Our response to AiG-US’s latest legal maneuverings

AiG-US has been critical of CMI for commencing legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland against their corporation on the basis that it was always wrong for Christians to sue one another in the secular courts. Accordingly, CMI was very surprised when in April 2008, AiG-US served CMI with an extensive battery of court papers issued out of the United States District Court (Eastern Division of Kentucky) seeking to restrain CMI from continuing with its legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

At considerable effort, CMI in association with its Australian and United States lawyers has had to mount a defence to the United States legal proceedings. CMI is waiting for the judge to make a ruling on the petition by AiG-US. This case is sub judice, and in this comment CMI can only provide a skeletal outline of its position.

AiG-US is trying to enforce two contracts against CMI signed by a former Board Of Directors of CMI. It is the position of CMI that these two contracts are unenforceable for a variety of legal reasons. Furthermore, one of those contracts has selected the law of the State of Victoria, Commonwealth of Australia as its governing law and governing forum.

In effect, AiG-US is avoiding accountability under the Australian legal system before Australian courts. It has also ignored/rejected several previous offers by CMI of Christian arbitration under that Australian legal system.

CMI disputes vigorously many of the assertions claiming to be fact put forward by AiG-US in its United States legal proceedings.

AiG-US would be able to bring these claims against CMI in Australia if it wished to, yet has chosen to bring proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction against CMI in an effort to disadvantage CMI.

AiG-US is seeking to enforce arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (United States of America) not only under the two disputed contracts with CMI but also of a raft of associated claims which our legal advisers have advised us have no connection with those two contracts. CMI sees this strategy as little more than an attempt to muzzle CMI and its attempt to see the truth exposed.

For legal reasons and acting on legal advice, CMI cannot disclose details of what was agreed in the settlement achieved in Hawaii in August 2007. However, we are able to say that we made many concessions to AiG-US in a spirit of goodwill and peacemaking. AiG-US has put asunder the settlement agreement negotiated earlier. For this reason, CMI is continuing with its proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

After considerable prayerful reflection, the Board of CMI has decided to defend the action brought against it in the United States by AiG-US. CMI is of the view that this round of legal manoeuvrings by AiG-US has the potential to inflame rather than resolve the dispute between the two ministries.