Homestead Heritage contacts - Facebook group - on the Rory Feek - Taste of Country - lawsuit

[Steven Avery]

The Homestead Heritage Million Dollar "Defamation" Sham - Feb 19
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3590882854543839/
Asi with battery of lawyers psycho-babble

Frivolous Lawsuit - Feb, 6, 2025
$ down the drain
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3580917128873745/

George Klingensmith - Sept 27, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3476097842689008/

False in One, false in all - Oct 8, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3486927524939373/

Homestead Lawfare - Oct 7, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3486537044978421/

New Lawsuit Feek article - Sept 25, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3474292562869536/

Amended Complaint - July 21, 2025
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/permalink/3726869767611813/?

 

[Steven Avery]

Justia
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/alabama/alndce/3:2024cv01267/191335

https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-alabama/noscat-3/nos-320

Pacer
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public..._al_v_Feek_et_al__alndce-24-01267__0001.0.pdf

Special site
https://homesteadheritage-lawsuit.tiiny.site/

 

[Steven Avery]

Same as Post #1, can add more detail

The Homestead Heritage Million Dollar "Defamation" Sham - Feb 19, 2025
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3590882854543839/
Here is Asi today in an email talking about sharing psycho-babble with his battery of lawyers.
The Homestead Heritage Million Dollar "Defamation" Sham
And I suspect the Homestead lawyers are becoming a bit uncomfortable about their reputation, and how this lawsuit will play out.

Frivolous Lawsuit - Feb, 6, 2025
$ down the drain
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3580917128873745/
Homestead Heritage Frivolous Libel Lawsuit
Pouring $ down the drain!
How much?
One million $ yet?
What else could they do with the members $$$?

George Klingensmith - Sept 27, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3476097842689008/

False in One, false in all - Oct 8, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3486927524939373/

Homestead Lawfare - Oct 7, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3486537044978421/

New Lawsuit Feek article - Sept 25, 2024
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/posts/3474292562869536/

Amended Complaint - July 21, 2025
https://www.facebook.com/groups/homesteadheritagecontacts/permalink/3726869767611813/?

 

[Steven Avery]

Summary why this intimidation lawsuit will throw away tons of $$ and be a disaster for Homestead Heritage

====================

1) the 2006 Texas case involving The Local Church decided that use of the word "cult" is not actionable. The USA does not have a state church and the word cult is thrown around by both sides in all sorts of doctrinal disputes.

e.g.
Trinity and Oneness and Unitarian
Shades of Trinity doctrine, like the Social Trinity or the Economic Trinity
Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Sabbath vs Sunday vs. No Day Sabbath
Preterist vs. Futurist vs. Historicism
OSAS vs. Salvation as Ongoing
Jehovah or the devil Yahweh
Marriage Permanence

The case decision recognized the truth, that secular courts could not wade into the decision of what is a cult.

Essentially this is settled law in the USA. It will not be bypassed or overturned. If a local court absurdly does make a "we define cult" decision it will be overturned on appeal

This alone could lead to an immediate dismissal of the case, since the use of the word cult in the Taste of Country article was a central point of the case.

2) The Homestead Heritage case is based on an absurd premise that Taste of Country should have seen the 2012 reports of WFAA and Texas Observer as defamatory, based on reading the one-sided website responses put up by Homestead.

Homestead had every opportunity over a year or two to sue those two media entities for defamation. They did not. Nothing was retracted from the reports. No court ever found defamation, except for the Mental Court of Homestead Heritage Colluding Elders.

This major, long-winded, convoluted argument of Homestead in their filing will be immediately tossed by any competent judge.

3) Homestead is in deep trouble if this case ever goes to discovery and trial.
Skeletons in the Homestead closet will come out in Discovery and Trial. Their finances will be scrutinized. New accusations will arise.

And under the concept of "False in One, False in All", their charade of claiming that George Klingensmith was the only person in authority at Homestead who knew of the DeLong situation for over a year will be shredded. So they have a major deception even in their attempted response to 2012.

 

[Steven Avery]

The 2005-2006 Local Church / Living Stream Ministry vs. Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR) lawsuit

Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press
Book calling local church a "cult" not defamatory (Jan 2006)
https://www.rcfp.org/book-calling-local-church-cult-not-defamatory/

A church which was included in a book about cults was not defamed, an appellate court ruled, because being labeled a cult did not necessarily associate the church with the illegal acts of other cults.

