the authority (or lack thereof) of the Talmud, the authority of the Sanhedrin, the timing of the “Feasts”, as well as the true identity of the “Gentiles”. These divisions are not merely the peaceful divisions of a unified and clearly recognized NATION into tribes and families. These divisions represent fierce theological and political conflict among those claiming to follow the Torah and the Messiah. There is much verbal jousting between these various factions of the Messianic Movement in efforts to vindicate one position by the discrediting of another.

Again, we must understand that Biblical Israel was a NATION and not a RELIGION. The JUDGES of ISRAEL were the GOVERNMENT of ISRAEL. These JUDGES and LEADERS were given DIVINE AUTHORITY to rule the NATION. No such authority has been bestowed upon ANYONE in the Messianic Movement! The Messianic Movement is just that, a movement. The adherents of the Messianic faith are largely living in exile and are scattered to the ends of the earth. As exiles, Messianic believers live as ambassadors to and citizens of numerous countries. As exiles and ambassadors we are called to submit to and respect the authority of these nations’ respective governments. Understanding the “politics” of the Messianic Movement makes the appointment of JUDGES for the “movement” a very questionable practice.

In the 7th and 8th centuries during the Islamic reign of the Middle East, the Islamic Sultan allowed the Jews living in Babylon a great deal of autonomy. The Sultan appointed a rabbinic “exilarch” to reign over the Jewish community living in exile in Babylon. The exilarch gave great authority and power to the rabbis who changed the practice of Torah by inserting and asserting their own rulings and teachings upon the children of Israel. The rabbis began teaching that there were in fact TWO TORAHS; one written and one given to Moses ORALLY. The rabbis taught that their rulings were rooted in this ORAL TORAH. Some of the Jews living in Babylon rebelled against this teaching of TWO TORAHS and rejected the rabbis’ authority to make additions and changes to the Torah.

The Karaite movement was birthed out of this conflict. The Karaites teach that there is only ONE TORAH, the written Torah, and that no one has the authority to change the word of YHWH. The conflict between the rabbis and those who reject their authority while holding to the written Torah alone as their authority, was and remains, a very heated debate among the children of Israel, including Messianic believers.

Michael Rood is a leading proponent of the ONE TORAH teaching within the Messianic Movement. Michael has often described himself as a Karaite in his views on the Torah. As such, Michael has rejected the authority of the rabbis and the Talmud. Michael teaches and encourages believers in Yeshua to follow the WRITTEN TORAH free from rabbinic additions and man-made traditions. Michael also teaches that we are to follow the Astronomical and Agricultural Biblical Calendar and not the Calculated Calendar of the rabbis. These teachings have caused many to accuse Michael of dividing the Messianic Movement. These views have likewise caused Michael to become the TARGET of many Messianic rabbis, Torah Teachers and Ministers which have built their ministries upon the foundation of rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism and its traditions. Michael has been the TARGET of many public diatribes from the mouth of Messianic rabbis such as, and including, MONTE JUDAH. On several occasions Monte Judah has publically targeted Michael’s teachings on the Calendar and timing for the FEASTS OF YHWH. (In fairness to Monte let me state that Michael has also been invited to, and spoken at, Monte Judah’s Sukkot gathering in spite of these differences. I should also state that while speaking at Monte’s venue, Michael avoided talking about any of the controversial issues that divide these two Torah teachers. Michael has also promoted Monte’s ministry and sold his teaching materials on his own tours.) I include these comments so as not to cast aspersions on the character of Monte Judah. (Debate for the sake of heaven is a wonderful thing.) I mention the difference between Michael’s and Monte’s teaching only to demonstrate the fractured nature of the Messianic Movement. Let me suggest that, due to the particular theological agendas and points of view of the JUDGES on this self-appointed panel, there is an obvious potential for a conflict of interest.

