Publisher Jack Chick Responds

to Personal Freedom Outreach's Reseach

by M. Kurt Goedelman with G. Richard Fisher and Paul R. Blizard

Personal Freedom Outreach has received much response to our

article on Dr. Rebecca Brown and Elaine Moses, a self-proclaimed

former witch, two women featured in recent Jack Chick Publica-

tions. (See The Quarterly Journal, Oct.-Dec., 1989, "Drugs,

Demons & Delusions; The 'Amazing' Saga of Rebecca and Elaine,"

pp. 1,8-15.)

Two books, He Came To Set the Captives Free and Prepare For

War, along with two cassette tapes, Closet Witches 1 and 2,

purport to tell the two women's battle against demonic forces.

Their story tells how Rebecca Brown, an Indiana physician, en-

counters Elaine Moses, a former witch (who also claims to have

been a bride of Satan) and recent convert to Christianity. The

two women go on to claim that they teamed up to wreak havoc on

what they call the second-largest assembly of occultists in the

nation before being driven out of the state by these same dark


PFO research turned up a different story. The details are too

extensive to list here, but two points will be repeated. First,

Dr. Rebecca Brown (also known as Ruth Bailey) had her medical

license revoked because of "gross negligence in the practice of

medicine. Second, PFO research found that investigations by the

police, federal agencies, and medical authorities, not an occult

conspiracy, caused Brown and Moses to flee Indiana.

All the written responses to the article were positive, except

two. Both these letters included a similar two-page reply from

Jack Chick himself.

This article aims to respond to Chick's criticisms. Familiarity

with the original article is probably essential to understand

this response. Therefore we encourage the reader to review the

initial finding presented in the October-December 1989 issue of

The Quarterly Journal.

Chick contests several findings in the PFO article. But more

telling is the number of PFO findings his response ignores. One

can only assume that Chick is not challenging those. Neverthe-

less, the PFO staff feels compelled to answer those criticisms

Chick did level at the article.

Chick's first question was why PFO "did not include any of the

material submitted to the Medical Licensure [sic] Board in

Brown's defense?" A key document concerning her defense which

contains her deposition was mentioned in the PFO article on page

13. ("Answers Of Ruth Bailey To Request For Admissions") The

article did not cite it in detail because Brown responded to the

Medical Licensing Board's inquiries with either the word "Admit"

or "Deny." These admissions or denials did little for her de-


Had those responses been included, they would have damaged

Brown's credibility even more. For example, the "Request For

Admissions" reveals that Brown denied that she believed that Edna

Moses [Elaine Moses] "is, or has been possessed by demons or evil

spirits" and further denied that she and Edna are "spiritual

sisters." These denials contradict the claims made in Brown's

books. Either Brown lied to the Medical Licensing Board or is

lying to those who read her books.

Chick's reply also said he has "seen all of those documents"

(i.e., those cited in our article) and that they "included a

complete physical exam and blood screen to prove that she [Brown]

was NOT on drugs of any sort." While the blood screen did indi-

cate Brown was not on drugs of any sort, the complete testimony

must be analyzed. Legal records indicate that before the drug

scan, Brown went to Florida for a week and the doctor who per-

formed the scan stated "that if she was clean for 48 hours, the

type of drugs some feel she is on, such as Demerol, would not

show up." Testimony of eyewitnesses at the final hearing led the

Indiana Medical Licensing Board to state: "That Respondent

[Brown] has been witnessed routinely receiving non-therapeutic

doses of at least 3 ccs of Demerol on an hourly basis by inject-

ing herself in the backs of her hands, the inside of her thighs,

or wherever she could locate a suitable vein."

Further cited by Chick is a document containing "A complete

psychiatric evaluation which stated that she was NOT unbalanced

mentally in any way." The document, to which Chick refers,

probably is a letter from Dr. Larry M. Davis of The Davis Psy-

chiatric Clinic in Indianapolis. Dr. Davis' findings are exactly

as stated by Chick. However, a review of the all the evidence

will bear out the article.

A later evaluation and report from Indiana University's Depart-

ment of Psychiatry demonstrates Chick's citation of the initial

Davis report to be a conclusion based upon incomplete testimony.

The latter account reported, "Dr. Davis shared with me his origi-

nal report suggesting she [Brown] was not psychiatrically dis-

turbed, but subsequent information about her religious preoccupa-

tions and fears of persecution had made him change his mind, and

that he now felt she was psychiatrically disturbed."

