Herbert W Armstrong

Last Sabbath, July 7th, Mr. Armstrong flew to Orr, Minnesota to speak to the teenagers attending S.E.P. It was Mr. Armstrong's first visit since 1970, and he was amazed at the changes which had taken place at the Orr campus. After a brief tour of the facilities, Mr. Armstrong was warmly greeted by all. Students and adults gave a standing ovation of appreciation as Mr. Armstrong entered the building, as well as when he got on stage. All were attentive throughout the sermon, and a tape of Mr. Armstrong's message is being sent out to all the congregations.

Mr. Armstrong has also begun making the WATS line taped messages so that members of the ministry can call in and hear what is going on at headquarters. The first tape, made on board the G-I1 during the return trip from Orr last Sabbath, is the first of the once-a-week news tapes he will be doing. As Mr. Armstrong finds the time, perhaps the tapes will become bi-weekly. However, with Mr. Armstrong working harder than ever, his schedule may not permit the "two-a-week" series.

CHURCH FILES SUIT TO RECOVER DOCUMENTS

Church attorneys have moved swiftly to prepare and file a lawsuit to recover stolen documents in the Attorney General's possession. As reported last week, the state had resisted in court all of our attorneys' efforts to obtain a list of the documents it possessed until forced by court order to do so. The Church filed this lawsuit Thursday, July 11th, in Pasadena Superior Court (whereas the state's action against the Church was initiated in the Los Angeles Superior Court). Mr. Jack Kessler, of the outside accounting firm for the Church, will also be filing a suit for the return of hundreds of documents which were removed from his office in Century City in early January.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES SUPPORTS W.C.G. IN COURT CASE

Editor's Note: Following is an article which appeared in last Saturday's (July 14th) Pasadena Star-News. It includes excerpts of most of a letter to the California Supreme Court from a law firm representing the National Council of Churches, urging the court to accept our request for a hearing in the State's case against the Church. This letter shows the kind of support God's Church - deserves, and the National Council of Churches is willing to give us.

The two key paragraphs of Ms. Johansen's letter were not quoted in their entirety in the Star-News article, therefore following the article we have included the entire text of these two paragraphs for the interest of our readers.

By the way, for those who may wonder what an amicus curiae (mentioned in Ms. Johansen's letter) is, briefly stated it means a "friend of the court." This is someone who is not a party to the case the court is considering, but who is submitting his view of the law and perhaps additional facts which could help the judge reach a proper judgment.

Church members supported

By DICK LLOYD
Staff Writer

The National Council of Churches is supporting a group of members of the Pasadena-based Worldwide Church of God who are seeking to intervene on behalf of the church to invalidate a state suit against the church.

Represented by the law firm of Rosen, Remcho and Henderson of San Francisco, the National Council, of Churches has asked the California Supreme Court to grant the local church group a hearing and allow the intervention.

The local church members, calling themselves the Committee for Defense of Religious Freedom, last February were denied permission to enter the case to seek an end to the receivership placed upon them by the Superior Court.

At the time, Judge Robert I. Weil said that the group, whose lead plaintiff is Fred G. Lopez, was not seeking any relief not already sought by the church's attorneys on several previous occasions.

Action by the NCC represents a significant breakthrough for the Worldwide Church which has sought assistance from national religious organizations in its fight against the suit that charges church leaders with misuse of church funds.

The NCC is a religious cooperative agency of 32 national Christian religious bodies with a total membership of more than 40 million persons.

"The National Council of Churches supports their petition because it directly challenges the constitutionality of California Corporations Code Section 9505 as applied to religious groups organized as non-profit corporations." attorney Robin B. Johanson wrote to the Supreme Court.

"We urge you to accept this case for hearing in order to resolve the fundamental questions which it raises about the proper role of the state in church affairs," she said.

If the Supreme Court grants the hearing, the NCC will file an an amicus curiae brief in support of the local church members, said Ms. Johanson.

The attorney, general claims that the church as a non-profit charitable organization falls under the aegis of the California Corporations Code and therefore the attorney general's office has the authority to assure that charitable trusts, such as churches, educational institutions and the like, collect and spend money according to their own articles of incorporation.

But the NCC claims that the state has violated the constitutional rights of the church.

"The NCC is deeply concerned about the serious invasions of First Amendment freedom that have occurred in the worldwide Church of God receivership proceedings," said Ms. Johanson. "Quite frankly, the National Council has never before encountered such a sustained and destructive governmental assault on religious freedom.

"The crux of the state's argument appears to be that by incorporating as a religious non-profit corporation, the church thereby waived its basic First Amendment rights, as well as its right to claim the clergy-penitent and attorney-client privileges," said Ms. Johnson.

She continued, "The state's argument that it has not violated any constitutional protections apparently ignores the fact that the receiver has fired church employees, scrutinized church records, including membership lists and confidential communications, and intercepted and stopped a communication from the pastor to the church's membership worldwide."

She said also that the state and the trial court erroneously contend that "It is the prerogative of the courts to determine whether a matter is ecclesiastical as opposed to business or financial in nature, thus coming with-in the receiver's jurisdiction and control." Since many of the religious bodies in the NCC are organized as religious non-profit corporations, the NCC has a vital interest in the case of the state against the Worldwide Church of God, Ms. Johanson claims.

The Committee for Defense of Religious Freedom has asserted it is independent of the church and seeks redress on its own apart from the defense paid for by the church.

The National Council of Churches is deeply concerned about the serious invasions of First Amendment freedom that have occurred in the Worldwide Church of God receivership proceedings. Quite frankly, the National Council has never before encountered such a sustained and destructive governmental assault on religious freedom. The Church's reports of the State's activities would be almost unbelievable were they not supported in full by court transcripts and written documents.

The crux of the State's argument appears to be that by incorporating as a religious non-profit corporation, the Worldwide Church of God thereby waived its basic First Amendment rights, as well as its right to claim the clergy-penitent and attorney-client privileges. Alternatively, the State appears to argue that none of these rights have as yet been infringed, despite the fact that State officials literally ran the Church between January 2, 1979 and March 2, 1979 and would be running it still had not an appeal intervened. Moreover, the State's argument that it has not violated any constitutional protections apparently ignores the fact that the Receiver has fired Church employees, scrutinized church records, including membership lists and confidential communications, and intercepted and stopped a communication from the pastor to the Church's membership worldwide. In addition, both the State and the trial court contend that it is the prerogative of the courts to determine whether a matter is ecclesiastical as opposed to business or financial in nature, thus coming within the Receiver's jurisdiction and control. As is ably pointed out in the petitions for hearing filed in this and other related cases, the State's contentions fly in the face of virtually every recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the relationship between church and state.

Footnote: The letter by Ms. Johansen was received by the California Supreme Court on July 3rd and the church's petition was then, ironically, denied by the court on the 5th.

Due to the court's involvement in the public hearings conducted by the Commission on Judicial Performance, and the fact that the holiday of the Fourth of July intervened, we cannot be sure that the court had time to read the letter or even give any consideration to it.