Since Michael is one of the most prominent proponents of the ONE TORAH teaching, to discredit Michael is likewise to discredit his teachings. Since each faction is vying to influence a greater number of believers and supporters, there is a certain amount of competition among the varying factions. Therefore if there was to be an appointed panel of judges, it should be from among those of like understanding and not from the competing factions. I must here state that Michael Rood and Monte Judah are two of the most recognized names and LEADERS of this Messianic Movement. Michael clearly has rejected the authority of the rabbis and their calendar. Monte Judah, on the other hand, follows and teaches many of the rabbinic traditions and the rabbinic calendar. While it may not be their stated purpose to compete with each other, each of these LEADERS seeks to influence the body of the Messianic Movement with their teachings. This means that Monte and Michael are to some extent in competition with each other for the hearts and souls of the body of believers. There is a great example of this situation in the book of Acts. The Apostle Shaul was being tried by the court in Jerusalem, which was made up of both Sadducees and Pharisees. The theological and political divide between these two factions of Judaism resulted in a great division among the court and the leaders.

But when Shaul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. 9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God. 10 And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle. (Acts 23:6-10 KJV)

Because of the division among the judges and leaders genuine justice could not be guaranteed. I fear that the theological and political divisions of this Modern Messianic Movement would likewise prevent justice from being guaranteed.

The Torah teaches that those appointed as LEADERS and JUDGES over the Nation of Israel were to be “known” among the tribes they were appointed to judge. The JUDGES appointed to serve on this panel, with the exception of Monte Judah are virtually unknown to the Messianic movement at large. Though some may disagree, Michael Rood and Monte Judah are two of the most recognized “LEADERS” of this fractured movement. As stated above, it is clear, that Michael and Monte are not of the same theological understanding, and therefore are understood to be leaders of two different factions. Neal Brenner and Allen Dodge may be considered LEADERS and ELDERS within their congregation and therefore capable of settling local disputes within their community, but they are in no way recognized as “ELDERS” and “LEADERS” of the larger movement. In his status report, Neal Brenner states that five “ELDERS” have been appointed. Again, I mean no disrespect to the men involved, but “ELDERS” of what? We may also ask by whose authority were these five panel members declared to be “ELDERS” or “LEADERS” or “JUDGES”. I and many others may indeed recognize Monte Judah as a Torah Teacher and ELDER of this diverse Messianic Movement, but no one else on this panel has the qualifications for such an honor. There is also no sanctioning body that may speak on behalf of the diverse Messianic Movement. Once again I emphasize that what may work on a small scale in an individual congregation, is not necessarily the best choice to meet the complex challenges of this particular conflict. Having evaluated the complex nature of this conflict as well as Neal’s suggested means of resolution, we determined that this panel was not the best means of resolution. The panel did not have the legal power or authority to bring about a sound resolution to the conflict nor the means to enforce it.

Here we must acknowledge that there are extenuating circumstance, such as copyrights and trademarks which require a LEGAL solution beyond the boundaries of this conflict. This conflict involves numerous LEGAL contracts with vendors, television stations, contractors, employees as well as complex debt and tax liabilities with creditors, employees, and the IRS. The numerous threats of lawsuits against the ministry and Michael by vendors, disgruntled supporters and donors, forced a LEGAL response from Michael. These numerous LEGAL issues extend far beyond Michael Rood and Jamie Louis’ fractured relationship, and are clearly beyond the suggested panels ability or authority to solve. Even if Michael and Jamie would have agreed to submit to the authority of this makeshift panel, it is hardly likely that the IRS, television networks, publishers, and other vendors would. Simply put, this conflict, by its very nature, is a LEGAL matter best resolved in the Courts. While many believers seem to balk at the court system, we must realistically understand that we are not living in the Messianic Kingdom in the Land of Israel, but are doing ministry in exile in the United States of America where we are required by the government of our exile to comply with the LAWS OF THE LAND. This compliance with the LAW OF THE LAND is necessitated by the fact that A ROOD AWAKENING was made a LEGAL ENTITY subject to the LAWS OF THE LAND the moment it was incorporated. Regardless of whether it was Michael or Jamie who incorporated the ministry, as soon as it was legally constituted as a corporation with United States, the ministry entered into contract with the LEGAL SYSTEM and agreed to abide by specific LAWS OF THE LAND that govern such entities. Anything that happened to A ROOD AWAKENING would therefore be a LEGAL MATTER.

