“The public is increasingly disgusted with a steady diet of defamation and prepared to reward those who refrain from it.'” Mitch Daniels

---

This is a story of the sexual molestation and manipulation of 17-year-old Hannah, who would be blamed by the aggressor, Richard Galvan, and his wife, Sonia, who were youth pastors of having consensual sex
with Richard as well as being the “real” aggressor in that matter. Then there was a defamation lawsuit and now a counter-suit for infliction of emotional pain.

I will use excerpts from the website (Blaine and Hannah) on Crews vs. Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan. Todd and I have spoken with the Crews.

Hannah was molested at 17 by Richard Galvan.

when Hannah was seventeen years old, she attended the Northway Bible Church in Harlingen, Texas, where Richard was a youth minister and pastor. Hannah had been active in the church’s youth group and had known Richard and his wife Sonia since she was twelve years old. During the summer between her junior and senior year of high school, Hannah and her high school boyfriend broke up. Hannah was heartbroken, and Richard offered her a job at his business and to counsel her through her emotional grief. While Hannah was working at his business, Richard would call her into his office “almost daily” to discuss her feelings and to pray over her. During these conversations, Richard repeatedly brought up the extent of Hannah’s physical relationship with her ex-boyfriend. Richard told Hannah that the reason she was heartbroken was because of the physical attachment she had developed with her ex-boyfriend and “that the physical aspect of it caused [her] to be spiritually connected to [her] ex-boyfriend’s soul.” Richard explained to Hannah that the way to heal from her break up was through intimacy

Hannah was going into her senior year in high school and, at 17, could not consent to this interaction. Galvan was a member of the clergy, which appears to be clergy abuse with an unequal power dynamic. TWW readers know where this spiritual healing is going…to a La Quinta hotel.

Finally, after weeks and weeks of conversation and manipulation and coercion and convincing in Mr. Galvan’s office, at the beginning of volleyball season before school started in August of 2007, I agreed to meet Richard at the La Quinta hotel in Mercedes, TX. Richard was fearful of being discovered that day, and even thought a car across the street was a hired investigator that was possibly watching us. We went upstairs, I agreed to sexual acts, and lost my virginity that day. Afterwards, I had to go to school and travel with my team to play in the first volleyball tournament of the pre-season. I was still 17 years old. And that was the first and last time I agreed to do anything physical with Richard Galvan for the rest of my life.

The Galvans left town after Hannah’s mother learned of Richard’s actions. Apparently, Galvan told Hannah that no one would ever believe her story. This was in 2007. Things have changed, like TWW, which believes Hannah!

Shortly after, Hannah’s mother found out that Richard had sex with Hannah. Richard came to Hannah’s house, confessed to Hannah’s mother about it, and Hannah’s mother told Richard to tell his wife. Hannah subsequently had a phone conversation with Sonia about it. Hannah insisted she did not want to press criminal charges because “Richard told me if I ever spoke about this with anyone, that no one would believe my story.” In December 2007, shortly after Hannah’s phone conversation with Sonia, Richard and Sonia quit as youth pastors and left the church completely. According to Hannah, she later learned that Richard had also been inappropriate with other girls she knew and that the other girls were also teenagers at the time of their interactions with Richard.

Hannah married Blaine Crews and told him about her molestation. Outraged, Blaine decided to act and contacted the Galvans.

Richard admitted to molesting Hannah, and Blaine worried that he might take advantage of other young girls. Given the fact that Galvan was in his 30s at the time he had sex with 17-year-old Hannah, Blaine was justified in his concern, in my opinion.

 Richard called him back almost immediately. Blaine was concerned that Richard may “still be associating himself with youth and placing himself in a position to take advantage of other young women under his authority.” According to Blaine, during his conversation with Richard, Richard acknowledged that the events Blaine recounted about Richard’s sexual relationship with Hannah were true.

Richard appeared to claim that Blaine threatened him. Could it be that Blaine was justifiably angry when Galvan admitted to the molestation?

According to Richard, “Blaine Crews . . . expressed that since Hannah Crews’ father never did anything in 2007, that Blaine Crews would do something about the alleged seduction and manipulation and would have used a bullet to do it.” Blaine also informed Richard that he intended to contact Richard’s church and the school of Richard’s children, where Blaine believed he associated with young women. Blaine subsequently called Richard’s church and the school of Richard’s children and informed them of Richard’s history and past conduct towards Hannah.

