Church of Israel                      )                          Domain Names In Dispute:

Route 1 Box 218                     )                                  

Schell City, Missouri 64783      )                                   CHURCHOFISRAEL.COM

                                             )                               THECHURCHOFISRAEL.COM

(Complainant)                       )                               THECHURCHOFISRAEL.ORG

                                             )                     REFORMEDCHURCHOFISRAEL.COM

                                             )                                         GAYMANGATE.COM  



v.                                          )                

                                             )                          Case Number:             

Jerry Gentry aka JG                )                          FA0309000193928

Route 2 Box 198                     )

Big Sandy, Texas 75755           )

(Respondent)                         )







            [a.]       Name:            Church of Israel

            [b.]       Address:        Route 1 Box 218, Schell City, MO 64783

            [c.]       Telephone:   417-432-3119

            [d.]       Fax:                417-432-3302

            [e.]       E-Mail:           



            [a.]       Name:            Dan Mueller

            [b.]       Address:        Route 1 Box 225, Schell City, MO 64783

            [c.]       Telephone:   417-432-3676

            [d.]       Fax:                417-432-3302

            [e.]       E-Mail:  


                        The Complainant’s preferred method for communications directed to the Complainant in the administrative proceeding: ICANN Rule 3(b)(iii).


Electronic-Only Material

[a.]           Method:          email        

[b.]           Address:       

[c.]            Contact:         Dan Mueller


Material Including Hard Copy

[a.]           Method:          Fax

[b.]           Fax:                417-432-3302

[c.]            Contact:         Bob Burney


The Complainant chooses to have this dispute heard before a single-member administrative panel. ICANN Rule 3(b)(iv).




[a.]       Name:             Jerry Gentry aka JG

[b.]      Address:          Route 2 Box 198 Big Sandy, Texas 75755

[c.]       Telephone:      (903) 845-5778

[d.]      Fax:                 (940) 272-0070

[e.]       E-Mail:  ;




The Respondent’s preferred method for communications directed to the Respondent in the administrative proceeding: ICANN Rule 5(b)(iii).


            Electronic-Only Material

            [a.]       Method:          email

            [b.]      Address: ;

            [c.]       Contact:          Jerry Gentry


            Material Including Hard Copy

            [a.]       Method:          FAX

            [b.]      Address/Fax:   940-272-0070

            [c.]       Contact:          Jerry Gentry



The Respondent chooses to have this dispute heard before a single-member administrative panel as stated in the Complainant’s Complaint ICANN Rule 5(b)(iv).




Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said:“…fails to prove the time of the board meeting or meetings. Were there two board meetings, the first “on December 13, 1981 at 1:00PM” and the second on “January 11, 1982?” Which meetings do the signatures in <Complainant Exhibit A> witness? .... In <Complainant Exhibit B> the notary signature is dated January 11, 1982, whereas the document states: “Signed and witnessed this 12th day of January, 1982. Dates are in conflict and official Notary Seal is missing. The evidence in <Complainant Exhibit A> and <Complainant Exhibit B> is not credible. At best, both documents appear to be hastily thrown together on the same day and contain inaccurate and conflicting information and questionable signatures.


The respondent makes much ado about nothing regarding the apparent discrepancies in the times and dates of the meetings. This is an example of the Respondents (Jerry Gentry aka JG) failure to address the facts of the issues as put forth in the original complaint. However, in light of his allegations regarding <Complainant Exhibit A> and <Complainant Exhibit B> documents being hastily thrown together, etc. and in the interests of truth and clarity, an explanation is in order.  <Complainant Exhibit A> was generated following the board meeting which was held on December 13th, 1981. The next board meeting was scheduled for January 12th 1982. <Complainant Exhibit B> was also prepared in advance of the second meeting, and while it was anticipated that the meeting would be held on January 12th1982, it was in the end held on Jan 11th1982. This was the next time that all five board members, who all employed full time and with families, were free to meet.  At that time, both previously prepared documents were signed, witnessed, and notarized together. <See Exhibits A & B>