Further eroding our confidence in this panel was the fact that the “FIVE ELDERS” continually changed throughout the process. On August 17, 2007 Neal Brenner sent an e-mail indicating that Jamie Louis had appointed two people to represent him on the panel; Monte Judah and Todd Bennet. Neal also declares that Ben Ehrhardt was appointed by Monte Judah, Todd Bennett, Allen Dodge and himself. Since most of these people are unknown to the larger Messianic community it is important that we understand who these people are and their relationship to Michael and Jamie. It should be pointed out that Monte Judah was Jamie’s congregational leader before Jamie joined Michael Rood. Jamie and Monte have been friends for some time. It should also be pointed out that Todd Bennett (an attorney, author and friend of both Jamie and Michael) had toured with Michael, sold his books through A Rood Awakening, and was an advisor to Jamie and his board. Even after the split between Michael and Jamie, Todd Bennett’s material was still being sold through A Rood Awakening (Corporation Sole), then doing business as “Torah to the Nations.” Clearly Todd had a business relationship with Jamie’s Corporation Sole. Jamie confessed on the recorded “board meeting” that Todd Bennett had advised Jamie on how to prevent Michael from incorporating in Michigan and regaining control of A Rood Awakening. Todd is clearly understood, therefore to have been an advisor to Jamie and his board. All of this is in direct violation of Neal’s own criteria for being on the panel (See point #6 under Criteria for Judges listed above). It should also be pointed out that Ben Ehrhardt (the first appointment made by the panel) was Jamie Louis’ book-keeper’s father. Given the fact that so much of this conflict revolved around the stewardship of monies and questionable bookkeeping practices, it is remarkable that no one on the panel saw the appointment of the book-keeper’s father as a potential problem or conflict of interest. Neal mentions this in an August 17th e-mail to Michael.

“Jamie added two names to the list: Todd Bennett and Monte Judah. Both agreed to serve. As a fifth person we’ve added Ben Ehrhardt because he formed a Corp Sole for Beit Emet. Ben disclosed that his daughter is bookkeeper for A Rood Awakening, but believes that will not prevent him from being objective. We all agree, but because of the disclosure we are offering you the chance to object. Please e-mail back your acceptance or rejection.”

I do not know Debbie Cooper or Ben Ehrhardt and do not desire to call into question their integrity. However, one must question the panels’ dubious appointment of a judge related so intimately to the case. If it was discovered that the bookkeeper was in fact involved in some illegal activity would her father remain unmoved and unbiased in his judgment? For the sake of the reputation and integrity of both the book-keeper and her father, and in the interest of justice, such a situation should never have been suggested. That the panel could not see this conflict of interest demonstrated to us that they were not qualified to serve in such a capacity, regardless of how well meaning they were. By making such an appointment the panel put the reputation of both Debbie Cooper and Ben Ehrhart at risk. This errant appointment also gave the appearance that the panel was being stacked against Michael.

Due to the apparent “stacking of the deck” and lack of discernment on the part of the panel participants, Michael rejected the whole panel and the process. Strangely, this whole episode is missing from the panel’s report. Neal Brenner and Allen Dodge were both major contributors to A Rood Awakening and were friends of Jamie Louis. Here we clearly see that Ben, Todd, Neal and Allan, four of the first five members of the panel had direct connections to Jamie Louis and A Rood Awakening Corporation Sole. Yet they claimed there was no bias upon the panel. This connection between the panel and A Rood Awakening is in direct violation of the criteria established by Neal. We may also note that Neal Brenner, Allen Dodge, and Ben Ehrhardt all belong to the same congregation. I question why all the judges come from such an intimate circle of people. Michael’s ministry is international in scope. I agree that within this movement there are righteous men and women who could have served on such a panel. I question therefore why no one outside this close knit group was considered. Certainly there were other people who could have served on this panel that were not directly connected to A Rood Awakening Corporation Sole, or so intimately connected to each other.