....

It found the authors could not be sued for calling the church a cult because a “cult,” according to the book, is a “separate religious group generally claiming compatibility with Christianity but whose doctrines contradict those of historic Christianity and whose practices and ethical standards violate those of biblical Christianity.”

Judge Sherry Radack, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, ruled that the “issue of whether a group’s doctrines are compatible with Christianity depends upon the religious convictions of the speaker.” Therefore, “being labeled a ‘cult’ is not actionable because the truth or falsity of the statement depends upon one’s religious beliefs, an ecclesiastical matter which cannot and should not be tried in a court of law.”

=========================

A Response to the Christian Research Journal’s Recent Defense of the “Local Church” Movement (2009)
Norman Geisler
https://normangeisler.com/petition-for-review-of-the-local-church-cult/

=========================

Christianity Today
Loose Cult Talk - March 2006
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2006/03/loose-cult-talk/

https://www.equip.org/articles/the-local-church-as-movement-and-source-of-controversy/

==========================

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Church_controversies

Former SCP researcher renews controversy

In 1999, a chapter on the local churches and Living Stream Ministry (LSM), the publisher of the ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, appeared in Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR), by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, published by Harvest House.[74] Weldon had worked for both SCP and Christian Research Institute (CRI) between 1975 and 1985. Weldon had written a draft for a proposed encyclopedia in the early 1980s as part of a “doctoral dissertation” at Pacific School of Graduate Studies, a now defunct diploma mill. Weldon's draft included a “Local Church” chapter that was based on and incorporated large portions of The God-Men manuscript.

Representatives of the local churches and LSM wrote to the authors and the publisher of ECNR protesting their inclusion in the book.[75] They made several attempts to meet personally with Ankerberg and Harvest House president Robert Hawkins, Jr. These overtures, some made through third parties with connections to the publisher, were ignored or rejected.

Harvest House sued the Church in Fullerton on December 14, 2001, in an Oregon court, claiming that the letters of protest and accompanying documentation sent to them were a form of harassment.[76] Because Harvest House refused to sign a tolling agreement to extend the statute of limitations, ninety-nine local churches and LSM initiated a libel action against the authors and the publisher on December 31, 2001.[77] The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon dismissed Harvest House's lawsuit on March 15, 2002.[78]

The churches’ complaint alleged that ECNR characterized the groups identified in the book as being guilty of criminal and sociological aberrations, including “subjecting members to physical harm,” “fraud or deception concerning fund raising or financial costs,” “acceptance of shamanism,” “participating in drug smuggling and other criminal activities,” “murder,” “encouraging prostitution,” “child molestation,” and “practicing black magic and witchcraft.”[79] The complaint was based on the structure of ECNR, which was in three parts:

• An introduction defining the characteristics of cults
• The main body of the book, containing chapters on individual groups; and
• An appendix addressing points of doctrine and claims of occult involvement in the new religions.

The complaint alleged that by identifying characteristics of cults and then naming the local churches as a cult, a reasonable reader would apply the defined characteristics to the local churches.

The trial court rejected multiple summary judgment motions from the defendants, ruling that a jury should decide how a reasonable reader would understand the book. However, on January 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court and ruled that the complaint of language in the book could not be understood to be “of and concerning” the plaintiffs. Their opinion stated that a reader could not reasonably construe the “Characteristics of Cults” as itemized in ECNR’s Introduction as applying to every group discussed in the individual chapters.[80] Both the Supreme Court of Texas and the U. S. Supreme Court declined to review appeals. Neither of these courts ruled on the correctness of the Appeals Court decision, nor did they review the merits of the churches’ original complaint.

========================

74 John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1999).

75 “Letters of Protest Written Prior to Litigation,” www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/PublicDocs/letters.html.

76 See “Judgment of Dismissal,” www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/PublicDocs/pd13.pdf.

77 “Plaintiffs Original Petition,” www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/PublicDocs/pd12.pdf.

78 Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Judgment of Dismissal, Harvest House Publishers v. The Church in Fullerton, case # 12-01-24034.