Respondent Comment:

If both Complainant documents are in fact genuine as Complainant claims, and notarized properly, then where is the missing Official Notary Seal that is required to appear on all notarized documents? Could it be that the “Notary Public” in this case is none other than Dan Gayman himself, who forged the name of “Margie F Gable” for purposes of deception? Can Complainant produce a currently notarized affidavit from “Margie F Gable” that these are in fact her signatures? Or is this “person” conveniently deceased, as are both Arthur Smith and Milton Lent deceased. The only living board members signing are Gayman family members!


Handwriting analysis shows a striking similarity between the “Dan Gayman” and “Margie F Gable” signatures. Note the double loops in the ascenders of the “G” in both “Gayman” and “Gable.” Further, Complainant now “explains” that the January 12th, 1982 meeting actually took place on January 11, 1982, but that “<Complainant Exhibit B> was also prepared in advance of the second meeting.” What does this statement mean? It seems odd indeed that minutes of a meeting were prepared in advance of discussion of the items on the agenda. . .UNLESS, of course, the minutes were contrived and the signatures were merely added later as as a formality. Complainant gives convenient reasons but no supporting evidence concerning his conflicting dates and unofficial “Notary Public.” Complainant fails to address the question of the missing Official Notary Seal. Why were these obvious discrepancies not dealt with earlier? Which date are we to believe to be the correct date?


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…Complainant has claimed no registered trademark/s or service mark/s in the name/s of “Church of Israel”, “The Church of Israel or in any of the other disputed names. A search at the United States Trademark Office confirms there are no registered trademarks or service marks in any of the names in dispute. A recent search of “Church of Israel” yielded over 2000 hits, few of which were connected at all with Complainant. “Church of Israel” is a generic church name used broadly in reference to many different churches and congregations.“Public notice” is asserted without proof, and is contrived and bogus.”


Registering a Trade Mark may be essential if you are a retail business like Dairy Queen, or McDonalds. It is not required for a church, nor was the registration expense in excess of thousands of dollars to obtain it, deemed a reasonable burden for the parishioners of the Church of Israel, nor is the annual maintenance cost of keeping such a trademark.  Public notice was given at the time of our formation <See Exhibit B> in full compliance with Missouri state law.


There are, as of October 12, 2003, a total 2,160 hits for the search string “Church of Israel” at Four of the top ten hits at Google are direct links either to the one and only Church of Israel, or news articles about the one and only Church of Israel. Six of ten results on the second page also point to the Church of Israel website, or sites pertaining to our Church. On the third page of results, five of ten links are also to or about the same Church of Israel. The remaining results are primarily concerning biblical references to a spiritual Church of Israel, or the Church and Israel, or to some specific Church, which is located in the modern nation known as Israel.


The Church of Israel name is not generic, nor is the name used broadly. There are not many different churches and congregations with the same name.  The name Church of Israel is unique to the Church of Israel in Schell City Missouri. A simple search at for <Church of Israel> in all states will yield results from Children of Israel Baptist Church to Israel of God Church but it will yield only one “Church of Israel” and that is here, in Schell City, Missouri. The arguments of the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) are spurious at best, and have no basis in fact.


Respondent Comment:

Denied. Which Missouri state law requires “Public Notice” to be made of a church having been formed? What are the specific requirements of that law? Complainant supplies no evidence of requirements for public notice, yet alleges that requirements exist. Complainant’s <Exhibit B> fails to prove authenticity of his claim that genuine public notice was made. In the absence of evidence, <Exhibit B> is nothing more than a piece of drawn paper from Complainant’s files. Further, Complainent’s claim of exclusive use of the generic denominational name “Church of Israel” is asserted but no proof is given. On what basis does Complainant assert “exclusive use” of the name “Church of Israel.” Complainant knows that there existed/exist congregations known as “Church of Israel” in Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Colorado, Idaho, California and in foreign countries and elsewhere, most of which disassociated themselves with Complainant in the major church split that began in November, 2000, some three years ago.


