Basic HTML Version
An Open Letter
to Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge
JerryPacht
0
co
• O'I
..--i
O
N ,JAN.
2, 1979, you signed
an order appointing a re
ceiver to take possession of the
WorldwideChurch ofGod.
Civil libertarians, constitutional
authorities and Church members
alih are appalled by your unprec·
edented action under which the
Church has suffered enormous
damages.
Distressinx also llre tht> stran�e and
questionable circumstances under
which you signed the order-which ra�t
shadows of suspicion on the integrity
ol
the judlcla\ system
WHY COURT Rl:LES
IGNORED?
According to court documents Hillel Chodos.
a pri.,ate- attorney (repriewnting six dissidll!'nt
former Church members unhappy with Church
policyl actin1 in coneert with Deputy Attorol!'Y
General Lawrence Tapper, telephoned you on
the mornina of Jan ' 2 s.t.atlng he would he in
court that afternoon for an eox parte hearing
You suggested he !H'nd over his proposed plead
ings for your study
That afternoon 1n your cha.m�rs you mPt
with Mr. Chodos and his usoc1atH. Mr. TapJWr
and t-Z·Jud1, Sttven Welsman to conaidtr
appoi11tint1 Wei1man re-ceivtr ove,r the World
wide Church of God. The Church was not
repre,sented and kne-w nothing about that seerd
hHrmg. And the caseh•d not n,e,n bt>e,n uffidaJ
ly tilit1t.
Whv, Judge Pacht, did you not enforce your
own cuurt's ru!.,. u:htch requlres that deferuiants
must bP notJ/if'd prior to any suchhParin1 so thi!')I
may dl!'fend their interett.
?
The Church would
have introduced e\lidence to controvut all the
information yol.lwere 1i\len. lt wu furni.ahed only
on "informat)on and belier·-not 1ub.tantiate-d
byevidence.
And why, Jud,-e Pacht. did you not enforce
ymir court'• ruM that a suit "'u,t bt- fil�d and.
the /�H paid •roa �,n, <'On$1der,d by a
j udae? Accordlnc to the report.r's tranacript
Mr. Chodm 1Llted at the outae-t:
·'Yourhonor, I 1qnted to interrupt just ta
stale !Ott lbe rword. a copy of the propot.ed
pleadi.... WM fun,ithed to yc,u thi1 mornin1
'J'he,oricinal Iii in my briefca1t. It hu not yet
hHn fii.d. but we an prepared to file it and P•Y
the necaeeary fw •C any moment. Et it. juat th•t
we did not w•nt a public filin1 before comin1 t o
�you..
Why, Jud1t Pacht.were thewmen to ani:iout
to h1n� you ht'ar tht'ir complamt bt'fort' it wa•
filed? Were the-y timp\y lookini for a �')'mpa
thetic judfe before filin," Had you turne-d down
their request would they have shopped around
for anoth�r judc"" Why did you not tt-H tht<-m to
fife their C&N fir1t , thn have it aui1ned to a
jud1e accordin1 to normal procedures. im1tead of
c:1rcumventln1 the rule. by ch.
001tn1 thelr own
jud1e .nd 1etbn1 a ruhna before filint"
Meun. Tapper •nd Chod°" 11ttempted to
convince you it wu urgent for you to act
immediately. They alleged. the Church wu Mil·
ing ita propertiea below market v•lue and 1hred.
din1 ita financial record, and th.•t you nttded I.D
intervene immediately.
H th�, {'@\{ th�n �"-'"- '>\l(h m�fclW\ wt\\ rl1d
thoev ""·ait more than a ""'t't'k afr,er rn<1k1nt,: ,ip
th,e1r cumplaint hefntP ('<Jmln� to n•urt till thl: '
ven.· first da\ ' \'r1u w,erp !>iltinj! 1n the ll,eparl
ment ,>f Writ� and Rt>ee1\·,r!".·> Whv didn ' t v<>u
ask them"
Rece1\iership is perhaps the mo,;t drastic rem
edy known 1n 1he law-alm11!'.I ne\,er 1mpu,;ed e,
parte. Yet vuu nut onh· 1mpo!>ed It e, partoe. ,..·nu
allowed the hearirq,;
111
take plac" w1thm.
1\ not\(t"
before the call.P was f'\'l'n tiled. contra,., , tu crjur1
rules. We ask ,.·ou lo f'Xpla1n whv
WHY PAPERS
""BARELY SKIMMED"?
,t\nd why. 'ilnCe you were imposn1" ;;ul'h a
dr8'tl<' temedy didn't you take time to carefully
re"1.:ie"' the data ynu were Riven in advance" Thoe
transcript Quotn vnu st•tln11. '"1 am concerne-0
about the ex pute nature of the prt)('ttding1.
and tht' rather ms1est1c order which would flow
from thtte procee-dmJS without a hearin11: ··
But then you went ahead and made- the
requested rulinl{ anyway Why the ru�h. the
s.crecy, lhe w1i,:ing o( court rules
7
And why did yuu make such • swt-epini rulin1
with such little !ltudy of the facts" You are
quoted st.ating: ··J have read the dedaration1
pretty carefully The rest of the matters, and
some of the supportln1 data, obvioue.ly, in the
length of time afforded to me, I have bare-ly
!kimmM through; some of the fin•nc:ial mst
te-rs
I have Just glanced at: obviou!lly, I
haven ' t di1e1oted thos,e in •ny form." Ye-t theslP'
financial mattera are alleted to be the heart of
the case'
We aak is it customary in your courtroom (or
you to htar suita before they are filed, without
notifying the other party and without carefully
weighin(t'. end dige'!tin1 all the f•cl.9
?
