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
I want to open with this thought from Derrick’s recent blog post:
“You cannot be Christian and a Democrat.”
Not even the fact of him being Canadian would lend any credence to a claim of unfamiliarity with a Democrat named Jimmy Carter. He is far from the only example, but he is certainly the most prominent one.
On to today’s post. In reviewing some of the recent comments, I get the impression that there’s significant interest in his history of interpersonal relationships.
Today I open with 1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
“To whom have you been married?”
“Her name was [redacted].”
“For what period of time were you married to (her)?”
“From 1988 to 1989.”
…
“Have you had any contact with (redacted) since 1989?”
“No.”
“Did you get divorced in (state)?”
“Yes.”
“What name were you using at the time of this divorce?”
“David Ford.”
…
“Was there ever filed in court any paperwork regarding any domestic violence whatsoever between you and (redacted)?”
“No.”
“At any time?”
“No.”
“Was there any domestic violence between you and (redacted) at any time?”
“Not in my opinion.”
“Tell me about what someone else might think.”
“Well, we fought like normal. That’s all.”
“Did you ever strike her at all?”
“She probably says I did.”
“Did you?”
“Not that I recall.”
[During a discussion about his employment history.]
“Canadian dollars are 50% of American dollars, and I’m going to have to be paying child support, it’s a 50% hit that I can’t afford, it’s better that I find work here that I can fully fund the child support.”
[Ed.: I am not sure if this is a genuine misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation – I suspect the latter – but for most of the time period at issue, the exchange rate was around 1.50 USD to CAD. In other words, it would cost him $15.00 American to get $10.00 Canadian. However, in reverse, $10.00 Canadian could be exchanged for $15.00 US, meaning that in Canadian dollars, his monthly child-support obligation would be roughly the same as a monthly utility bill.]
“Have you made any child –“
“There’s no money to pay the child support.”
“So the answer is no?”
…
“It wouldn’t be effective to do that.”
“Why not?”
“Well, 50 percent, that would be almost impossible for me to pay child support.”
“Why?”
“The Canadian expenses are very outrageous. Not only is there a 52 percent income tax, but if you live in the wrong area where the jobs are, expenses are astronomical.”
“So I’ll ask you again. Your reason for not going back to Canada and getting a job is because of the exchange rate and expenses in Canada would not make it worth your while financially?”
“They would not benefit anyone financially.”
Derrick hails from Alberta originally. Above, I referenced information about what presumably would be one of his monthly bills. The site where I found this information has this to say about the cost of living in Alberta:
With Alberta having no provincial sales tax and relatively higher incomes than the rest of Canada, the province can be attractive to move to. Along with a fairly modest cost of living that is anchored by low rents province-wide, and cheap gas prices, Alberta can be a place to comfortably raise a family.
Source: https://wowa.ca/cost-of-living-canada
I will let the reader draw their own conclusions about the validity of his statement that he could not afford to return to his home province of Alberta, get a job, and fulfill his court-ordered obligations.
Also, simply because I don’t want the headache of transcribing it, here’s a basic outline of some of the other testimony about this child:
- He was granted visitation and never availed himself of it
- When asked why, he said, “it’s my right not to.”
- Regarding additional questions about the child, he said “I don’t believe it’s mine.”
- He claims that a few different women have tried to pin him as the father of their children “but when push came to shove, no child came forth.” Does anyone want to take bets that he skipped town before a paternity test could be done?
- “I had a childhood disease, and I have been sterile for years.” He had never had a medical determination of this because “I never felt the need to.”
- Several pages of this deposition are all about how he doesn’t feel it’s his child. I wonder if that’s how he convinced himself that he’s not violating 1 Timothy 5:8 all these years – if it’s not his child, he’s under no obligation to provide, right? Yet in my e-mail correspondence with him, from the jump, he kept referring to “my boy.” Dude, make up your mind.
From here there was some discussion about Derrick’s family history, which I am skipping, notwithstanding an amusing exchange in which he couldn’t remember if his brother’s name is “Tom” or “Jerry” (not real names, although the real ones are equally dissimilar). To limit the scope of this post to his personal relationships, we now turn to a discussion of Derrick pleading guilty to a very minor – Class C – felony and put on probation.
“Did you, in fact, violate your probation?”
“Yes.”
“Did the probation officer file a petition to have your probation revoked?”
“I don’t know. That I don’t know.”
“Specifically were there allegations of new criminal activity?”
“No, not that I’m aware of.”
“Specifically allegation of assault by you on [former girlfriend]?”
“Okay. They reported that. I got sent back.”
“Tell me about that.”
“About what?”
“What was the assault on [former girlfriend]?”
“We just had a disagreement.”
“You assaulted her, is that correct?”
“Not really.”
“What do you mean by not really?”
“She’d call it assault. I wouldn’t.”
“But she did call it assault, didn’t she?”
“Yes.”
“She called the police, did she not?”
“Yes.”
“She got an injunction against you for domestic violence?”
“As far as I know she did.”
…
“Any domestic violence of any kind between you and [ex-wife]?”
“No.”
“Never?”
“No.”
“Were there any arguments?”
“We fought like normal people.”
“Did you ever break anything?”
“I threw a phone away from her, not at her.”