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…In November 2000, Complainant through its head Bishop Dan Gayman, personally requested that Respondent transfer the domain name <> to Complainant by oral contract for an agreed sum of money and other consideration, none of which were ever fulfilled by Complainant…”


By virtue of the oral contract, the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) agreed to transfer the Church of Israel domain names, and eventually agreed to the amount of $1000 for which payment was made on November 13th 2000. <See Exhibit H> The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) specified that the check should say “Gift” in the Memo section purportedly so he could avoid paying income tax on it. <See Exhibit H> The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) acknowledged that he was “in the process of transferring” the domain name to the church one week later, and asked for Dan Gayman’s signature authorizing transfer to Bob Burney, which he received on November 21st 2000. <See Exhibit C> The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) deposited the check, but still has not returned the disputed domain names <See Exhibit C>

Points regarding the Respondents (Jerry Gentry aka JG) oral contract…


Š      Several other parishioners volunteered to design and create a website for the Church of Israel.

Š      Since the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) was semi-retired, he insisted that he would have more time to devote to building and maintaining a Church of Israel website.

Š      The Respondent volunteered to register the domain names on behalf of the Church of Israel, the cost of which he was reimbursed.

Š      The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) had control of the disputed domain names in order to operate a website on behalf of the Church of Israel.

Š      Over time, the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) did indeed build a website for the Church of Israel.

Š      Historic evidence ( clearly demonstrates that the websites residing at the Church of Israel domain has always pointed at the one and only Church of Israel in Schell City Missouri until the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) pointed those domains first at his counterfeit church website, then at <>

Š      Following the Respondent’s (Jerry Gentry aka JG) departure from the church fellowship, he refused to return control of church domain names.

Š      Eventually, an oral agreement was reached on November 13th 2000 in which the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) received $1000 for his past efforts and for returning control and ownership of the domain names to the Church of Israel. <See Exhibit H>

Š      The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) acknowledged his obligation to transfer the church domain names to the Church of Israel one week later in a fax dated November 21st, 2000 <See Exhibit C> and requested more time to complete the transfer.

Š      To this date, the domain name transfer has not taken place.

Š      The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) has refused all attempts to communicate regarding this issue since November 2000, despite the many appeals made.

Š      The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) did not return the Church of Israel domain names. Rather, he changed the entire content of the websites, demonstrating a 180 degree turn in his attitude toward the Church of Israel; using the domain names to advance his personal vendetta against a single man at the expense of the entire congregation of the Church of Israel.


Respondent comment:

Denied. Complainant’s arguments are not supported by any evidence presented. Not one single communication or appeal has been made by Complaintant to Respondent since November, 2000, for almost three years, until this dispute was filed! Complainant deceived Respondent regarding terms of their November 13, 2000 oral contract and reneged. Complainant changed the terms of the oral contract and lied. <Exhibit H> was a gift in appreciation of support and generous services previously rendered by Respondent, and not for sale of website and/or domain name. <Exhibit C> was a letter that represented the good faith intentions of Respondent, with the understanding that Complainant was also acting in good faith. Secretly, however, Complainant had already contacted his attorney on the very day November 13, 2000, in preparation for suit to reverse everything he had just signed and agreed to! Respondent returned to Texas having no knowledge of Complainant’s preparations for bringing a law suit, in which Complainant claimed “duress,” that he was “bereft of mind,” in a bad faith effort to reverse the terms of both his signed “Peaceful Separation Agreement” and his oral contract with Respondent. Complainant on or about November 30, 2000 filed his suit which was tried in July, 2002, and ruled on in the April, 2003. In his ruling, Judge Baldrige shows that Complainant had acted in bad faith.  See < <Exhibits 5g-5h>.


