126. Defendants' Interrogatory signature page as supplied on September 10, 1999 after a
one-week extension is shown as Plaintiff Exhibit 15 absent any Defendant signature.
127. The Defendants' Interrogatory signature page lists only a provision for Defendant
Solid Rock Church, Inc to sign in "corporate" form "BY" its Pastor William Matthews.
128. The Interrogatory signature line supplied by Defendant Solid Rock Church cannot be
deemed to personally represent Defendant William N. Matthews because of its form.
It is a standard "corporate signature form" which states the corporation's name and
then directly below that corporate name is a provision for a signature to be signed
"BY" the corporation's representative. When this corporate form of signature is used
on any contract of law or other legal document, Courts have consistently ruled that
the signatory cannot be then held personally liable for that signature.
129. The signature page for Defendants' Interrogatory reply is without any "individual"
signature of Defendant William N. Matthews absent his signature as presented on the
"corporate form of the signature line" that is provided.
130. The date on the signed Interrogatory signature page shown as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29 is
October 5, 1999 and is a per se violation of Minn. R. Civ. P. 33.01(b), 25+ days late.
131. The use of the "corporate signature form" and lack of Defendant William Matthews'
signature as a second "individual" Defendant is just cause for the Plaintiff to believe
that Defendant William N. Matthews has not responded to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories.
132. The Defendants' signature page on the response to requests for admissions also use
only the "corporate signature form" listing Solid Rock Church, Inc. signed "BY"
[Officer] William N. Matthews.
133. The use of the "corporate signature form" and lack of Defendant William Matthews'
signature as the second "individual" Defendant absent that of the "corporate form of
signature" is just cause for the Plaintiff to believe that Defendant William N.
Matthews as "individual" has not responded to any of Plaintiffs' Admission Requests.
134. Defendants' lied to Plaintiff and the Court in their response to Admission Request No.
24. When asked to "admit that no notice was provided for article changes on July 1,
1993 except for a name change" -- they Deny. Then in Matthews' Exhibit 1 they
provide meeting minutes that shows no discussion on articles except a name change.
135. Defendants' lied to Plaintiff and the Court in their response to Admission Requests.
Another example is Request No. 25. When asked to admit that the only resolution
provided on July 1, 1993 for article changes was for a name change -- they Deny.
Then in Matthews' Exhibit 1 they provide meeting minutes that shows no discussion
on articles except a name change.
136. Defendants' lied to Plaintiff and the Court in their response to Admission Requests.
Another example is Request No. 61. When asked to "admit that Plaintiff Exhibit No.
4 is an exact copy of the contents of the only resolution that Defendants presented to
the members of the organization at their July 11, 1995 business meeting" -- they Deny.
Then in Matthews' Exhibit 6 on pages 28-29 they provide meeting minutes that
shows the same resolution.
137. Defendants' provided evasive answers to Plaintiff and the Court in their response to
Admission Requests. One example is Request No. 66. When asked to "admit that
Plaintiff Exhibit No. 4 passed by the vote: 60 yes, 5 no, and 1 abstention" -- they
object to the term "passed by."
Then in Matthews' Exhibit 5 on page 4 they state:
"Motion passed to be affiliated with AFCM. 60 Yes, 5 No, 1 Abstain."
138. Plaintiffs' discovery efforts were highly focused and calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence in accordance with Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02 (a).
139. Defendants objected to Document Request #18, which asked for access to the names
of meeting attendees and membership lists stating that the request is "not calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."The Defendants are simply trying to
deny Plaintiff access to the eyewitnesses of key events and this discovery response is
just one example of the frivolous nature of the Defendants' pleadings.
140. Defendants' Interrogatory responses were evasive and non-responsive.
141. Defendants' Requests for Admission responses were evasive and non-responsive.
142. There is basis in law for Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion by virtue of the fact
that Defendants used only a "corporate form of signature" representing only Solid
Rock Church, Inc. "BY" (officer signature) in their responsive pleadings.
143. Plaintiff has pled fraud with sufficient particularity in accordance with Minn. R. Civ.
P. 9.02, which states "the circumstances constituting fraud … shall be stated with
particularity."Minn. R. Civ. P. 9.02 does not require that the case be proven within
the content of the Complaint or in pleadings without the benefit of full discovery.
144.Further discovery in this case is not warranted because the Defendants have fully
admitted their wrongdoing in their Summary Judgment Motion filing within the
contents of the Exhibits to William N. Matthews' Affidavit as viewed with the
admitted Secretary of State amended articles filings.
145. Plaintiffs' property was simply caught up in the theft by conversion of the Elk
River Assembly of God Church, a Minnesota non-profit corporation.
