Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

JOSEPH ELWELL, CRYSTAL )

ELWELL, DEBORAH BALDWIN, )

Individually and as custodian for her )

Minor children WM and AM, )

ROBERT BALDWIN, )

) Case No. 2:16-CV-158

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF )

HAMMOND, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT AT LAW AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, JOSEPH ELWELL, CRYSTAL ELWELL, DEBORAH BALDWIN,

individually and as custodian for her minor children WM and AM, and, ROBERT BALDWIN, 

through their attorneys, Higgins & Burke, P.C., bring this Complaint at Law and Jury Demand 

against Defendant First Baptist Church of Hammond, Inc., an Indiana non-profit domestic 

corporation, stating as follows:

The Parties

1. Plaintiffs Joseph Elwell and Crystal Elwell resided in Schererville, Indiana

between September 2006 and July 2009. They currently reside in Yuma, Arizona and have done 

so since September 2009.

2. Plaintiff Deborah Baldwin (“Ms. Baldwin”) resided in Crown Point, Indiana from 

August 2003 until August 2008. From August 2008 until January 2009, Ms. Baldwin resided in 

New Holstein, Wisconsin. She is the mother and custodian of AM and WM, who are both minor 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 1 of 27
Page 2 of 27

children. She currently resides with her children and husband, Plaintiff Robert Baldwin, in Kiel, 

Wisconsin and has done so since January 2009. 

3. First Baptist Church of Hammond, Inc., formerly known as First Baptist Church 

of Hammond, an Indiana non-profit domestic corporation, was at all times relevant located at 

507 State Street, Hammond, Indiana (hereafter, “First Baptist Church”).

The Relevant Non-Parties

4. Between March 2001 and July 31, 2012, Jack Schaap was employed as the pastor 

of First Baptist Church (hereinafter, “Pastor Schaap”). Pastor Schaap also served as the 

Chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College, a ministry of First Baptist Church.

5. At all times relevant, Thomas Kimmel served on the Board of Deacons for the

First Baptist Church, served on the Hyles-Anderson College Board of Directors, and was held 

out by Defendant as a certified financial independence consultant and debt management 

specialist. Mr. Kimmel was hired by the First Baptist Church to provide one-on-one financial 

counseling at the church. He operated out of an office space in a building next to the church, 

which was owned by Defendant (hereafter, Kimmel’s “First Baptist Church Office”).

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over the parties and this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1332 as the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, 

and, as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 above, is between citizens of different states. As set 

forth more fully herein, Plaintiffs Joseph and Crystal Elwell bring these claims to recover losses 

for investments they made through Defendant in the amount of approximately $225,000.00. 

Plaintiffs Deborah and Robert Baldwin bring these claims to recover losses for investments they 

made through Defendant in the amount of approximately $235,400.00.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 2 of 27
Page 3 of 27

7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) through (2) as 

Defendant’s principal place of business is located herein, in the City of Hammond, Lake County, 

Indiana and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this 

district.

Factual Allegations Applicable to All Counts

Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel Were Agents of the Defendant 

8. At all times relevant, Pastor Schaap was employed as the Pastor of First Baptist 

Church and regularly conducted church services and masses attended by Defendant’s 

parishioners, including Plaintiffs.

9. Defendant granted Pastor Schaap the sole authority to hire and fire his staff at 

First Baptist Church. 

10. By January 2006, Pastor Schaap had hired Mr. Kimmel to act as an employee of 

First Baptist Church for the purposes of providing financial advice, debt counseling, budgeting,

and investment advice to members of the First Baptist Church. Upon information and belief,

Defendant paid Mr. Kimmel a salary or stipend to act as a financial advisor to its parishioners.

11. Defendant provided Mr. Kimmel with an office on Defendant’s property with his

name and title on the door for the purposes of meeting with parishioners of First Baptist Church 

and providing them with financial, investment, budgeting and debt counseling.

12. During church services, Pastor Schaap would inform members of the church that 

Mr. Kimmel was the church’s financial advisor with offices on church premises and was 

available to members of the church for financial advice.

13. Pastor Schaap would preach from the pulpit about investing through Mr. Kimmel 

and would encourage members of the congregation to attend classes taught by Kimmel about 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 3 of 27
Page 4 of 27

handling finances, investing money and getting out of debt. Pastor Schaap informed parishioners 

from the pulpit that Mr. Kimmel’s financial services would provide them with more money 

which would, in turn, allow them to give more money to Defendant First Baptist Church and aid 

its ministry and mission.

14. If a member was interested in meeting with Mr. Kimmel at his First Baptist 

Church Office on Defendant’s property, Defendant would set up the appointment for Mr. 

Kimmel and make the necessary arrangements.

15. Through the above mentioned representations and manifestations of Pastor 

Schaap, and through Defendant providing Mr. Kimmel with his First Baptist Church Office and

setting the appointments at that office, members of the congregation, including Plaintiffs, were 

instilled with a reasonable belief that Mr. Kimmel was employed by Defendant for the purposes 

of providing financial counseling and investment advice to members of First Baptist Church. 