Further, this Indiana University Department of Psychiatry dis-

closure indicated that even on the basis of a "major disadvan-

tage" of having no "information about the allegations which had

brought her before the Medical Licensing Board," the Indiana

University personnel conducting the interview with Dr. Bailey

concluded, "Her beliefs may represent a form of paranoid psycho-

sis, may be a reflection of a brain disease, or may just indicate

deeply held eccentric views of religion which she shares with

others in her church." (Board Exhibit #1 - Letter to the Medical

Licensing Board Administrator from the Indiana University Depart-

ment of Psychiatry, September 17, 1984)

Chick also contends "The psychiatrist's report that made it

into the final hearing never even evaluated Rebecca!" That state-

ment is false. The Indiana University Department of Psychiatry's

report was submitted and mark as "Board Exhibit #1, 9/20/84" The

report did "evaluate Rebecca" and in conclusion "strongly urge[d]

that every attempt be made to persuade Dr. Bailey [Brown] to

undergo a comprehensive physical, neurological and psychiatric

examination in the very near future, preferably on an inpatient


Chick's next objection is that PFO "neglected the little fact

that the main accusation at the first hearing was that Rebecca

had killed Elaine. Elaine appeared with Rebecca at that meeting

and testified that she is alive." The "main accusation" made

against Brown was not that she killed Moses, but was an investi-

gation into "possible adult neglect" or abuse and "making false

prescription." While Moses was admitted into St. Vincent's

Hospital (in Indianapolis) on October 11, 1983, in a near-death

state, Brown never was charged with murder or manslaughter. The

detective who spearheaded the investigation of Dr. Bailey, Samuel

E. Hanna, told PFO that no murder or manslaughter charge ever was

filed against Brown.

Chick next states "Rebecca also had copies of hospital records

to prove that Moses was under the care of another doctor." The

PFO article never challenged this. Moreover, this statement adds

little to Brown's testimony. Citing the initial "Case-Complaint

Report" by Officer Hanna, "Dr. Phil Goshert [stated] that it was

he that told Dr. Bailey [Brown] to have someone other than her to

treat Edna Moses because of their relationship and that Dr.

Bailey herself needed psychological and medical attention." The

report concluded, "the hospital felt that Dr. Bailey was a part

of the conditon [sic] that Edna Moses suffered from."

Chick next charges that PFO "neglected to include that many of

the perscriptions [sic] for Demerol were obvious forgeries." The

burden is on Chick or Brown to provide evidence that the pre-

scriptions were forged. The legal investigation found that Brown

had written over 100 prescriptions for Demerol from several

pharmacies. Affidavits from the pharmacists confirmed Brown had

written the prescriptions, many of them in the presence of the

pharmacist. The "Case-Complaint Report" again hurts Chick's

claim. The report says "All of the pharmacies are familiar with

Dr. Bailey [Brown] and said she would come in almost all of the

time that she wrote the prescriptions for Edna Moses and pick[ed]

up the medicine herself."

Chick then claims that the reason Brown could not properly

defend herself at the hearing was that she "did not have the

money to hire a lawyer because her office manager had embezzled

thousands of dollars from the practice." No evidence of this

charge has been found, nor were such charges ever brought against

the office manager.

Chick says the medical authorities "had ONLY paid off testimo-

nies of people -- NO photographs or hard evidence. The whole

thing was an extremely good frame-up." It is Chick's statements,

not PFO's, that are made without "hard evidence." PFO research-

ers examined hundreds of pages of state's evidence, including

affidavits, submitted in the hearing against Brown. PFO re-

searchers spoke to many witnesses, including police, hospital

officials, medical licensing board authorities and family mem-

bers. Their statements about Brown and Moses do not contradict

one another. On the other hand, Brown and Moses have repeatedly

changed their story.

Therefore, there is more reason to trust the testimony of the

court witnesses than the accounts found in Brown's books and


Chick then states, "As for Chesterfield, [Ind.,] all you have

to do is pick any Road Atlas and you will find it listed as a

'Spiritualists Camp.'" That was exactly the point the article

made. Brown's books, not the PFO article, call Camp Chesterfield

a "witch camp."

He continues, "I also wonder why those folks make such a big

emphasis that 'witchcraft is NOT connected to Satanism in any

way.' Now isn't that interesting. Witches serve the same demons

as the Satanist, no matter what they call them."

