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

1. In the trustee's suit against the directors the plaintiffs were the three trustees of the CSPS who brought the matter to the court, Herbert Eustace, David Ogden and Lamont Rowlands.

2. The Defendants named in the Bill of Complaint were the four legal directors representing The First Church of Christ, Scientists, under the 1892 deed of trust which had nothing to do with the CSPS, Adam Dickey, James Neal, William Rathvon and Edward Merrit (who had replaced Archibald McLellan when McLellan passed on in 1917).

3. The trustee.s attorneys sued the 4 man board of trustees under the 1892 deed of trust, but there was a 5 man board of directors at the time, so the trustee's attorneys used the words, "and John V. Dittemore and Annie Knott, both claiming to hold the position and office of Trustee and Director" making the defendants a party of 6 instead of a party of 4 under the 1892 deed of trust or a party of 5 under the ecclesiastical manual of the church.

4. John V. Dittemore had just been kicked off of the 5 man board of directors of TMC for siding with the 3 man board of trustees of the CSPS, and replaced by Annie Knott. Dittemore was suing the 5 man board to recover his seat on that board.

5. The Publishing Society's attorneys intentionally sued the wrong board, because they could not sue an ecclesiastical body except in the event of some crime such as fraud.

6. In the director's counter-suit the plaintiffs and the defendants were reversed. The attorneys for the directors followed the lead of the attorneys for the trustees. Six directors of the church were named as claimants against the three trustees of the CSPS.