16. Through the actions of Pastor Schaap and through Defendant providing Mr. 

Kimmel with his First Baptist Church Office and setting the appointments for financial 

counseling at that office, Defendant placed Mr. Kimmel in a position that enabled him, while 

apparently acting within the authority of Defendant, to provide financial counseling and 

investment advice to members of the First Baptist Church, including Plaintiffs. 

17. By employing Mr. Kimmel, providing him an office on church property, 

arranging and setting his appointments, and providing him financial compensation for his 

services, Defendant consented to Mr. Kimmel acting as its agent for the purposes of providing 

financial advice to members of the church.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 4 of 27
Page 5 of 27

18. Mr. Kimmel was, in fact, employed by Defendant and held out by Defendant and 

its agent, Pastor Schaap, as a financial advisor providing financial advisory services to members 

of First Baptist Church.

19. Mr. Kimmel agreed to the arrangement with First Baptist Church and did, in fact,

meet with parishioners at his First Baptist Church Office for the purpose of providing financial 

advice at all times relevant to this complaint.

20. Beginning in or around February 2006, Mr. Kimmel began informing parishioners 

about an investment in a collateralized note program related to Sure Line Acceptance 

Corporation, (the “Sure Line Investments”). Mr. Kimmel represented to parishioners, including 

Plaintiffs, that: 

a. Sure Line was a company located in North Carolina that operated car lots 

under the name of Automocian, and that Sure Line made loans and financed 

cars in the sub-prime market;

b. The Sure Line Investment was a Collateralized Note Program that held a twoto-one collateral ratio for each dollar invested;

c. An investment in a Sure Line collateralized note could earn investors as much 

as 12% interest per year;

d. The corporate officers and managers of Sure Line were all Christian and were 

of like beliefs;

e. That Mr. Kimmel had $450,000 of his own money invested in Sure Line;

f. That the First Baptist Church of Hammond and Pastor Schaap had invested 

$1,000,000.00 in Sure Line;

g. That Pastor Schaap endorsed the Sure Line Investment; and,

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 5 of 27
Page 6 of 27

h. That Mr. Kimmel would not receive any commission or payment from 

investments in Sure Line. 

(Subparagraphs 20 a through h are collectively hereafter, the “Sure Line Investment 

Representations”).

21. Mr. Kimmel made these Sure Line Investment Representations to parishioners of 

First Baptist Church during the classes he taught at First Baptist Church about budgeting, 

finances and debt while acting in his employ with Defendant. Mr. Kimmel also made these Sure 

Line Investment Representations to parishioners of the First Baptist Church during meetings 

arranged by Defendant with parishioners in his First Baptist Church Office to provide them the 

financial advice he was hired to provide.

22. Mr. Kimmel and Pastor Schaap reached agreements by which they would both 

receive commissions for sales of the Sure Line Investments. Specifically, Pastor Schaap received

a 1% commission on each First Baptist Church parishioner’s investment, while Mr. Kimmel 

received a 10% commission. Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel did not disclose these commissions 

to any parishioners.

23. First Baptist Church and Pastor Schaap could have terminated Mr. Kimmel’s 

ability to provide financial services to parishioners, solicit the Sure Line Investments, and the 

right to use his First Baptist Church Office for the same purposes at any time. 

24. Upon information and belief, in or about November 2007, Pastor Schaap and Mr. 

Kimmel were advised by an attorney retained by First Baptist Church named David Gibbs that 

they should not be offering the Sure Line Investments to parishioners because it could violate 

Indiana law and the parishioners were largely unsophisticated investors. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 6 of 27
Page 7 of 27

25. Upon information and belief, on or about November 7, 2007 attorney Gibbs wrote 

a letter to Mr. Kimmel advising him and Pastor Schaap that selling the Sure Line Investments 

could expose Defendant and Mr. Kimmel to liability for selling unlicensed securities. 

26. Despite this information, Defendant did not terminate Mr. Kimmel’s ability to 

provide financial advice to its parishioners. Rather, Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel continued to 

use their positions as agents of the Defendant to encourage parishioners to meet with Mr. 

Kimmel and discuss the Sure Line Investments, all the while earning their undisclosed 

commissions.

Mr. Elwell’s Investments

27. Joseph Elwell is sixty-one (61) years old and currently lives in Yuma, Arizona, 

where he is pastor of the Liberty Baptist Church of Yuma. Mr. Elwell graduated from HylesAnderson College in 1986, and has spent the past 29 years serving as a pastor and missionary 

starting churches across the United States.

28. Since January 2000, Mr. Elwell has been employed by First Baptist Church as a 

Missionary. From May 2006 until July 2009, Mr. Elwell was employed by First Baptist Church 

as the North American and Carribean director for the Fundamental Baptist Mission Board 

operated by First Baptist Church. During that time, Mr. Elwell also taught classes at HylesAnderson College, a ministry of the First Baptist Church of Hammond.

29. Through his involvement with the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Mr. Elwell 

came to learn of investment opportunities offered through Thomas Kimmel, a financial counselor 

through the church.

