Herbert W Armstrong

Wishes - His and Mr. Helge's Hands Weren't Tied

From the outset in this conflict between the state of California (the largest, most powerful state in the Union) and the Worldwide Church of God, Mr. Helge and I have been as frustrated as two people could possibly be. Because from the outset, though we are lawyers we have had to use other lawyers as our mouthpieces in every forum, except the times that we were personally appearing before the media.

We have the very best lawyers, and we like them all very much. They're so much better than what the state can muster that it isn't even a ball 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 — have literally been hamstrung and hog-tied by the sham lawsuit that was filed by the state of California and the so-called six relators, 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 particular 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! So, Mr. 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.

Why the Church Is Outraged

It's not that our lawyers are not working hard at it, it's not that they are not learning; but there's something about this lawsuit that makes Mr. Helge and me, as well as Mr. Armstrong and other members of the Church, rise up in indignation. Not because we were sued, because unfortunately, in this world anyone can sue anybody. We know that. People can be grieved over non-existing injuries and they sue parties A, B, or C and sometimes they are thrown out of court immediately, and sometimes it takes a little bit longer.

But in this particular case, to see Mr. Armstrong, the leader of the Church for forty-seven years, accused of siphoning and pilfering millions of dollars each year for his own benefit; to hear the state accuse him of using the Church and its assets for his own personal benefit; to hear them describe his spreading of the gospel, his fulfilling of the commission as laid out by Matthew 28:19-20 as so-called "travel expense," makes Mr. Helge and I want to rise up out of our chairs and literally throttle the person responsible for making such wild and utterly false allegation!

Nothing about the State's position is true. They know that it is false — a sham. They know that it's been a naked, raw, abuse of power. And yet, but for the Living God; but for the immediate and massive support of the members of the Church; but for Mr. Armstrong's inspired leadership; and but for the financial resources that are available to few organizations, the State would have accomplished its will!

Why a SHAM Lawsuit

The state has come up with no evidence of any wrongdoing to in any way offset or counter our mountain of evidence indicating clearly, for any impartial person, that all the allegations in the lawsuit are false and without foundation. The burden of proof, by the way, is not even on us but rather is on the state. Nonetheless, we have come forward with an overwhelming amount of evidence [on the Church's behalf].

The state gives everyone reason to believe that they are never going to be able to prove the allegations of their complaint. That is because they have hundreds and thousands of pages of church documents — maybe 60,000 pieces of paper — and they still can't find any evidence of any wrongdoing. Judge Julius Title himself said [as early as January 12] there was no evidence of any wrong-doing, and as late as March, indicated that all the state had been doing is making accusations. Notwithstanding that, the lawsuit has not been dismissed!

The reason is quite plain. The court itself is a little intimidated by the fact that the state of California is involved and they, as the judiciary, are part of "the system." Mr. Armstrong has always said [human] government is the enemy of the Church. Government, to a great extent, is the enemy of the people. There is no justice in this world. We've all learned those things and it's coming home now. Everyday we are being reminded of that.

Now, when I talk about a sham lawsuit, what do I mean? I mean a lawsuit that is based upon hearsay and gossip, and a lawsuit that is contrived under such circumstances as to be apparent to any person that the plaintiff, in this case the state, had no reason to believe that it would ever be able to prove the allegations of the complaint.

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 consider? 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 and go away.

He was described as senile by a person whom he treated, for all practical purposes, 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 resistance because the members were literally going to greet these people from the receiver's office and the state as "liberators." And yet the Church was big enough to be able to pay out a ton of money in fees which was important for the receiver. And also "big enough" in the sense that if the state were to actually succeed in accomplishing its will, this would set a precedent.

