Beerys Ruled Ineligible For Work Release Program

By | January 24, 2019
Mug Shots

Former ARBCA church members, Mary and Caleb Beery each plead guilty to two counts of child abuse – Class 6 felonies. They were ordered to report to Pinal County Jail over two months ago, but have successfully avoided doing so. Below is the latest information on their case. There was a telephonic hearing today. Let’s hope the judge has ordered them to report to jail!

Below is a quote from the Sentencing Document:

“It is ordered that the Defendant be incarcerated in the Pinal County Jail for a period of 180 days (FLAT) commencing November 12, 2018 with credit for zero (0) days served.

Defendant will be released on May 11, 2019. Respondent/Defendant is eligible for work release provided that he/she meets the Sheriff Departments’s Work Release Program requirements.” Source document.

As you can see below, according to Rodney States, attorney for the Pinal County Sheriff’s office, the Beerys are not eligible for  the Department’s Work Release Program per A.R.S. 11-459.

[Editorial note: I received a comment today from “Anonymous” which pointed out that my article is in error regarding the reason the Pinal County Sheriff’s office has deemed the Beerys are ineligible to participate in the Work Release Program.  “Anonymous” seems to be informed on this case, and perhaps is an attorney; but at any rate, I failed to recall that the Beerys plead guilty to “CHILD ABUSE, a class 6 undesignated felony, non-dangerous and non-repetitive…”  therefore the statutes I quoted below would not apply to the Beerys.

I apologize for my error, it was not intentional. I strive for the truth in my writings and always welcome comments bringing errors to my attention.]

I know not everyone reads the comments so here is the relevant part of the comment:

“As Rodney States has apparently informed you, [Editor’s note: I have had no contact with Rodney States] the jail refused work release pursuant to its authority under A.R.S. § 11-459, but not pursuant to the prohibitions under subsection B. Rather, the refusal is pursuant to the jail’s authority under that statute to set its own policies for work release programs. The jail had adopted a policy refusing work release to all persons convicted of any crime in which the victim is a child, but had never advised the court or the prosecuting agency of that policy. Neither the prosecutor, the defense, nor the court were aware of this policy when the parties arranged and the court accepted, an agreement with the intent that the jail time should not interfere with the Beerys’ employment. Had you more thoroughly examined the record, you might have learned from the judge’s comments that this has created the same problem not only in this case, but in multiple cases. This is precisely why the court has approved a delay to ensure that the jail time can be served as intended.”

You can read A.R.S. 11-459 here

[Note from Editor – I have removed all the statutes I quoted because they do not apply to this case.]

I say the Beerys have delayed long enough. It is time for them to pay their debt to society – they should be sent to jail immediately to begin their 180 day sentence – with no work release.  I don’t feel it’s attorney States’ job to find possible alternatives that would make the Beerys eligible for the Work Release Program.  Again, I refer to their sentencing document:

“Respondent/Defendant is eligible for work release provided that he/she meets the Sheriff Departments’s Work Release Program requirements.”

The Beerys have been ruled ineligible for the Work Release Program, the case should be closed. But no, the Beerys are now attempting to see if there are “options other than having the Defendants serve their jail terms in Pinal County.”

2019-1-24 Caleb and Mary Be… by on Scribd

Submit Comment

newest oldest
Notify of
What Next?

Jail time must be nearing. May has just posted, “Putting a hold on my business for 6-9 months because of a personal situation. ” above a poster of flowers that says, “When you pause, pause with intention.” Preceded with, “Hope not in your circumstances, hope in the Lord.
What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31.” But this one takes the cake: “I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.”
Isaiah 48:10…”Through floods and flames, if Jesus lead,
I’ll follow where he goes.” – C. H. Spurgeon

Yes, those that create theology upon which to restrict their thoughts end up playing the god that resulted thereof and leading others through the flames of abuse.

Create Lies
Live Lies
Abuse Others

Just Checking

Mary Beery’s Latest FB post:: Dr. Ben Carson: “As a surgeon I have operated on infants pre-birth. I can assure you that they are very much alive. “

“I am pro life.”

The words are on a poster which is a nice color photo of Dr. Ben Carson, not an infant pre or post birth, happy or sad, or wounded.

Thanks for the update. I’ve been meaning to respond to some of your other excellent comments.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


You have a disquieting tendency to draw the worst possible inferences from incidents involving people whom you have set in your crosshairs, and they have often been wildly inaccurate. Almost nothing in this article is accurate, and much is either patently false or grossly misleading.

The Beerys were not ruled ineligible. To the contrary, the Beerys were ruled eligible for work release at the time of sentencing on October 15, 2018. Judges enter rulings. Jails do not. The issue is not that they were ruled ineligible at all; the issue is that the jail refused them. You know this, because you quoted the court’s language directly in your article. Perhaps you intended the word “ruling” to refer to the jail’s refusal, rather than any actual ruling from the judge; but your headline is no less false or misleading for that. Note that the first commenter on your article was actually misled, having responded with the comment, “Brilliant ruling from the judge!!” It does not appear that you have made any effort to correct this person’s misunderstanding.


You also made a direct false claim that the Beerys are statutorily ineligible for work release under A.R.S. § 11-459. Notably, that is not what Rodney States told you; it is your own independent conclusion. Your stated conclusion is that the Beerys fall under A.R.S. § 11-459(B)(3), which prohibits work release for persons convicted of a serious offense as defined under A.R.S. 13-706. Noting that the definition of a “serious offense” in that statute includes any “dangerous crime against children,” you refer to the definition of “dangerous crime against children” under A.R.S. 13-705(Q)(1)(h) and point out that it includes “[c]hild abuse as prescribed in section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1.” Since the Beerys plead guilty to child abuse, you reason, they are guilty of a dangerous crime against children, and are thus ineligible for work release.

