Basic HTML Version
PASTOR'S R..t;PORT, July 30, 19'/9
Page 7
Why the State Jumped Into a Bad Fight
When you analyze the preceding you might say, "Well, that being the case,
how did they /ever/ expect to prove up the lawsuit?" Well, any shrewd
observer would realize immediately that the state of California never asked
itself whether what they were doing was right or wrong, legal or illegal,
ethical or unethical. They only asked themselves, "Can we get away with
it?" It was the raw use of power.
Now, when they asked themselves that question, what factors did they con
sider? They considered the information that had been brought to them. They
were told that this church was relatively small, which was good. They were
told that it was divided, that there was a lot of dissension in the ranks;
they were told that its spiritual leader and modern-day founder, you might
say, was a much disliked person--an autocrat, living in Arizona, cut off
from the brethren, cut off from the employees, cut off from the ministry-
and that if someone made a move on him like the state of California, why
he would just fold up a:1d go away.
He was described as senile by a person whom he treated,for all practical pur
poses, as a son. He was called drug-ridden, confined to bed, unable to
hear, unable to see--you name it, they mentioned it. They were told that
there were other people who were equally disliked and I became a target.
They were told that what all the people are waiting for was the power of the
state to move on the Church, throw out Mr. Armstrong, throw out other people
--the "palace guard"--and the state believed what they were told. They
wanted to believe it.
Consequently, a little bit of the "Bay of Pigs philosophy'' is perhaps what
we are talking about. All of you remember how the C.I.A. was convinced
that with a handful of people they would be able to invade Cuba--didn't work
out very well. Same thing occurred here. These people landed on our shores
and within a few weeks they were routed!
The State's Real Interest
There has been, in this state of California, a concerted effort for some
time now which Mr. Helge and I have been very mindful of. We had been
attending state legislature's committee meetings where they have been
drafting non-profit corporation legislation over a period of years. All
of us who are engaged in the constitutional law field have been concerned
about the creeping effort of the state to take control of church property
at least from a supervisory standpoint. And we have been resisting their
efforts. The Mormons have been resisting it, and other religious groups
have been resisting it.
I believe that the state liked the ''facts," which were non-facts, that were
brought to it by the lawyers representing the six dissenters. We were just
in the aftermath or the fallout of the Guyana tragedy. So we had that
militating against us. And there was a tendency
in
the Los Angeles office
of the Attorney General in the Charitable Trusts Division, to be quite
officious in their approach above and beyond what normal bureaucratic
procedure would be.
So our case looked perfect. We looked like we were small enough to be
easily handled by this kind of action, and we looked like we were divided
(which we were not). The Church looked to them as though it would give no