30. Pastor Schaap informed Mr. Elwell that he had hired Mr. Kimmel to act as a 

financial advisor to the people of First Baptist Church.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 7 of 27
Page 8 of 27

31. In or about December 2006, Mr. Kimmel approached Mr. Elwell in the 

administrative office at Hyles-Anderson College regarding investing in a company called Sure 

Line Acceptance Corporation (hereinafter “Sure Line”).

32. In soliciting Mr. Elwell to invest in Sure Line, Mr. Kimmel made the following 

representations (hereafter, the “Solicitation of the Elwells”):

a. That Sure Line was a company located in North Carolina that operated car lots 

under the name of Automocian, and that Sure Line made loans and financed 

cars in the sub-prime market;

b. That the corporate officers and managers of Sure Line were all Christian and 

were of like beliefs;

c. That Mr. Kimmel had $450,000 of his own money invested in Sure Line;

d. That the First Baptist Church of Hammond and Pastor Schaap had invested 

$1,000,000.00 in Sure Line;

e. That Mr. Kimmel would not receive any commission or payment from Mr. 

Elwell’s investment in Sure Line; and

f. That Sure Line was a Collateralized Note Program that held a two-to-one 

collateral ratio for each dollar invested.

33. As a member of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Mr. Elwell often 

counseled with Pastor Schaap regarding personal and spiritual matters, as well as financial 

matters.

34. In or about December 2006, Mr. Elwell spoke with Pastor Schaap regarding Mr. 

Elwell’s recent September 2006 wedding and marriage to his wife, combining their financial 

assets.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 8 of 27
Page 9 of 27

35. During said counseling, Pastor Schaap, advised Mr. Elwell that he should discuss 

his financial and investment concerns with Mr. Kimmel, who had been hired by the Defendant to 

handle such matters.

36. Pastor Schaap further stated that Mr. Elwell should trust Mr. Kimmel and do 

whatever he advised regarding Mr. and Mrs. Elwell’s finances, including investing in Sure Line.

37. At all times relevant, Pastor Schaap failed to inform Mr. Elwell that Pastor 

Schaap received a referral fee of one percent (1%) of every investment that he referred to Mr. 

Kimmel. 

38. Relying upon the advice of Pastor Schaap and the representations of Mr. Kimmel, 

in or about December 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Elwell decided to consolidate their finances and invest 

in Sure Line.

39. On or about January 2, 2007, Mr. and Mrs. Elwell executed a document entitled, 

“Collateralized Loan Agreement,” and returned it to Sure Line along with a check in the sum of 

$160,000.00 for a Sure Line Investment.

40. Mr. and Mrs. Elwell regularly received payments represented as “interest” 

payments on that investment between February 2007 and October 2009 leading them to believe 

that their money was in a legitimate investment and earning them interest.

41. In or about October, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Elwell tendered an additional $65,000.00 

to Mr. Kimmel for a second Sure Line Investment. Mr. Kimmel reaffirmed his previous 

representations to the Elwells concerning the Sure Line Investments at that time. 

42. From October 2009 through December 2011, Mr. and Mrs. Elwell regularly 

received payments represented as “interest” payments on their investments, leading them to 

believe that their investments were legitimate and they were, in fact, earning interest.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 9 of 27
Page 10 of 27

Ms. Baldwin’s Investments 

43. Ms. Baldwin moved to Crown Point, Indiana in 2003 after her first husband died 

in a helicopter crash while he was serving in the U.S. Air Force. That same year, she began 

attending First Baptist Church with her two sons, WM and AM.

44. As a result of her first husband’s untimely passing, Ms. Baldwin had received life 

insurance proceeds that she hoped would enable her to take care of her two children.

45. Ms. Baldwin regularly attended church services conducted by Pastor Schaap. She 

regularly heard Pastor Schaap encourage parishioners from the pulpit to attend finance classes 

taught by Mr. Kimmel, set appointments with Mr. Kimmel for financial advice, and invest 

through Mr. Kimmel.

46. In late 2007, Ms. Baldwin met with Pastor Schaap in his capacity as pastor of 

First Baptist Church. During that meeting, Ms. Baldwin asked Pastor Schaap for guidance 

because she had money to invest and did not know where to turn. Pastor Schaap directed her to 

Mr. Kimmel as the person hired by Defendant to teach and advise parishioners on finance, 

budgeting, debt management and investing. 

47. Ms. Baldwin placed trust and confidence in Pastor Schaap as her Pastor, a part of 

the church she attended, and what she considered to be the church family that she grew to know 

from a time when she was a widow with two small children.

48. Ms. Baldwin placed trust and confidence in Mr. Kimmel because he was 

repeatedly endorsed by Pastor Schaap, his family was grounded in the church, he was a deacon,

and he was working for First Baptist Church when providing her financial advice, investment 

advice and debt counseling.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 10 of 27
Page 11 of 27

49. In January 2008, Ms. Baldwin began attending Mr. Kimmel’s classes through 

First Baptist Church that were offered to its parishioners on church premises. 