But this is false, and you have every reason to know that it is false, because you have read the sentencing document. The Beerys were not convicted of a dangerous crime against children, as you can see plainly from the court’s judgment and sentence. They did not plead guilty to “[c]hild abuse as prescribed in section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1.” The Beerys were convicted of an entirely separate offense in a different subsection of the same statute, as expressly set forth in the judgment and sentence, which you have read and cited repeatedly. The Beerys plead guilty to violating A.R.S. § 13-3623(B)(3), which is not a “dangerous crime against children.” You might notice that this did not require any additional research; it is readily apparent from the research you have already done.


Elsewhere, you have seemed to imply that the jail’s refusal has to do with something that the jail discovered or determined about the Beerys. That is just not true, as you could have discovered with even minimal effort. This is a simple matter. There is a reason why the court has permitted a delay in the jail term, and there is a reason why the prosecutor has not opposed the delay.

As Rodney States has apparently informed you, the jail refused work release pursuant to its authority under A.R.S. § 11-459, but not pursuant to the prohibitions under subsection B. Rather, the refusal is pursuant to the jail’s authority under that statute to set its own policies for work release programs. The jail had adopted a policy refusing work release to all persons convicted of any crime in which the victim is a child, but had never advised the court or the prosecuting agency of that policy.

Neither the prosecutor, the defense, nor the court were aware of this policy when the parties arranged and the court accepted, an agreement with the intent that the jail time should not interfere with the Beerys’ employment. Had you more thoroughly examined the record, you might have learned from the judge’s comments that this has created the same problem not only in this case, but in multiple cases. This is precisely why the court has approved a delay to ensure that the jail time can be served as intended.


I realize you are not lawyers, but you have made a habit of drawing undue inferences on the basis of your ignorance of legal process, and it seems that your tendency is to draw the most negative conceivable inference. This tendency has led you on multiple occasions to publish patently false statements, inferences, and conclusions.

For example, more than once you have drawn inferences from the decision to enter a not guilty plea at arraignment. Presumably you are ignorant of the fact that not guilty pleas are entered at arraignment routinely and automatically by the court.

In addition, you have taken the offense summaries in presentence reports at face value, apparently ignorant that those summaries are grounded not on an analysis of evidence but from the bare allegations as set forth in the original police reports. (There is little excuse for this ignorance, given that the presentence reports generally include that express disclaimer.) Neither police reports nor presentence reports are evidence. They contain allegations. In a case resolved short of trial, the person in the best position to evaluate the entirety of the evidence and its weight is generally the prosecutor. And in the Beerys’ case, the prosecutor stipulated to the following facts, set forth in the plea agreement: “On January 24, 2016, and February 21, 2017, … the Defendant[s] repeatedly spanked the minor victim with a spatula causing the victim’s skin to break and blister. The defendant[s were] criminally negligent in causing these injuries which were not the result of appropriate or reasonable discipline.” You are welcome to have a different “opinion” about what really happened than the parties actually involved in the case, but it must be noted that your opinion is based not on knowledge grounded in evidence, but on speculation grounded in bare allegations.


As an aside, it appears that both you and the Beerys both have several gross misunderstandings regarding what injunctions against harassment are and how they function.

For these and other reasons, if you value the truth, I would suggest that you exercise a modicum of restraint before making assumptions based on legal processes of which you are ignorant.

Hi, is this Doug again? ?

I disagree with your assessment. If you think that I am ignorant about a legal issue, then please explain why, as opposed to demanding that I stop speaking my mind.

I believe that the judge issued injunctions against harrassment against me that clearly did not comply with the law. So do all the legal experts I’ve privately discussed this matter with.

I’ve explained why I am not commenting further about this issue at this time.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


You are correct that the injunction should never have been issued. Injunctions are often sought in situations like this, and judges sometimes issue them, but it was patently improper for the judge to issue an injunction in your case. That much I agree with completely.

I would not suggest that you should refrain from speaking your mind. Only that you exercise restraint in your assumptions and the inferences that you make.

The Beerys were foolish to seek the injunction. The judge was wrong to issue it. You were right to dispute it, and the judge was right to dismiss it, but none of that is necessarily for the reasons that someone unfamiliar with these types of injunctions might assume.

An injunction against harassment should never be issued as a prior restraint on speech. There are other, more proper avenues for dealing with these types of disputes.

The judge had a big conflict of interest. The Beerys knew that. This whole injunction situation is about corruption not ineptitude.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Two of three allegations of the Beerys’ allegations of harrassment against me are demonstrably false. The judge would have known that had he made any attempt to verify the Beerys’ claims during a preliminary hearing.

It now seems to be a distinct possibility that the judge did not even hold preliminary hearings, on the record. If so, he broke the law.

The Beerys submitted their injunction paperwork under penalty of perjury.

Since they lied, I’m going to argue that they are now guilty of perjury. I’m sure you’ll generate some asinine argument as to why I can’t state the truth.

The Beerys were perfectly aware that the judge would sign anything they submitted, because they knew about his conflict of interest.

Perhaps we assume negative things about their intentions, because the Beerys don’t seem to be very good people.

So it appears that you’re working with limited information as well regarding the injunctions. You’re just not bright enough to know that we all work with limited information.


Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Actually, what you said was that I didn’t understand how injunctions work, so should refrain from talking about them because doing so reflected poorly on my integrity.

That was just a personal attack and a lame blanket statement. A middle school debater could have made a better argument.

A trained monkey could also see that the injunctions violate several federal and state laws. The Beerys don’t even cite a blog name or website address, so the judge could not possibly have evaluated their claims pertaining to slander.

They don’t even state what the slanderous statements are, for that matter.

The Beerys also don’t allege harrassment on social media, yet the judge still forbids me from discussing them on social media. The judge was just harrassing me by stomping on my right to Free Speech.

As I said, why don’t you cover Tom Chantry’s next trial publicly under your real name?

Let the world judge your efforts. As you’re clearly on the side of perpetrators, I’m sure that Tom Chantry would love to have you around.

So would I given what the quality of your coverage is likely to be.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

P.S. – the Beerys are potentialy on the hook for any costs or damages I incurred as a result of their slander/perjury if I choose to sue them.

This isn’t some harmless teenage prank they pulled.

Please keep that in mind.

You said that you would grant me that I was right about the Beerys’ ridiculous injunctions being illegitimate.

