Basic HTML Version
-5-
these charges and their lack of merit will be discussed later in this
memorandum. Among this small group of dissidents were (a) Alvin and
Shirley Timmons, supporters of Garner Ted Armstrong to the point that
Mrs. Timmons had at a Church convocation attempted to persuade Church
members to leave the Church and join Garner Ted Armstrong's organization;
(b) David Morgan, a former Church employee fired for not being able to
get along with his fellow employees; and (c) Benjamin Chapman, who is
married to Garner Ted Armstrong's secretary and the widow of Garner
Ted Armstrong's brother. ThrougP Mr. Chodos or upon his advice, this
group met with repres·entatives of the California State Attorney General's
office presumably including Deputy Attorney General Lawrence R. Tapper,
who is in charge of the case. In addition to former members, apparently
a small number of dissident active members also participated in these
meetings, including C. Wayne Cole, the Church's Director of Pastoral
Administration who, Qfter Garner Ted Armstrong was disfellowshipped,
was viewed� many,no doubt including himself, as the likely successor
to Herbert�-
Armstrong. In an attempt to clothe their plot with an
aura of respectability, this group prevailed upon the Attorney General's
office and, based upon the same trumped-up charges, obtained leave to
sue on the State's behalf. For its part, the Attorney General's office
did nothing� way of investigation to verify these charges before
lendiJlg its� to an attempt (thus far successful) to put the Church,
� religious institution of long standing and high regard, in receiver
ship, despite the authority given to the Attorney General� the
California Corporations Code to examine books and records of chari-
table trusts to investigate alleged improprieties. In a further
attempt to gain respectability, Mr. Chodos �and-picked Steven s.
Weisman, a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge whom (and whose
family) Mr. Chodos previously had represented, as the receiver to be
imposed on the Church.
On January 2, 1979, the State of California ex rel the dissidents
(termed "relaters") filed its complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court,
seeking an accounting, the replacement of Church trustees and directors
with a new set, a receivership, and an injunction. Almost every
charging allegation of the complaint is
Q.!!_
"information and belief,"
i.e., not personally known to the State or the relaters but, rather,
based upon inadmissible and untrue hearsay, conclusion, speculation,
and opinion. On that day, Mr. Chodos also filed accompanying affi
davits from some of the relaters and others (including Mr. Chapman, who
apparently chose not to be named as a relater), all of which contained
the· same i�issible hearsay, speculation, etc. Mr. Chodos then
appeared, ,li·th these papers, before Judge Jerry Pacht ex parte (i.e.
unilateral
and with absolutely no notice whatsoever to the Church
or its lea
-noteven the telephone notice required by local court
rules--somehow persuaded Judge Pacht to impose � receivership on the
Church without � giving the Church, Mr. Armstrong, or Mr. Rader an
opportunity to be heard in their defense. This action was virtually
unprecedented and constitutes the most blatant violation of the separa
tion of Church and State which the Constitution guarantees.
The next day (January 3}, armed with an all-encompassing order
saying virtually "do what you want" until a full hearing set for January
10, the receiver, as noted at the outset, descended upon the Church.
In a complete state of shock, the Church employees understandably and