50. During those classes, Mr. Kimmel would use the Bible to teach the class, 

including Ms. Baldwin, the importance of being wise with money and would talk about the Sure 

Line Investments. Mr. Kimmel would encourage the class to set individualized appointments 

with him at his First Baptist Church Office. 

51. Ms. Baldwin set an appointment with Mr. Kimmel and met with Mr. Kimmel at 

his First Baptist Church Office in early 2008. At that initial appointment, Ms. Baldwin met with 

Mr. Kimmel about budgeting and financial management and they also discussed the possibility 

of Ms. Baldwin investing in Sure Line. Mr. Kimmel informed Ms. Baldwin that the investment 

would be a minimum of $25,000.00, but she did not make a decision to invest during that initial 

appointment.

52. Between January and August of 2008, Ms. Baldwin and her children became 

close with Mr. Kimmel and Mr. Kimmel’s wife. The Kimmel’s even visited Ms. Baldwin and 

her children at her home. 

53. In April of 2008, Ms. Baldwin remarried to her now husband Robert Baldwin. 

After their wedding, Ms. Baldwin and Robert Baldwin decided to meet with Mr. Kimmel at his 

First Baptist Church Office to discuss their financial future and investments. They had that 

meeting in May 2008. 

54. During the May 2008 meeting, Mr. Kimmel solicited the Baldwins to invest in 

Sure Line. In soliciting the Baldwins to invest in Sure Line, Mr. Kimmel made the following 

representations (hereafter, the “Solicitation of the Baldwins”):

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 11 of 27
Page 12 of 27

a. Investing with Sure Line was the best option to protect her money and money 

for her children;

b. That Sure Line was a company located in North Carolina that operated car lots 

under the name of Automocion, and that Sure Line made loans and financed 

cars in the sub-prime market;

c. That the corporate officers and managers of Sure Line were all Christian and 

were of like beliefs;

d. That Mr. Kimmel had his own money invested in Sure Line;

e. That the First Baptist Church of Hammond and Pastor Schaap had invested in 

Sure Line;

f. That the Sure Line Investment was endorsed by Pastor Schaap;

g. That Ms. Baldwin would earn 12% interest per year on the money invested;

h. That Mr. Kimmel would not receive any commission or payment from Ms. 

Baldwin’s investment in Sure Line; and

i. That Sure Line was a Collateralized Note Program and Sure Line had the 

inventory to pay all the investors back all of their invested money.

55. That day, after finishing the May 2008 meeting with Mr. Kimmel, the Baldwin’s 

met with Pastor Schaap and informed him they had just met with Mr. Kimmel at his First Baptist 

Church Office.

56. Based on Mr. Kimmel’s representations in the May 2008 meeting, the Baldwins 

decided that investing in the Sure Line Investments was a safe option to protect their finances 

and Ms. Baldwin’s children’s financial future.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 12 of 27
Page 13 of 27

57. In June 2008, the Baldwin’s invested $25,000.00 in a Sure Line Investment 

through Mr. Kimmel. The investment was to provide interest payments each month at a rate of 

12% per annum (hereafter, the “Baldwin’s Initial Sure Line Investment”). 

58. On September 11, 2008, Ms. Baldwin, as the custodian for her son WM, tendered 

$81,500.00 to Mr. Kimmel for a Sure Line Investment for the benefit of WM. That same day, 

Ms. Baldwin tendered an additional $81,500.00 to Mr. Kimmel for a Sure Line Investment for 

the benefit of her son AM. (hereafter, the “Childrens’ Sure Line Investments”). 

59. Shortly thereafter, the Baldwins increased the Childrens’ Sure Line Investments 

to $103,700.00 each for a total of $207,400.00 and increased their Initial Sure Line Investment 

by adding another $50,000.00. However, in December 2008, the Baldwin’s withdrew the 

additional $50,000.00 from their Initial Sure Line Investment to purchase a new home. That 

“withdrawal” created the illusion and reasonable belief in the Baldwins that their money was, in 

fact, invested in Sure Line and safe. 

60. On September 11, 2009, the Baldwins entered into a $3,000.00 add-on to their 

Initial Sure Line Investment and tendered the funds to Mr. Kimmel. This brought the value of the 

Baldwin’s Initial Sure Line Investment to $28,000.00. 

61. Mr. Kimmel ensured Ms. Baldwin that all the money invested would be safe and 

that Sure Line had plenty of inventory to act as collateral so that all investors could be paid if 

Sure Line ever ran into any problems.

62. At no time during their Sure Line Investments did Mr. Kimmel or Pastor Schaap 

ever disclose that they received a financial benefit from the Baldwin’s investments. 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 13 of 27
Page 14 of 27

63. In the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Baldwins received regular interest 

payments on the Baldwins’ Initial Sure Line Investment and on the Childrens’ Sure Line 

Investment. 

