Law Office Report 13, February 12, 1978

(Editor’s note: This report was transcribed by Heather Shannon. We gratefully acknowledge her invaluable assistance.)

Law Office Report No. 13        page 1           February 12, 1978                 from June [Crym]

[Handwritten note at top: “C.L. [Carolyn Layton] copy”] [Handwritten at top of duplicate page B-5-a-(110): checkmark “cc: Terry B. [Buford]”]

1. Information re people traveling:

a. Aurora Rodriguez, grandchildren Terry Stewart, Aurora Stewart, Lisa Whitmire: [Handwritten note in left margin: “Get mom info. Answer needed. 3/4/78 June”] [Handwritten note in right margin: “4 years would be pretty safe.” “Where is the mother”]

Aurora Rodriguez tells me that the children’s dads (2 dads involved) are both in and out of jail, there has been no contact for years. One of the dads told Aurora years ago that he wanted his children to be with her, not their mom. There would seem to be no parent problem with these children, according to Aurora. [Handwriting at end of note: “Find out where mother is.”] [Handwritten on duplicate page at B-5-a-(70): “How many [children]?”]

b. Christine Cobb, Mona Cobb – Christine and Guy Young have been getting guardianship and adoption of Mona for the past several months. Christine tells me that their attorney filed for guardianship and for an order freeing the child from the custody and control of her mom, with adoption to come after guardianship awarded. Home visits in the adoption matter are scheduled for this week by the social worker. Hearing on the guardianship/abandonment by the mom case is scheduled for February 21. Los Angeles welfare has informed Christine’s attorney they will appear for the mom and contest (they are the official conservator of Monas mom; this contesting is a technicality, an administrative move on their part as they technically have to protect their ward, Mona’s mom, but Christine’s attorney explains to her that this does not threaten her case for Mona). The attorney explains that the adoption will follow shortly after February 21 hearing; the judge has to sign the adoption papers, and so do Christine and Guy. So Christine should stay here at least til February 21, and I should think until the adoption papers are signed. Christine is doing her best to convince her attorney she has to get away right away, to visit her sick brother.

c. Melvin Lowery – son of Ruth Lowery. On parole from robbery charge til October 1978. Says he talked to Irene and Guy Young about our helping to get his San Francisco parole officer to either shorten his parole or assign him to Guyana. He told his parole officer he does volunteer work with us. I talked to Guy Young who said Melvin had not spoken to him at all about this. Unless there is some special reason over there or it is felt over there that we should follow through on this request, we would prefer to leave the parole alone since October is not that far away, and rather than put pressure on the situation there, we’d just wait. He does work here, with C.J. on the crating crew. Jack says he’s a good worker and follows directions well under C.J., and also he’s a good researcher, he has brought in some good information about cow raising, etc. We might help his case along with some supportive letters to the parole officer here so that when his parole review date comes up in October, his file would look good. Otherwise, if you think we should go ahead and try to get assignment to Guyana, please send message and we can have Lilly talk with the parole officer here. [Handwritten note in left margin: “hold off til after parole 3/4/78 to June”] [Handwritten note at bottom: “TB recommend leaving him alone – he is trouble”]

B-5-a-(70)

Law Office Report #13, page 2                      February 12, 1978                               from June

