1. Prior decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would not preclude litigation of current claims -- namely that the Directors have committed fraud and breaches of trust.

2. The requirement of res judicata include a final judgment on the merits in the earlier action, identity of the cause of action in both suits, and identity of the parties of their privies in both suits. Grella v. Salem Five Cents Savings Bank, 42 F 3rd 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1994).

3. The current causes of action are not identical to those of either Eustace, 240 Mass. (improper removal of trustee), or Dittemore, 249 Mass. (improper dismissal of director).

4. Moreover, plaintiffs representing the public interest would neither be identical to nor a privy of the parties in Eustace and Dittemore, who were Directors of the Church and Trustees of The Christian Science Publishing Society.

5. Collateral estoppel is likewise inapplicable to the current controversy. Although the issues of the number of members and authority of the Board of Directors have been previously decided, such decisions would not preclude relitigation of the issues in the controversy.

6. The part asserting issue preclusion must establish that an issue of fact sought to be foreclosed actually was litigated and determined in a prior action between parties or their privies, and that the determination was essential to the decision in the prior action. Morgan v. Evens, 657 N.E. 2d 764, 766, 39 Mass. App. 465, 467 (1995).

7. The number and authority issues in the present controversy are distinct from those in earlier cases.

8. These issues were originally raised in the context of the authority of the Board to dismiss a Publishing Society Trustee or a Director, without questioning the fundamental legitimacy of the Board of Directors to administer the Church. The current controversy raises the issue of two distinct Boards as a challenge to the very present existence of a five-member Board.

9. The parties to the present controversy are also distinct from parties to previous adjudications.

10. The current controversy presents no identity of parties with either Eustance or Dittemore because the Attorney General, relators and the public are not privies of and did not agree to representation by the Directors and Trustees of the 1920's

11. In Massachusetts, the right to challenge a judgment collaterally is limited to strangers to the earlier proceedings whose interest have been affected thereby.

12. Incidental to an action against the Directors for fraud and breach of trust, the Plaintiffs herein have the right to attack the erroneous decisions stemming from prior adjudication of the issue of the authority and number of Directors.