Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, May 9, 1980
Page 10
MR. HELGE REPORTS ON RECENT DEVELOP�IBNTS IN COURT CASE
Editor's Note: As our readers will recall, our attorneys have gone to
the United States Supreme Court seeking a hearing in advance of the time
and route our case would normally take to this highest court in the land.
Whether to hear it is a matter solely in the discretion of that court and
not an ordinary right in the process of "appealing to Caesar."
In the intervening time before the high court decides whether to hear our
case early, Church attorneys also requested that the U.S. Supreme Court
prevent the transfer of some 7000 Church documents from the care of Judge
Johnson's court to the California Attorney General. Supreme Court Justice
Rehnquist turned that request down. Mr. Helge talks about this matter
and then updates us on his own request to be personally dropped from the
case because of no evidence against him. Finally, Mr. Helge tells us
about the latest and most absurd development concerning the receiver's
fees.
Here now is his report:
Turnover of Internal Church Documents
The California courts, and now most recently the U.S. Supreme Court, have
refused to hear applications for stays [orders to halt judicial proce edings)
that would have prevented the turnover of 7,000 internal confidential
Church documents to the Attorney General of California. The State's con
cept is that the Church's financial affairs have nothing to do with their
ecclesiastical affairs. Hence, according to their theory, when the State
reviews the financial expenditures of the Church it is not in any way
interfering with the Church's ecclesiastical mission.
Some have argued "why shouldn't the State be able to look?" To answer
that question all you need to do is ask yourself "for what reason?" and
"under what authority?" is the State looking. The answer is, they're
looking because they say they have the absolute right to determine the
propriety of the expenditures. In other words, the Church may feel that
an expenditure is doctrinallv ann ThPnloaicallv approoriarP �nd ��orPr.
and perhaps mandatory. The State, on the other hand, claims that it has
the absolute right, in serving the "beneficiary" of churches, the public,
to determine if the expenditure was improper--perhaps even a crime.
For example, in the present case, the Articles of Incorporation of the
Church provide that the corporate purpose is "to preach the gospel of
Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, to all the world as a witness."
Now we are seeing men of alien faith who do not even believe in Jesus
Christ as the Messiah, who are going to judge whether or not the money
was expended by the Church to fulfill that purpose.
The satisfaction of the members (who contributed the money) with the
manner in which the funds were expended is immaterial. The State says
the members have no rights in the matter.
(The California courts denied
our members the right to intervene in the case.
In fact, the Attorney
General claims he represents the Church corporation and the financial
interests of the Church members against the Church leaders, even though
the Church members have made it clear over and over again that they do
not want the Attorney General representing them.)