WHY EX-JUDGE WEISMAN?
A receiver is suppowd to be an impartial.
neutral party who will pfKeNe tht' lr.ternts l)(
all sidPS. Why, then, did you appoint Stevtn
Wti.1.man u rece\'llet t� takt�\()n o{ the
Church ' ) He wu invit� to that hearin1 by the
side that w.s pre!llmC the action 11nd u9in1 all
thOlle' unu11ual 1..tct1ca that violau,d your court'•
rulies. And didn't you think it odd that .>hortly
•ft.er you appoinud him, Wei1man •Pf10inted
the Chodoe. brothers aa deputy receilw'el"I and
permitu-d them to rummqe at wiU throu1h
Church records and property while denyinl'
Church personMI acceu to their own 01fiee1-
hardly a neutral and fair·handed stance
')
The Worldwide Church of Goel it a Chri1ti1n
Church con11i1tently proclaimin1 the Cos�l of
JeaUI Chri1t, the mffMle of Hi.I return from
ht,nf>n ,,, r,ilta c1ll nation� in this j(eneration, I.O
,111 thta ""'"rid ,1-. ,I ll.·1tness !n su doin,i: 1t e1pend1
1 �mcill part ..t 11� resources to �end its Apostle
c1r"unrl 1h1:" \A.<>r1d ,1s1l11'\ll heads \)f state and
h,,lrlin� m<"Pt1nl,!, --expefldl!Utf'S the attorne}'
l!Yrwral ,f'em,; t" trnd 11h
1
e-ct1onable
\\ h, .. lw1�t l'arhl.did you choose to appoint
a m,nml'mhf'r 1u "f>erate- rhis Chm1t1an Church
"'
H,,""· n,uld
\r,11
e-ii:pl"lt hirn lo he underst.111tnd1ng
and �,mpa!hf ' t1c lo the- Churrh'!\ Work" We
�i,ndt ' r 1! �,,mr,,n,e, 11,·a;1 try1n11 to ruin thf'
('h11r..h 1hen·h· nes .
lmg a \ , rn,:tklo' and lucra
l1\·e re1t'1,.-r-,hq; while the Church's cons1d
nablt> a...,....,� wnf' d1spostd
:-iinct' \\ ' t>1�rnan had never he.en a receiVE't
l>e-(ure<. wh\ did \11{1 thmJc he was qua}i!i�d to
take nintrul <>fan SRO million Churl'.'h operat10n
')
The ren,rd dtJe!ln·1 1nd 1rate- that \o·ou ieoven
1r,4u1red about his 4ualihrat1uns. Within wttlu1
aflf'r h1.,. Urt\·aL the Churrh''!. prt>V\OU�ly \m�.
l'a\,\e, nl·d1t rallnl( end t'red"•t relatwn!lhtps with
nur hank,; had h4>en ruined: a million dollan of
i hf'rh had needle;.sl,. l,,:1un!'e,d; hundreds
of
.... -u1,,""'" find i,thf'rs recoei�·in,: their income from
thf' Churrh rouldn"t ca sh their checks and
<iutfered d1tf1ct.1lties with personal credil. Tht
Churd1 would �ureh ha\·e been bankrupted had
llnl its per;;unnel shifted buatneu operation!. to
.
\.nwna and paid thtc bills frnm there. ou\.s1dtc
_vqur rieoce-ivefs rnntrol. Why did yn\l saddle the
Church with su<.'h a rece-1vieor, under 5U<'h strana:e
nrcumqances·
1
WHY RIJLE BEFORE
Sl.'IT FILED?
At the dPse lif that fateful hearing on .Jsn. 2,
1979, yuu state-don the record. ''I think whu I
have indicated is what 1 . ,,.in !>i.gn H soon as tht
appropriately tiled pepers are prHentrM to me
And we'll !'.f't down your order, appoint Judie
Weisman.. ··
After discussinK a return date. you com.
mente-d, "'fou �tter gret it file-d." Mr Chod°'
then ashd t.o IJSf' your table, out.sidl! to pr�pue
the papers and return 1hem for si1nature, aF1d
you rl!"Spondred. "l wi.U be he-re, l am &orry lO
say
WHO WILL f;NFORCE
THE RULES?
.Judge Pacht. since both you and Mr. Chodoa
are fellow mem�rs of California'• Commission
on .Judi<.'i•I Performance -charged with ovu
SIPeirig the conduct of C•lifornia JUdltt, even
t,umlnin1 the C,lifornia Supreme Court. don't
you think you ov.-e us an explanation for permit
ting
thrt!lt' breeches of eourt rufe
7
Why did you
grant Mr. Chodot and auoc1alfl11 such treat
ment
.,
Why did you hur their cue before the:11
filed" Why did you appoint their handpicked
r"'1:eiver without notice to the Church at •II and
without even cutfully studyin, the evidence�
Your order ha.s helped propel thieo attorne:11
general 's cue throuflfthe early stagH of liti1• ·
lion without eviden<:e.Your otdu h.u �1. tkt.
Church enormou1ly u .,,11 u blackenin1 our
name. We aak why, if there wu any real cue
against us, you didn·t uphold court rules, Jive
notice and let thit; matter befin accord.inc to
proper procedurea? We, and tMpublie, have the
ri1ht to know. What do you say ' ?
�R4
STAl'ILll' R.RADH
Tre..urer
Worldwide Church of God
If you would like a free copy of the court reporter'• �omplett tr•naeript of the
proceedin11 Jan. 2, 1979. write the Wotldwide Chur<:h .-.f God, Pauden•. C•lif ..
91123, or c•II toll frff. (8{X)) 423-444' [n California caU collect (213) 577·5225
Page 9