World Mission Society Church Of God vs. Michele Colón full court audio (January 11, 2013)
Additional Court Audio available on the Answering The WMSCOG YouTube channel.
]]>During a Ronan Farrow interview with missionary John Powers, the WMSCOG lawyer admits that the church sued Michele Colón before she sued the church.
]]>Jordan, Michele, Kelsey and Peter Skolnik, Esq. (Michele Colón’s attorney) discuss the World Mission Society Church Of God cult group and answer questions live.
]]>On December 22, 2017, former World Mission Society Church of God deacon, Raymond Gonzalez asked a New Jersey Court to rule that the non-disclosure he signed during his membership in the WMSCOG, be declared unenforceable. The non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is attached to the end of the complaint below. Click here for the decision in this case.
Gonzalez-ComplaintOn February 24, 2022, the Appellate Court of New Jersey issued a ruling on an appeal that the World Mission Society Church of God filed after the Superior Court ruled against them in Gonzalez v. WMSCOG – NJ Case BER-L-1025-18. In that case, former member Raymond Gonzalez asked the Court to declare the non-disclosure agreement that he signed unenforceable, and ultimately prevailed against the WMSCOG. The Court found that the NDA is invalid, unenforceable and void for numerous reasons. The Superior Court’s decision and accompanying written opinion are available here.
Unsatisfied with the Superior Court’s ruling (referred to as trial court below), the World Mission Society Church of God filed and appeal. The Appellate Court denied the the World Mission Society Church of God’s appeal and concluded:
“Finally, we note that World Mission made numerous contentious arguments on this appeal. Many of those arguments contained mischaracterizations of the record, hyperbole, or exaggerations. To the extent that we have not addressed specific arguments raised by World Mission, it is because we deem them insufficient to merit discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We note, in that regard, that World Mission focused its arguments on appeal on three orders (the orders entered on February 5, 2019, May 13, 2019, and February 20, 2020) but also argued that “practically every single determination” made by the trial court was an error. Having reviewed World Mission’s arguments, we discern no basis for reversing any order entered by the trial court.”
The complete opinion is available below.
REGULAR-OPINION-OPN-AFFIRMEDUpdate: On November 29, 2016, the Appellate Court of New Jersey reversed the lower court’s decision regarding the hacking and invasion of privacy claim. The case is currently being litigated and is scheduled for trial later in 2020. See the Appellate Court’s Opinion below.
On March 17, 2015, the Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed Ms. Colón’s complaint agains the World Mission Society Church of God, Zhang Gil Jah, Joo Cheol Kim, Big Shine Worldwide Inc., Lincoln Avenue Grill LLC, Albright Electric LLC and a number of WMSCOG officials. The complaint alleged conduct such as fraud, hacking/invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Regarding these allegations the Court stated in it’s opinion,
“The very argument that Ms. Colon used as her shield in World Mission’s previous case against her, the First Amendment, is now being used by the Church as its shield in the case sub judice. The same amendment that protected Ms. Colon previously, now protects the church.” (see Page 3 below)
Should the “church autonomy doctrine” serve as a legal shield for organizations that commit secular crimes or tort violations under the guise of religion?
The best way to challenge this decision is to convince the Court that New Jersey has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens from the WMSCOG. In order to prove this to the Court people need to be willing to document the harm that the WMSCOG has caused them. If you have been harmed by the WMSCOG, please post your experience in the Comments section below.
112916-Decision
On February 9th, 2015, a New Jersey Superior Court judge dismissed (with prejudice) a lawsuit filed by the World Mission Society Church of God in Ridgewood against former member Michele Colón. The lawsuit filed by the WMSCOG back in July of 2012 alleged defamation among other causes of action. After over two and half years of pre-trial litigation, the Court ruled that online statements allegedly made by Ms. Colón that described the WMSCOG as a “cult” that uses “mind control” and “destroys families”, are opinions and are therefore protected by the First Amendment (more info here). The Court found that the WMSCOG is a public figure which increases First Amendment protection of WMSCOG critics. The Court also found that “whether a specific religious organization is akin to a cult, is a matter of public concern”, which raises Firs Amendment protection of critics of any cult.
In the seventeen page opinion written by the Court, the judge also cites the WMSCOG’s inability to prove damages and noncompliance with court orders to produce relevant financial documents. It was also noted by the judge that the WMSCOG’s net income increased from 1.8 Million in 2009 to over 3.6 Million in 2012, a period in which the WMSCOG claimed to have lost 5 million in revenue (See page 23 of the original complaint filed in this case).
If you are a current member of the WMSCOG, ask yourself, shouldn’t the mother god have known that this case would be thrown out by the Court?
020915-MSJ-Opinion-OCROn March 18, 2014, former member Michelle Ramirez filed suit against the World Mission Society Church of God in New Jersey Federal Court. The case number is 2:2014cv1708. New Jersey Federal Court documents are available to the public here.
Ramirez-v-WMSCOGetal-ComplaintHere are some bullet points regarding Judge Harz’s decision on Colón’s Motion to Dismiss. The complete document is available below.
This litigation carried a little over 2 more years before finally being dismissed by the Court.
Colon-Motion-To-Dismiss-Decision-Order-08-07-13-1On 08/31/12, Plaintiff WMSCOG filed the following Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Council.
WMSCOG-Motion-To-Withdraw-As-Council-08-31-12