What specific internal investigation documents from Harvest Christian Fellowship (2004) have been filed or produced in court filings?

1. The core claim: a 2004 inspection was conducted and its results delivered to Harvest leadership

Multiple plaintiff complaints and contemporaneous reporting state that a team led by pastor Steve Quarles inspected Havsgaard’s operations in October 2004 and that missions pastor Richard Schutte received the inspection’s results in November 2004 ^{[1] [3] [5]}. The lawsuits present that this inspection was triggered by American missionaries’ concerns and that its outcome was communicated to Harvest decision‑makers who continued to provide funding afterward ^{[6] [5]}.

2. How the 2004 investigation is described in the court filings

The complaints characterize the inspection as an “audit” or “inspection” that produced findings described by plaintiffs as “conclusive evidence” that Havsgaard was sexually abusing children and misappropriating money “on a shocking scale” ^{[2] [7]}. Those characterizations are quoted in news summaries and in the complaints themselves, which allege Harvest was told of “awful accusations” in 2004 and did not remove or report Havsgaard promptly ^{[5] [8]}.

3. What specific internal documents have been filed or produced in court filings so far

Available reporting and the complaint PDFs archived online (multiple complaints filed in September–November 2025) prominently reference the 2004 inspection and its results, but none of the public news summaries or the complaint snippets in the sources clearly show the full internal investigation report itself as an exhibit attached to the complaints accessible in these sources ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Plaintiffs’ counsel (McAllister Olivarius) has filed numerous complaints alleging a 2004 internal inquiry and its results ^[4], and the complaints narrate the existence and content of that inquiry, but the sources reviewed do not document production of the original Harvest internal report into the public docket or press accounts available here.

4. Harvest’s stated response and prosecutorial corroboration (or lack thereof)

Harvest has publicly called the allegations “serious and disturbing” while denying knowingly covering up abuse, and Harvest’s representatives stated the church reported allegations to authorities and would cooperate with investigations; at least one report notes Riverside Police said they had no active investigation into Havsgaard ^{[7] [6]}. Those statements are recorded in news coverage of the filings but do not, in the cited materials, point to the public filing of Harvest’s internal 2004 documents or to independent law‑enforcement production of the internal report on the public record ^{[7] [6]}.

5. The evidentiary gap and what the public filings currently show versus what remains to be produced

Plaintiffs’ federal complaints repeatedly reference the 2004 inspection, its findings, who was informed (naming Schutte and others), and the church’s alleged failure to act, establishing the investigation’s centrality to the claims ^{[1] [3] [2]}. However, based on the reporting and the complaint extracts available in the provided sources, there is no clear public listing here of the internal-investigation report or raw documents from Harvest attached to those complaints; whether the report has been produced in discovery to defendants, sealed, or otherwise exists in the court record beyond plaintiffs’ narrative is not shown in these sources ^{[1] [4]}. Plaintiffs allege concrete documentary findings; to confirm precisely which internal documents have been produced or filed, access to the full PACER docket entries, exhibits, or discovery logs — which are not present in the cited reporting — will be required.