Basic HTML Version
-9-
(9) The court did admonish the receiver to stay out of ecclesias
tical matters, but reserved to itself the determination of what is and
is not ecclesiastical. This clearly is constitutionally impermissible.
New York v. Cathedral Academy, 98 s.ct. 345 (1977)
Since January 12 order, Judge Title and the receiver have violated
constitutional guarantees in a multitude of respects, including the
following:
(1) The receiver hired� disfellowshipped Church member��
Church employee, contrary to Church doctrine that a disfellowshipped
person is barred from Church property; Judge Title upheld this act.
(2) The receiver recalled� communication from Mr. Armstrong to
Church members in which Mr. Armstrong voiced his vehement objections
to the receiver on religious and legal grounds and solicited contri
butions for legal defense; Judge Title upheld this act and stated
that Mr. Armstrong could not solicit defense funds from the Church
membership.
(3) The receiver used� Church ministry list to send a mailgram
misstating a Court order. Judge Title acknowledged the incorrectness
of the�mailgram but stated that receiver,could use Church membership
lists to communicate with church members on "business and financial
matters." This is clearly prohibited by NAACP vs. Alabama, 377 U.S.
288 (1964).
(4) The receiver has filed a motion to suspend Mr. Rader from
all his duties despite Mr. Armstrong's desires to the contrary.
(5) The receiver is spending Church funds contributed for
religious purposes at the rate of $25,000 per week.
In short, virtually ·every constitutional guarantee of both
personal and religious freedom has been violated
QY,
the state and its
court-appointed receiver based upon !!.2. � than allegations��
handful of persons each of whom has�� to grind, especially Garner
Ted Armstrong. That the State should allow itself to be a part of
such a conspiracy is intolerable in any context; when a Church is
involved, it is heinous.
The issue is not, as the California Attorney General attempts
to frame it
,.
one of simple "accountability." Mr. Armstrong, Mr.
Rader and all others working in and for the Church are of course
"accountable" to God and, with respect to Mr. Rader and other employees,
to Mr. Armstrong. Moreover, they are also "accountable" to Church
members in the sense that the members are free to examine their conduct
for themselves and, based on that examination, continue or cease to
donate funds to the Church. By virtue of the Church's extensive
publishing and electronic media activities, its members for years have
known of the activi,ties of which the State now complains-.-That they
have continued to donate in ever-increasing amounts is perhaps the most
persuasive testimony and expression of their faith and trust in the
Church, its Work, and its leadership.