Less than three weeks after being sued for defrauding two former parishioners of $600,000, a Florida preacher dropped his $50 million lawsuit alleging the Bill Maher documentary “Religulous” falsely portrayed him as a charlatan, On Point has learned.

Rev. Jeremiah Cummings

Rev. Jeremiah Cummings filed a court document June 19 in which he voluntarily dismissed his claims against Lionsgate Corp. (NYSE: LGF), the distributor of “Religulous.” Since he had rejected a settlement offer from Lionsgate in May, there is a strong probability that the filing of the fraud action June 1 motivated the dismissal.

The two former parishioners -- Elsie Carter and Rodney Daryl-Jones –- certainly did Maher a favor by accusing Cummings of deceiving them into making $600,000 in contributions to the Amazing Life World Outreach Church in Raleigh, N.C., which he pocketed for himself. Cummings built the church “on a foundation of lies, deception and greed,” the complaint said.

In “Religulous,” Maher poked fun at Cummings' expensive suit and lizard shoes, contrasting his attire with the humility of Jesus. The minister stutters when Maher challenges him with the Biblical quotation, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Cummings, who was representing himself, alleged in his defamation suit that he was duped into agreeing to be interviewed by Maher and that the film distorted his “true character ...  before millions of viewers for laughs.” With Carter and Daryl-Jones portraying Cummings in their fraud and racketeering suit as a latter-day Elmer Gantry, Maher appears to have had the last laugh.

“Defendant Cummings ... took advantage of his position as pastor in order to financially and economically better himself at the expense of Plaintiffs and other members of the church,” Carter and Daryl-Jones said. The suit also alleged immoral behavior by Cummings, including the wooing of female parishioners to support his “exorbitant need for money and material things.”

Cummings' dismissal of the Lionsgate case means he avoids potential liability for the defense's legal costs. He could not be reached for comment.

By Matthew Heller
7/1/09