Why would I care what someone like you thinks about anything?

The Beerys have no grounds to sue for defamation. If they file an illegitimate lawsuit, they can be subject to a SLAAP suit or other type of counter suit.

Plus, the photographic proof that they burned a baby could be subpoenaed. That’s the last thing they want a jury to see.

All the Beerys could do was get a corrupt judge to illegally (in my view) issue injunctions.

You don’t have to worry about being harrassed in that way because you don’t stand behind what you say with your real name.

The general point that several people have made is that the Beerys obviously have no respect for the law, all their faux statements about repentance notwithstanding.

It doesn’t look like you have much respect for the law either.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Mark Shriver

Chan, It was stated that you and this website supported Wartburg Watch, a “ministry” that teaches that Jesus Christ is Michael, the Archangel. For that charge you threatened a friend of mine with a harassment charge against you. So telling truths that you prefer not to hear is harassment to you. This website is a joke and no better than the people set in your crosshairs as anonymous has correctly stated.

This is an edit made at 4:55 PM MST

This is the text from an e-mail I got from your so-called Christian friend, whom you believe I am harrassing because I threatened to report his conduct to his e-mail service provider:

“The Jews have never been Semites you stupid bitch. Try reading your bible…”

Please note that your friend sent this e-mail after I politely asked him to cease corresponding with me anonymously. His e-mails were always unsolicited and unwanted because I could not care less about what other people believe regarding the Archangel Michael. I support the people who run the Warburg Watch, yet am not responsible for its content.

What follows is the text of my original message

I wouldn’t normally approve a comment like this for what should be obvious reasons to any sane person. 😉 The friend I think you’re referring to has repeatedly anonymously harrassed me and others by e-mail. In his second to last e-mail, he called me a “stupid bitch.” I have never called him deragory names. I have also politely asked him to stop sending me e-mails, a request he has not honored.

I did not threaten to file an injunction against this anonymous person. He’s communicating anonymously so that he can’t be held responsible for his actions by the legal justice system. I did threaten to report his behavior to AOL, his e-mail service provider, if it continued.

Your friend has made several hateful comments about Jewish people. It doesn’t sound like you care for Jews very much either.

Have a nice day. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

My apologies. Your friend made many anti-Jewish comments in his e-mails to me and others. You have not. Best, Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

This may come as a surprise to you. I really don’t care what you, “anonymous” the unethical lawyer, or your friend who hates Jews thinks about me. I only care about victims.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Chan, It was stated that you and this website supported Wartburg Watch, a “ministry” that teaches that Jesus Christ is Michael, the Archangel.

Where was this stated? It’s untrue and ridiculous. The Wartburg Watch teaches no such thing.

For that charge you threatened a friend of mine with a harassment charge against you.

That’s not true. I threatened to report his unwanted and abusive e-mails to AOL, his internet service provider. Those e-mails included hateful statements about Jews. Perhaps your friend should post here under his real name instead of hiding behind you. I also very much doubt that you’re using your real name.

This website is a joke and no better than the people set in your crosshairs as anonymous has correctly stated.

Your implied support for people who abuse children speaks for itself. Thanks for reminding me why I do what I do.

Have a nice day being an anonymous troll.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Chan, It was stated that you and this website supported Wartburg Watch, a “ministry” that teaches that Jesus Christ is Michael, the Archangel. For that charge you threatened a friend of mine with a harassment charge against you.

So telling truths that you prefer not to hear is harassment to you.

What you’re describing is not a “truth.” It’s just an idiot’s opinion about a subject I don’t care about. I don’t wander around speculating about whether Superman is really Jesus either. 😉

No, I consider repeatedly receiving unwanted anonymous messages such as the following harrassment.

“The Jews have never been Semites you stupid bitch. Try reading your bible…”

The above is your friend’s idea of a Christian message. He shot off this e-mail after I asked him to cease sending me e-mail messages of any kind. However, even if I knew who your friend was, I would not have strong grounds to file an injunction against harrassment regarding his behavior because I can chuck his e-mails in the spam folder where they don’t bother me. In addition, your friend is not making violent threats.

I believe that the Berrys and the judge in question were willing to abuse the legal system to stomp on the First Amendment rights of other people. I’m not interested in living my life the way they live theirs.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


As I said, judges routinely, and virtually automatically, enter a not guilty plea at arraignment. Because our system, for better or worse, is a system of plea bargains, a not guilty plea at arraignment is an assumed part of the process and the entire system and process are built upon it.

By the time of arraignment, in many courts the case has not even been assigned to a judge. The assigned prosecutor, if there is one, likely has scarcely touched the case. The prosecutor will have a police report, but will not have reviewed the evidence, and police reports frequently contain facts and allegations that simply do not bear out as the case develops. The truth may be far There typically has been no disclosure. The defendant has been informed of the charges, but not the specific factual allegations. The defendant certainly has not yet received a plea offer. Information on both sides is extraordinarily limited.

In the rare case that a defendant might insist on entering a guilty plea at arraignment, the judge would not accept it, and would enter a not guilty plea on the defendant’s behalf.

I have no idea what the Beerys might have said privately, because I do not know them. But there is simply nothing to infer from the entry of a not guilty plea. A not guilty plea tells you nothing.


As I said before regarding police reports and the presentence reports that regurgitate their contents, they are an extraordinarily flimsy basis for forming conclusions. You may be right in assuming that there was more to the story than was indicated in the stipulated factual basis, but that is an assumption. To take the worst interpretation of a police/presentence report at face value is irresponsible at best, and reckless at worst.

For some reason, the prosecutor in this case did, in fact, see fit not only to adopt the stipulated factual basis set forth in the plea agreement, but to amend the charge to a class 6 undesignated offense, which essentially does amount to a misdemeanor plea. Of course plea agreements often involve a reduction in charges, and often the factual basis for the guilty plea is less than what the prosecutor might think really exists.

