On February 6, 2017, Garland D. Murphy, III, M.D. and his wife Phyllis A. Murphy filed a motion to join the RICO lawsuit agains Gospel for Asia. In the motion, the Murphy’s allege that they were defrauded by Gospel for Asia and would not have donated had they known how GFA planned to use their donations.
Specifically, the Murphys took the GFA promise to send 100% to mission work at face value and donated on that basis.
Plaintiffs-Intervenors Garland D. Murphy, III, M.D. and Phyllis A. Murphy made several donations to GFA over the course of several years. They made each such donation only after learning of GFA’s guarantee that it would apply 100% of every donation exactly as the Murphys designated.
For example, on December 29, 2012, the Murphys decided to donate $225 to GFA’s “Widows and Abandoned Children” fund. The Murphys viewed a webpage on GFA’s website discussing the “Widows and Abandoned Children” fund. The webpage for the “Widows and Abandoned Children” fund at GFA.org (as it appeared 1n December, 2012).
On December 29, 2012, with the understanding that GFA would apply 100% of their $225 donation to the “Widows and Abandoned Children” fund in the Field, the Murphys made the donation through GFA’s website. GFA provided the Murphys with a receipt (Exhibit 8 hereto) reciting the GFA 100% guarantee and noting that $605 in donations, presumably including the December 29 donation, was designated to the “Widows and Abandoned Children” fund. The Murphys’ 2012 Annual Receipt documenting their gifts to GFA’s “Widows and Abandoned Children” fund.
The 2012 Annual Receipt the Murphys received from GFA, bearing the GFA 100% Guarantee, a statement that GFA is “committed to apply your gifts according to your preferences,” and the ECFA and ICA seals of approval and assurances thereby (valid at the time this receipt was issued). Exhibit 8 hereto.
Every single donation the Murphys made to GFA was made only with the understanding, based entirely on Defendants’ representations, that 100% of the donation would be applied exactly as designated by the Murphys.
GFA hoped the district court would require former employees Matthew and Jennifer Dickson to comply with an arbitration agreement and avoid a public trial. However, the district court denied that request. GFA then appealed. Even if the Appeals Court requires the Dicksons to go through arbitration instead of a RICO suit, the Murphys would not have to do so since they never worked for GFA. Their case would presumable require a different remedy, one they hope will be in court.
For the many articles on the GFA story, click here.