Basic HTML Version
MEMBER'S HOTLINE, July 16, 1979
Page 3
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 Mar�h 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 con
fidential 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 vir
tually every recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States con
cerning 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 �he court on the 5th.
Due to the court's involvement in the public hearings conducted by the
Conunission 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.