Basic HTML Version
MEMBER'S HOTLINE, July 2, 1979
Page 4
outlined the Church's objections to the commission's woefully inadequate
investigation of Pacht and Chodos. Two days later the following news release
was issued to the media by the Church, accompanied by a copy of Browne's
letter.
The Commission on Judicial Performance is continuing its
"investigation" of the California Supreme Court, and attorneys
for the Worldwide Church of God have demanded that the Commis
sion on Judicial Performance conduct a full investigation,
which has been demanded before, of the unethical and unlawful
activities of Judge Jerry Pacht of the Los Angeles Superior
Court and Hillel Chodos--both members of the Commission on
Judicial Performance now investigating the California Supreme
Court.
Attorneys for the Church and church officials have insisted
that both Jerry Pacht and Hillel Chodos be removed from the
Commission on Judicial Performance pending a full investigation.
The request comes because there are presently pending before
the California Supreme Court, three separate petitions in
the instant case involving the State of California and the
Worldwide Church of God. Furthermore, additional petitions
are expected to be filed as the litigation continues.
The Commission on Judicial Performance said that after going to "special
lengths" and examining "all the facts" of the Church's original complaint,
they found that "standard practice was followed." "If anything is clear,"
said Mr. Browne, "it is that standard practice was not followed. Standard,
and lndeed, required, practice obligates a party to file his action Llaw
suit/ before seeking any legal relief whatsoever... " (Superior Court Rule 7,
Sectior=i-1 cited). As our�eaders know, the dissidents' attorneys, headed by
Chodos, conversed with Judge Pacht before ever appearing in court. Far
from being "standard practice" therefore, such conduct was highly irregular
and improper.
"In addition," continued Mr. Brown, "both the United States and California
Supreme Courts have clearly and unequivocally held that orders affecting
First Amendme1t rights cannot be granted ex parte without notice" (cases
cited). Since no notice was given to theChurch of the pending action,
nor was the�e any attempt to notify the Church so it could defend itself at
that time (actually, no one wanted to give the Church a chance to state the
truth in court to answer the dissidents' false allegations), Judge Pacht
could not properly have even considered the application for placing an ex
parte receivership over the Worldwide Church of God!
No evidence was presented to Judge Pacht--only hearsay and false allegations.
�r. Browne further stated that it was absolutely clear the judge must have
placed heavy emphasis not only on the oral argument, but also upon the pre
sence of fellow Cowmission member Mr. Chodos, a retired judge whom he knew,
and a deputy attorney general who came into court under the cloak of credi
bility and authority of that office. But it appears to Church attorneys
that he placed the most emphasis on the fact that Chodos and Weisman were
his long-time influential friends.
Mr. Browne concluded by asking the Commission to reopen the investigation
of Judge Pacht and attorney Chodos in order to give Church attorneys a
chance to present to the Commission their concerns about Pacht's conduct
in the case. The Church should have been give� this chance to be heard
but had not been even contacted in the so-called "thorough investigation"!