Eventually Ben Ehrhardt (the bookkeeper’s father) citing personal reasons stepped down from the panel. He was replaced by the panel with Phil Vellekamp. Phil Vellekamp is an employee of Monte Judah’s Lion and Lamb Ministry. Without intending any insult, Phil is not a Torah Scholar, Torah Teacher, nor a recognized ELDER or LEADER in the Messianic Movement. Phil Vellekamp is Monte Judah’s “right hand man” in running Monte’s ministry. By appointing one of his employees, Monte has tipped the scale of fairness in his own direction. Remember that it was Jamie Louis that appointed Monte to the panel. By appointing one of his paid employees Monte is potentially given two votes on the panel. While Phil clearly has expertise in running a ministry, his subordinate relationship to Monte Judah as a paid employee should have disqualified him from consideration and service on the panel with Monte in the interest of fairness. (Here we must remember Shaul’s instruction, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). It is a highly irregular situation for any arbitration, mediation, or legal board to include subordinates. Next we read that Todd Bennett likewise had to step down due to a conflict of interest. Todd was clearly an advisor for Jamie. This was known from the start, but again the panel saw no conflict in this. This leaves the final panel, which signed the report, as only four members, again in contradiction to Neal’s own criteria for FIVE members on the panel.

The biased nature of the panel was quite clear. From the very start the panel appeared to be a stacked deck against Michael Rood and gave us cause to consider our level of cooperation with it. We should also note that there are no members appointed by Michael on this panel.

After being informed by an e-mail from Neal on August 30th that the panel had been formed without Michael’s participation and was meeting and scheduling interviews, Michael responded to Neal stating that there was no need for him to talk with the brethren without having the previously requested and promised material (the independent audit). Michael had been very clear that he would not cooperate with this process without the required material. In response to Michael’s refusal to meet with or participate with these self-appointed judges, Neal Brenner declared in fact that these men had “constituted themselves” as a panel of elders. On September 30th Neal wrote,

Clearly the board is self-appointed and self-constituted! Contrary to scripture these men have appointed themselves elders, and, under their own self-bestowed authority, carried out their own self-determined agenda. Michael has never appointed anyone. Yet this has not stopped this self-appointed and self-constituted independent board of self-ordained elders from stating otherwise.

Three times Michael wrote to Neal emphatically stating that he had NOT appointed Neal or Allen to any panel. In his final e-mail to Neal Michael wrote,

These protestations were completely ignored. Instead the panel continued to print that Michael agreed to this process and appointed judges even though no evidence of such an appointment is ever given. The following quote comes from the panel’s report.

It is interesting that Monte told me that Michael asked him to be on the panel. This would mean Monte was representing Michael, leaving Jamie with no one on the final panel. Clearly this is NOT the case. Neal already stated that Jamie had chosen Monte Judah and Todd Bennett as his representatives on the panel. In an e-mail from Monte to me on December 9th, 2007 Monte writes,

Once again we see the panel presenting itself as the ONLY solution. We have from early on in this conflict recognized that the correct path to resolve the legal conflict with Jamie Louis was through the proper LEGAL channels. A Rood Awakening Corporation Sole is a LEGAL entity. Copyrights, Trademarks, Contracts, and Intellectual Rights, are all LEGAL matters. The LEGAL SYSTEM has always been understood to be a possible and probable path to resolution. This is especially true since various contractors, vendors, and television networks have put liens against ministry property until allr debts and LEGAL liabilities are accounted for, or clear ownership is determined by a COURT OF LAW. These demands have given us little choice but to utilize the COURT SYSTEM.

The repetitive changing members, as well as, the confusion concerning who was representing whom, undermined all confidence on our part in the panel’s ability to bring about a fair and just resolution to this complex conflict. The confusion bespeaks of the panels lack of professionalism, experience, and clarity.