64. In January 2012, Sure Line sent correspondence to the Baldwins informing that 

Sure Line was unable to make interest payments that month. At that time, the Baldwins were 

informed by Mr. Kimmel that the inability to pay had to do with new regulations under the 

Dodd-Frank Act. They were led to believe by Mr. Kimmel that everything else was fine and that 

their investment remained secured.

The Sureline Investment Scheme Falls Apart

65. Contrary to the representations made to the Elwells and the Baldwins in January 

2012, Sure Line’s inability to pay was not based on new government regulations but on a 

financial collapse precipitated by years of undisclosed and misrepresented financial problems

and, more importantly, the theft of investor funds for use in a Ponzi Scheme orchestrated by Mr. 

Kimmel.

66. By no later than January 2008, Mr. Kimmel was aware that Sure Line did not 

have the 2-to-1 collateral represented to investors and that the company was, in fact, losing 

money and in danger of going under. Mr. Kimmel did not disclose this information to Plaintiffs.

67. By no later than June 2008, Mr. Kimmel knew that the money that he was 

obtaining from investors he solicited and sold Sure Line Investments to was actually being used 

to make interest payments to prior investors. Mr. Kimmel did not disclose this information to 

Plaintiffs.

68. In truth, between 2006 and 2011, the Sure Line Investments were not backed by a 

two-to-one collateral ratio that allowed each dollar invested to be backed by more than one dollar 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 14 of 27
Page 15 of 27

of collateral. The combined assets of Sure Line were far less than the amount of collateral 

represented to investors, including Plaintiffs, from 2006 to 2011 and Mr. Kimmel had knowledge 

of this fact.

69. In order to hide the true state of the financial condition of Sure Line from 2006 to 

2011, new money from new investors was used to repay past investors’ principal and interest and 

pay undisclosed commissions to Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel. These payments created the 

appearance that the investments were legitimate and generating revenue while creating a cycle 

where more and more investor money was needed to pay off the increasing interest payments. In 

short, investor funds were not being invested as represented, but were instead being used to pay 

off other duped victims of the scheme and conceal the scheme.

70. Ultimately, the scheme fell apart in January 2012 when there was not enough new 

investor money coming in to perpetuate the scheme and continue the illusion of legitimacy and 

profit. 

71. In January of 2012, Sure Line went into a Court ordered receivership in Case No 

12-CVS-125 in Craven County, North Carolina (the “Receivership Action”). On January 25, 

2012, the Court entered an order in the receivership action appointing a receiver and enjoining 

and staying all persons seeking relief from Sure Line’s assets, including Sure Line noteholders 

like Plaintiffs, from commencing or litigating any legal proceedings related to their Sure Line 

Investments that could, directly or indirectly, interfere with the Receiver’s performance of his 

duties and the administration of Sure Line’s assets (the “Stay Order”). 

72. At the onset of the Receivership Action, Plaintiffs had not been alerted of any 

potential fraudulent conduct and believed that they would be paid back through the Receivership

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 15 of 27
Page 16 of 27

Action. Taking the only reasonable course of conduct, Plaintiffs submitted proof of claim forms 

to the receiver in the Receivership Action in or about June 2012. 

73. From June 2012 until receipt of a final distribution on or about April 8, 2015, 

Plaintiffs participated in the Receivership Action in an effort to recover their losses pursuant to 

the Stay Order. As of the date of the April 2015 distribution, the Stay Order had not been lifted 

in the Receivership Action. 

74. During the pendency of the Receivership Action, on August 21, 2013, Mr. 

Kimmel was indicted for his conduct in carrying out the Sure Line Ponzi Scheme. That 

indictment charged Mr. Kimmel for such acts as conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud 

relative to his sale and solicitation of the Sure Line Investments (the “Indictment”).

75. Around the time of the Indictment in late summer 2013, Ms. Baldwin took part in 

a conference call with the FBI investigator and prosecutor. During that call, Ms. Baldwin learned 

for the first time that Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel had concealed from the Baldwin’s that:

a. Pastor Schaap was receiving a 1% commission for each of the Baldwin’s Sure 

Line Investments;

b. Mr. Kimmel was making a 10% commission on their Sure Line Investments; 

and,

c. 25% of the funds they invested were taken off the top to pay commissions as 

soon as the Baldwin’s tendered checks to Mr. Kimmel for their Sure Line 

Investments and their Childrens’ Sure Line Investment.

76. Mr. Kimmel was tried for the alleged crimes from the Indictment in June 2014.

77. It was not until Mr. Kimmel’s criminal trial that Mr. and Mrs. Elwell learned 

through testimony in June 2014 that:

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 16 of 27
Page 17 of 27

a. Pastor Schaap was receiving a 1% commission for each or their Sure Line 

Investments and the investments of other investors from First Baptist Church;

b. Mr. Kimmel was making a 10% commission on their Sure Line Investments 

and the investments of other First Baptist Church parishioners;

c. 25% of the funds they invested were taken off the top to pay commissions as 

soon as the Elwell’s tendered checks to Mr. Kimmel for their Sure Line 

Investments.