But rarely is a factual basis set forth in writing in a plea agreement. The fact that it was done here suggests that the prosecutor had a degree of comfort with that version of the story. Moreover, the evidence in this case appears to have been quite strong. If the prosecutor thought that the worst possible version of events was true, given a strong likelihood of conviction at trial, most prosecutors in similar circumstances would have been highly motivated not only to secure a felony conviction, but to see that the defendants were convicted of crimes based on facts that adequately reflected the severity of their actions. For that very reason, the prosecutor in this type of circumstance very likely would have had to obtain approval up the chain for a plea that deviated significantly from standard practice based on the initial charges.

I realize that some of this might sound like inside baseball, but that is my point: you should be far more careful of drawing inferences, especially in the negative, when you are not in a position to know whether they are warranted.


Most people take a dim view of people, like the Beerys, who are confessed felons who have brutally, violently abused a foster baby in their care. If you are a defense attorney being paid to paint that behavior in a positive light, then you’re hardly the unbiased paragon of virtue you appear to think you are, in my view. 😉

Also, Caleb and Mary: if “anonymous” is your defense attorney, then he or she may have harmed you/committed a serious breach of legal ethics by anonymously posting a bunch of confidential information about your case online.

IF you folks are short on cash, perhaps you could sue your attorney. That may pan out better than perjuring yourselves while filing illegitimate injunctions against me. 😉

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

You’ve made a demonstrably false statement about the prosecutor’s intentions, I believe.

You’re also just trying to gaslight people in a fake news type of way.

Of course the prosecutor did not believe the Beerys’ denials. He has a boatload of photographic evidence proving that the Beerys burned a foster baby in their care.

The prosecutor likely only made the Beerys confess to class six felonies within the context of a plea agreement. If the case had gone to court, he would have thrown the book at them. The prosecutor also agreed to drop a charge against the Beerys as part of a plea deal.

In what universe does that mean that the prosecutor believes that the Beerys are innocent of anything?

If the state had such a flimsy case, then why didn’t the Beerys take their chances with a jury?

A class 6 felony is still a felony not a misdemeanor. Stating otherwise is a lie. I’m sure that the Beerys wanted the charges reduced to misdemeanors.

Apparently the prosecutor thought that their violent abuse of a foster child was so bad that they deserved to bear the stigma of being classified as felons.

If the Beerys didn’t want to be labeled as felons, them why did they voluntarily confess to committing felonies?

You are a terrible lawyer. I feel sorry for anyone reduced to hiring you. Any jury will see through your goofy attempts to mislead people.

Regarding your criticism of our integrity, where is your compassion for the baby the Beerys beat the hell out of?

Todd put himself on the line by publicly covering a long trial.

You won’t even sign your real name under a comment on a blog. Good grief.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Would repeatedly and brutally beating a foster baby be less disgusting if the Beerys were not felons?

You appear to have no compassion for abused children, anonymous. Is that morally right?

If the Beerys did not want to be labeled as felons, then they should not have agreed to accept a plea deal that gave them that designation.

The Beerys had every right to a trial by jury, which might have resulted in an aquittal. More likely, it would have resulted in a very long prison sentence and convictions regarding higher level felonies.

I’ve interacted with many bad lawyers. However, I’m really in Alice in Wonderland with you, anonymous.

You want to portray facts as lies even when doing so makes you sound ridiculous.

If you are the Beerys’ lawyer, then perhaps they can claim to be victims of incompetent counsel.

Todd and I are not responsible for the Beerys’ problems. If they hadn’t violently abused a foster baby, then what would there be to write about?

You complain that we’re unforgiving toward people who criminally harm children. Could that be because there’s no evidence that they’re remotely sorry about what they’ve done?

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Okay, you’re entitled to your opinion but not to aggressively make blanket, vague statements anonymously.

Who are you to be presenting yourself as an expert on the law?

Todd’s response to your comment about this article indicates that you have made serious factual mis-statements.

If you want to comment respectfully about specific issues, you’re welcome to comment. Otherwise I suggest that you start your blog or move on to one with lower standards for respectful, intelligent dialogue.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

I just want to reiterate something I’ve said in a different comment. It seems likely that “anonymous” is an attorney for the Beerys.

If so, “anonymous” should be publishing under a real name. Arguably, any attorney offering legal advice (such as that I should not discuss the injunctions the Beerys filed against me) should post under their real names.

I would be happy to discuss this ethical situation with any state bars to which “anonymous” belongs.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

We’re members of the public doing our best to interpret complex legal issues.

Obviously the Beerys’ lawyers will have confidential information about their case, which should not be leaked anonymously on a blog.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

You’re suggesting that the people in the”crosshairs” are innocent parties. Please remember that they are confessed felons who have brutally abused a foster baby in their care.

Also, it has occurred to me that you are likely an attorney for the Beerys. If so, I think you have an ethical obligation to disclose your true identity.

I would be happy to review this situation with any state bars of which you are a member. Thanks.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


I certainly make no suggestion of innocence as to the Beerys or Tom Chantry. I might be inclined to make that suggestion regarding Frank Urquidez and San Tan Reformed Baptist Church. But the question is not one of innocence.

To the extent that all are sinners, nobody in your crosshairs is innocent in the ultimate sense. But some have been innocent of the particular accusations and the harmful suggestions you have levied against them. And even among those who are guilty, to present even their wrongdoing as worse than it truly is, or than the verifiable facts truly support, is not only wrong in itself but diminishes your integrity and credibility.

The truth is, I began following this blog because I was disturbed by the Tom Chantry incident and appreciated your following the story. There is a place for what you presumably want to do with this blog, but only–only–if you do it right, and remain above reproach. You have failed. Even your coverage of Tom Chantry, who of all people deserved far more than what he got, and deserved to get it long ago, has been tinged with sometimes flimsy and unreliable speculation, inference, and hyperbole.

That is not the only issue I have with your blog. You also seem to leave no place for repentance, and less for restoration. But you can start by ensuring that whatever truths you claim on this site are verifiably, reliably true. You are very far from that standard.

