Editor’s Note: Dr. David Tee is a fake name used by Derrick Thomas Thiessen, a Christian Missionary and Alliance preacher who fled the United States/Canada twenty years ago and now lives in the Philippines. Thiessen has spent the past two years ripping off my writing, hurling sermons at me, and attacking my character. He has written over one-hundred posts about me. And at times, I respond. (Search for Dr. David Tee and Derrick Thomas Thiessen.) This series will take a look at things Thiessen doesn’t want anyone to know about. Once this series is completed, Tee/Thiessen will no longer be mentioned by me in my writing. You have my word on this subject.
Guest Post by W.W. Jacobs
This will be my final installment in this series. Derrick himself would be wise not to breathe a sigh of relief; I have certainly not disclosed all the damning information I have on him, and I will not hesitate to reveal more if he decides to start rattling his saber of sanctimony again, either here or elsewhere.
However, the objective of the first post I made here last year is accomplished. Any ministry worth its salt should be Googling David Tee / David Thiessen / Derrick Theissen / David Ford / Peter Sullivan / whatever he decides to call himself.
And the first several results of the search will be this site, recording the story of the would-be missionary whose employment in a non-teaching job is only measured in months because he decides the accepted standards of conduct in the typical place of employment do not apply to him … who has credibly been accused of domestic violence by at least two women … who has no verifiable degree from an accredited institution beyond a bachelor’s degree conferred in 1980 … who not only abandoned his child but fled the country to avoid so much as paying a nominal amount of court-ordered child support … who spits in the face of those who extend benevolence and compassion to him … and who is an identity thief and a convicted felon.
The first Scripture for today, just for Derrick, is Luke 12:1-3: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.”
Also Luke 8:17: “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.”
For the overall theme of this remaining installment, the Scripture is Romans 13:1-2: “Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”
For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that a Christian, such as Derrick, will recognize the 535 members of the U.S. Congress and the elected chief executive of the U.S. government – i.e. the President – as having authority that is ultimately been conferred upon them by God (Derrick’s presumed assessment of the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency notwithstanding). This would include their authority to write and enact U.S. immigration laws.
To keep this simple, when you come to the United States from another country, you are either coming as a visitor or coming to work for an American employer. If you’re coming as a visitor, you are not allowed to work while you’re here, and you have to leave after a certain period of time. If you’re coming to work (an H-1B visa) you have to be sponsored by a specific employer and you have to have a job already waiting for you.
Derrick came in on a visitor visa, which is why he needed to steal … err, “accept a gift of” … someone’s Social Security number in order to get a job, because possession of a Social Security number is a basic affirmation of your legal right to work in the United States. But we’ll get to that.
First, some background information. All quotes below were offered, under penalty of perjury, by Derrick.
“Mr. Thiessen, where were you born?”
“ British Columbia.”
“What is your date of birth?”
“(Redacted).”
“Do you have a Social Security number?”
“123-45-6789.” (Not the actual number he used.)
“And you’re a citizen of what country?”
“Canada.”
“Do you have any citizenship rights in the United States?”
“No.”
“What is your current immigration status?”
“Visitor.”
“Do you have a visa?”
“Canadians don’t need one.”
[Ed.: this is accurate – so long as they aren’t coming for work.]
“… we get automatic six months in America …”
[This is also accurate, with some caveats that are not germane to this discussion.]
“… we have to leave once in that six-month period, and we get an automatic six months again.”
[This is not accurate. Visitors must petition the U.S. government for an extension if they want to stay longer.]
“It’s your understanding that you can stay in the United States, Canadians can, indefinitely as long as you leave the country and come back in once every six months?”
“In consulting with an immigration attorney, yes, that’s what I can do.”
[Ed.: This is presumably the same immigration attorney who allegedly told him it would be fine to apply for entry to the U.S. under a false name.]
“Is that what you in fact have been doing?”
“Yes.”
“And what did you do, go to [border town]?”
“Yes.”
“Cross the border?”
“Yes.”
“And then come right back?”
“Yes.”
“Is there paperwork you need to sign when you come back across?”
“No.”
[Ed.: His paper trail does include at least one Mexico-based cell phone number. My presumption is that he needed some way to validate having ‘left the U.S.’ and “here’s my Mexican phone number” was what he came up with.]
“Have you ever used a false Social Security number?”
“Yes.”
“Where was that?”
“(Redacted)”
“For what reason did you use a false Social Security number?”
“Just for identification. Someone gave it to me. I never applied for it, never bought it, someone just gave it to me out of the kindness of their heart.”
“Who did?”
“(Redacted name of a lady who is now of age to collect Social Security and, suffice to say, is having some issues doing so because of Derrick’s abuse of what he claims to be her kindness.)”
“What was that Social Security number that she gave you?”
“123-45- … I think it’s 6789.” (Again, not the actual number.)
“Did you ever use that Social Security number?”
“Not really.”
“What do you mean by not really?”
“I had it for identification. That’s it.”