78. It was not until testimony in Mr. Kimmel’s criminal trial in June 2014 that the 

Baldwin’s and the Elwell’s learned:

a. The representations concerning the collateral supporting the Sure Line 

Investments were false and that Sure Line did not have the collateral to 

support repayment of the Sure Line Investments;

b. Mr. Kimmel had previously been served with a cease and desist order from 

the Alabama department of securities informing that the sale of the Sure Line 

Investments was the unlawful sale of unregistered securities;

c. The Sure Line Investments were actually a Ponzi Scheme in which the funds 

from new investors were used to make payments to other investors as phony 

“interest payments” to disguise the fact that the investment was illegitimate 

and conceal and perpetuate the fraudulent scheme;

d. An attorney for First Baptist Church had informed Pastor Schaap and Mr. 

Kimmel as early as 2007 that the Sure Line Investments were likely in 

contravention of Indiana law;

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 17 of 27
Page 18 of 27

e. That the managers and officers of Sure Line were not Christians of like belief 

to Plaintiffs;

f. Mr. Kimmel did not actually have any personal investments in Sure Line; and,

g. First Baptist Church did not invest in Sure Line.

Schaap and Kimmel Concealed the Scheme from Plaintiffs and Parishioners

79. Plaintiffs could not have learned of the truth of Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel’s 

actions, wrongdoing and the benefit conferred from that wrongdoing because Pastor Schaap and 

Mr. Kimmel deliberately concealed the truth of their scheme and omitted material facts from 

Plaintiffs by taking advantage of their positions of trust.

80. While acting as a fiduciary as Plaintiffs’ pastor, Pastor Schaap omitted to inform 

Plaintiffs that he was receiving a 1% commission on the investments he encouraged them to 

make through Mr. Kimmel as the financial advisor employed by Defendant. Pastor Schaap 

equally omitted that he knew, as early as November 2007, that he and Mr. Kimmel, as agents of 

Defendant, should not have been soliciting and encouraging parishioners to purchase the Sure 

Line Investments as they were likely a violation of Indiana law.

81. Mr. Kimmel stood in a position of superior knowledge to Plaintiffs as a seller of 

their Sure Line Investments and as their financial advisor. Plaintiffs reposed trust and confidence 

in Mr. Kimmel in that relationship. 

82. Mr. Kimmel abused that trust and confidence by omitting and deliberately 

concealing material facts from Plaintiffs including that:

a. Mr. Kimmel was receiving a 10% commission on their investments;

b. Pastor Schaap was receiving a 1% commission; 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 18 of 27
Page 19 of 27

c. 25% of investor funds were being taken off the top as soon as their checks 

were handed over to Mr. Kimmel;

d. Sure Line was not actually a two-to-one collateralized investment; and,

e. Investor funds were not being used to invest as represented but were being 

used in a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” scheme in which their funds went to pay 

off previously duped investors.

83. Because Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel, while acting in their capacity as agents 

or apparent agents of Defendant, concealed these facts through deception, Plaintiffs could not 

discover the true nature of the scheme and the harm they had suffered until it was revealed in

testimony under oath at Mr. Kimmel’s trial in June of 2014.

84. Defendant, through its agents Schaap and Kimmel, prevented Plaintiffs from 

obtaining the knowledge necessary to pursue a claim against Defendant.

Count I – Constructive Fraud

85. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 84 above as though 

stated fully herein.

86. At all times relevant, in carrying out their duties, Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel 

acted as the agents or, in the alternative, as apparent agents of Defendant.

87. While acting as Defendant’s agent and in the scope of his employment, Pastor 

Schaap would inform members of the church, including Plaintiffs, during his sermons and other 

church services that Mr. Kimmel was employed by Defendant as a financial advisor for the 

parishioners of the church.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 19 of 27
Page 20 of 27

88. Mr. Kimmel’s actions in providing financial and investment advice, including 

advising Plaintiffs to invest in the Sure Line Investments, were incidental to his duties at First 

Baptist Church. 

89. Mr. Kimmel’s wrongful conduct originated in activities closely associated with 

his work at First Baptist Church and Defendant’s employment of Mr. Kimmel empowered him 

and provided him the opportunity or the means to advise members of the church, including 

Plaintiffs, on the Sure Line Investments.

90. Mr. Kimmel’s advice to Plaintiffs to invest in Sure Line was:

a. Of the same general nature as his duties to provide financial advice, 

counseling on getting out of debt, and investment advice to parishioners; and,

b. Intermingled with, and arising out of, his authorized duties to provide 

financial advice to members of First Baptist Church from his First Baptist 

Church Office.

91. Defendant, through its agents Schaap and Kimmel, owed a duty to Plaintiffs due 

to the relationship between the parties.

92. Pastor Schaap, as a pastor, had a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs and 

Plaintiffs reposed a special trust and confidence in Pastor Schaap. As a result of this trust and 

confidence, Pastor Schaap exercised influence over members of the First Baptist Church, 

including Plaintiffs.