I would likewise point out that it was Neal that came to Michael with this idea of the Panel of Judges. Yet the Panel’s report implies that Michael instigated the appointment of a Panel.

It should be noted that all talks on Michael’s part were simply talks with individual “BRETHREN” and not with a panel of self-appointed “JUDGES”. We have always welcomed the help of our “BRETHREN” but never accepted the self-bestowed authority of any panel.

According to the original writing, the Panel was to be made up of five members, two appointed by Jamie, two appointed by Michael and one member appointed by the four already appointed members. There is an e-mail showing that Jamie Louis agreed to this process. There is no such documentation showing that Michael agreed. Therefore the make up of the panel is dubious at best. The final panel was comprised of one judge appointed by Jamie, one judge appointed by the panel, and two judges that appointed themselves. Not only is this inconsistent with the teaching of the Torah it is not even consistent with the rules laid out by Neal and the panel.

Not only is the membership and identity of the panel ambiguous, but the purpose of the panel is likewise ever shifting. It was never clear as to the nature and purpose of this panel. The panel and its purpose continued to morph from one thing to the next and back again with each communication. From Neal’s opening letter this group of men was to play the part of the Beyt Din (House of Law) and the men are to be understood as being the Biblical “SHOFTIM” or “JUDGES” handing down the ruling and will of YHWH concerning a matter. The SHOFTIM were to investigate a matter thoroughly, then, have both parties stand before them at the same time to present their case in each other’s presence. Finally the Shoftim would search the scriptures, pray, and consult the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) if necessary, before they gave their ruling. The SHOFTIM/JUDGES would then show both parties the foundation of their ruling in the Torah. Clearly this is not what this panel did.

At times this panel states that its purpose was to be an ARBITRATION BOARD. Arbitration is a process of dispute resolution where both parties present their case, views, and evidence to a professionally trained Arbitrator or Arbitration board that in turn makes a decision that will end the dispute. Arbitration may be binding or non-binding, but this must be determined from the beginning of the process with consequences for violating the decision clearly stated. Much of the language in Neal’s initial letter sounds like he is describing a process of binding arbitration, where both sides agree to live by the ruling of the ARBITRATION PANEL.

Elsewhere in communications from the members of the panel, they talked as though the purpose of the panel was merely MEDIATION. Mediation is also a form of dispute resolution. In mediation the participants sit with a professionally trained MEDIATOR or MEDIATION BOARD, which helps the participants work out their own mutually agreed upon solution to the problem. We should be clear to understand that there is a big difference between SHOFTIM, ARBITRATION, and MEDIATION. It should also be clear that MEDIATION and ARBITRATION should be conducted by trained people at minimum and professionals at best. The men of this panel are schizophrenically described as BRETHREN, A PANEL, A COMMITTEE, SHOFTIM, ARBITRATORS and MEDIATORS. Once again, due to the confusion over the membership, the nature and purpose of this “panel”, the failure to follow their own rules, and the clearly biased appointments, we had no confidence in the panel’s “well intentioned” efforts to rule upon, mediate or arbitrate this conflict. This left us little choice but to continue to look toward the LEGAL SYSTEM for a solution.

When Michael failed to comply with the self-appointed panel’s edicts, mandates, and impositions we were pressured and threatened to comply “or else”. Without any advanced warning or opportunity to evaluate, refute, or reply privately to the panel’s inconclusive findings, the panel publically posted its biased, damaging, slanderous, and incomplete report on the internet for the entire world to see. We may recall here that the supposed motivation for using this panel was to keep the conflict from the public eye. Clearly this was not the panel’s motive when they publically published their damning report.