  1. Irvin Perkins – This is not a question; this is information unless someone there sees problems in it. Irvin does diesel mechanic repair on outside bus engines for income; he has negotiated a contract to do a job for $5300 income, 1/2 deposit down before work starts, $750 investment in parts. Written contract, approved by Harold, McElvane. Irvin and Harold discussed what may be future tax problems for Irvin, if he files for 1978 as self-employed because he is not now deducting tax, will have to pay in one lump sum next year if he files. Of course, this depends on number of outside jobs he gets over the course of the year. Receives investment money for parts from us, subject to approval by finance committee. Operates on his own, P.T. not involved. Sounds like a good deal.
  1. Berkeley Barb article re Unification Church, procurement – See attached xerox of article. I told Andy to go back through his records and itemize to whom and when he has distributed procured food, etc. Often he distributes items, such as vegetables to D-Q U, Delancy, etc. There is no problem with representation as P.T., that has always been done. The slant of the Barb article is that UC members obtained goods not representing themselves as UC and then used the goods for their own members, not the people they told the donators the goods were going to. It would seem reasonable for Andy to build up a file of groups to whom he’s given procured goods to have a history available. Bonnie suggested he give to halfway houses, child care centers, elderly centers, throughout the city; good for p.r. and practical way of getting rid of excess procurement. The stuff he gets from Synanon can’t be included in this as they require that we use it directly and do not pass on. [Handwriting in left margin: D.Q Delancy only agents non profit] [Handwriting in right margin: 3/4/78 to June]
  1. Attached to this report are copies of our insurance policies on L.A., RWV, and P.T. properties. RWV office complex has been deleted, with the exception of the garage, on which we have a 6 month lease til April 1978 and which is required under the lease to be insured. Harold arranged for this to be covered; Bonnie checked with Mayfield and it is, and they will be sending her a certificate of insurance soon. Richmond property is supposed to be covered; we are still waiting for certificate of insurance. Bonnie is doublechecking on this. We also must delete LA temple now that it’s been sold. [Handwriting in left margin: “check to see if insurance cancelled on LA church 3/4/78 to June”] [Handwriting in right margin: “get in later; turn over to real estate mgment firm; let them rent them out. Ed.”]
  1. See attached excerpts from Tax Letter which refer to churches, exempt status.
  1. FOIA responses – See attached copies from FBI on Ed and from CIA for various ones. Pat says that the CIA response indicates to her that there is a file in existence on these people and that special request should be signed and notarized [handwriting underlining “notarized”] in Guana. We have received a couple of signed request from Guyana, but they were not in the correct form. Attached is a sample which I understand is being coordinated by Paula.

B-5-a(71)

Law Office Report #13                       page 3             February 12, 1978                   from June

[Handwritten note at top and down right margin: “June can write & sign / – shortly after the hearing the guardian left SF. I have not seen nor heard from him since nor has he contacted me except” an arrow pointing to section referencing 8/77 letter “sent to June 3/4/78”]

[Handwritten note in left margin: “Chaikin write a letter”]

  1. Anthony Lopez guardianship – This has been radioed over; this is back up information. 1/17/78 we received a letter from the Alameda County Probate Commissioner because Chaikin as attorney for guardian Walter Jones had not filed annual accounting on the estate of the ward, Anthony. (There is no estate, but the guardianship was originally filed as a guardianship of the person and estate, so as far as the court is concerned, there is an estate unless we tell them otherwise. Annual reports are required on estates to show how the guardian has taken care of the ward’s money, etc.) I received radio message to send a letter to the Probate Commissioner telling them Chaikin out of the country and enclosing copy of his letter he sent to Walter in 8/77 telling him he could no longer be his attorney, and also telling the court that Chaikin would be writing them himself in the near future. This letter has been sent. Now we need for Chaikin to write the follow-up letter. He should address it to David C. Lee, Probate Commissioner, Alameda County Superior Court, 1221 Oak St, Oakland 94612.
  1. Marie Mills – Guardian of Lee Anne Thompson, Kay Rosas’ daughter. She wants to adopt Lee Anne. She is trying to adopt her other foster children, so that eventually she can have an easier time of getting them overseas. She is gradually coming to realize that as foster children, they wont be able to go overseas because of the tie-up with the courts here and the constant threat of the parents taking the children back. She is going to ask her social worker about adopting Lee Anne. I would assume we will need some sort of signed consent by Kay Rosas over there. I will check with Marie some more and find out if there is a standard for, and if she might have to sign in front of a Guyanese court.