Long History

“You also seem to leave no place for repentance, and less for restoration.”
As if exposing legal documents isn’t a valuable thing…people can make their own conclusions. How exactly would such a “place for repentance and… restoration” look? Oh, that’s right, Calvin was first a lawyer, secondly a theologian…when one fails, resort to the other!

By the way, Caleb Beery went out of his way to publicly confess his guilt during Todd’s hearing.

He specifically said that he and Mary were willing to repay their debt to society.

I strongly suspect that Caleb’s voluntary admission of guilt will be admissable in court if the plea bargain falls through.

Maybe you should do some research of your own, buddy.

Relying on personal attacks is a logical fallacy. I don’t like your priorities and inferences either. However, I try not to base my arguments around a bias like that.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Again, you’re just making a bunch of blanket statements. That’s ironic given your supposed interest in facts.

Everyone has to work with limited information. Here’s the difference between you and Todd:

He stands behind what he says with his real name, so accepts responsibility for his actions.

You hide and just take cheap shots at people who advocate for victims.

Here’s the big difference between you and me:

I want people to make up their own minds. You think you know everything despite the fact that you’re working with limited information too.

If you truly want to maintain that you’re more Godly than me and Todd, then why not stand behind what you say with your real name?

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Tom Chantry has a new trial coming up. Perhaps you should cover it.

That would certainly give you a chance to prove that you’re more than an anonymous critic, who takes potshots at people who really do advocate for babies who have beaten to the point where they’ll likely be brutally scarred for life.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

To my knowledge, you have not cited any sources supporting your arguments. You’re welcome to correct me if I’m wrong.

By contrast, Todd posts primary source legal documents on most, if not all, of his most recent articles.

In a different comment you claimed that official police reports should be considered shoddy evidence.

So in other words, legal documents are “fru fru” but people should consider your anonymous, unsubstantiated opinions to be Gospel truth?


Also, even professional journalists make mistakes. Todd and I correct any mis-statements we make.

You certainly haven’t done the same regarding the mis-statements you’ve made in your comments.

Have a nice day, Mr. Integrity. ?

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Propping up people who unapologetically and criminally physically or sexually abuse children is not this blog’s focus.

It’s welcome to be your concern.

There are many anti-victim blogs on the net, which you can frequent.

Plus, I think that we have different ideas about repentance. I believe it needs to be real, not just a statement written by a lawyer.

If perpetrators are sincere, then they should make reparations to their victims.

You can shed crocodile tears for people like the Beerys. I’m focused on victims.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


“I think that we have different ideas about repentance. I believe it needs to be real, not just a statement written by a lawyer.” AND not just a statement written or approved by a pastor…


Perpetrators can also repent in prison. Hitting rock bottom often leads to great introspection.

My real spiritual journey occurred during a major depressive episode in my early twenties. I was the first person to out a family history of severe mental illness.

I’m well now but wasn’t happy about that experience for many years. Now I am glad I had a life event that took me past the natural human tendency to be self centered.

It was a blessing I would never have asked for.

Some people do repent in prison and consider prison a blessing. There’s certainly lots of time to think things through in prison.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Douglas R Belardi

even if the repentance is genuine, it does not negate the consequences
the Bible is replete with men who genuinely repented but endured great and grave consequences
most notably King David

Thanks, Douglas. Obviously I have an unorthodox opinion about the King David story. ?

That is partly because I think that it’s constantly used to abuse and shame victims of child physical or sexual abuse. God loving and forgiving King David has nothing to do with preventing child abuse or other major crimes in 2019.

The United States is not a theocracy. All people are expected to follow the same laws irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Thanks for your support for this blog.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Douglas R Belardi

I actually agree with you
My point is because of David’s sin, even though he truly repented, his sins had temporal consequences
His grave sins of neglect of his children led to the rape/incest of Tamar, the murder of a son, the rebellion and rape of David’s concubines and the and subsequent death of Abasalom
If he had been more diligent in his oversight and rearing of his children, these tragic consequences might have been avoided
I think it is incumbent upon parents today to teach their children (in an age appropriate manner) to ALWAYS tell their parents of any hint of (sexual, physical, emotional and/or spiritual) abuse in schools and churches (and indeed ANY setting) Parents need to be taught to immediately report to the civil authorities (police and DA’s office) any allegations of inaapropriate behaviour by anyone toward their children
Children further need to have their schools, churches and other institutions and/or social groups re-enforce this teacing in an appropriate and transparent way.
If these actions are perpetrated by the parents, the children need to report this to a trusted adult
Under NO circumstance should the disclosure of such events be limited to church’ authorities
Repentance (even if genuine) should NEVER under any circumstance abrogate reporting of inappropriate behaviour (either toward children or adults) to the appropriate civil authorities until such actions are properly adjudicated in the courts

Thanks again for your support, Douglas. Victims appreciate it even if they can’t always comment publicly.

People often accuse advocates for child sexual abuse and physical abuse victims of being out to get people or seeking joy in the suffering of others. I can’t speak for Todd, yet I never feel good even when justice is served. A fair legal verdict can’t change the fact that children were viciously abused and then intimidated into silence, usually in the name of God and the church, regarding the stories which are the focus of this blog.

I never wanted Tom Chantry or the Beerys to bring great misery to themselves, their families, victims, and society in general. I wish that they hadn’t committed the relevant sins and crimes, so people like Todd didn’t have to write about them.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Anonymous Too

Anonymous, seems you have the disquieting tendency to bludgeon innocent bloggers, which just so happens to be the same disquieting tendency of your clients that are so familiar with bludgeoning the flesh off a child’s body. Do you represent Tom Chantry as well?

Thanks for your comment. There’s nothing wrong with posting anonymously, by the way. Most of the time doing so is wise.

It’s just not generally considered ethical for attorneys to post anonymously, to my knowledge. Attorneys are certainly welcome to comment under their real names. Please note that I am not suggesting that you are an attorney.

I’d also like to state the obvious: Mary and Caleb Beery are welcome to post any concerns they have about any content on this blog here.

They don’t need to hide behind others.

They can also e-mail me and Todd privately.

I wish the Beerys had shown up to defend themselves at my hearing about the injunctions they filed against me. Since they made false statements about me, under penalty of perjury, I can certainly understand their cowardice.