It should be further pointed out that according to the Torah the SHOFTIM were to conduct a diligent inquiry. I would like to point out that the panel never interviewed anyone from Michael’s staff in Michigan, even though some of the staff worked in the Oregon office and were firsthand witnesses to significant events. They also never asked for or looked at any evidence that we have in our possession. The one member of our staff that was questioned lives in Costa Rico and was confronted with allegations and accusations of embezzlement, threats of legal actions and strong-armed tactics by a member of the panel. Clearly the behavior of this self-appointed panel is not consistent with the rules of arbitration, mediation, and especially not the Torah. Bullying and threatening witnesses in a dispute is never a means of justice. Again this would seem to indicate that the panel was not interested in justice or resolution of the conflict. Thus, contrary to the Torah, the panel heard only one side of the argument and then published their report. Note again, that this is in direct contradiction to Neal’s addendums which stated that a statement from the panel would be given to both Jamie and Michael to post on their websites. Instead, Neal Brenner arbitrarily created his own website and posted the biased report publically without notifying Michael.

After Michael clearly refuted Neal’s claim that he was appointed to the panel by Michael, Monte Judah responds to Neal Brenner in an e-mail on September 25, 2007.

It is clear, that without ever having talked to Michael, or his staff, and without seeing any of the refuting evidence, the panel had already made up its mind about the case. I may make mention here, that since Jamie Louis was in complete control of all the records, bank-statements, credit card receipts, and other evidence, it has taken us a great deal of time and effort to contact banks, credit card companies, and businesses in order to gain access to copies of these receipts. Not only had the panel never seen our refuting evidence but it never followed through with its own promises of obtaining an independent audit. It should be noted that there was never an independent audit by a certified auditor. No independent CPA ever looked at the check book and financial records of A Rood Awakening Corporation Sole. (Without seeing the actual check book it is impossible to balance the books, or certify the audit.) The panel did not check “Quick Books” electronic back ups and histories to verify reports. Instead we have been shown only the testimony of a multilevel sales and software consultant who works with accountants, clearly not a forensic accountant. Once again we see the failure of the panel to live up to its own criteria and promises. Instead of demanding that a genuine and independent audit be performed (which would have largely settled the whole dispute) the panel refuted the need for an audit based upon the cost of having a professional audit performed. With financial accountability being the very heart of the conflict the decision to forego a genuine audit demonstrates once again the incompetence of the panel. We should also see that there is no thought as to protecting the donors or giving them the assurance as to the manner that their tithes and offerings had been handled. A genuine audit would have been the perfect vehicle to clear Jamie’s name and all those associated with the financial management of A Rood Awakening Corporation Sole. This should have been the first thing that the panel demanded.

Even after the publication of this grossly inaccurate report, the threats against Michael continued. In December in a personal phone conversation with Monte Judah, Monte stated that he wanted the opportunity to talk with us off the record as a “backdoor” effort to resolve this conflict out of the public eye. Monte agreed to fly to Michigan and meet with us in hopes of finding a solution. During this time tensions continued to mount, and actions injurious to Michael and the ministry in Michigan continued to occur. Confusion reigned supreme among our supporters and vendors. This confusion took its toll upon our ministry and our health. Unfulfilled credit card orders, canceled television contracts, questions of billing liability, misdirected donations, newsletter mix-ups, all forced us to move forward toward a LEGAL solution. We had lost all confidence in Monte and the panel. Talking with Monte was going to make no difference in this matter. Therefore we canceled the meeting with Monte. He simply did not have the authority to solve the growing LEGAL issues. I received two e-mails from Monte, both dated December 9, 2007.

For the record, I personally paid for Monte’s ticket out of my own pocket. Also for the record, Monte knew exactly what Jamie had done. For legal reasons I will not go into the matter here. I had talked to Monte in person about the matter and explained that talking was no longer a possible solution to the conflict.

I want to make it clear that we did not turn to the LEGAL SYSTEM or file the lawsuit, until after the panel report was published and these final threatening e-mails were received. Clearly, this panel had an agenda which became clearer and clearer as time went on. Neither resolution nor justice, were a part of their agenda. Instead, this panel sought to destroy Michael and his reputation for the sake of their bruised egos and to bolster their personal reputations as “the ELDERS” of the movement.

