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

Question 1. Why did the 3 trustees of the CSPS sue the 5 directors of TMC?

Answer: Because the 5 directors were trying to force the 3 trustees to sign a loyalty oath to them that would break the 3 trustees' loyalty oath to the 1898 CSPS deed of trust; or be fired. The trustees suit was in defense of the 5 directors' attack.

Question 2. What was the result of this suit?

Answer: The Master found that the 3 trustees did not have to sign an oath of loyalty to the 5 directors in order to remain as trustees of the CSPS.

Question 3. Why in the interim did the 6 directors of TMC counter-sue the 3 trustees of the CSPS?

Answer: Because the 3 trustees were withholding CSPS funds from the 6 directors of TMC. The directors were asking the court to force the trustees to release the funds.

Question 4. What was the result of this counter-suit?

Answer: The court saw that -- according to the manual by-laws -- the 6 directors of TMC could fire the 3 trustees and that the manual controlled the case, therefore the court declined to decide the trustees' suit against the 5 directors since they saw it as a purely internal issue of the church that the court could not enter. Therefore, the court reversed the Master's finding and dismissed the trustees' suit against the 5 directors of TMC saying, in effect, that the 6 directors could fire the 3 trustees. The court upheld the manual in their opinion, and fined the directors for contempt of court for interfering with the 3 trustees' official duties during the litigation. The authority of the directors to succeed Mrs. Eddy was never presented as a question to the court.

Question 5. Why did the attorneys for the trustees sue the wrong board and allow the 5 and 6 directors to claim their authority under the 1892 deed of trust to the exclusion of the several 1903-1904 deeds of trust?

Answer: Because the 1892 deed of trust granted the right to exist without Mrs. Eddy's written consent to only a board of 4 director/trustees. A board of more than 4 directors could not exist after Mrs. Eddy's demise; without the approval of the Pastor Emeritus of the church.

Question 6. Why did the attorneys for the directors and the attorneys for the trustees collude on this main point?

Answer: Because there were 5 and 6 directors involved in the litigation and the 1892 deed of trust granted the right to exist after Mrs. Eddy's demise only to the 4 man board of trustee/ directors, and this trust could not be changed to cover a 5 man board of directors. Only a 4 man board of trustee/directors signed the 1903-1904 deeds of trust, even though the number of directors had been increased from 4 to 5 to distinguish between the fiduciary 4 man board of trustees of TFCCS and the ecclesiastical 5 man board of TMC.

7. By their collusion, both sets of attorneys presented their cases to the court without the deed restriction originating in the 1903-1904 deeds of trust that stipulated that the manual bylaws could not be added to, changed, nor annulled without Mrs. Eddy.s written consent.

8. It is a common practice for attorneys to limit the discovery of facts that would be prejudicial against their case. They are not required by the court "to present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." They cannot witness to the court. Everything they say is deemed to be hearsay by the court.

9. A court can only deal with a case on the basis of how it is presented to the court. Both sets of attorneys misrepresented their cases to the court in defiance of the deed restrictions in the legal real estate deeds of trust. They presented their cases to the courts as a religious issue that the courts could not decide, instead of a secular issue based on the legally registered secular deeds of trust.

REGARDING WEAVER & WOOD

10. Question. What possible motive could Mr. [Judge] Weaver have in colluding as you allege? Why would the case have even been filed? Who is the beneficiary of all this intrigue?

Answer: Mr. [Judge] Weaver and Mr. Harvey Wood -- both plaintiff and defendant -- agreed before hand to withhold the 1903-1904 deeds of trust from the case. They claimed that these deeds of trust simply amended the 1892 deed of trust which gave the directors the authority to appoint a replacement to their 5 man Board.

11. But these deeds of trust did not amend the 1892 deed of trust. The 1892 deed of trust could not be changed or revoked even by Mrs. Eddy herself. The 1892 deed of trust gave the authority to appoint a replacement only to the 4 man board of director-trustees. The 1903-1904 deeds of trust simply attached the added restrictive covenant to the 1892 deed of trust that the bylaws could never be added to, amended, nor annulled. Therefore, the 5 man board was never authorized to appoint a replacement without the Pastor Emeritus' approval or consent.

12. Mr. [Judge] Weaver knew before hand that a question regarding the financial spending of the board would be an internal church issue that the court could not address and that the outcome would be in favor of the directors of The Mother Church as planned.