“Did you ever write it down on a piece of paper verifying or saying that was your Social Security number?”
“Not that I can recall.”
…
“You were using a false name?”
“No, that [David Ford] is the name I was going by for ten years through that whole time.”
“Did David Ford have his own Social Security number different than your Social Security?”
“No, he never had one.”
“What Social Security number did you use during this … process?”
“Just the one that was given to me by that girl.”
“What number was that?”
“I don’t know … I haven’t thought about it for years.”
“So you used a false name and a false Social Security number, under oath … is that a fair statement?”
“No, I used the same name I was presenting myself by. I was not going to make matters any worse. I took that name, I stood by that name, I never committed any fraud by that name, because I was always going to stick by that name in all situations.”
[Ed.: this is emblematic of Derrick’s logic: “I never committed any fraud under the fraudulent name I was using.”]
“Did you use a false Social Security number?”
“I used that number that was given to me by the girl.”
“Was that your Social Security number?”
“It was hers, she lent it to me and she said, here, you can have your freedom, use my Social Security number.”
“Did you understand that to be legal?”
“At the time, no.”
“You understood it to be illegal, correct?”
“I … at the time, it took me about a year or two to find out all the legal ramifications.”
…
“This document … your Social Security number is stated there and it’s Social Security number 123-45-6789.”
“Okay.”
“Was that your Social Security number?”
“That’s the one that was given to me, yes.”
“Answer the question. Was that your Social Security number?”
“These were … can you clarify that?”
“Let’s do it this way. Was that Social Security number issued to you by the United States government?”
“No.”
“This as a false Social Security number given to you by some girl?”
“It was a Social Security number given to me by a friend.”
“You know you were not entitled to use it?”
“At the time, I knew that. At the time initially given, I didn’t know it.”
“You thought this might have been legal to use a false Social Security number?”
“I don’t have an opinion on that either way. At the time I wasn’t worried, didn’t think about it being illegal.”
“Did you have a card with that Social Security number on it in your wallet, on your person, or somewhere?”
“No.”
“[This voter registration record] … just right above the [stolen] Social Security number, it’s got your place of birth and it says California?”
“Yes.”
“Were you born in California, sir?”
“No.”
“So you lied on that question, is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“And do you think that was proper or legal to do?”
“No.”
This would be a good time to revisit Derrick’s recent comment: “…this confession … destroys any credibility or authenticity (he) thought he had. Anything he has published, is publishing, or will publish is now non-credible because he willfully admits to breaking the law. Nothing he says can be taken even at face value because he thinks he is above the law.”
This concludes my posting on the subject, unless Derrick and his lying, deserting, abusive ways escalate matters such that it becomes necessary to offer the rebuke of disclosing additional information.
I thank Bruce for allowing me this space and time.
To Derrick: I would presume that Bruce’s offer to provide the space for you to offer a substantive rebuttal remains in force. Just remember having held the monkey’s paw if you do.
Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
” You know you were not entitled to use it?”
“At the time, I knew that. At the time initially given, I didn’t know it.”
This reminds me of Howard Baker’s question during the Watergate hearings: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”
When I make my Bolognese sauce, my garlic isn’t minced as finely as “Tee” tries to mince the truth.
Two observations:
First, comments like “I have no opinion on that” is Derrick-speak for “non-zero number of people” – a factual answer that is actually a lie of omission. He knows it is untruthful but leaves enough latitude to twist semantics and avoid ever being held to account for it.
Second, I wasn’t sure if his initial lack of response to this series was him allowing himself some time to recuperate from whatever medical issue he had. (I have a suspicion as to what the medical issue was, and if I’m right, it’s not the slightest bit scandalous, so I’m not sure why he wouldn’t just disclose it.)
The tone and phrasing of one of his posts from the past 24 hours suggests that he has seen this and is trying to tell me “go eff yourself and the horse you rode in on” in the most Christian way possible, and further, his lack of response is a facade. There’s nothing he can truthfully say to counter anything said in this series, so he’s presenting the appearance of magnanimously turning the other cheek, just as he did last year when he said on his blog “I forgive you” but came here to demand a full retraction of my “untruthful” comments and went off on me when I said I would, just as soon as he identified what I had said that was untruthful.
Dr. T “saga”? Nothing epic about Dr. T. I also don’t care if he skirts immigration law. I am a bit surprised he is a Canadian. I thought only the American south could churn out a piece of work like him.
Thou shalt not lie Mr. Tee.
It is interesting that someone who is so verbose about following God’s laws has no problem breaking laws that are inconvenient for him. I wonder if the laws in the country he inhabits now are OK in his mind, or if he just hasn’t gotten around to breaking any there, or hasn’t been caught breaking any there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbfBzWJVbX4 I’m surprised by our country’s careless policy of allowing Canadians to cross our border without a visa. Just the example of ” Doctor David Tee” should serve as a warning, but I decided to include this frightening video from YouTube to show the danger that Some Canadians pose to the United States. I’m being sarcastic.