I frequently remind my children that their offers to help are only “HELPFUL” if the other person is asking for or needing help. Otherwise, their gestures are merely selfish intrusion and imposition. Such is clearly the case with this panel. Their offer to help was an intentional intrusion into a conflict way beyond their ability. Once involved, their egos would not let them gracefully bow out or acknowledge their complete incompetence in handling this matter. Instead, their incompetent and biased behavior brought shame to all of them. Instead of seeking for a solution to a conflict the panel had become the conflict. Revenge for their humiliation quickly became the driving force behind their inexcusable behavior.

It is inconceivable for me to believe that a Biblical Beyt Din, Arbitration Board, or Mediation Board would publish such an unprofessional, one-sided, inconclusive, incomplete report, followed by threats of yet further damaging reports if we refused to cooperate with its ambiguous and self-appointed, self constituted, self-determined purposes. Nor do I believe that this panel’s report is consistent with the Torah. There is strangely no mention of the Torah anywhere in the panel’s report. I also question by whose authority this self-appointed panel is issuing these reports and on whose behalf? I question the ultimate intention of the panel in issuing such a report or further reports. While the panel may have been well intentioned in the beginning, desiring to see a quick and quiet resolve to this conflict between “brethren”, I believe that their lack of experience, lack of training, lack of professionalism, lack of understanding and lack of clarity in purpose and direction, in this matter led to mistakes, missteps, miscommunications, confusion and ambiguity that ultimately led to great frustration on the part of the panel. I believe that the panel wrote their report with frustration, disappointment, bruised egos, and anger at Michael for his failure to cooperate with their intended “good will.” I question what gives this particular panel of men the right to publish anything injurious to Michael’s or Jamie’s reputation and ministry among the brethren. This report is nothing more than a blatant example of Lashon-Hara (evil speech-gossip mongering).

Morphing once more the panel suddenly claimed that they were representing and protecting “the donors.” Protecting the donors was never stated as the purpose of the panel. If protecting the donors was the goal of the panel then why were the donors not given opportunity to pick the panel? If the donors were behind the panel’s investigation, (besides Neal Brenner and Allen Dodge) where was the out cry from the donors? We must now ask which donors were contacted, which donors were asked to serve on the panel, which donors appointed people to the panel and which donors were being represented. We must also ask if all the donors were being represented or just some donors such as Neal and Allen? If the panel was championing the cause of the donors, then why was this not stated as the purpose from the beginning? If the welfare of the donor was driving this panel’s work then the report should have been sent to the donors and not the public at large. If concern of financial accountability was the issue then a genuine audit should have been performed. The well being of the donors was clearly not the primary thought behind this investigation and report, revenge was! Concern for the donors is merely an attempt at justifying Neal Brenner and Allen Dodge remaining on the panel. Every donor has recourse to the LEGAL SYSTEM as safeguard against financial improprieties.

The only conclusion I could draw from the panel’s behavior is that their reports were posted as a punitive measure for Michael’s refusal to cooperate with the self-appointed panel. If the purpose of the panel was to RECONCILE the participants of this dispute, the inflammatory and biased nature of the panel and its report served only to divide the participants further apart. If the purpose of the panel was to MEDIATE a settlement, then the panel would not have conducted an independent inquiry nor issued a public report of its findings. Instead the panel would have sought to be a conduit by which the participants could find a private and amicable solution on their own. If the purpose of the panel was to ARBITRATE a solution to this conflict, then the panel should have heard both sides of the case and released a ruling, not their findings, to both sides of the conflict and not the general public. If the panel was serving as the biblical SHOFTIM, they should have had both brothers come together while the panel shared the findings of their diligent inquiry. The SHOFTIM would also share the results of their prayerful study and explained from the Torah the reason for their ruling. The panel did none of these things. If it was the intention of the panel to protect the honor and glory of the name of YHWH, then they would have sought to settle this matter out of the public eye instead of broadcasting their inconclusive and biased findings to the unbelieving world.