On November 13, 2000, Complainant signed a “Peaceful Separation Agreement,” witnessed by Respondent, whose role was that of a neutral third party to negotiate between Complainant and Pastor Scott Stinson. Complainant and Respondent were still then “good friends.” Complainant then praised Respondent for his role in pulling both sides together. However, due to Complainant’s reversal and law suit filed two weeks later, the dispute eventually led to a major church split. By filing suit, Complainant reneged his signed “Peaceful Separation Agreement,” <Exhibit 12> as well as his oral contract with Respondent. Note the signatures of both Complainant and Respondent in <Exhibit 12>. In his law suit, Complainent claimed “duress,” that he was “bereft of mind” as the reasons he signed! Respondent gave testimony in the court case against Complainant, who lost. Complainant (Plaintiff) was reprimanded by Judge Baldridge for coming into court with “dirty hands.” Complainant (Plaintiff) was reprimanded for lying to the court. If Complainant’s present dispute is bona fide, why then did Complainant wait for almost three years, until after his court suit was lost, before raising this dispute? The truth is, Complainant, through this dispute, now seeks to harass Respondent because of Respondent’s testimony in the court case, which Complainant ultimately lost.


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…<Exhibit 5, Exhibit 5a—5g> which outlines in detail the questionable history of head Bishop Dan Gayman and Complainant “Church of Israel in Schell City Missouri…”


Irrelevant and immaterial. However, since the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) feels compelled to quote the “Joplin Globe” regarding the Church of Israel, and considers it an authoritative source, the complainant would also include what the “Joplin Globe” quotes regarding the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) Gentry — who openly believes blacks and Asians are "primate species" created before Adam—” It should be pointed out that the Church of Israel does not teach that Blacks and Asians are primate species. 


Respondent Comment:

Denied. Has Complainant truly cleaned up his racial message? What then does Complainant teach concerning Blacks, Asians and more particularly, concerning Jews? Have Complainant’s previous denial of the holocaust and other anti-semitic teachings really changed? See <Exhibit 11><>


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…What Complainant claims to be “lies and half truths about Dan Gayman and members of his extended family” are substantiated facts…”


The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) shows his unwillingness to focus on the facts of the issues set forth in the original complaint, and chooses to cloud the issues with lies and half truths. <> alleges child abuse by Doug Gayman. What <> does not tell the reader is that according to the final judicial outcome in Vernon County Missouri: “The Allegations of sexual abuse that were made against the Petitioner (Doug Gayman) are not credible, and were not properly investigated by the Division of Family Services.” <See Exhibit I PG-08 Section 26> or that There was very credible testimony that the Respondent (Connie Gayman) set out to eliminate the Petitioner (Doug Gayman) from her life by means of poisoning him and when that failed by means of having him shot. When it became evident that neither of those means of eliminating the Petitioner would work, the evidence showed that the Respondent (Connie Gayman) began making sexual abuse allegations against the Petitioner.”  <See Exhibit I PG-10 Section 33> Nor does <> reveal to its readers that Connie Gayman was required by the Court to return all seven children to the United States; that Doug Gayman was given full custody of all seven children; or that Connie Gayman was found to be financially responsible for all costs incurred by Doug Gayman in this ugly legal battle. <See Exhibit I PG-13 Sections 43, 44, 45> and <See Exhibit I PG-14 Sections 46, 47, 48, 49>


Respondent Comment:

Complainant’s exhibits above prove nothing against the findings of the Department of Family Services in Green County, Missouri, which are all posted at <> <Exhibit 7>. Those findings were never brought into testimony in the above referenced Vernon County, Missouri court case, because no opposing counsel was present to enter this evidence and plea on behalf of Respondent Conny Gayman and her abused children. To protect the safety of herself and her children, she had fled to Holland and was no longer living in the United States. She had no money to hire an attorney to represent her in Vernon County, Missouri, half a world away. The Vernon County, Missouri, court ruling quoted above was completely one sided, written and submitted by Dan Gayman’s attorney, for purposes of covering up and denying the truth. The Judge had no choice but to sign the decree, in the total absence of some 178 pages of evidence from the Green County Missouri Department of Family Services, because there was no opposing counsel present for Respondent Conny Gayman to enter that evidence into the record.


