DAVID E. ROBINSON, et al, pro se______________________
Plaintiff
v.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, et al______
Defendants

1. The Board continually claims that they act in complete obedience to the Manual by-law "Article XXIII, Local Self-government, Section 1. The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, shall assume no general official control of other churches, and it shall be controlled by none other." But the evidence shows that this claim is not true.

2. When the Board of Directors sued First Church of Christ, Scientist, Plainfield (N.J.), when this branch church defied them and became an independent Christian Science Church, and when this trial went to court in June, 1982, it received wide news coverage by the media.

3. At the trial, when it was brought out that the branch churches -- according to the Manual -- are "distinctly democratic," Allison Phinney was asked if The Mother Church ever tells the branch churches what to do, or even tells branch church boards what to do.

4. Allison Phinney said, "No."

5. The lawyer then read from a letter the following DEMANDS MADE UPON PLAINFIELD by the Board of Directors. It reads in part (my emphasis added) . . .

(a) "Call a special membership meeting right away . . .

(b) "Call for a vote of the membership on a resolution repudiating your March 27 letter . . .

(c) "Call for a vote of the membership on a Resolution totally repudiating the actions of "United States Christian Scientists" . . .

(d) "Call for a vote of the membership on a Resolution affirming unqualified support of The Mother Church and of The Christian Science Board of Directors . . .

(e) "Reconstitute the executive board through resignations or removals of present members and election of new members . . .

(f) "Obtain from each member of the reconstituted executive board and affidavit . . .

(g) "to send to our Board a full and specific report on each and all actions taken in response to the above points, including a certified copy of each resolution and motion passed by the membership.


"As stated above, all these actions will need to be completed before May 25, and reported in full detail to us by that date together with all supporting documents . . .

"There is nothing in the spirit and attitude implied in the above proposed steps that a loyal branch of The Mother Church would hesitate to affirm as its own, and to observe conscientiously and continuously.

"As a democratically governed church body your membership is, of course, free to accept or reject any proposed course of action. However, we are informing you (warning you; threatening you) that the above-outlined steps . together with future adherence to them in letter and in spirit -- will constitute a minimum program of action necessary to maintain your eligibility for recognition (and Journal listing) . . .

"Inasmuch as a number of your church members are also members of The Mother Church, who we assume to be loyal to their obligations to The Mother Church and to stand in support of The Christian Science Board of Directors, we are sending a copy of your March 27 letter and of this letter to each member of the Mother church understood to be a member of your church.

"We shall await your prompt response.

"Sincerely yours,

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
By (signed: S.P. Bickley)
S.Peter Bickley, Manager
Executive Department


6. You can imagine Phinney.s frustration on the witness stand. He was a proven liar in front of the Judge. (This letter is on record in the Plainfield trial. See trial transcript.)

7. This Order is evidence of a decided attempt to establish a tacit contract with the Plainfield church because this only leaves the church with the choice of surrender to the dictates of The Mother Church or breaking the relationship with The Mother Church by an instigated and forced resignation.

8. This lawsuit shows the obsession of the Boston hierarchy to control the branch churches. DeWitt John said, "We must win this case at all costs."

9. Why? Because Boston cannot afford to have independent churches breaking away -- churches whose members have awakened and can no longer be controlled by such an unauthorized organization.

10. The Plainfield case is only one of many suits that the Board now faces. These suits are strong evidence that the absolute ecclesiastical control of the Board is contrary to Mary Baker G. Eddy's intent.

11. It is obvious that this treatment of a branch church is contrary to Section 1 of Manual by-law XXIII.