Basic HTML Version
PASTOR'S REPORT, May 14, 1979
Page 24
how could he rip this Work off? We tied his hands in Texas /so money
from the Big Sandy sale could not be transfered to the receiver's account/
so when there was no more money coming in here--that was it.
-,
And Mr. Armstrong was pounding that typewriter every day. They thought
he couldn't travel--just went to Japan and back. While he was gone he
wrote six articles--six. Some 86-year-old foe!
Anyway, Ralph do you have something that you'd like to add because you've
been in the middle of it, and Mr. LaRavia has, also.
Helge:
I have a few words.
Rader: Yes, I want you to take over.
I've appreciated the opportunity. But I don't want anyone to feel that
I was looking at them as though they might be the people that we referred
to. I'm just telling you the reports that have been circulated. I never
comment to Mr. Armstrong about anybody except in a positive way, as
almost anyone who's been involved knows. I usually tell Mr. Armstrong
the most "preposterous'' things about people that he finds out later aren't
true, but they were always nice things that I said. I've always put a
little too much faith in people and what they've said, and I don't know
them that well. But this has been a big concern, and I wanted you to
know the five people, if you've forgotten, that he LMr. Armstron�7 trusted.
!-1r. Helge's Comments
I appreciate having the second "hour" here, and the chance to speak. I
realize you all want to get to lunch, but I do want to just make one
comment. There are certain questions that constantly keep coming across
my desk. And the one that I just got yesterday from a very good friend
of mine out in the field was typical. There was a certain dissident
minister there who left. But before he left he instilled in the
brethren the question of "Why don't we just let the receiver in, let the
state in, and give them everything?"
You know, that kind of reasoning really gets to a point where it really
begins to rub me the wrong way. Let me just give you one more approach
to the whole thing. The state has said, "Look, we own, not only the
property, but all the books and records." We have picked that statement
out of three or four places in the court transcripts where they said it
in court. But now just this last time, they put it right in the complaint.
They laid it right out--"The church has no proprietary interest in any
of its property, its books, or records.,,-
You see, at this point, simply to say, "Yes, here are the books and
records," would mean we are conceding to that fact. We would be saying,
"Yes, you are right. You are the owner. Here are your books and records,
state. May we please have your books and records back when you feel free
that you want to give them to us. And may we please have permission to
use the Auditorium next week?"
Do you see what I'm getting at?
are their books and records. To
it. Hence, there is no way even
them.
They have now made a staternent--these
concede to that, we would be acknowledgi�g
under that theory that we can give it to