Not knowing what it was, or what its purpose was, or who they were serving, the panel released a damning and damaging inconclusive and biased report to the general public, bringing a black mark on Michael Rood, Jamie Louis, the Messianic Movement, and the name of YHWH. I must ask to what avail? It seems clear that the final intent of this panel was to scold, rebuke, chastise, discredit and otherwise destroy Michael Rood, his teachings and his ministry while at the same time attempting to make a name for themselves. It seems clear that the ultimate purpose for the panel’s report and threats of further reports was to simply send Michael’s reputation “DOWN THE TOILET”. If Michael Rood’s teaching and ministry are discredited who gains?

The punitive motives of the panel became very apparent after Michael and Jamie, by utilizing the LEGAL SYSTEM came to a mutual and amicable resolution to the conflict. Through the use of the court system, a professional mediator and arbitrator, Michael and Jamie were able to make a mutually acceptable settlement with the proper legal authority to satisfy all the contracts, contractors, vendors, publishers, and liabilities. The official statement of this mutual resolution appeared on both Michael’s and Jamie’s websites. This statement of resolution not only served as a statement of truce between the two disputing parties in the conflict but is also served to expose the true intention of the panel and its participants. Once a settlement was agreed upon, I personally notified Neal Brenner and Monte Judah with what I had hoped to be good news to them. While Monte did receive the news with some relief, Mr. Brenner, the chairman of the panel, and the owner of the slanderous website containing the panel’s “findings,” refused to take the website down. Had justice, resolution, and reconciliation genuinely been the motive of this panel, then this damaging website would have been quickly taken down with the news of resolution. Monte did inform me that he had requested that the website be removed, but that Mr. Brenner refused. When I contacted Mr. Brenner asking that the website be removed that further reconciliation could occur, I was informed by Neal that he refused to take it down until Michael bowed down to his personal demand for a public apology. Now, Michael and Jamie both suffer because of the pride and arrogance of this self-appointed panel of judges and their mean spirited and damning report.

There has been nothing good to come from the panel’s report. Only hurt and shame. The panel should be held accountable for the ill conceived report, the manner in which they handled it, the damage it has caused to Michael Rood and his ministry, to Jamie Louis and his ministry and to the Messianic Hebrew Roots Movement. The panel would have shown great wisdom had they simply stated, “We tried to mediate a resolve to this conflict between brethren but were unable to do so due to their (or even Michael’s) unwillingness to avail themselves (himself) of this process. For the sake of the name of YHWH we will continue to pray for and encourage our brethren to resolve this matter quickly.” This was all that needed to be said. Several other Torah teachers and leaders of congregations and ministries have graciously, quietly and privately done just that.

Once again, I have no personal animosity with anyone that was involved in this conflict. Though we may disagree on many other issues, I still consider Monte Judah to be my brother and pray that he does likewise. I have talked with Phil Vellekamp on a professional basis over the years and respect his business acumen. I have met Neal Brenner and his wife only once on a tour in Israel and enjoyed my time with them both. I have never met or talked with Allen Dodge or Todd Bennett and hope that I have not caused unnecessary offense with my explanation and opinions.

It is my hope, for the sake of the name of YHWH that the time will come when Michael and Jamie will again see each other as brothers. I am glad to report that at the time of this writing, a recent perceived conflict between Jamie Louis and A Rood Awakening Ministries International was resolved quickly through amicable dialogue, patience, and forgiveness. I commend Jamie Louis for being the first to offer the olive branch in the resolution of this matter. I hope that this is just the beginning of a long process of healing between two brothers. Thus we ask for everyone’s continued prayers on this matter that all involved may be given wisdom, discernment, and patience as the process continues to work its self to complete resolve.

Ultimately I hope that the price that has been paid by all involved in this conflict will, in the end, bear fruit for the sake of the Kingdom of YHWH. May we learn from our mistakes, mature through our conflicts, sharpen each other through our debates, and gain insight into who we are and what we need to do to fulfill our calling as the Children of Israel to be a light to the nations.

I likewise pray that this explanation will satisfy the curiosity of those inquiring as to why we did not avail ourselves of what was purported to be the good will of a few of our brethren.