Basic HTML Version
-6-
criminal proceeding instead of the civil proceeding that it is. "The
absurdity of this tactic is patent!" he exclaimed, "since the deposition
had already been in progress for more than one day without any such
warnings by the Attorney General. Clearly it was an attempt to retaliate
and intimidate me based upon a vindictive motive, having been caught con
cealing the stolen documents proving the innocence of everyone. This
outrageous conduct resulted in my leaving the deposition during the
second day of examination."
Special Investigation Needed
Since Mr. Rader did not believe that the Church could allow "This raw
arrogance of power to continue," he expressed the need for a special
investigative agent "to look into the Attorney General's office, and find
out why this outrageous cover-up continues -- and what other improper and
illegal exculpatory /clearing from blame or fault/ evidence he still holds
in his possession. A government office with unbridled power is a menace
to the rights of every individual that resides in this state."
During the news conference Mr. Rader further revealed that the compre
hensive 27-year financial report on the Church, College and even the
Foundation since its inception, was prepared at his request in January
1977. It showed the Work's financial history since 1950 "in every con
ceivable manner so we could understand what the trends were and what we
could predict for the future from what we may learn from the past.
Originally only three copies were made -- for my eyes, Mr. Herbert Arm
strong's eyes and Mr. Ted Armstrong's eyes."
The copies were labeled "confidential" and were corporate property, so
whoever took them from the Church clearly had no right to do so. And the
Attorney General should have known that he had no right to the documents
either since they were so labeled. This information is highly confiden
tial and therefore protected by the first amendment from disclosure to
the state. Even Judge Johnson recognized that the nature of the report
is something that the public doesn't have a right to have. At the request
of Church lawyers, the judge issued an order prohibiting the Attorney
General or the court reporter from disclosing any part of the document.
Meanwhile, our attorneys are deliberating as to whether the document
should be released to the public anyway. It would definitely clear the
Church of all allegations of "pilfering" or "siphoning of Church assets,"
but we must be certain that by releasing the information ourselves, we do
not inadvertently waive all our privileges and immunities as a church!
As for Mr. Rader's request that Governor Brown step into the case,
"whether he will or not," he noted, "is, of course, something within his
discretion. We cannot force him to do so. But we would hope, out of
fairness and consideration for, the Church's brethren, as well as the
Church leadership, that he will appoint a special prosecutor to look
into the affairs of the Attorney General both in Sacramento and Los
Angeles."
Mr. Rader said he appealed to Governor Brown because "I feel it is
impossible to get to the bottom of this affair without the governor
appointing, under his executive powers, a special prosecutor to investi
gate the activities of the Attorney General who otherwise, I am confi
dent you understand, would be unwilling to investigate himself."