93. Plaintiffs also imposed special trust and confidence in Mr. Kimmel as a Deacon of 

the First Baptist Church and as a financial advisor for members of the church. Due to the trust 

and confidence reposed in Mr. Kimmel by Plaintiffs, Mr. Kimmel enjoyed superiority and 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 20 of 27
Page 21 of 27

influence over Plaintiffs’ decisions to invest in the Sure Line Investments and superior 

knowledge concerning the nature and truth of the Sure Line Investments.

94. Mr. Kimmel and Plaintiffs also had a relationship of seller and buyer in that Mr. 

Kimmel solicited and orchestrated the sales of, and Plaintiffs’ purchases of, the Sure Line 

Investments. Due to Mr. Kimmel’s role as a seller, he had a unique position of knowledge about 

the Sure Line Investments and a position of superiority over Plaintiffs’ relative to the same. 

95. Defendant, through its agents Schaap and Kimmel, violated its duties to Plaintiffs 

by the making of false or material misrepresentations of past or existing facts or by remaining 

silent when a duty to speak existed. 

96. Defendant, through its agent Mr. Kimmel, made misrepresentations to Plaintiff in 

the Sure Line Investment Representations, the Solicitation of the Elwells and the Solicitation of 

the Baldwins identified above.

97. Defendant, through its agents Pastor Schaap and Kimmel remained silent and 

omitted material information from Plaintiffs, including that:

a. Pastor Schaap was receiving a commission on all of their Sure Line 

Investments;

b. Mr. Kimmel was receiving a commission on all of their Sure Line 

Investments;

c. 25% of each investor’s funds were being taken off the top to pay commissions 

as soon as each investor’s check was turned over to Mr. Kimmel;

d. They had been advised that the Sure Line Investments were likely a violation 

of Indiana law; and,

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 21 of 27
Page 22 of 27

e. Mr. Kimmel was not actually licensed to provide financial advisory services 

or act as a seller of securities.

98. Defendant, through its agent Mr. Kimmel, omitted additional material facts and 

remained silent on material facts known to him including that the Sure Line Investments were 

not backed by a two-to-one collateral ratio and that investor funds were not actually being 

invested, but were instead being used in a Ponzi Scheme to pay off other investors.

99. Plaintiffs relied on the actions of Defendant’s agents and the representations and 

omissions of Defendant’s agents in that they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 

Sure Line Investments.

100. Plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of their reliance upon Defendant’s actions, 

representations and omissions.

101. Defendant, through its agents Schaap and Kimmel, gained an advantage to the 

expense of Plaintiffs by receiving large, undisclosed commission payments and kickbacks from 

the Sure Line Investments. Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel even specifically promoted the 

investment as a means to allow parishioners to make more money to be able to provide to First 

Baptist Church.

WHEREFORE, in reliance on the foregoing, Plaintiffs pray this Court enter a judgment 

against Defendant awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and reliance damages in the amount of the 

sums they invested less payments received, punitive damages, fees and costs associated with this 

litigation, pre and post judgment interest, and any and all other relief this Court deems just.

Count II – Fraud

102. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 84 above as though 

stated fully herein.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 22 of 27
Page 23 of 27

103. At all times relevant, in carrying out their duties, Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel 

acted as the agents or, in the alternative, as apparent agents of Defendant.

104. While acting as Defendant’s agent and in the scope of his employment, Pastor 

Schaap would inform members of the church, including Plaintiffs, during his sermons and other 

church services that Mr. Kimmel was employed by Defendant as a financial advisor for the 

parishioners of the church.

105. Mr. Kimmel’s actions in providing financial and investment advice, including 

advising Plaintiffs to invest in the Sure Line Investments, were incidental to his duties at First 

Baptist Church. 

106. Mr. Kimmel’s wrongful conduct originated in activities closely associated with 

his work at First Baptist Church and Defendant’s employment of Mr. Kimmel empowered him 

and provided him the opportunity or the means to advise members of the church, including 

Plaintiffs, on the Sure Line Investments. 

107. Mr. Kimmel’s advice to Plaintiffs to invest in Sure Line was:

a. Of the same general nature as his duties to provide financial advice, 

counseling on getting out of debt, and investment advice to parishioners; and,

b. Intermingled with, and arising out of, his authorized duties to provide 

financial advice to members of First Baptist Church from his First Baptist 

Church Office.

108. Defendant, through its agent Mr. Kimmel, made material misrepresentations of 

past or existing facts that were false, including the Sure Line Investment Representations, the 

Solicitation of the Elwells and the Solicitation of the Baldwins.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 23 of 27
Page 24 of 27

109. Defendant, through its agent Mr. Kimmel, made these statements with knowledge 

or reckless ignorance of their falseness.

110. Defendant, through its agents Pastor Schaap and Mr. Kimmel also omitted 

material facts within their knowledge that were necessary to render other statements made not 

misleading including facts concerning the commissions received; Mr. Kimmel’s licenses and 

qualifications; and, their knowledge that the Sure Line Investments likely stood in violation of 

Indiana law. 

