Basic HTML Version
MEMBER'S HOTLINE, July 2, 1979
Page 3
It is obvious to any reasonably informed individual that no greater amount
of information should be necessary for the Attorney General to glean than
what has already found its way by stealth, and in some cases by outright
theft, to the Attorney General. For example, the Attorney General has
copies of the Work's certified financial statements going back more than
10 years. He also has copies of various tax returns and information returns
filed by the Church, College or Foundation going back ten years or more.
In addition, the Attorney General has copies of all of Mr. Jack Kessler
1
s
audit working papers which go into great detail for each of the years that
Mr. Kessler /the Church's outside auditor/ and/or others have audited the
Work. The documents include many, many highly confidential ecclesiastical
materials as well as letters from Mr. Herbert Armstrong to other members
of the ministry, and letters from members of the ministry to Mr. Armstrong.
Hence, I believe it is important for all of you to realize that not only
has the Attorney General been a receiver of stolen property, as we have
stated on more than one occasion, but has in essence lied repeatedly to the
public as well as to the courts when he has said that he needs an audit.
The Attorney General never was entitled to an audit under any law, as he
well knows. But more important, he was never entitled to trespass upon the
property of the Church and/or the College in his effort to seize control of
Church property and Church records, to convert the property to his own
purposes and to allow his handpicked receiver--the ex-judge Steven s.
Weisman--and any henchmen that he would appoint, to rip off the Work of
the living God at a cost of over $350,000 for the short time the Receiver
was here. The Attorney General is now, by the way, "hanging on by his
teeth," as they say, or "by his fingernails," desperately trying to con
vince someone that he had a right to proceed in the manner that he did
even if he cannot prove, as he cannot, of course, that any of the outrageous
allegations of his lawsuit were true.
In the meantime, it appears that the California Supreme Court in San Franciscc
has been hearing our appeals for help.
Firday afternoon I received a "stay"
and my petition for a hearing before the California Supreme Court was granted
on a matter involving my personal suit against Hillel Chodos and Lawrence
Tapper for defamation in their public statements about me made to the media.
In the matter that was taken to the California Supreme Court, I had argued
that I should not be legally compelled to cause the Church or the College
to produce for Tapper's and Chodos' benefit copies of television tapes of
any remark that I might have made about them. (Actually, the video tapes
are so favorable to my lawsuit that I would probably want to show them as
evidence myself!) As you can readily see, my action against both of them
is as an individual and there should be no burden--no burden of any kind-
imposed upon the Church or the College merely for their convenience.
--Stanley R. Rader
CHURCH DEMANDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF PACHT AND CHODOS
As our readers may recall, the NEWS SUMMARY of May 25 reported the white
washing of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jerry Pacht and attorney Hillel
Chodos by the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The Church
has taken great exception to the commission's press release of May 22 which
exonerated these men--both of whom also happen to be members of the commis
sion.
( Chodos and Pacht were allegedly disqualified from participation in
the commission's decision.)
As you may also recall, that press release was
very misleading!
On June 25th, Church attorney Allan Browne wrote a letter to the Executive
Officer of the Commission on Judicial Performance. In the letter he clearly