First Amendment Begins With Freedom of Religion

In talking to the press, what I say is varied. If the press has been accusatory in tone and has missed by a mile what I thought the facts were, I thought it was important to put the press in its place because I thought they were very shortsighted in not realizing that the First Amendment begins with freedom of religion, not freedom of press. And as I told them in the [court's] corridors the very first week in January when this whole thing broke, they cry like stuck pigs where their own First Amendment rights are concerned. And sure enough since then, in the last four or five months, the U.S. Supreme Court has been kicking them around and they have literally been crying on the front pages of the newspapers, on the television networks, and on the editorial pages as well.

But that is the aspect of it that is hard to get people today excited about — the First Amendment. I've told the newspaper people and the media that when this country was founded two hundred years ago, people were very concerned about the First Amendment. Because so much bloodshed has occurred over matters of religion. So much persecution has taken place over matters of religion. Wars almost invariably have been fought over matters of religion. And the people who established this country two hundred years ago were determined to have no state interference with anyone's religious beliefs. They were determined to have no state establishment as was the case in England. And God and religion were very important to these people — maybe not each person to the same degree, but certainly no one would have thought of publishing a TIME magazine in 1790 (1970) stating, "Is God Dead?" That would never have occurred to anybody. They were quite sure God was alive and that they were quite accountable to Him.

Today we live in a different society, and although we are very much concerned about the abridgment of our religious freedoms, not everybody is all that excited about it. So that is a problem we are forced to contend with constantly.

Yet in all of this we have an anomaly! Our most successful ad — the ad that we designed to bring to the public certain facts about the lawsuit — was the one that stated, "We have nothing to hide but much to protect!" By that Mr. Armstrong meant we literally had nothing to hide because that has never been our approach to begin with before the lawsuit. We have been a very open institution, much more open than the law requires us to be, much more open than most churches are. Mr. Armstrong, in a way, is like the lover who wears his heart on his sleeve. He is always telling people just about everything that comes to his mind and he himself has said he would rather err on the side of being, shall we say, too willing to reveal things about himself and about the institution than to be secretive. And as a consequence for us now, to be in a position of protecting our First Amendment rights and everybody's First Amendment rights [by resisting the setting of a wrong precedent], while the state accuses us of hiding something, creates somewhat of an anomaly.

Now, if the state hadn't attacked the Church, then the issues would have been different. Mr. Armstrong and I have said from the very outset, "YOU have no business (this is addressing ourselves to the state) attacking the Church, you have no right to be here. Get your feet off our property, get your dirty hands off of our property. If you have something to complain about concerning Mr. Armstrong, or Mr. Rader, or Mr. Helge, or anybody for that matter, there's a proper forum for that type of matter. And although no one likes to be accused of activity that even sounds like criminal activity, we'd still be very happy to defend ourselves in that forum at the right time and in the right place."

And we would not have been able to raise the First Amendment and we never would have thought of raising the First Amendment. Maybe Mr. Armstrong would be required from time to time to raise a clergyman-penitent privilege. Maybe on occasion Mr. Helge would have to raise the question of attorney-client privilege, and maybe on occasion I would have had to do the same, but we certainly could not have raised the First Amendment. But the moment that the state of California intruded upon Church affairs, we had a duty, an absolute duty, to raise the First Amendment — not only a duty to ourselves but to all other people for whom the freedom of religion is important.

So, we have had to assert our First Amendment rights for ourselves as well as for others. And as some of you may have seen recently, the National Council of Churches has come out very vigorously in our defense. It really has attacked the government for interfering with our rights. And the Seventh Day Adventists, through their LIBERTY magazine, have done the same.

Gradually, more and more people are coming to the fore and are letting us know in one way or another that they are watching what is going on; they are very concerned about it — about what's happening, and what has happened — and that when they can be of the most help, they will be there. (We're Still at a very low procedural level of activity because we are resisting on constitutional grounds step by step.)

Not literally do we refuse to answer our name when we are asked, but for all practical purposes we are not going to answer any question until the Supreme Court of the United States tells us in very plain language that we must. And once the Supreme Court of the United States tells us that we must, then in our opinion and the opinion of many others now, there will be no more religious freedom in the United States! It will be a thing of the past. But once we've crossed that bridge and the Supreme Court of the United States has said, you must do this, you must do that, you must refrain from this, you must refrain from that, then we will answer the questions.