111. Plaintiffs relied on the omissions, false statements and material representations of 

past or existing facts to their detriment and invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Sure 

Line Investments pursuant to the advice of Defendants’ agents, Mr. Kimmel and Pastor Schaap.

112. As a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant’s false statements and 

omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered injury.

WHEREFORE, in reliance on the foregoing, Plaintiffs pray this Court enter a judgment 

against Defendant awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and reliance damages in the amount of the 

sums they invested less payments received, punitive damages, fees and costs associated with this 

litigation, pre and post judgment interest, and any and all other relief this Court deems just.

Count III – in the alternative - Negligent Retention

113. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 84 above as though 

stated fully herein.

114. Defendant, as an employer, had a duty with regard to third persons injured by its 

employees.

115. Defendant hired and retained Mr. Kimmel as an employee, at all times relevant to 

this complaint, to act as Defendant’s employee and agent for the purposes of providing financial 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 24 of 27
Page 25 of 27

advice, debt counseling, budget counseling and investment advice to parishioners of Defendant’s 

church from his First Baptist Church Office.

116. Defendant allowed Mr. Kimmel, in his capacity as Defendant’s employee, to use 

Defendant’s property and provided him an office on that property to teach classes and seminars 

to parishioners regarding financial advice and planning. Defendant knew or had reason to know 

that it could have terminated Mr. Kimmel’s right to use that property at any time and terminate 

his employment. 

117. Defendant knew or had reason to know that it should have exercised control of 

Mr. Kimmel in his role as an employee and prevent him from selling and soliciting the Sure Line 

Investments to parishioners.

118. By no later than November 2007 Defendant, through its agent Pastor Schaap, was 

made aware that the sale of the Sure Line Investments likely stood in violation of Indiana law as 

the improper and unlicensed sale of unregistered securities to unsophisticated investors.

119. Defendant, had it exercised any reasonable diligence, should have known that by 

no later than April 2010, the Alabama Securities Commission issued a Cease and Desist Order 

barring Mr. Kimmel from selling the Sure Line Investments in Alabama as unlicensed and 

unregistered securities. 

120. With knowledge or reason to know of the potential illegality of the sales of the 

Sure Line Investments, Defendant failed to take any action to terminate Mr. Kimmel’s 

employment or request that he stop advising parishioners to invest in the Sure Line Investments 

while acting as an employee of Defendant.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 25 of 27
Page 26 of 27

121. Rather than terminate the relationship, Defendant’s agent, Pastor Schaap, chose to 

continue to allow Mr. Kimmel to act as Defendant’s employee for the purposes of providing 

investment advice, debt counseling and budget counseling to parishioners.

122. While retaining Mr. Kimmel to continue to offer investment advisory services to 

parishioners of First Baptist Church, Defendant, through its agent Pastor Schaap, negligently 

made representations to members of the church that would lead them to believe that Mr. Kimmel 

was certified to provide the type of investment advice he was providing members of the church. 

Pastor Schaap knew, or had reason to know, that Mr. Kimmel did not hold any requisite licenses 

to act as an investment advisor or securities broker.

123. Defendant’s agent, Pastor Schaap, held a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs as 

their Pastor and, while acting in that capacity and as Defendant’s agent, continued to encourage 

parishioners to meet with Mr. Kimmel to receive investment advice after learning in 2007 that 

the Sure Line Investments were likely unlawful. 

124. Defendant’s agent, Pastor Schaap had the authority to terminate Mr. Kimmel at 

any time but chose to retain Mr. Kimmel for the continued sale of the Sure Line Investments.

125. Defendant breached its duties by failing to terminate Mr. Kimmel’s:

a. Employment with Defendant for the purpose of offering financial advice, 

investment advice, debt counseling and budgeting counseling;

b. Right and ability to hold the First Baptist Church Office for the purpose of 

providing financial and investment advice to parishioner’s;

c. Right and ability to teach seminars as Defendant’s employee on Defendant’s 

property concerning investments, including the Sure Line Investments; and,

d. Ability to solicit its parishioner’s to invest in the Sure Line Investments.

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 26 of 27
Page 27 of 27

126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of duty and 

misrepresentations and omissions during those breaches of duty, Plaintiffs suffered harm.

WHEREFORE, in reliance on the foregoing, Plaintiffs pray this Court enter a judgment 

against Defendant awarding Plaintiffs compensatory and reliance damages in the amount of the 

sums they invested less payments received, punitive damages, fees and costs associated with this 

litigation, pre and post judgment interest, and any and all other relief this Court deems just.

Jury Demand

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a 

jury trial on any and all issues triable of right by jury.

Respectfully Submitted this 5th day of May, 2016 by:

Higgins & Burke, P.C.

/s/ John S. Burke

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

John S. Burke

Jordan B. Dorrestein

Higgins & Burke, P.C.

2560 Foxfield Rd. Suite 200

St. Charles, IL 60174

P: (630) 762-9081

F: (630) 762-9084

jburke@higginsandburke.com

jdorrestein@higginsandburke.com

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00158-APR document 1-3 filed 05/05/16 page 27 of 27