Basic HTML Version
PRESS RELEASE- by Mr. Stanley R. Rader
February 7, 1979
I appear before you--an angry man--but supported by the
Living God, the power and glory of Jesus Christ, and the
spiritual resources of His Church.
We have finally discovered the evidence that confirms
without any doubt, that the receiver was appointed because of
flagrant misrepresentations to the Court and, indeed, flagrant
misconduct by the Attorney General, the receiver, the Plaintiff's
Attorneys and the Court, itself.
We are distributing to the press here today and across the
nation a newly discovered reporter's transcript of the secret
proceedings before Judge Pacht on January 2, 1979--secret
proceedings that resulted in the initial appointment of a
receiver and the first restraining order. Judge Pacht's
issuance of these orders has created a presumption of our wrong
doing in the minds of every Judge who has considered the matter
since--resulting in the continual imposition of a receiver despite
no evidence of wrongdoing.
This transcript shows that the would-be receiver, the
Deputy Attorney General and plaintiff's counsel were granted an
informal meeting with Judge Pacht even before any action was filed.
This is contrary to procedure and judicial ethics. When Judge
Pacht expressed his concern about the imposition of a receiver
upon a Church, his concern was overcome by the Deputy Attorney
General's rnisreEresentations that compelling evidence existed
showing that the Churcn was preparing to sell its college in
Big Sandy, Texas for $20,000,000 below its true value.
Judge
Pacht called this the cruncher and told the Deputy Attorney
General and the attorneys for the plaintiffs that he would grant
the application for a receiver if it were filed.
Only after convincing themselves that they had been
successful
in
deluding the court and would obtain its
cooperation did the Deputy Attorney General file the complaint
and application for the imposition of a receiver. Judge Pacht
then rubber-stamped the order appointing Judge Weisrnan--which
order had been previously prepared by the Deputy Attorney General.
When Judge Julius Title reviewed the order to determine if the
receivership should continue, the Church again raised the question
of the apparently nonexistent reporter's transcript and the
Deputy Attorney General did not say a word. F.arlier the court
clerk had stated that there had been no court reporter present,
and, hence no transcript. Notwithstanding the Attorney General's
admission that he had failed to produce any convincing evidence
that Big Sandy was about to be sold for $20,000,000, below it's
real value, Judge Title continued the receivership based upon a