The Galvans decided to file suit against Blaine and Hannah Crews, citing defamation and sexual abuse allegations that they claimed were false.

I was surprised that the Galvans responded in this manner. Richard had already admitted to his sexual contact with Hannah. In this lawsuit, Galvan appears to back away from his admission that he had sex with Hannah.

The Galvans filed suit against the Crewses. In their first amended original petition, Richard and Sonia pleaded causes of action for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation per se, and public disclosure of private facts. In their amended petition, the Galvans stated that “Blaine Crews text[ed] Plaintiff Sonia Galvan and claimed that Plaintiff Richard Galvan, seduced and manipulated Hannah Crews in 2007. These allegations are false.” The Galvans further alleged that Blaine told Richard that: “he would have put a bullet” in Richard’s head “if Defendant Blaine Crews knew Defendant Hannah Crews in 2007”; the “phone call would not be the end”; Richard’s children “would learn as well”; and that Richard will find out what Blaine “is going to do to him.”

Hannah and Blaine countered Galvans’ claims.

Hannah and Blaine’s affidavits provide that Richard caused Hannah to submit to his sexual advances by exploiting her emotional dependence on him as her spiritual advisor. Thus, the statements complained of here concern alleged criminal conduct; therefore, the statements were made in connection with a matter of public concern.

The Crews countered that they made these claims in order to protect the community. In other words, their intent in exposing Galvan was not malicious but served to protect the community.

Furthermore, according to Hannah, since the alleged incidents between her and Richard occurred, she learned that Richard had “also been inappropriate with other girls [that Hannah knows], who were also teenagers at the time.” The statements by Blaine that the Galvans complain of relate to the safety, health, and well-being of the community because Richard is around to teenage women at his church and at his children’s school, and the type of coercion, manipulation, and abuse of power alleged by the Crewses could be repeated as a result of his interaction with young women at both institution.

The difference between defamation and free speech.

The elements of defamation are: (1) the publication of a false statement of fact to a third party, (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, and (4) damages, in some cases

…Negligence in a defamation action requires the plaintiff to show (1) the defendant knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false and (2) the content of the publication would warn a reasonably prudent person of its defamatory potential.

A higher court favored the Crews’ motion to dismiss via Anti-Slapp.

What are Anti-Slapp laws?

Anti-SLAPP laws provide defendants a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits—known as “SLAPPs” or “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”—filed against them for exercising their First Amendment rights. These laws aim to discourage the filing of SLAPP suits and prevent them from imposing significant litigation costs and chilling protected speech.

The Crews explain:

The trial court denied the Crews’s Anti-Slapp MTD and an appeal was taken to the Thirteenth court of appeals. On October 13, 2019, the 13th Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for judgment consistent with its opinions. The Court of Appeals that Richard Galvan had sex with Hannah Crews in 2007 while counseling her as her youth pastor and that, as such, Hannah could not legally consent to same.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of the Crewses’ motion to dismiss and remand the case for the trial court to enter an order dismissing the Galvans’ defamation per se claim and for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum opinion.

The defamtion claim was dismissed with prejudice.

…On June 9th, 2020 the Crews’s were awarded mandatory fees and sanctions. Click here for more information..

The Crews filed a lawsuit against the Galvans.

On November 5th, 2020 The Crews’s filed a lawsuit against Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan for Malicious Prosecution, and Intentional Infliction of Emotions Distress.

…During this entire time, the Galvans knew these facts were true but alleged they were false for the ulterior purpose of attempting to silence Mr. Galvan’s sexual assault victim, Hannah Crews. These actions by the Galvans were undertaken at their insistence and with actual malice toward the Crews’s. The Galvans intended to cause emotional distress and mental anguish by silencing the delayed outcry of a sexual assault victim of Mr. Galvan.

The Galvans attempted to blame the victim, which is a tactic often used by abusers in my experience and points to the heart of the abuser.

And here is where we get to the heart of the matter. In my opinion, the Galvans attempt a DARVO.

Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan also for the first time decided to tell a different version of the events. From their first pleading, all the way through the court of appeals, to them non-suiting the rest of their claims, they stated “this is false” in regards to the Crews’s allegations. During their depositions (which was after they lost their defamation lawsuit, and after they non-suited their remaining claims) they decided it would be a good time to blame the victim (Hannah) for the sexual assault. They both claimed and now say that the 100 lb. 17 year old high school teenage girl was the aggressor, and overpowered Richard Galvan in his office against his will. Sonia Galvan (who wasn’t even there) agreed with this version of the events, seemingly by believing her husband’s ridiculous story.

This is an interesting observation by Blaine. Why did the Galvans attempt a $1 Million lawsuit against the Crews?

Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan continued to show their maliciousness by solely deposing Hannah and not Blaine, which has been consistent with the nature of their tactics in this case. The almost one million dollar lawsuit filed by Richard and Sonia Galvan was an attempt to bully, financially damage, and silence the victim (Hannah) and her husband about the sexual assault committed by Richard Galvan.

Sadly, Sonia Galvan’s sister left this message on Facebook. Note how she denigrates the victim.

The Crews have alerted churches, parachurch groups, and schools about Richard Galvans’ behavior.

Sadly, some of these folks and groups refused to respond.

The South Texas Fellowship of Christian Athletes was notified about Richard Galvan’s prior sexual deviant behavior, as well as Bill Moore and Anne Moore of Livingway Family Church in Brownsville, TX. Richard Galvan served on the board for the FCA and was a member of Livingway Family Church, who according to the Melissa Barrera-Sosa (executive assistant to Bill and Anne Moore) was “a very active member”. The South Texas FCA blocked Blaine from being able to send messages via FB, nor would they speak to him over the phone about the serious allegations. He attempted to reach Nathan Jones (Multi Area Director) and Catherine Bain (Administrative Assistant). Bain also seems to run their FB page, and assumptively is who blocked Blaine from being able to send messages. The National FCA did take the matters serious enough and spoke to the Crews’s Attorney, but none of the leaders at the local level would.

The same can be said of Pastors Bill and Anne Moore of Livingway Family Church in Brownsville, TX who not only refused to speak about the matters, but their executive assistant Melissa Barrera- Sosa filed a sworn affidavit attempting to assist the Galvans by claiming Blaine went from “cordial to upset” when he was notified the pastors wouldn’t speak to him. That would be a normal emotion if an attempt to speak to the head pastors of a church (that assumptively has many young women who attend) refused to speak to you about matters that may protect said young women. It should have been at the very least a simple phone call from the pastors to hear the truth of these allegations for themselves. Instead, Bill Moore and Anne Moore not only refused to speak to the Crews’s or their attorney about the sexaul assault (which was criminal in nature), they seem to have allowed their assistant to assist Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan by filing an affidavit (shown below).

Here is a response from Livingway Family Church in Brownsville, which the Galvans attend.

Finally,

It no longer surprises me when churches and Christian groups ignore warnings about molesters. Many have no idea that they may be ignoring an individual who might struggle with a paraphilia. They are ignorant that such an individual is at risk of offending again. So many churches believe that a person has repented and all is well. So many of those who struggle with sexual compulsions are very good at manipulating churches who wish to believe that Jesus has healed the individual. They rarely do research into the problems inherent in possible deviancy. Livingway apparently submitted an affidavit supporting the Galvans. If so, they foolishly ignored the victim, Hannah. This directly contradicts our Savior, who reached out to those who were let down by their religious community.

In my former SBC church, ignorant women came to the trial of a molester who abused at least 13 young teen boys (there were allegedly more, but their parents wouldn’t let them testify.) These silly and uninformed women sat on the side of the abuser, ignoring the teen boys who were there to testify. They begged the judge for leniency and even implied that they would take care of the abuser and “help him.”  They were ignorant, unbiblical and caused pain in their “love the pedophile” moment.

Livingway sadly demonstrates a similar attitude. In doing so, they may put young teen women in their church at risk. I hope the church’s member are aware of what has happened. If they are not, and something happens, the church may experience what happens when churches ignore warnings.

I am impressed that the Crews are bringing the uncomfortable truth to what appeasr to be ignorant churches and parachurch organizations. Their website, cited at the beginning of this post, has so much more.

PS A response to Livingway’s weak response by CS Lewis who said:

We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. But mere time does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin.