Civilization in Danger - 
Love fighting Estoppel Litigation

Court case attempting to dissolve the Mother Church of Christ Scientists
Constitutional government
on trial in court
the plaintiff's case with comments inserted by Rolf A. F. Witzsche

10. Mrs. Eddy’s Manual made strict obedience to its estoppels mandatory.

11. With her passing, the 5-member Board and her Church were terminated [EXHIBIT J: Manual Sec. 5 at 26], leaving remaining the local Boston Congregation named The First Church of Christ, Scientist, which has always been its legal title. [EXHIBIT M: Manual Sec. 2 at 70].

12. The 5-member ecclesiastical Board fraudulently usurped power at Mrs. Eddy’s passing and the material organization of the usurped Church now has a hierarchy similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church.

13. According to the estoppel clauses, the Church ceased to exist after the June Annual Meeting in 1911 after its Founder’s passing, as no officer of the Church could be elected without her approval and consent.

14. In forty different points the Manual clearly shows that the ecclesiastical Directors of the estopped Church are not Mrs. Eddy’s Successor.

15. In 1910 there were forty positive checks on the Directors, and Mrs. Eddy left them all in the Manual so that when the time came for her departure the Directors would be powerless to carry on as a hierarchy — forty vital duties the Directors could not perform under Art. 1, Sec. 6, or any other estoppel without Mrs. Eddy’s consent during her lifetime.

THE 1903 TRUST AGREEMENT - [EXHIBIT B: Manual at 136-138]

16. On March 20, 1903, Mrs. Eddy conveyed “Land for Church Purposes” to the four trustees under the 1892 Deed of Trust, to prevent the bylaws of the Manual of the Church from being “added to, amended, or annulled” without Mrs. Eddy’s “written consent”. [EXHIBIT B: Manual at 137].

17. Mrs. Eddy made at least four profound and fundamental changes in the form of the government of her Church in 1903. These radical changes first appeared in the 29th edition of the Manual and were adopted July 30, 1903.

(1) Mrs. Eddy established a temporary 5-member Board of Directors to act under her exclusive control, so long as she might live, until her planned transfer of authority to the Manual would occur at her demise.

(2) She compelled the Directors, Clerk, Treasurer, and all Committees to report to the Congregation at the Annual Meeting of the Church.

(3) She forbade the Directors to amend or make new Tenets or Bylaws without her written consent. [EXHIBIT D: Manual at 104], and instituted the 1903 Trust Agreement, by Deed of Trust. [EXHIBIT B: Manual at 137].

(4) She placed the supreme power in the Church in the hands of the Congregation, by giving them, in Art.1, Sec. 9, the final power of removal over the entire Board of Directors, giving them this power co-equally with the Pastor Emeritus of the Church.

Art. 1, Sec. 9, was added for the express purpose of endowing the Congregation with this final power in case her estoppels were waived and annulled. This bylaw was framed just prior to the execution of the second and final codicil to her Will. She was getting her house in order for the change that came on December 3, 1910, when she passed on. This is the provision in the Manual whereby the Mantle of the Pastor Emeritus descends upon her students.

NOTE: After the Church was dissolved by action of the estoppels, in June of 1911, there were no longer any members of the Church. Whereas the local Congregation governed under the 1892 Deed of Trust continues to exist as The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts.

THE 1898 TRUST AGREEMENT - [EXHIBIT C: 914-919]
As reproduced in “As It Is” by Alice L. Orgain, in 1929.

The trust agreement dated January 25, 1898, conveying land “Organizing the Publishing Society” to three trustees, and their successors, the said trust being created “for the purpose of more effectually promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science as taught by me.”

18. As accessories after the fact, the Defendants continue to breach Mrs. Eddy’s 1898 Trust Agreement regarding the Publishing Society by condoning the 1921 usurpation of the originally independent Publishing Society established under this irrevocable 1898 deed, despite the fact that the Master, Judge Dodge, had ruled that the then existing Board of Directors had no right “to remove a trustee by their unsupervised action alone.” This ruling was overruled when the Directors of the Church, in their counter-suit, misrepresented the controversy as an ecclesiastical matter that no court could decide ; when it was a secular legal issue instead.

THE GREAT LITIGATION

19. In the lawsuit called the Great Litigation of 1919-1921 (Eustace v. Dickey, 1921) the Defendants’ predecessors prevailed ; and in so doing overturned Mrs. Eddy’s plan for the reformation of her Church at her demise.

THE DECISION OF THE FULL BENCH - [EXHIBIT G: 920-949]
As reproduced in “As It Is” by Alice L. Orgain, in 1929.

A court can only rule on matters placed before the bench ; but it can issue opinions which are often more important than the rulings themselves. The court found 26 factors true. 21.

