Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, April 18, 1980
Page 4
to go back and redraft his pleadings. So that is what he
is
in the
process of doing now. That's the pleadings insofar as trying to hold us
in contempt of court or have the court impose other sanctions against us.
Some of these sanctions, of course, could
be
the striking of the answers,
the holding of us in contempt of court, the imposition of fines--penal
ties of that nature.
The Superior Court judge has also instructed the Attorney General to get
together with one of our attorneys, Allan Browne, to arrive at dates.
Dates on which the information that they have demanded would be turned
over. Now, this is contingent upon the U.S. Supreme Court acting upon
certain petitions that are pending before it. If the U.S. Supreme Court
decides to hear the matters, then the court is not going to require the
turnover of these documents. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides
not to hear the matter at this time, then the court is going to have every
thing set to impose sanctions or penalties upon the Church.
Insofar as the appeals in the state courts are concerned, we do have
before the State Appellate Court an appeal pending that concerns the
appointment of the receiver. All the times prior to this, matters were
taken up by writs, and a writ means, in effect, that the court does not
have to hear it and that is what has been denied in the past. In other
words, never has the court, in the past, sat down, read and heard the
evidence and the facts regarding the receiver. I express this because
just last night on TV, they erroneously said that many courts had heard
the facts about the receiver and more or less turned us down. That is
untrue. Now for the first time an appeal is going up on that point and
the court must hear it.
Now in the federal courts, we have had cases there that have been
"dismissed." They've been dismissed on the grounds that the Attorney
General has immunity. Not that we were wrong or the State was right.
But they have pleaded an absolute immunity in what they do. In other
words, regardless of what wrong the State has committed, under certain
federal court decisions you cannot sue the State or its agents. What
they are saying, in effect, is they can give a madman a gun and let him
go out and you can do nothing but hide, in an attempt to protect your
self. So, again,those matters have not been fully heard by the federal
court but have been dismissed. They are now pending in the Federal
Court of Appeal. That is where the case is at this time and we are
now preparing briefs to be heard in the Federal Court of Appeals on this
question.
In the U.S. Supreme Court there is a petition pending there, a petition
which is in effect asking the court, please hear this question in which
the State Court has instructed us to turn over innumerable documents to
the State--confidential documents; documents of Church minutes that go
back for 20 to 30 years. Minutes that the State has contended never
existed because they say the board has never met. Even in the face
of these lies by the State they still came in and requested these
documents, as well as a great deal of confidential information about
members (members in the field), at least a partial membership list and
other such items which the Church is resisting and not desirous of giving
to them so as to protect First Amendment freedoms in this country. This
petition in the U.S. Supreme Court has been prepared by Laurence Tribe,
constitutional law expert from Harvard University. He has told me "There