Dear
Mr. Ardis:
Greetings from
We have been advised that you are desirous of having accurate
information about the case of Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church
of God, as it pertains to the finality of the court decision regarding the Mystery
of the Ages. We are pleased to be of aid to you in this regard so as to
promote the truth of the matter and avoid the misimpression that Mr. Flurry is
touting about the case.
When
Mr. Flurry first pirated Mystery of the Ages, a determination had to be
made as to what action Worldwide Church of God should take. It was my
recommendation that, if action were not taken to enjoin Mr. Flurry's pirating
action, he would continue to confiscate further goods of Worldwide Church of
God. It was decided to institute an action against PCG to enjoin them from
pirating MOA. My prediction as to Mr. Flurry's future conduct proved
true because he filed a counteraction in which he claimed the right to publish
18 other works of Mr. Armstrong, based on the argument that they were central
to his religion.
The first Federal Court trial judge, Judge Letts, decided that PCG
would have a right to copy the MOA because WCG was not publishing it at the
time, and because it was allegedly central to PCG's religion to do so. As a
consequence, WCG took an appeal to the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.
The case was heard by a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit. Two of
the justices, who are viewed as the most intelligent by attorneys in general,
decided the case in favor of WCG. The important factor regarding your question
is that they instructed the
PCG desperately attempted to reverse the Court's decision. First of
all, they petitioned the panel of judges that heard the case to rehear the
matter. Two of the three judges refused to do so.
In addition, they included a petition to the 26 judges of the 9th
Circuit, requesting that they order what is called an en banc hearing. An en
banc hearing is one in which 11 judges on the Court of Appeals would conduct a
rehearing of the matter. None of the 26 judges requested such a hearing.
We
understand that you have a copy of the opinion in this case.
Then, in a last desperate attempt to reverse the Circuit Court of
Appeals decision, the PCG petitioned the 9 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court,
asking them to rehear the case. All 9 justices refused.
The
case then went back down to the
Even
then, to show the attitude of rebellion, Mr. Flurry put on the PCG web site,
that all the people should contact WCG for the book. He knew, or should have
known, full well that it was out of print, and that such a message would result
in the clogging up of WCG phone lines and harass its operators. Again, Mr.
Flurry did not remove the message from PCG's web site until the local Federal
Court "suggested" to Mr. flurry's attorneys
that he do so. Such childish, juvenile harassing antics are not the fruit of
God's Holy Spirit.
The
judge then issued a written injunction, ordering PCG to stop distributing the
MOA, to assemble all of the pirated copies that were still held by PCG and to
store them in a warehouse. PCG argued that the cost of storage should be
equally assessed against WCG and PCG. The court denied this request and
assessed the entire cost of storage against the PCG. The pirated copies of the
MOA are being held in a warehouse and Flurry is barred from having access to
them without the consent of Worldwide Church of God.
Out
of further refusal to accept the decisions and comments of the legally
constituted authority, as demanded by scripture, the PCG again attempted to
thwart the process. They attempted a technical move in the district court to
amend their counterclaim and include MOA therein, so as to restart this process
all over again regarding MOA. The astute trial judge recognized this tactic for
what it was and denied PCG permission to do so on the grounds that the issues
pertaining to the MOA had already been decided.
As a consequence, when Mr. Flurry tells his congregation that the
case has been equally balanced with two judges finding for PCG and two judges
deciding for WCG, it is blatant misinformation. If you want to take Mr.
Flurry's approach, two judges decided for PCG and 35 judges decided in favor of
WCG, and, if the above orders of Judge Snyder are included, 36 judges.
Further, Mr. Flurry has made representations to the PCG members,
giving the misimpression that there is still the possibility in the case that
the court is going to award PCG the right to pirate the MOA. This is simply,
again, misinformation. The case has been finally decided and concluded
regarding MOA, and Mr. Flurry, out of sheer desperation, has exhausted all
legal remedies available to him. Any attempt of PCG to acquire any court
ordered right to print the MOA is over, done, finished. Legally there is no
place else for him to go on this issue. I don't know how else I can say it.
PCG's only "right" is to stand before the bar of justice and have
damages assessed against them and attorney's fees for the wrong that has been
committed.
The
secondary wrong that I see in this case is that, as we all know, Mr. Flurry
holds dictatorial control over PCG and it had to be his ultimate decision to
pirate the MOA. (Certainly, had the confiscation been successful, he would have
taken the credit as God's inspired instrument in doing so.) The grave wrong is
that, it is the poor deceived members of PCG that have to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars of their hard earned money to defend this egregiously
wrong conduct in order to save Mr. Flurry's reputation.
A
fact hidden from Mr. Flurry's followers, as he professes his godly authority in
pirating MOA, is the deception that he employed. First of all, he removed all
inserts from the book that referred the readers to the Worldwide Church of God;
he then changed the copyright notice from WCG to Herbert W. Armstrong to
further hide the source of the work, and then, with the highest degree of
chutzpah, he deleted the notice (as provided below) that forbade making copies:
"No
part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing
from the Worldwide Church of God."
So
this great alleged advocate and ardent follower of Mr. Armstrong violated Mr.
Armstrong's direct command, as well as the law. All of this, deceiving the
public into believing that the work was that of PCG and, hence, tithes and
offerings generated by distribution of the work would most naturally be diverted from WCG to PCG.
We
sincerely hope that the foregoing will satisfactorily answer your question as
to the background facts about the case, and aid you in clarifying the record.
Sincerely
Ralph
K. Helge