Since Todd and I do post under our real names, we have an especially vested interest in publishing truthful information.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Tom Chantry has first-rate lawyers who are probably unlikely to bluster anonymously on the internet.

That strategy rarely helps clients, in my opinion.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


My direct claim was that this blog has tended to draw the worst possible inferences from limited information. That is a tendency that I find disquieting. I outlined several specific instances where that was done, leading to either false or, at the very least, flimsily supported conclusions. If that constitutes a bludgeoning, so be it.

Tom Chantry deserved what he got, and likely worse.

Anonymous Three

I agree with Anonymous on this point (not all points). I am indebted to the blog master and administrators who have kept us informed and flagged Tom’s issue so that it is taken seriously, for a serious crime.

Having said that, I truly worried (concerned) for the administrators that they must be aware of our sinful (remaining sins) tendency to speculate and colour certain things based on our own biases and viewpoints – and may not graciously allow room for justice to take its normal course. I am sure your team is not consciously out to “get the accused” and to “condemn them” outright by our own wisdom and power, but sometimes the posts do sound like that.

I hope this is not a discouragement for the administrator and his team, but as a sincere, loving caution to guard our own hearts and to take care that we do not simply stoke a mob to a frenzy when justice is already working. I am certain that my own heart is given to such tendencies and need to examine and repent of my own presumptuousness. But please continue to balance your investigation with grace, that whatever grace and mercy shown to even the offender may be a comfort and encouragement for the rest of us who are witnesses of these appaling cases that is before men.

Keep up your work. May God help us all.

I am out to expose anyone who violently abuses children to the point that they have to confess to committing felonies. Any decent person should be. I find your implied suggestion that it’s wrong to critcize so-called Christians who violently abuse a baby appalling.

Specifically, child abuse enablers with your mentality seem like an embarrassment to Christianity to me.

Anonymous appears to be a defense attorney who is paid to make child abusers look good.

You’re welcome to agree with him or her about anything. However, suggesting that this person has a Godly, objective perspective is nuts.

Your comment inspires me to continue help victims in any way I can. I doubt that you’ll put yourself on the line to stop child abuse in any context.

You’re not certainly not confident enough about your criticism of me to stand behind it with your real name.

Have a nice day!

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Tom Chantry maintains that he is innocent. By contrast, the Beerys have confessed to committing felonies.

Therefore your suggestion that we are being unfair and unkind to them is ridiculous.

The Beerys claim to have repented, but are doing everything they can to avoid going to prison in a timely fashion, in my view. In my opinion, justice is not being served.

The Beerys also perjured themselves in the course of filing injunctions against harrassment against me. It cost me more than $1000 and a week of my life to fight their slander.

Then they didn’t even show up for the hearing I requested to dispute their perjury. The Beerys have had every opportunity to talk with me and Todd directly as grown-ups.

Why don’t you talk to them about integrity?

You’re certainly coloring their behavior in an interesting way. ? This “everyone is a sinner, so who cares if people violently abuse a baby” mentality gives all Christians a bad name, my friend.

If these folks are repentant and Godly, why aren’t the Beerys defending themselves?

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Boo Hoo

$1000 and a week of your life? Boo Hoo. The targets of your hateful attacks endure costs you can’t imagine. Grow up!

“May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭109:11‬ ‭

This isn’t worth dignifying with an answer, but I’ll do so anyway. The Beerys chose to ruin their own reputations by committing violent felonies regarding an innocent foster baby. However, they and their friends appear to be blaming me and Todd for the effect these crimes have had on their lives.

I can’t logically argue with that level of stupidity and immaturity. No one can.

However, I will say that I have strong grounds to sue the Beerys for the costs I have incurred fighting their perjury/slander.

I don’t think that they or their friends have any respect for the law. That doesn’t mean that they are above the law.

I am trying to show the Beerys grace by not suing them. I also don’t wish to be anywhere near the Beerys in any context, in all honesty.

I do wish that the Beerys would repent of abusing a foster baby so badly that she will likely be physically and emotionally scarred for life.

However, I have little faith that they will do so because they have not been blessed with good friends.

The pro-Beerys commenters here appear to have have no sense of moral decency and the logical reasoning skills of the average 3-year-old.

As I said earlier, I hope that the world can see what victims have to deal with regarding the so-called Christians who are defending people like the Beerys.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Yes, I hope that the Beerys’ victim grows up and sues them for everything they’re worth.

That would be just.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

I changed my mind. I welcome more comments of this nature on this post.

Let the world see what the Beerys and their friends are really like.

Cowards and morons.

Janna L. Chan (blog team members)

Biological Reality

If I am not mistaken, I read in the police report that it was Mary Beery’s own mother who emailed (from Indiana to Arizona) Mary and Caleb’s pastor to alert him of the condition of the foster child. Once the pastor saw the injuries, he reported the couple to child services. Likely Mary’s mother did not want the foster baby to die…or her own daughter to end up in MORE trouble by continuing to abuse the child and lie to the state about her care/abuse

I expect that your relative isn’t very happy with you, Doug.


Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


Great point! If you can’t afford your hobby maybe take up something less expensive!

Trying to protect children from child abusers is not a hobby. It’s just what any decent human being should do.

Keep the asinine comments coming, Beery defenders! You’re making my case far better than I can.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Boo Hoo is a full-time ARBCA pastor. Like the Beerys, he spends much time boo-hooing about how Todd’s coverage of ARBCA-associated atrocities is threatening his employment prospects. Apparently, I should aspire to grow up and be an anonymous troll, who defends child abusers, like the two of you.

That’s definitely not an expensive hobby for Godly, brave “men” like yourselves.

Doug, sending in unpleasant, silly comments won’t change the fact that the skeletons in your closet are falling out. I really don’t think that your relative can help you with any more legal issues.

You might want to consider being lower profile.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Boo Hoo

Whoa — who is this Doug? And as “Friend” said, if you can’t afford your hobby (nice turn of phrase!) then how can you ramp up a legal action against this guy?

