This is the 46th installment in this series and a follow up to my first, second and third articles on this situation. A lawsuit was filed on December 3, 2020 by United Pentecostal Church pastor Stephen Barker against Emily Calderon. She is a former church member, who since 2020 has been outspoken about multiple cases of alleged sexual abuse involving the late Raul Rodriguez, a long-time and prominent member of Mount Zion Apostolic Church in Visalia (Goshen), California. Rodriguez was Barker’s brother-in-law. There are at least four different allegations of such behavior against him. The defamation lawsuit is also against twenty unnamed individuals and seeks payment of a half million dollars. This is case VCU285173. A jury trial is currently scheduled for January 31, 2022.
Unexpectedly in mid December, the plaintiff’s attorney requested an emergency court meeting for December 17, 2021 to ask that the settlement conference be rescheduled and for the trial dates and all discovery deadlines and cutoffs be continued. In this article I am sharing the actual plaintiff’s motions to continue the settlement conference and postpone the trial until September or October of 2022, something Emily Calderon opposes. You may read their motion to postpone (motion and declaration) as well as Emily’s objections. (Note: I have redacted Emily’s personal information.) You are encouraged to read the documents for yourself.
Tomorrow, on Monday December 20, 2021, a settlement conference is scheduled but could still be delayed. At the hearing on December 17, the judge decided that he would make a ruling on the continuance requests on the 20th and it was said that Stephen Barker was to attend.
It was shocking to discover that apparently Stephen Barker did not inform his attorney that his father, Ron Barker, had died until about a month after his passing. He had time to make numerous Facebook posts about church events and his father, but did not think to alert the attorney? The attorney is now claiming that the death of Ron Barker “has made trial preparations difficult” and “has reduced PLAINTIFFS’ ability to prepare for trial.”
Personally, I do not see it this way. The plaintiffs have to prove that Calderon made statements maliciously, knowing her statements were untrue or that she didn’t look into their veracity. If they cannot do this, their lawsuit is over, though Emily’s cross complaint would continue. It appears that Calderon has statements from at least four women, one of which filed a police report and gave a deposition for the lawsuit. I simply cannot see the plaintiffs being able to prove what they are claiming. In addition, as I pointed out in the last installment, we must ask if Stephen Barker or any prior minister/pastor from Mount Zion Apostolic Church ever reported child sexual abuse cases to the police. The police should be able to easily verify if this did or did not occur. If it did not, then I believe that people have the right to conclude that a church has helped to cover up such abuse. Clergy are mandatory reporters in California and failure to do so can subject the person to fines and even prison time.
The plaintiffs claim that Emily “has refused to amend discovery responses and PLAINITFFS have Motions to Compel these responses scheduled for January 27, 2021. Defendant’s refusal to respond to discovery requests has resulted in PLAINTIFFS’ inability to property prepare their case and to properly prepare a defense in the cross-complaint.” They further state, “The refusal to provide responses has harmed PLAINTIFFS and greatly hindered their ability to prepare their case and defenses.” [Note: the court date for the motion has been rescheduled for January 13, 2022.]
In Emily’s response, she claims that these “discovery questions are completely irrelevant and highly prejudicial. PLAINTIFFS’ are exploiting the discovery process. DEFENDANT will ask the court to reject much of the PLAINTIFFS’ discovery request, as many are protected by privilege.”
I find it interesting that they wish to compel her to respond to their questions and yet (from watching Emily’s TikToks) it appears they have failed to answer many questions posed to them. In addition, let’s remember that back before they filed this lawsuit, their attorney had already claimed “we can prove that your defamatory statements are false and misleading.” [See screen shot one and two from Emily’s TikTok.] Why they then need her responses to questions is perplexing, at least in regard to their lawsuit.
I do wish to point out an error regarding a date in Calderon’s objection. She mentions about the plaintiffs seeking a restraining order against her on September 15, 2021. That was the court date where the judge denied their request. It was on July 15, 2021 that the civil petition for harassment was filed. I previously covered this.
I want to make clear once again that this lawsuit is a public record, I believe the pastor would be considered a public figure, and as such people are free to discuss this case and the issues involved with it, sharing their thoughts and opinions. In addition, the issue of sexual abuse is unquestionably a very public issue.
Emily has a petition at Change.org that so far has 572 signatures.
December 20, 2021 Update: The trial is still on for January 31, 2022! Emily Calderon has prevailed today.
You will find a complete list of articles in this series by clicking here.
Lawsuits on public figures have a much higher bar to clamber over to prove defamation. These men are cowards and are about to get a rude surprise when they are expensively educated what “slander” actually is. Praying for you Emily. Stand for God’s truth and you will see Him stand for you.