“Phone break?”
“Yes.”
“You threw that in anger?”
“Yes.”
“Anger at [ex-wife]?”
“Anger at the situation.”
“What situation?”
“Just whatever was going on at the time.”
“What was going on at the time?”
“Just an unreasonable amount of dialogue that pertained to her wanting to leave.”
“She wanted to leave you?”
“Yeah.”
“You didn’t want her to leave you?”
“Didn’t want her to, but I didn’t stop her.”
“Threw a portable phone across the room and smashed the phone, correct?”
“Yeah.”
“Do you have certain problems with people closing doors in your presence?”
“At the time when that happened it felt like she was cutting me off.”
“What, at the time what happened?”
“I just told her she did it she could open it.”
“The door?”
“Yeah.”
“When did this happen?”
“I never kicked it open.”
“When did this happen?”
“About the same time frame as when the phone was thrown.”
…
“So you agreed telling [ex-wife] not to close any doors behind her, is that correct?”
“Yes.”
“You told her that on more than one occasion?”
“I could have.”
“And you told her that if she ever closed any doors on you, you would kick them down?”
“Yes.”
“Why did you tell her that?”
“Because I thought she was cutting me off, and I couldn’t handle that.”
“Why couldn’t you handle that?”
“She was my wife.”
“So your wife is not entitled to any privacy?”
“She got privacy.”
“How did she get privacy if she can’t close the door?”
“I never kicked one down either.”
“But you threatened to?”
“Yes.”
“On more than one occasion?”
“Could have been more than one.”
“Was it more than one?”
“I remember once.”
…
“[Ex-wife] got a protective order against you, did she not?”
“Yes.”
…
“And were the allegations made in that document accurate?”
“Yes.”
…
“You consider that domestic violence?”
“No.”
“Do you consider not allowing your wife to go into her room and close the door, threatening to kick the door down if she does, do you consider that domestic violence?”
“That’s not a question that would pertain … that would get the full truth out of that.”
“I’m sorry?”
“That’s a question I couldn’t answer with the full truth. That would be stipulating that I set the limit that she couldn’t close any doors. That’s not true.”
“Do you consider threatening to kick a door down if your wife closes it to be domestic violence?”
“No.”
“What do you consider domestic violence?”
“Basically if I physically did something to her.”
“So threatening her doesn’t –“
“I didn’t threaten her. I threatened the door.”
“This isn’t the first time a protective order has been issued against you, is it?”
“I don’t know.”
[Ed. Spoiler alert: it’s not the first time.]
One of the reasons this is all being done in multiple parts is simply that I get a headache trying to follow along with his semantics.
For a different angle regarding his interpersonal relationships, we all know how Derrick feels about gay people.
I have been in contact with a man named Max, who was rather astounded to read some of Derrick’s blog posts on the subject. He and his late (male) partner gave Derrick food, clothing, shelter, and even money – more than once – during a period when Derrick was homeless and broke.
Max would like Derrick to know that if Derrick feels the humanity they showed him – to include their compassion and generosity toward him – is somehow tainted by their sexual orientation, he is willing to negotiate a repayment plan so Derrick need no longer be indebted to a homosexual.
Incidentally, I shared this with Derrick, and Max’s unhappiness about being labeled a reprobate. His response was “I never called Max a reprobate!” No, Derrick, you just said gay people are depraved and beyond all hope of salvation so long as they continue in “their lifestyle.” That’s <check notes> the dictionary definition of “reprobate” and you certainly never noted any exceptions, least of all your long-ago benefactor, to that statement. So … yeah, you did.
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.
Tee spills more tea: ““I didn’t threaten her. I threatened the door.””
Zoe: Manipulative narcissist. Devoid of empathy. Abusive. Playing the victim.
When I first heard about TFG’s lawyer reporting that his representatives constituted “a non-zero number of people” observing one of the 2020 recounts, I knew exactly what it meant. The lawyer couldn’t lie to the judge, because that would get him disbarred. The lawyer couldn’t tell the truth (that, as it turned out, his representatives outnumbered Biden representatives 12-7) because it wouldn’t fit TFG’s “the libs are trying to screw me over” narrative. So the attorney settled on an answer that, while factual, was worded in such a way as to implicitly validate TFG’s narrative.
Disclaimer: I have absolutely zero information that would serve as a factual basis for this, it is speculation. That said, I speculate that he may have told on himself (accidentally) in his recent blog post, when he talked about someone proposing a rule that people with a criminal history could not be teachers in South Korea – which sounds reasonable – and that he was opposed to it – which, given his moral superiority complex, does not sound reasonable.
Since he has never actually said what prompted him to leave Korea, I am wondering if his criminal history in the States was identified as a result of this rule taking effect, thus causing him to be dismissed from his teaching position, particularly since he smugly wrote about the proponent of that rule being dismissed from his own position as a result of it.
Just wondering what planet Tee comes from. he doesn’t seem to speak any languae found on Earth.
Ain’t that a classic!? That’s not my fault! She made me do it! “Dr.David Tee” seems to take responsibility for nothing. And he thinks he’s Christian enough to lecture Bruce Gerencser! I doubt that he would recognize Christianity if the god he believes in delivered it in person.