20. Opinion 1: No Manual Changes Allowed — Chief Justice Rugg found that “it is apparent that there can now, since the decease of Mrs. Eddy, be no change in the provisions of the Church Manual in accordance with its terms.” [EXHIBIT G: 927].

The Massachusetts Court thusly recognized the validity of the estoppel clauses, but it failed to see that an estoppel terminated the 5-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors at the Annual Meeting of June, 1911, when Mrs. Eddy’s consent and approval for filling a vacancy on this 5-member ecclesiastical Board of Directors was not available, nor could a Board member be reelected without Mrs. Eddy’s approval and consent.

22. Opinion 2: Two Board Functions — Chief Justice Rugg found that there are essentially two types of board functions, the fiduciary functions under the Deeds of Trust of the Congregation and the ecclesiastical functions under the Manual of the Church.

He found that “the board of directors do not in our opinion refer to the board established by the deed of September 1, 1892, but to the officers constituting the ecclesiastical board of directors under the polity of the church.” [EXHIBIT G at 940]. “In addition to the custodial duties of the four-trustees imposed by the 1892 Deed of Trust, they exercised powers as directors under the Church Manual that covered a broad and extensive field. As often used thereafter, the name Christian Science Board of Directors designates a board exercising powers and performing functions not derived from the Deed of Trust but from the Church Manual.” [EXHIBIT G: 923].

23. Opinion 3: Fifth Director Added In February, 1903 — As directors: “There was no rule fixing their number until February, 1903, when a bylaw was adopted, which has since continued in force, establishing their number at five” [EXHIBIT G: 923]. The trust of the 1892 Deed could not be changed and “it is the function of the court to ascertain whether the terms of the deeds of trust have been strictly observed.” [EXHIBIT G: 943].

24. Opinion 4: Contempt of Court — Chief Justice Hughes found the 1921 Board of Directors guilty of contempt of court for disregarding Judge Dodge’s ad interim injunction to them to not interfere with the business of the Publishing Society trustees, and ordered the directors to pay a fine or go to jail, and their counsel, the eminent Christian Scientist, Clifford P. Smith, was sharply rebuked and ordered to pay double the fine or go to jail.. (C. S. Braden, Christian Science Today, page 81).

THE MAIN CHARGE

25. The Defendants have consistently breached the Estoppels and thereby annulled the Bylaws of the Mother Church Manual of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass.

The Defendants are operating today in violation of more than twenty-nine Manual estoppel clauses. The Defendants purport to be following the Manual in all their decisions, whereas the estoppel clauses make these decisions illegitimate and contrary to Mrs. Eddy’s intent. [EXHIBIT E: Estoppel Clause Prohibitions].

BASIS OF COMPLAINT

26. Mrs. Eddy’s plan is documented in the Manual and the Deeds of Trust that she and she only devised.

27. “Written consent” signifies the signer’s current intent, i.e. the current intent of a living breathing woman or man personally signing his or her given name at said moment of event.

28. The Defendants are aiding and abetting preceding directors by condoning fifty (50) or more revisions in the bylaws of the Manual of the Church that Mrs. Eddy intended to remain forever unchanged. See [EXHIBIT H: Manual Revision List] which does not include the annulments that also have been made.

29. The Defendants annulled Manual, Article 1, Section 5, Directors, which states that “The Christian Science Board of Directors shall consist of five members. They shall fill a vacancy on that board after the candidate is approved by the Pastor Emeritus.” (Emphasis mine.) [EXHIBIT J: Manual at 26].

The modifiers “that” and “five” refer to the Board of Directors under the Manual of the Church, whose existence is contingent upon Mrs. Eddy’s personal written consent . . . not the Board of Trustees under the Deeds of Trust that operate on their own authority without Mrs. Eddy’s approval or consent.

30. The Defendants claim that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts gave them the right to rule the worldwide Christian Science movement without limits forever; which it did not do. No court has ever ruled that the Defendants could take Mrs. Eddy’s place as the sole Director of her movement, outside of her Manual and real estate Deeds of Trust.

31. The Defendants have created a conflict of interest by appointing a director as clerk, in disregard of Man. Art. 1, Sec. 9, Duties of Church Officers [EXHIBIT K: Manual at 28] which states that “It is the duty of any member of this Church, and especially of one who has been or who is the First Reader of a church, to inform the Board of Directors of the failure of any officer in this Church to perform his official duties” and that “If the board of directors fails to fulfil the requirements of this by-Law, and a member of this Church or the Pastor Emeritus shall complain thereof to the Clerk and the complaint be found valid, the Directors shall resign their office or perform their functions faithfully.” [EXHIBIT K: Manual at 28].

32. The Plaintiff cannot fulfill his official duty to Mrs. Eddy, as a former First Reader of a church, without the intervention of the court, since his complaints about the directors have been ignored.

33. The Plaintiff’s letters of protest of September 8, 1997; December 8, 1997; February 30, 1998; March 23, 1998 and July 4, 1998 were ignored.