Further, Respondent has posted both sides of that issue at That is, this website shows many documents written by Complainant, as well as documents from Respondent and others, in the interest of fair and impartial reporting. is one-sided only because the facts and documentation are clearly weighted against Complainant. Respondent herewith invites Complainant to write a rebuttal to any information posted at Upon receipt of same, Respondent will post Complainant’s rebuttal unedited.


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…This church has many markings of a CULT…”


This is another example of the way the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) twists words to imply something without actually saying it. He implies that the Church of Israel is a cult, even emphasizing CULT by capitalizing it. The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) knows this to be untrue. <See Exhibit I PG-12 Section 40>  The Court finds that the Church of Israel, although not a mainstream religion, is not a cult, and represents no threat…”  We refute his assertion that the Church of Israel is a cult, and only draw attention to it  to demonstrate the Respondent’s (Jerry Gentry aka JG) digression from the central issues at hand.


There are available to anyone who wants to read, in the Vernon Country Missouri Courthouse more than a thousand pages of legal documents that clear the name of the Church of Israel and Doug Gayman. These documents are ignored by the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) since they completely and utterly destroy his carefully crafted, yet fragile house of lies, and discredit his hate site at <>


Respondent comment:

Denied. Will Complainant please bring out the documents that “destroy” Respondent’s credibility? If not a “CULT,” what then is Complainant? Many Christian websites label Complainant as a CULT. Tim and Sarah Gayman, son and daughter-in-law of Dan Gayman, <Exhibit 5d> escaped Complainant’s control. They allege that Complainant is a CULT. In the Gayman/Stinson court case previously referenced, Judge Baldridge found Respondent’s testimony against Complainant (Plaintiff) to be credible, and that Complainant came into court with “dirty hands.” It appears that complainant’s hands are still dirty. It is Respondent’s belief that the facts presented by Respondent herein will be found credible and that Complainant’s dispute is based, using Complainant’s words, on a “fragile house of lies.” See <Exhibit 6> at <> and <Exhibit 13> <>.



Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…Complainant’s dispute is designed to intimidate, harass and deprive Respondent of his rightful ownership of disputed domains, in a clear effort at reverse domain name hijacking…”


Complainant’s dispute is designed to end the domain name hijacking first perpetrated by the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG). It is interesting to note that the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) would accuse the Church of Israel of exactly what he himself has been doing while the members of the Church of Israel have prayed that he would return to his senses and repent.


The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) is clearly the party guilty of domain name hijacking, depriving rightful ownership and use of the disputed domain names. He even admits it. Please note carefully the words “…reverse domain name hijacking…” How could it be reversed unless the Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) had hijacked the domain names in the first place?


Respondent Comment:

Denied. Complainant gives no evidence of his allegations. Complainant misunderstands the term “reverse domain name hijacking,” as defined under UDRP rules.


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…Denied. Complainant has failed to prove his allegation that Respondent has “updated DNS records to redirect legitimate traffic” to an incorrect website…”


Impartial records prove this statement false. It is not necessary to take anyone’s word. By visiting and entering any one of the disputed domain names into the “wayback machine,” all times and dates of website changes can be seen.


Respondent Comment:

Denied. Website changes and DNS updates were necessitated by changing needs of Respondent’s ministry and are not proof of Complainant’s assertions “to redirect legitimate traffic” in some wrongful manner.


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “…Denied. Complainant asserts without proof that Respondent was at some point obligated to “return these domains” to Complainant. This statement implies that Complainant at some time in the past had some claim to ownership of disputed domains and that Respondent has somehow “stolen” them. Yet Complainant offers no proof...”