Chick has taken what the PFO article said and, by adding the

words "in any way," changed what it said. The article did not

say satanism and witchcraft were not connected "in any way." It

is the belief at PFO that satanism and witchcraft both spring

from the same source, Satan, but that the two belief systems are

not the same practice. Spiritualism, while being occultic, also

is a distinct practice.

Christians know the source of both Mormon and Watchtower theol-

ogy is Satan, but these two are not the same.

The position set froth by PFO is documented and confirmed by

experts in the occult. Other experts will concur with PFO's

perception of witchcraft and satanism. Further, even a casual

reading of occultic literature produced by either group (witches

or satanists) demonstrates the distinction that Brown, Moses or

Chick fail to make.

For example, The Truth About Witchcraft Today states in its

Preface that, "This book is an introduction to witchcraft, per-

haps the least understood practice of our time. Witchcraft isn't

a cauldron of human sacrifice, drug, orgies and devil-worship.

Nor does it describe a supernatural world filled with unearthly

dealings with demons." The petition made in this publication is

by no means an isolationist's opinion, but reflects the general

consensus of witches.

Chick's next defense of Brown consists of "you should know her

strong stand for Jesus... I have known them (Brown and Moses) and

watched the fruit of their lives for over four years now. I have

personally seen them bring people out of Satanism to a deep

commitment to Jesus Christ. And, I have watched those people, in

turn, grow in the Lord and bring others to Jesus. This is not

something witches would do!"

In spite of Chick's claims, Christians must not become so naive

that they lose their understanding of Paul's warning to Timothy:

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree

with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the

doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands

nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions

and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abu-

sive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men

of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that

godliness is a means of great gain." (1 Timothy 6:3-5) Chris-

tians must not lose sight of this scriptural decree of honesty

and integrity of character as well as purity of doctrine.

Chick also hints that PFO called Brown and Moses witches. The

article simply does not say that. While some people interviewed

for the article believe the two women still practice witchcraft,

PFO drew no such conclusion.

Chick's letter goes on to say, "Rebecca IS a legal M.D. I

have seen her diploma from a valid university here in the U.S.

She was set up and framed by the Satanists. The Lord allowed

everything she had to be wiped out in one week by Satan. Brown

refers to this in her second book. Her medical license was

revoked in the State of Indiana. However, that does not revoke

her medical degree. The license gives a doctor the right to

write perscriptions [sic] in any particular state."

PFO never challenged her educational qualifications. On page

10 of the newsletter, her educational background was detailed.

Nevertheless, it is not her medical degree that allows her to

practice medicine. It is her medical license that allowed her to

practice medicine. Chick's letter minimizes the importance of the

license, saying only that it gives a "doctor the right to write

prescriptions in any particular state." The license also gives a

doctor the right to diagnose, order tests, treat disorders and

perform procedures. These are the privileges which have been

stripped from Brown, even though she still retains her medical


Next, Chick says "Rebecca's books are scripturally sound and

have brought many to Jesus Christ." PFO contends that they are

unsound. Pages 281-283 of Brown's book, He Came To Set The Cap-

tives Free, provide one example:

"An incident with a familiar spirit happened in my own office

just recently... That particular evening, one of my last patients

was a fairly powerful local warlock. I do not think that at that

point he had any idea I knew his true identity.

Somehow, that evening Joshua, my cat, got loose and came into the

room where the patient was. I grabbed him up before the patient

had the opportunity to touch him...

As I carried Joshua out of the room the Lord revealed to me that

I was too late. The patient had succeeded in putting a familiar

spirit demon into him. One second, that all it took!

After all the patients were gone, I was sitting in my personal

office talking with two friends. The change in Joshua was re-

markable. Normally he is an extremely calm and quiet cat. But

as we sat talking, he paced continuously from one to the other of

us, looking up at each one of us as we talked. I explained to

the others what had happened. The patient was using the cat's

eyes and ears to monitor all that was going on. I picked up

Joshua and looking directly into his now glaring eyes said:

'Now you listen to me, Jimmy (the patient's name). Your master

Satan is a liar. He is not stronger than Jesus. Jesus Christ is

God and He died on the cross for you as well as me. Jesus is the

one you should be serving, not Satan. Now I'm going to prove to

you that what I am saying is true. We are going to cast your

familiar spirit out of this animal with the power of Jesus

Christ. If Satan is as strong as he says he is, we should not be

able to do this.'

I then took some oil and anointed Joshua and we joined in prayer

asking our Lord Jesus to cast out the demon. Again, the change

was immediate. The glare left his eyes, he stopped struggling

and with a big sigh lay [sic] down and promptly fell asleep."

Brown then offers her readers the following advice:

"If you have pets, always be alert to the possibility of their

having familiar spirits, but please be sure to briefly share the

gospel before casting out the demon or asking the Lord to remove

the human spirit. Usually you will not know if you are dealing

solely with a human spirit or with a demon, and whenever possible

you want the satanist involved to hear the gospel. We daily pray

for special shielding of our animals.

Animals are usually easily cleared because they do not sin,

therefore Satan has no legal ground in them in the same way he

does humans."

Brown's stories are fiction. It is sad when believers put any

faith in such nonsense. This type of theology has cheapened and

made a mockery of the precious blood of our Savior Jesus Christ.

Other Christian writers have taken issue with statements made

in Brown's books. Albert J. Dager, in a special issue of Media

Spotlight, devoted four pages to the questionable theology es-

poused by "Rebecca and Elaine." His critique is worth reading.

(A copy of the critique can be obtained from Media Spotlight,

P.O. Box 290, Redmond, WA 98073-0290).

Dager finds several problems in the women's story:

"One problem with Rebecca's and Elaine's testimonies is their

vagueness. For example, we are never told in what cities any of

the alleged incidents occurred. Rebecca's 'Memorial Hospital,'

could be anywhere in the world. [The] only understandable ambi-

guity is the changing of personal names to protect the innocent,

which is reasonable in view of the possible consequences to

people's lives.

Since their testimonies involve interaction with the spirit

realm, however, and since [this] kind of interaction recounted

has no precedent in Scripture, their ambiguous approach leaves

readers with nothing more than blind trust upon which to base

their acceptance of what they read. By the same token, there is

an equally justifiable reason to reject what is said as the

figment of two women's imaginations."

Finally, Chick implies the reason Brown and Moses are being

persecuted is because Satan wants to stop them. Chick says Satan

"cannot discredit their message, so he is trying to discredit

them, the messengers." He adds that he is not "surprised that

the persecution is coming from within the professing Christian


The message of Brown and Moses can be discredited by any dis

cerning  layman. Since the release of PFO's article, many  Chris

tians have contacted us thanking us for our research and the

publication of our findings. Many of those who contact PFO said

that upon reading Brown's books, they knew immediately that the

books were full of unbiblical concepts.

It is not Satan who wants to stop Brown's message. It is Chris-

tians who love the truth. Brown's publications cultivate fear

and present a distorted view of demonology, something Satan

himself desires to implant within Christians.

It is time the Church stood firm on the Word of God and tested

and exposed false authorities such as Brown. Her books unjustly

incriminate Christians as occultists. This is nothing short of

being an "accuser of the brethren," a label given to the devil

himself. (Revelation 12:10)

Finally, PFO has been told that some objected to the article

because Chick, Brown and Moses were not contacted before its

publication. PFO chose not to contact them because Chick had

ignored others who tried to warn him about Brown and Moses before

he published their books. Chick reportedly turned on one friend,

a pastor, who tried to warn him about publishing Brown's and

Moses' story. He now considers the pastor an adversary. Chick

even went so far as to include a caricature of the pastor in a

recent publication.

With this type of response to friends who expressed concern for

Chick's ministry, why would PFO's research and evidence be treat-

ed any differently? Even after the publication of the facts,

Chick's attitude towards PFO's findings is one of indifference.

The publication and sale of Brown's books have excluded it from

being a private matter. To those who may charge that Matthew

18:15-17 should have been applied on PFO's part, need to realize

that what has been done is publicly criticized public teaching.

Matthew 18 does not apply, but Galatians 2 does. There is a


In addition, PFO was asked to do something that Brown and

Moses did not do. PFO researchers spoke directly with several

people incriminated in Brown's books and tapes. None had been

contacted before publication of those books.



(c) 1990 - PFO - All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Out-

reach. Reproduction is prohibited except for portions intended

for personal use and noncommercial purposes. For reproduction

permission, please contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box

26026, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136, (314) 388-2648.

These documents are free from , providing free webcontent for websites around the world!. copy freely with this link intact. BelieversCafe.com