34. In 2004, the Plaintiff served an Affidavit of Complaint on each of the twelve self-proclaimed agents of Mrs. Eddy listed here:

(1) Virginia Harris, d.b.a Chairman & Director.
(2) Mary Trammel, d.b.a Chairman & Director.
(3) Walter Jones, d.b.a Director.
(4) Nathan Talbot, d.b.a Clerk & Director. (Conflict of interest)
(5) J. Thomas Black, d.b.a Director.
(6) Victor Westburg, d.b.a Director & Pub. Soc. Trustee. (Conflict of interest)
(7) Margaret Campbell, d.b.a Publishing Society Trustee.
(8) Don Adams, d.b.a Publishing Society Trustee.
(9) Cynthia Neely, d.b.a President.
(10) Lyle Young, d.b.a First Reader.
(11) Susanne Cowin, d.b.a Second Reader.
(12) Jill Aaron, d.b.a General Counsel Attorney.

35. Each of the twelve agents listed above refused to respond to the Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Complaint per the advice of contract attorney, Theodore Dinsmoor, Esquire.

36. Affidavits state facts which if not rebutted point for point stand as truth.

37. The Defendants’ failure to respond effected acquiescence and tacit acceptance of the claims.

38. A bylaw says what it means and means what it says or it is not a law.

39. Individual members of an ecclesiastical body can be held accountable for deception and fraud.

40. The authority to annul, reinterpret or revise existing bylaws cannot be self delegated, for such authority is limited, explicit and defined.

41. Authority means creatorship because the attributes of the created are established by the creator ; build a boat or bake a cake and it’s your’s to do with as you please.

42. Obedience to Mrs. Eddy can only be achieved by abolishing the hierarchical nature of the institution that she intended to exist on a congregational basis, after her demise.

Previously when there was no hierarchical control, more than one hundred congregations were formed, not as branches of the hierarchy, but as voluntary associations with a common cause. Mrs. Eddy afterward stated regarding this three year period, that “This measure was immediately followed by a great revival of mutual love, prosperity, and spiritual power.” (Ret. at 44).

43. Many Christian Science societies have been formed in the past and continue to exist without being recognized as branches of the Church.

THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST, IS NO LONGER THE MOTHER CHURCH

44. In Section 8 of her Last Will And Testament (September 13, 1901) [EXHIBIT L: 903-913] Mrs. Eddy leaves “all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate ... to the Mother Church — The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston Massachusetts, in trust ... for the purpose of more effectually promoting and extending the religion of Christian Science as taught by me.”

Mrs. Eddy is saying that “The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts” is the “Mother Church.” Whereas, after the five-member Board of Directors was formed in 1903, in Item III of the Second Codicil to her Will (May 14, 1904) [EXHIBIT L: 912] Mrs. Eddy leaves “the residue of my estate to The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts” (i.e. the Congregation ) [EXHIBIT A: Manual at 132].

Mrs. Eddy is saying that “the Mother Church” is no longer synonymous with “The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts” since the “Mother” aspect of her cause ceased to exist when she designated herself as “Leader” instead of “Mother” in 1903, and the Mother Church was dissolved in 1911. The Mother Church is not the Congregation; the Congregation is The First Church of Christ, Scientists, in Boston. Massachusetts.

IN SUMMARY

45. The Manual cannot be changed.

46. A trust cannot be revoked or modified in the absence of an expressed statement to that end by the donor; i.e. it must be honored or it is abandoned or breached.

47. Delivery, acceptance, and performance of a trust bind a trustee to the trust.

48. The Board of Trustees received, accepted, and performed their trust on September 1, 1892. They did not perform their trust as directors until the Congregation was established on September 23.

49. The grantees never became incorporated as a corporation of the state by virtue of their duties of similarity to deacons or wardens of a group.

COLLUSION & FRAUD

50. Both parties in Eustace v. Dickey (1921) miss-represented the 1903 Trust Agreement to the court; the Massachusetts Supreme Court never ruled on the 1903 Trust Agreement.

51. The statement in the Bill in Equity, that the 1903 Deed of Trust is “supplemental to and in amendment of the 1892 Deed of Trust,” was highly damaging because utterly false.

The 1903 Deed, written a month after Mrs. Eddy created the 5-member ecclesiastical Board, was complete and self-contained. It is therefore difficult to believe how the counsel for the trustees could have innocently made such a mistake; but they did, — and it cost them defeat. Being self-contained, this deed did not “amend” anything in the 1892 Deed.

This was the point on which the independent Publishing Society trustees could have won their suit had their counsel recognized this point and taken advantage of it.