Knew We Would Lead the Fight for Religious Freedom

I told Mr. Armstrong (and he remembers this very, very clearly) the very first day I met him back in 1956, when he told me how big the Church would ultimately grow and how great the Work would be and what its impact would be — he told me that we would suffer persecution, meaning he would suffer persecution, but he used the word "we." I said, "Mr. Armstrong, if what you say is true, and if it comes to pass, and I have no reason to believe that it will not, I want to remind you that you will then be in the vanguard of all those at that time fighting for the freedom of religion because you have had a free ride so far."

He said, "What do you mean?" And I said, "Well, certainly, you know of the Jehovah's Witnesses." And he said, "Yes." I continued, "Well, in the thirties they fought all the battles — freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and most importantly, freedom of religion. The local state governments and city governments wanted to impose a tax on the Jehovah's Witnesses who could have very easily paid what was really tantamount to a token licensing fee. A fee was going to be extracted from them for the privilege of disseminating their literature, as they still do today on street corners. And they argued that it would be paying ransom for their First Amendment rights.

Human government, as I have learned, is clearly an enemy of the Church. The brethren have found out that we now need protection from [oppression by] the government at the very time that the government is saying they are only here to "protect" us. That has always been a fiction; that's always been a fraud upon the people. God forbid that any of us need protection, real protection, from the government! It's one thing to talk about protection when dealing with matters of public safety, and another when we're dealing with the so-called police powers of the state. But really, our Constitution was designed so that the power of the state was cut down. Federal government, for example, is only supposed to defend our shores from invasion from without, and state governments were not supposed to rule the lives of the people at the local level.

But you know what has happened over the years. There has been creeping socialism and creeping bureaucracy to the point now that some fellow who gets himself a career job with the Attorney General can entertain the notion that he would like to be able to supervise the Work of the Worldwide Church of God. He would like to set the standards, he would like to determine what we should do, when we should do it, how much it should cost us and who should do it. This Mr. Armstrong would never tolerate. None of us would, knowing that we serve God and live in a land where the Constitution confirms basic religious rights and freedoms!

Learns He Was Wrong About Government and the Judicial System

I was asked a very good question a few months ago by Michael Jackson, who is a local radio and television interviewer. It was a perfect question — totally impromptu. He asked, "Has this whole affair affected you in any way? Has it changed you?" He has known me for sometime and he didn't see any visible changes. I explained to him, "Well, I was equipped to handle this type of thing because I had the training for it, and stress doesn't bother me, and having God on our side makes it all that much easier."

But I said that I have changed in one very important respect. I said, "For years I argued with Mr. Armstrong — literally argued with him tooth and nail — because I thought many of his views about lawyers, judges and government were immoderate. I always thought he was going a little bit beyond the pale [beyond the limits or boundaries of reason].

"Now," continuing my answer to Michael Jackson, "maybe I was a little defensive because I was a lawyer by training and a law professor, and I considered myself as part of the system to that extent, and I wasn't a church member until just recently. And it was somewhat of a 'putdown.' And in a nice way, as nice as I could be in the circumstances, I would tell Mr. Armstrong, 'Well, all the judges aren't bad, Mr. Armstrong, all government isn't bad.' 'No, Stan, you're wrong,' he answered. 'The Bible says unjust judges in the only reference directly relating to judges. Everybody knows about shyster lawyers. Everybody who should know, would know that big government is bad, bigger government is worse, and that [human] government basically is the enemy of the people, and is also the enemy of churches and religion.'

"So I argued with Mr. Armstrong. But once again I found out, as I have found out in almost every important issue about which I've ever disagreed with Mr. Armstrong, that I was wrong and he was right. And I asked him since then, 'What made you so sure you were right, and what made you so sure that I was wrong in this particular instance?' And he smiled and said, 'Because the Bible, which is the foundation of all knowledge, told me so.'"