Hmmm defaming people as a hobby might get you into same legal hot water! Just saying….

Do you want me to post your full name?

I never said that I couldn’t afford to fight perjury and slander and try to stand up for victims at the same time, did I? I just wonder why people are expecting me to show the Beerys grace given how much money and energy their perjury and slander has cost moi.

I did spend money fighting their/your lame attempt at intimidation after all! I was not obligated to request a hearing in a state that doesn’t make all judges go to law school.

The judge who issued the injunctions against me appears to have no formal legal training apart from attending a school for justices of the peace.

I imagine that the Beery’s just thought that I had no financial resources, and were unpleasantly surprised to discover that I do.

None of that has anything to do with a hobby. By your reasoning, sexual abuse victims should give up their “hobby” of pursuing legal actions against perpetrators if they’re short on cash.

If people really want a cushy job for bottom feeders, they’ll work for ARBCA.

I’m really just pointing out that if the Beerys had integrity and truly believed I harrassed them, then they would have shown up to the hearing I requested. Especially as I went out of my way to meet them on their turf.

Your suggestion that they’re godly victims of mistreatment doesn’t hold much of anything besides cow manure now, does it?

Making fun of a burned baby is also disgusting, dude.

You’re correct, the Beery’s could get in trouble for defaming me and committing perjury, regarding the injunctions they filed against me.

Suggesting that I’m treating them unfairly is very strange. As long as the judge is not corrupt, it should not be costly for me to prevail in a lawsuit. I think I’m being kind by not suing them.

What the Beerys said about my actions is demonstrably factually false, buddy. I could also sue the judge, as he had a pretty big conflict of interest.

You don’t seem to understand how the law works, Doug. You’ve only defamed someone if what you say about them is untrue.

Okay, I guess I’m done approving your comments. You unapologetically support felons who have confessed to violently abusing a foster baby. I get that.

How lucky they are to have a friend like you Boo Hooing for them.

Have a nice day!

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

The Beerys can’t sue us for defamation, because Todd backs up everything he says with excellent sources. Plus, they really are guilty of committing heinous crimes, right?

All they could do was get a judge, who has not attended law school and had a big conflict of interest, help them harrass us.

I wanted them to show up to the hearing, Boo Hoo. Since they perjured themselves when filing the injunctions against me, their cowardice is understandable.

So is my hesitancy to believe that they disagree with your contention that it’s wrong for people to support their victim, despite the Beerys public claim to be repentant.

For nearly eight years, I’ve been doing informal advocacy work for victims of child abuse in churches associated with what I consider to be crime syndicates like ARBCA.

ARBCA definitely takes the proverbial cake regarding evil and stupidity. Child abuse is not the only crime it covers up.

If you guys sue me, then you’ll have to appear in court under your real names and answer difficult questions about how you maintain your lifestyles on your declared salaries. Better to try and get people like the Beerys to take the fall for you instead, right?


Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Are you an ARBCA pastor, Doug? ?If so, I’m not surprised that $1000 means nothing to you.

The little crime syndicate you guys are running compensates you well under and over the table.

I truly understand why you guys hate this blog so much, and I’m humbled and gratified by how much I annoy you.

I suspect that many of you are considering fleeing to non extradition countries.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Hmmm defaming people as a hobby might get you into same legal hot water! Just saying….

I’m not worried about that. If you chicken turds sued me then you’d have to appear in court under your real names. 😉 I don’t think that jury members would like you very much. Much safer to be godly, anonymous trolls.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

I checked. I guess that Doug asked you to cover for him.

There’s nothing to ramp up regarding a lawsuit against the Beery’s. Their illegal behavior is not complex.

Neither is most of ARBCA’S. You’re lucky I’m too busy to start a “hobby” regarding really going after you guys.

Doug, my patience is wearing thin. I’m reaching the point where I’ll disclose your full name and the role you and ARBCA played in getting the relevant injunctions issued.

Since your behavior may have been illegal, that’s probably not something you want me to do.

Of course, you appear to have no self-control. How on earth can you be anyone’s pastor?

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Check your reading comprehension skills. I never said that I couldn’t afford to stand up for my legal rights.

I questioned why I should be showing grace toward people whose perjury/slander cost me time and money.

I think I’m being very gracious by not suing the Beerys to get my money back.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Defending one’s right to free speech is not a hobby either. It’s something you do if you wish to live in a good country, as opposed to a facist regime like ARBCA’S crime syndicate.

Many people could not afford to fight those injunctions. That’s what makes ARBCA’s plot to have them corruptly and illegally issued, in my opinion, such a danger to decent human beings.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Already Booked

And one of the reasons that many cannot afford to fight injunctions is because they “gave at the church” weekly for years. The same reason they haven’t maintained their homes, God’s house came first.

Thanks, I’m not surprised that high level ARBCA pastors and leaders consider $1000 pocket change.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Are the Beerys angry at you for setting them up to be patsies for ARBCA? I may not like the Beerys very much, yet I would never do that to anyone.

During Todd’s hearing, Caleb Berry confessed his guilt and said that he and Mary Beery were willing to repay their debt to society.

That’s all on the public record. If the plea bargain falls through and the case goes to a jury, Caleb’s testimony during Todd’s hearing may be admissable in court.

Any attorney would have strongly discouraged the Beerys from filing those illegitimate injunctions for that reason alone. Did you tell them not to consult a lawyer?

Between you and me, who has really harmed the Beerys?

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

P.S. – Should you be accusing others of being hateful? You’re a sociopath.

Your ARBCA buddies must be terrified about what you’ll do next to further incriminate them.

Fortunately for victims, you have no self control.

Thanks, I am only encouraged by people who anonymously twist scripture to enable child abuse.

It shows the world what victims have to deal with.
Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

If you do bad things, people may color your behavior negatively. God invented the concept of cause and effect. ?

Perhaps the Beerys should have considered that before they chose to violently abuse a foster baby in their care. Or before they tried to stomp on the free speech rights of me and Todd. They certainly haven’t repented of trying to blame us for their problems.

