Basic HTML Version
PASTOR'S REPORT, July 30, 1979
Page 5
game. I mean it's like child's play. But Mr. Helge and I have such a firm
handle on the law concerning our case and a firm handle on the facts, that
in dealing with our own lawyers it's like we're light years ahead of them.
We know what we know about the law, and we know what we know about the
facts because we have been dealing with Church matters here for a collective
period of forty years between the two of us, in a highly specialized set of
circumstances. On top of that, we are members of the Church.
We've been able to help our lawyers draft the pleadings /our answers to
the court in response to the allegations/. We've been able to help them
prepare the oral arguments. We've been-able to plan the strategy, develop
the tactics. But the two people in the Church who know the most about the
Church--in terms of the law, in terms of the relationship of the Church to
the sovereign state of California, and to the federal government for that
matter -�ave literally been hamstrung and hog-tied by the sham lawsuit that
was filed by the state of California and the so-called six relaters, seven
months ago.
But for Mr. Helge and me being named as defendants, we would have been able
to defend the Church as we always have. We have had other lawsuits at other
times just as irresponsible as this one.
I could go to my files and show
you case after case over the years where wild allegations had been made.
And in each and every case Mr. Helge and I have managed to literally destroy
the opposition by pointing out to the courts (whether it be a federal court
or a state court, and sometimes as far away as Alaska) that the complaint
was a sham.
But in this particular case, with Mr. Helge and I being named as defendants,
we have had to try to coach our lawyers, to coordinate the team, and to
speed up the vertical learning curve of all of our lawyers. And as I told
Mr. Armstrong, I realize it's impossible to get them to feel about the
case--to react as we would--short of converting them.
Why He Fights So Hard For the Church
I was always a very good advocate for the Church, even before 1975 when I
became a member. I was always able, as a good advocate, to get a lot of
the necessary emotion into my pleadings, whatever they might be--whatever
I was arguing for or pleading about or advocating--because of the tremendous
love and admiration and respect that I had not only for Mr. Armstrong, but
for the church brethren that I had met over the years, and for colleagues
to a certain extent that I had worked with closely here.
But then in 1975 when I became a member--which I didn't have to do; there
was no reason on earth why I should become a member, but I had that parti
cular calling that we who are members know something about. I mean, I was
earning more money before, and I didn't have political problems before.
Maybe some people were saying, "We wonder why Mr. Armstrong spends so much
time with an unconverted man," but that was his problem, wasn't it? It
wasn't mine. And then I became a member and all of a sudden people began
to be even more concerned about me and my presence.
But once I became a member, then I was not only fighting for the cause of
a client, but I was now fighting for something that I believed in very
strongly myself�----go�r. Helge and I are constantly-inciting and urging
our lawyers up to that same level of knowledge as to the law and the facts
pertaining to our case.