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

1. In the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in the dismissal dated November 23, 1821, Chief Justice Rugg defined what was actually facing the Court for a decision.

"The Basic question is whether the defendants [the directors] have power to remove one of the plaintiffs [one of the trustees] from the position of trustee."

2. This was the only question before the court. The court may render opinions, but the court cannot render any decisions on questions not placed before the court.

3. However, Chief Justice Rugg was not confused by the Counsels of the Publishing Society relative to whom the Board of Directors actually were.

4. He said that "The defendants are four persons alleged to be Trustees under another deed of trust executed by Mrs. Eddy, dated September 1, 1892, and also to be Directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts, and two other persons, each alleged to be claiming to be a trustee and director in association with the other four."

5. A little further in his Decision he said that "As often, if not universally used thereafter in the Church Manual, that name designates the board of five exercising powers and performing functions not derived from the deed [of 1892] but from the church Manual." So here he defines them as the ecclesiastical Board of five.

6. In conclusion he comes down to his final ruling: "On the facts found by the master, in the light of the principles of law here found to be controlling, the plaintiffs [the trustees of the Publishing Society] cannot maintain their bill. Bill dismissed, November 23, 1921."

7. Note that the principle action taken by the full bench was to .dismiss. the Bill raised by the Trustees of the Publishing Society. No ruling was granted by the Court about the Board of Directors being given the right to rule the Movement absolutely and forever.

8. The Boston authorities have misrepresented the findings of the Court and have misled the Field to blindly accept these misrepresentations as matters of fact, when they are not.