Suffolk Probate and Family Court, 24 New Chardon Street, Boston Massachusetts
02114
Case No. 07e0072
DAVID E. ROBINSON, et al, pro se______________________ Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, et al______ Defendants
Exhibit KKKK Wrong Perceptions Made Known - Part Three
1. Judge Smith concludes his initial paragraph, referred to in the previous post,
with this sentence:
"From the time when she [Mrs. Eddy] founded The Mother
Church all that she did and said evinced the intention that it should be permanent."
2.
This sweeping statement seems to embrace the entire period from September 1, 1892
to December 3, 1910 when Mrs. Eddy passed on. But during this period, she added the
29 or so estoppel clauses which would bring a halt to The Mother Church, its officers,
its various offices and its various functions.
3. She refers to her .instructions.
in the Church Manual, in the letter dated February 27, 1903, reproduced in Judge
Smith's article. Apparently, only Judge Clifford Smith, the Board of Directors, and
the legal firms retained by the Board in the late 1920s, to confirm their assumption
of control of the church government, were the only ones who could read within the
Church Manual an interpretation that Mrs. Eddy intended for the human organization
to go one forever. Why the big fuss?
4. Because those trustees under the
1892 Deed of Trust could fill their own vacancies without reference to anyone. And
since the Deed was "perpetual" the legal phrase "and to their successors
in office forever" is unquestioned.
5. Endeavoring, however, to grant
perpetuity to the ecclesiastical Board of Directors, established in the Church Manual
(see Article 1, Section 5, p.16), making them identical with the Board under the
1892 Deed of Trust, is an effort to annul the estoppel clause in Article 1, Section
5, which states, in part, "The Christian Science Board of Directors shall consist
of five members. TheY shall fill a vacancy occurring on that Board after the candidate
is approved by the Pastor Emeritus."
6. The whole effort of the Directors
over the years has been to make the two Boards appear to be identical, and then to
operate under the Deed of Trust provision whereby the fiduciary Board is perpetual.
This is a direct violation of Article 35, Section 1 and 3 of the Church Manual.
CSCourtCase.info, 96 Maine Street #108, Brunswick, Maine 04011