Basic HTML Version
-5-
which the Attorney General would be given. Moreover, although the
Receiver's auditors have been examining the Church's books and records
for nearly eight weeks and expended thousands of dollars of Church
funds in their review of Church records, there has been no evidence
of wrongdoing or misappropriation of funds as fraudulently alleged
in
the complaint."
Still at the Procedural Stage
At the present time we are at the procedural stage of the lawsuit.
In spite of the continuing frantic and slanderous charges leveled
at us in the hearings by deputized attorney Chodos, there is no
trial of the facts in this particular forum. The judge is not ruling
in favor or opposition to those facts. Facts will be separated from
accusations only when the trial begins (if indeed it does) at some
point in the future.
Mr. Rader assured the press that at this point the Church will do
everything it can via judicial means to protect its rights which have
been violated in this heavy-handed and extraordinary action which
began first through the receiver and then the court order.
A Classic Church-State Confrontation
It is clear that ·God's Church is engaged in a classic first amend
ment confrontation of church and state. We have been saying this
from the beginning. Mr. Warren Abbott, Assistant Attorney General
in charge of overseeing charitable trusts, was quoted in a Los Angeles
Times article concerning our case. He said, "Let's find out what the
law is. We'd like a decision on whether 9505 (the section of the
state Corporation Code that empowers the attorney general to oversee
charitable trusts) does apply to churches." This is an admission
by the Attorney General's office that they want to see if the state
does have the right to examine, supervise and control churches!
We have been receiving offers of help from other religious groups.
This is because this very obvious threat to freedom of religion in
California could set a serious precedent for future actions by the
State Attorney General, Mr. Rader said. However, there is a time and
a place for these people to make their stand. We already have one
amicus curiae brief in the California Supreme Court. When we have
a
petition for a hearing granted by the Supreme Court, he indicated
others may very well jump in at that time. But none want to argue
this matter before Judge Title. Apparently he doesn't want to con
cern himself with the Constitution, as he plainly indicated again
March 1 when he told our attorneys he "didn't want to talk about
Constitutional rights." So we mus.t first have a forum where there
are people who are responsive to the arguments that are being made
where the first amendment means something. It means something,
generally speaking, when you go up above the lower courts.
According to Mr. Rader, twenty years from now we'll all look back
and realize that this was much more important than a clash between
individuals or business entities.
This truly is a classic con
frontation between a sovereign state and a church. And the issues,