The decision of the court was a right decision under the circumstances. It was not up to the court to legislate the case. The ecclesiastical Board of the Church has always attempted to make both Boards appear to be the same and operate under the 1892 Deed of Trust where the board of the Congregation is “perpetual”; whereas the board of the Church is not.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Plaintiff moves this court to . . .

52. . . . construe what the Defendants are doing in violation of the Estoppel Clauses and Deeds of Trust that control the use of the property subject to the deeds and present a Summary Judgement of the court.

53. . . . order the Defendants to resign in honor of the Manual directives that Mrs. Eddy intended to replace her personal control.

54. . . . put a barricade across the administration building door allowing no one to enter, and post federal Marshals at the door 24/7 while a public investigation is underway, to protect the fiduciary assets of the beneficiaries of the several trusts.

55. . . . provide declaratory relief in the form of a state injunction issued from the bench immediately freezing all the assets of the beneficiaries until a court appointed accounting firm can do an across the board audit of (1) each of the defendant’s two or more sets of books, (2) the books of the Church Center, and (3) the books of the Publishing Society, if separately maintained, to determine the current financial status of the institution and to prevent any further deterioration of the beneficiaries’ assets.

56. . . . invite the Congregation and the Publishing Society Employees to nominate four replacement directing trustees under the 1892 Deed of Trust, and three replacement directing trustees under the 1898 Deed of Trust . . . both Boards of Trustees to be confirmed and appointed by the court.

57. . . . appoint a receiver or committee of receivers to monitor the actions of each new board in accord with the Manual designated as the 88th, the edition in use on December 3, 1910, the date of Mrs. Eddy’s passing, instead of the revised and amended 89th Manual being used today.

58. . . . order the Institution to comply with the Deeds of Trust and the Last Will And Testament that Mrs. Eddy devised, because the five people who in 1913 presented themselves to the Probate Court for the County of Merrimack in New Hampshire as the Directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and persuaded that Court to make them the “Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy,” perjured themselves.

They were not the legally constituted four-member Board that existed when Mrs. Eddy drew up her Will in 1901; they were instead a Board which the estoppels terminated when Mrs. Eddy passed-on.

In January of 1972, Directors Craig, Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper and John sold the copyrights to The First Church of Christ, Scientist, for the reported sum of two million dollars, in spite of the fact that Mrs. Eddy had bequeathed her estate and her copyrights to the Congregation sixty years prior to this time.

It must be remembered that Craig, Wuth, Hanks, Sleeper and John were simultaneously the alleged Board of Directors of the Church and the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy at that time.

IN CONCLUSION

59. “Law constitutes government, and disobedience to the laws of The Mother Church must ultimate in annulling its Tenets and Bylaws.” — Mary Baker G. Eddy [EXHIBIT K: Manual at 28].

60. The Defendants have asserted, apparently without exception, that the followers of Mrs. Eddy have accepted the Board in Mrs. Eddy’s seat of authority, and that the Church has continued on its way since 1910 with no perceptible change, but the seeds of future trouble had been sown, and it was inevitable that sooner or later they would germinate and come to life, for Mrs. Eddy had seemingly, consciously and purposefully left the organization in a very serious situation.

She left her followers with a Manual which they accept as divinely inspired, but that contains provisions which Mrs. Eddy’s departure make it impossible to literally fulfill.

It requires that all of her followers adhere strictly to the letter of its bylaws, and at the same time it makes its essential bylaws inoperable without Mrs. Eddy’s written, and is some cases oral, approval. Why not amend the Manual and go on meeting ever changing situations as they arise, with new bylaws?

Section 1 and 3 of Article 35 of the Manual and the estoppel on record in the 1903 Deed of Trust make it legally explicit that this cannot be done without Mrs. Eddy‘s specific written consent.

In recognizing this estoppel prohibiting revisions of the Manual, the Eustace v. Dickey court did not consider the estoppels as creating any “impossible situation that could not be complied with” but held them to be valid, and to be strictly obeyed.

61. The Publishing Society trustees failed to maintain their Bill because they sued the wrong Board. They sued the ecclesiastical Board under the Manual of the Church, instead of the legal Board under the registered, legal, real estate Deeds of Trust.

62. The mistaken concept that five human beings can tell the rest of humanity exactly what Christian Science is, what they shall think, what they shall read, to whom they shall speak, when and what they shall write, is entirely out of harmony with the thought of our world today. (C. S. Braden, Christian Science Today, page 231).

CHARGES BEFORE THE BENCH

63. The Defendants . . .
1) . . . revised the Manual contrary to Mrs. Eddy’s directions;
2) . . . breached the foundational Deeds of Trust of the Institution;
3) . . . annulled the Estoppel Clauses by refusing to resign;
4) . . . usurped the Copyrights, the Church, and the publishing Business of the cause.

Affidavit made under the penalty of perjury this 16th day of July, A.D. 2007.

David Everett Robinson, pro se
3 Linnell Circle
Brunswick Maine 04011