Basic HTML Version
filed by six former members of the Church. Supported
only by unproven and erroneous allegations concerning
financial misconduct, these dissidents filed their
complaint with the Deputy Attorney General only after they
had received assurances from a judge that their action
would result in the paralyzing receivership.
The action was blatantly illegal; charges against
the Church or any of its officers had not even been filed!
Even after the filing of the so-called "charges,"
due process of law was denied the Church, as the
plaintiffs sought and were granted moves to place the
Church in receivership without a representative of the
Church present at the proceedings; the takeover of Church
property was enacted without even the four hour notice
to be given in cases of severe emergency.
The State joined the dissidents in their effort to
take over the control of the Church, its financial
resources, its physical plant and its activities worldwide--
thereby negating its rights guaranteed by the Constitution
of the United States of America!
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE
During the two-months term of the receivership the
Church has lost $5.3 million in working capital. In
addition, normal bank credit lines were curtailed and
$1.3 million in demand notes were called.
The first six weeks saw almost daily press, radio
and TV coverage emphasizing the allegations rather than
the facts. This resulted in irreparable damage to the
Church's moral reputation and its civic and legal
credibility.
In the same period of time, the Receiver nor any
of his staff have been able to prove, through audit or
investigation, any wrongdoing on the part of either Herbert
W. Armstrong or Stanley Rader.
To add insult to injury, the Receiver (who had been
admonished by the judge to stay out of ecclesiastical
affairs) intervened by stopping the mailing of a letter
from Mr. Armstrong to the members of the Church.
He then sent his own letter to the ministry of the
Church around the world saying anyone sending contributions
directly to Mr. Armstrong would be in contempt of court
in California, even if the giver lived outside state
boundaries.
LOWER COURTS INSENSITIVE
Historically, lower courts (local and state) have
been insensitive to the constitutional rights of people.