The domains from their inception were designed to benefit The Church of Israel exclusively. The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) has admitted in writing that he was to transfer the disputed domains to the Church of Israel, was paid when he asked for payment, and still has not kept his word. <See Exhibit C> <See Exhibit H>


Respondent Comment:

Denied. Complainant again implies exclusive ownership of the name “Church of Israel” to the exclusion of other churches elsewhere who also use that denominational name. Complainant gives no proof of his claim. Complainant has submitted no tradmark/service mark or exclusive common law use of the name “Church of Israel,” to the exclusion of other churches elsewhere who also use that name. Complainant has presented no credible basis for its claim to exclusive ownership of the name “Church of Israel.”


Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) said “Denied. Respondent and approximately 50 individuals met for an annual Pentecost gathering at the Community Building, Schell City, Missouri, in June, 2001. Scott Stinson was presiding Pastor. All who attended considered themselves to be members and/or friends of the Church of Israel, but no longer under direction of Bishop Dan Gayman and his Complainant church. Many of these same people have continued to meet at various places near Schell City, Missouri, and elsewhere, and at various times under the various “Church of Israel” church names in dispute.”


This counterfeit church was referred to in the original complaint. Some ex-Church of Israel members, (far less than 50 as shown in pictures at the wayback machine by looking up <REFORMEDCHURCHOFISRAEL.COM> at met one time, over two years ago. This does not mean that they are a church today. This group has not met since June 2001, and most have moved away or joined other churches. There is no other Church of Israel, redeemed, reformed, or otherwise.


The P.O. Box as listed on the <REFORMEDCHURCHOFISRAEL.COM> website is not now rented, nor has it ever been rented, according to the Postmaster in Schell City, Missouri. The facts are clear: The “Reformed” Church of Israel has no legitimate postal address, no telephone number, no minister, and no congregation. The Reformed Church of Israel exists only on the internet to mislead and confuse visitors.


Respondent comment:

Denied. Complainant admits that another church by the name “Church of Israel” exists, but by what standard does Complainant declare that church to be “counterfeit?” The reformed Church of Israel referred to by Complainant has met regularly since it’s inception, at various times and locations, including the Community Building at Schell City, Missouri, in June, 2001 and regularly since it’s inception. It is obvious that complainant sees other churches who go by the name “Church of Israel” as a threat and Complainant would like to squelch them all.





The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) has failed to either refute or stay focused on any of the facts as put forth in the original complaint. The Respondent (Jerry Gentry aka JG) has instead chosen to revisit the spurious claims and lies found at his website and used them as justification for his actions.


Respondent Comment:





The complainant <Church of Israel> requests the Administrative Panel issue a decision that the domain-name registrations be transferred to the complainant <Church of Israel>. 


Respondent Comment:

Respondent respectfully requests the Administrative Panel to rule in favor of Respondent, and to find that a ruling of reverse domain name hijacking should be entered against Complainant.




 None                              ICANN Rule 5(b)(vi).




The Respondent asserts that a copy of this Response, as prescribed by NAF’s Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Respondent, in accordance with ICANN Rule 2(b).  ICANN Rule 5(b)(vii); NAF Supp. Rule 5.


The Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Panel rules in favor of Respondent. Respondent respectfully requests that a ruling of reverse domain name hijacking be entered against Complainant.





Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.


Respectfully Submitted,


Jerry Gentry



October 16, 2003


Amended Index of Exhibits is attached. ICANN Rule 5(b)(ix).


[The Complainant shall submit three (3) copies of the Response, including annexed material, to the National Arbitration Forum if the Complainant requested a single-member panel.  If the Complainant or Respondent requested a three (3) member panel, the Respondent shall submit five (5) copies of the Response, including annexed material, to the National Arbitration Forum.] NAF Supp. Rule 5(b).