79 “Letters of Protest Written Prior to Litigation,” January 11-November 20, 2001, www.contendingforthefaith.org/libel-litigations/harvest-house-et-al/PublicDocs/letters.html.

80 “Harvest House Publishers, John Ankerberg, and John Weldon v. The Local Church, et al.—Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County.” law.justia.com/cases/texas/first-court-of-appeals/2006/82536.html.

 

[Steven Avery]

reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/FundieSnar.../rory_feeks_daughter_heidi_sued_by_homestead/

https://www.rcfp.org/book-calling-local-church-cult-not-defamatory/

I read the filings - they are also trash. This is going to be a difficult lawsuit for Homestead Heretics to win. Defamation cases have such a huge and difficult burden of proof. They can’t show any damage caused by Heidi or Taste of Country - they have suffered zero monetary damages. They didn’t lose any members or prospects. Awareness was brought to old articles on the internet. They are dumb. This will just bring more awareness to what a pos organization they are. Great job, Homestead morons!

=============================================

purebible 6mo ago

This is a wacky lawsuit. The basic premise is that the articles in 2012 by the Texas Observer and a related TV broadcast by WFAA were defamatory.

However, Homestead Heritage never sued those entities. Oops.

Instead, they put up a bunch of blog post Responses, and that is their pseudo-proof that they were defamed.

Taste of Country and the article author are being sued … essentially for not accepting the Homestead blog posts as the Gospel Revealed Truth! A good judge will simply say - “then sue the Texas Observer and WFAA, case dismissed, with prejudice.”

Trying to intimidate with a 250k $$ scare tactic is also not a good look.
Smarter would have been the $1 route.

Including Heidi Feek in the suit was absurd. All she has done is express her 1st-amendment freedom-of-speech right to express concerns. Even if she called them a cult, which is quite questionable, there is plenty of case law that the term is not legally actionable.

And I don’t think Homestead will let it go to Discovery.

Among other problems, they have a fundamental difficulty in their historical claims that will likely come out in discovery, one that will put their leadership under a cloud.

======

Btw, I like Homestead Heritage in many ways. Have been connected since the 1970s. And I was not a fan of the 2012 media attacks and defended them in various Internet forum wars (Factnet and Topix.)

They have gone through many changes in recent years. They have an international growth push going on. Doctrines have changed.

Their core doctrine now is “Yahweh-worship” which is ultra-problematic, especially as it has become clearer what is the “Yahweh” to whom they fervently pray. And sing praises, such as mangling the beautiful song “Days of Elijah”.

Thanks for listening. Some excellent earlier comments.

Blessings and grace in Jesus!
Steven (Avery) Spencer
Dutchess County, NY USA

 

[Steven Avery]

Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press
https://www.rcfp.org/book-calling-local-church-cult-not-defamatory/

info@rcfp.org

April 15, 2025

Homestead Heritage attacks press freedom

Dear Reporter's Committee,

You have a great summary of the 2006 victory for a free press in Texas.
https://www.rcfp.org/book-calling-local-church-cult-not-defamatory/

"Judge Sherry Radack, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, ruled that the “issue of whether a group’s doctrines are compatible with Christianity depends upon the religious convictions of the speaker.” Therefore, “being labeled a ‘cult’ is not actionable because the truth or falsity of the statement depends upon one’s religious beliefs, an ecclesiastical matter which cannot and should not be tried in a court of law."

Now a group in Texas, Homestead Heritage, is trying a very similar "we are not a cult" lawsuit!
Suggest you should be reporting on this case!

Heritage Ministries et al v. Feek et al
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/alabama/alndce/3:2024cv01267/191335

 

[Steven Avery]

https://libguides.lib.umt.edu/c.php?g=275388&p=3746415
Journalism Organizations and Advocacy

http://rcfp.org/
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
The RCFP and its staff attorneys provide free legal resources, support, and advocacy to protect the First Amendment and freedom of information rights of journalists working in areas where U.S. law applies, regardless of the medium in which their work appears.

organizations in the USA that defend press freedom

 

[Steven Avery]

Reddit

Homestead Heritage, a quasi Pentacistal-Mennonite group in Elm Mott, Texas, near Waco, has filed a lawsuit for libel / defamation against Taste of Country magazine, their author and an individual. Filed in Alabama with big $$$$ lawyers. This is an attempt to eviscerate freedom of the Press (First Amendment) rights ts when it comes to discussing religious groups. This community will discuss the background, the suit, discovery and trial. While the Amish are helping build tiny houses in North Carolina after the devastating storms in 2024, Homestead Heritage throws it's $$$ resources into an absurd kludge lawsuit!

 

[Steven Avery]

July 2025
The proposed Amended Complaint removes Matthew, Brian, and Daniel Brandstadt as plaintiffs, as they no longer wish to pursue their claims, and seek dismissal without prejudice.'

====================

2. Plaintiffs have no direct connection to the dispute between Ms. Feek and Rory, but they have, unfortunately, been dragged into the middle of it. Ms. Feck claims to be concerned for the Minor’s safety and has taken to social media to “out” Rory and to decry the church community that she claims he is now part of, Plaintiff Homestead Heritage, along with its associated enterprise Heritage Restorations. Whatever grievances Ms. Feek may have with her father, those do not give her the right to disseminate inflammatory lies and misinformation about the Plaintiffs. Ms. Feek and the Townsquare Defendants have used their respective social media platforms—Ms. Feck’s social media account (which has over 48,000 followers) and the Taste of Country website (which claims 716,000 visitors) and its social media channels (which has over 643,000 on Instagram and over 561,800 followers on X, formerly Twitter)—to make false, defamatory, and harmful statements about Plaintiffs and have refused to correct or retract those statements, even when confronted with the truth. Plaintiffs have had to resort to filing this lawsuit to preserve their good reputation and maintain the work in furtherance of their ministry.

 

[Steven Avery]

Add from PACER

 

[Steven Avery]

Why did Homestead the frivolous lawsuit against Taste of Country et al in Alabama?

One likely factor. Alabama does not have an anti-SLAP law yet.

(The Homestead Heritage venue-shopping should be pointed out to their legislators.)


===========

Here is what Google gave me (consider It pointing in the right direction, but a bit short of real legal advice).

“can a libel suit by a church be dismissed as frivolous under anti-slapp laws?”

===========

AI Overview

Yes, a libel suit filed by a church can be dismissed as frivolous under state anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws, provided the suit targets speech on a matter of public concern.
Anti-SLAPP statutes are designed to provide a quick remedy, including early dismissal, for lawsuits intended to intimidate or silence individuals or organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights (e.g., free speech).

How Anti-SLAPP Dismissal Works
The process for a dismissal under an anti-SLAPP law generally follows a two-step process, which can vary by state:

1. Defendant's Burden: The defendant (the person or entity being sued for libel) must show that the lawsuit arises from their protected speech or petitioning activity on a matter of public concern. Criticism of a church, especially regarding matters like public activities, finances, or abuse allegations, can often be considered a matter of public concern.
2. Plaintiff's Burden: If the defendant meets the first burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff (the church) to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits of the case. This means the church must present enough evidence to show their claim is likely to prevail at trial.

Frivolous Determination

If the church cannot show a probability of success (e.g., the statements made were true, or the church cannot prove the statements were made with actual malice if it's considered a public figure), the court will dismiss the lawsuit as frivolous or meritless at an early stage.

A crucial component of many anti-SLAPP statutes is the "fee shifting" provision. If the defendant wins the anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff (the church) often has to pay the defendant's attorney's fees and court costs, which serves as a deterrent against filing frivolous lawsuits.

Ultimately, the applicability and strength of these protections depend on the specific anti-SLAPP laws in the relevant state, as these laws vary significantly across jurisdictions.

 

[Steven Avery]

https://danielhorwitz.com/first-amendment-and-speech-defense/

Because litigation is often prohibitively expensive, bad actors can often intimidate critics into silence by threatening or filing baseless defamation lawsuits regarding a person’s written statements (called “libel”) or their spoken words (called “slander”). For example, when faced with the prospect of having to spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend one’s legal right to leave an unfavorable review of a business, self-censorship can become an extremely attractive proposition. The result of such self-censorship is to undermine both individuals’ right to free speech and the public’s right to hear and receive information.

 

[Steven Avery]

“libel suits as abuse of process”