Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, May 30, 1980
Page 5
and extent to which the Attorney General has gone about wielding his
claimed powers.
Senator Nicholas Petris has authored a bill which would revoke section
9230 of the California Corporations Code. Since the rights and privileges
of individuals are more protected in criminal law than in civil matters,
Petris' bill would limit the Attorney General to the more stringent re
straints of criminal law and divest him of his virtually unlimited power
to harrass and dictate to churches under the civil law.
If passed, Petris' bill does not mean that anyone would then be free to
commit crimes in violation of the criminal laws. What it does mean is
that the Attorney General would then have to proceed to prosecute crim
inally any individuals who are charged with having committed crimes. The
Attorney General would not be free to harrass, disrupt, supervise or
control the churches themselves.
The Petris Bill is scheduled for hearing before the Assembly Judiciary
Committee on June 11. We are attaching the names and addresses of
assemblymen on that Committee. We encourage you to write and ask them to
pass the Bill. Write to as many as you can, but if you can only write to
one, please write to the chairman or the Assemblyman closest to you.
It would appear that the Petris Bill will ultimately benefit our case,
though this is still somewhat of an open question at this point. How
ever, it has been determined that we should encourage backing of the Bill
and pray that it will work to our ultimate benefit.
--Ralph K. Helge, Legal Office
MISQUOTE IN WORLDWIDE NEWS
Mr. Helge has requested that we call your attention to the correction of
a serious typing error in his sermonette which appeared in print on page
4, column 2 of the May 19, 1980 issue of the Worldwide News. The quotatior
referred to criticism of the California Supreme Court:
...because the Supreme Court didn't make its stinking processes
in public.
What Mr. Helge actually stated and what the quotation should have said
was that the Judiciary Commission was improperly accusing the Supreme
Court:
.•.because the Supreme Court didn't make its thinking processes
public.
He then went on to state that the Judicial Commission was guilty of the
very thing they were condemning the Supreme Court for because their pro
ceedings are behind closed doors.
Unfortunately, due to the error, the article erroneously indicated that
Mr. Helge was condemning the Supreme Court of California. It was not his
intent to do so in any way. He asked us to clarify this so as not to
leave any questions, because there is no indication as of this date that
the California Supreme Court has in any way been involved in the improper