This is Todd’s blog, so I have to run the matter by him of course. However, I think we’re both tired of being told that we’re bad Christians because the Beerys are above criticism as they claim to be Christians.

Does anyone see concrete evidence that they have repented of anything? To me it seems likely that, like most people who commit terrible crimes, they’re just sorry they got caught.

If Todd agrees, I think that this blog will decline to publish any more comments implying that so-called Christian criminals should be treated better than non Christian criminals.

That argument has been made.

Thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


Thanks to you and Todd for the very important work you are doing. I realize that you must spend a lot of time and finances not to mention the mental upheaval it has cost you.

Thanks, Kathleen. Interacting with victims and people sympathetic to them is very gratifying. That more than sets off the expenses and irritations associated with helping maintain this blog.

Certainly I’ve never been molested and then been told it was wrong to call the police, because it’s slanderous to criticize other Christians. Many victims have.

I think that most people should post anonymously. However, it is annoying when men who probably publicly call for traditional gender roles hassle women like me anonymously.

Come on guys. ?

Thanks again, Kathleen.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)


No doubt you are rightfully indignant to the likes of the “Anons” posting here—stay that way!!! they will only try to wear you down with their false flattery as evidenced in the latest effort of the most recent Anon.

As for the Berry’s “repentance” it is a fantasy they hope will stick with those who cannot discern truth from lie. Just because a person claims to have “repented” does not mean that such is the case. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that what they claim as repentance has any resemblance to the effects of godly repentance as described in 2Cor. 7:10 & 11. Where is the “sorrow in a godly manner?” This ‘godly manner’ is light years away from the sorrow of getting caught and having to face the legal consequences. It is the sorrow of restitution, not continued lies of innocence or that of jail time ( they did receive a very lite sentence). How about “diligence” to open yourself to God and actually confess your sins to Him? Diligence to walk right before Him and even with Him as the consequences of your actions play out. Diligence to not try to cover up what you have done. What of “clearing yourselves” Don’t see it, do you? Did they play the ‘accident’ card or the ‘unintentional’ card? That’s the impression I get every time people like this take to whining instead of owning up to their deeds. “Indignation” but to whom is it directed? Those who hold your feet to the fire? Those who rightly scream for justice? The real indignation is toward the sin that dwells within, the deed that was done, the harm that was caused to those who fell the helpless victim of your lust.

“Fear” of what, of whom? Jail? Lost friends? Your position in the church? Why not FEAR GOD? If you had any fear of Him this deed of yours would likely not have gotten past your wicked imagination. Ask the man of 1Cor. 5 what it was like to handed over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, but later was given the gift of repentance from God and ultimately survived.


“Vehement desire” to be freed from the rightful judgment of God on your actions or to hate the sins you have committed and the effect it has on others? Did not Christ set us free from sin? So why desire to stay in them? “Zeal” for what? The vindication afforded you by your lying friends? Or a zeal to do what is right, even to suffer the penalty prescribed for your crime? And lastly we have “Vindication.” Again, from your peers, the legal system, even your victim? Why not turn all your emotion and energy toward yourself, Mr. and Mrs. Berry, being certain that first of all you are indeed born again (your actions and words do not support any contention on your part that you are “saved”). You want vindication? then humble yourselves before God Almighty and seek His Face, perhaps you are indeed one of the elect, perhaps not.

The Scripture describes real repentance, not some pulpit jackal that only seeks to twist and destroy the Word of God by making a person feel good about themselves all the while leaving Christ totally out of the conversation.

Janna, keep up the good work and don’t let some false flattery deter you. People that use this tactic are of the wicked one and are not your friend, nor that of Christ Jesus.

Thanks so much for the supportive, thoughtful comments!

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Searching For Truth

I thought they admitted they were guilty, and willing to pay their debt to society? Just do it already!! Any excuse to drag this out, and for what purpose??
I’m so glad that they won’t be allowed to work. They don’t deserve luxuries of home or life as they knew it. Brilliant ruling from the judge!!

Yes, much evidence indicates that the Beerys are not sorry that they brutally physically abused a foster baby in their care. They’re just sorry they got caught.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Mr. Jesperson

I would say that there is much evidence that many of the ARBCA leaders are also only sorry that they got caught covering up multiple felonies. These men are not Christians in any sense of the word. They are evil men who lust after power over other humans. You will know them by their fruit – JESUS

I agree, thanks. Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

It also appears that a Sheriff of Pinal county does not believe that the Beerys are elgible for the work release program.

I do not think that a judge has ruled on that matter yet. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, I’m not sure why the Beerys’ attorney has requested a telephonic hearing and that his clients be allowed to skip what appears to be a hearing open to the public.

He does not seem to provide any extenuating circumstances that would merit that request.

I suppose it doesn’t hurt to ask.


Janna L. Chan (blog team member)

Searching For Truth

Yes, after re-reading that, I realized that I read it wrong. I’m certainly not a lawyer! Legalese aside, my whole point was that they have skipped out of serving their time long enough, and they should not be allowed any kind of reward.

I agree, and please don’t let lawyers bully you into thinking that non-lawyers don’t have the right to an opinion about legal issues.

Using one’s status as an officer of the court, to harass or intimidate people, is actually considered unethical by many state bar associations.

In my experience, good lawyers don’t have to resort to crude bullying tactics because they can lead with their intelligence and legal acumen. ?

I’m blessed because most of the lawyers I interact with are first- rate professionals.

Many lesser lawyers know very little about the legal issues they pontificate about, by contrast, in my experience.

Going to law school doesn’t automatically make anyone an expert on anything.

I also found it interesting that “anonymous” questioned Todd’s integrity, but expressed no sympathy for the baby that the Beerys have confessed to violently abusing. “Anonymous” has some interesting ethical standards.

Further, I think that there could be more than one reason why the Beerys are unable to quality for the work release program.

Is it possible that they are having trouble finding gainful employment?

I don’t think that anyone wants to bring a baby into the office if either Beery is present.

Probably best not to ask the Beerys to handle any hot water either.

Thanks for your comments.

Janna L. Chan (blog team member)