Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, May 9, 1980
Page 13
The State's Overall Contention
The alleged right of the State for an accounting comes from the novel
and dangerous concept that churches are ''charitable trusts." But a trust
has beneficiaries who are the real owners. The State says the benefici
aries of California churches are all the people of the State of California.
The State then argues that the Attorney General represents the bene
ficiaries, the public. Finally they argue that under trust law the
beneficiary has the right to come in and simply ask for an accounting of
the trustees. Thus, by this theory of law the churches therefore have a
duty to account to the public for all money received and expended.
The L.A. Superior Court in the State of California has adopted this
concept in spite of its patent repugnancy to the State and Federal Consti
tutions. We attribute the willingness of certain judges to do so in this
case to their attempt to protect two judges, a politically-oriented pri
vate attorney and a deputy Attorney General who collaborated in the
instituti�n of the case.
Referee Approves Receiver's Expenses
A reteree appointed by the Superior court has recently approved the
receiver's fees, those of his attorneys and certain other expenses which
he incurred in confiscating all Church property. The referee's report
requires the Church to pay $126,966.73 for the receiver's seven weeks
"services,'' of which $49,412.50 was for his personal services. This is
in addition to the $135;066 already taken out of Church coffers by the
receiver for his fees and charges while he was in control of the Church
accounts.
The referee who approved the receiver's fees was appointed by Judge
Julius Title, the same judge who approved the appointment of the receiver
ship over a year ago. It is interesting to note that the referee came
back with findings 100% against the Church and paints the receiver's
efforts as highly laudable. [This is inspite of irreparable damage done
to the Church by means of the receivership!] There was only one excep
tion. He found that the guards that the receiver appointed should not be
compensated in full because he states their security collapsed.
By making this finding, the court-appointed referee justified the Attorney
General in not finding any evidence of wrongdoing by the Church on the
premises, allowing them to argue that all the incriminating material was
stolen. It is interesting to note, however, that these guards hired by
the receiver were the ones who came forth and gave affidavits serving to
substantiate that the testimony given by two of the government's witnesses
was false! Is it possible that this is further evidence of a collaboration
to destroy the Church and its officials in order to protect the Attorney
General and those who collaborated with him?
The referee's report remains to be confirmed by Judge Title of the
Superior Court. We will keep you informed of developments.
The precedent setting actions taken by the California Attorney General
have almost eradicated the First Amendment. All citizens of this state
have suffered the loss of Constitutional rights! Unrestrained, this
trend could spread until government ceases being our servant and becomes
our master and we its slave.
--Ralph K. Helge, Legal Office