[Handwriting in left margin “Gene – No HT – No”]

[Handwriting in right margin: “3/4/78 No to June”]

  1. Doug Sanders – We are still receiving monthly bills from the Bakersfield D.A. for him to pay child support. When he left, it was agreed by him after consultation with Leona and others not to pay. Now we have received notice from the D.A., directed to Ed as representative of Doug, that there will be a Default Hearing 3/8/78 in Bakersfield because of his nonpayment. The letter attached to the Request to Enter Default says that Ed does not have to appear. Should we write a letter on Ed’s paper and say as far as we know Doug is out of this area and we have not seen him, signed by Ed? Would this cause trouble for Ed in his department? All mail for Doug comes ℅ Ed’s p.o. Box, including mail from his old job. We mark bills return to sender, but we keep the job mail, because they have sent valuable stuff including his last payroll check. Doug also owes the credit union of his employer $300 which we are not paying, but which bills come here.

[Handwriting in right margin: “3/4/78 No June”]

[Handwriting at bottom: “Don’t pay – Gene; Harriet”]

B-5-a(72)

Law Office Report No. 13                  page 4               February 12, 1978                 from June

  1. Canoes – In September 1977 Lee ordered 4 canoes from New York, which were eventually to be routed to Guyana. The company he ordered them from was routing the canoes first from New York to their Covina California office, then they would go to Miami for shipping. In October the supplier of the canoes wrote from Covina saying the canoes were on their way from New York and that he would have to have our check ($1,839.64) before he could ship them to Miami. Full check was issued, including shipping charges in both directions. In November Norman, passing through Miami, checked with the company that was expecting the canoes and who would be packaging them up to ship to Guyana. No canoes had yet been delivered. Randolph made calls to Covina office, could not reach the man who made the sale until January 3. Was told they remembered receiving our check but would have to check on the canoes; called back January 20, saying the shipper in Miami had refused to accept the canoes at his warehouse because they were not crated. Driver deposited the canoes in a bonded warehouse and returned to Covina. January 20 Randolph called the Miami shipper, who said no one had ever attempted to deliver the canoes, and there would be no problem with shipping uncrated canoes, recommended we sue the Covina office. We have the cancelled cashed check; it was cashed 11/17/77. Should we ask Eric or the other person in his office who has been handling tax cases for us to pursue litigation? [Handwriting on right: “Sent 3/4/78 to June”] [Handwriting on left: “Answer needed Have garry sue – threaten suit”] [Handwriting at bottom: “(will the cost of suing be more than the canoe”]
  1. 1752 McKinnon St., San Francisco (Edwards House) – This is the place that burned down last summer. The insurance company is still investigating the fire, won’t let us clear the property and raz the remaining structure so we can sell the lot, until he gets signed permission for this from the Edwards, and from the mortgage holders to whom we still pay $165 per month on this place as one of the Edwards’ bills. I am sending, not attached to this report but directed to Julia, an authorization to be signed by the Edwards and a witness giving permission. Please send it back signed, via Lucinda, or mail, whichever is faster. [Handwriting on left: “Julia” circled with an arrow pointing up below it]
  1. Oreen Armstrong Poplin – in law office report #10 is a description of her problem with SSA and wanting a marriage certificate and a sworn statement from Clara Johnson. Waiting on clearance from you folks, we (myself and Mildred, separately) told Rudy to tell Oreen that there was a legal problem involved and we would have to check further before we did anything. Rudy went back to L.A. and so did Oreen. Then we got radio message that we were not to do what Oreen requested. We called Rudy, he said that it had already been done. This week he was here and I asked him, in the presence of Mildred, if there had been some miscommunication; he said that he was told by us that it was all right for Oreen and Clara to go ahead and do what Oreen wanted. We did not press the issue as it had already happened; but both Mildred and I remember giving specific instructions not to go ahead. [Handwriting in right margin: “Sent 3/4/78”]

B-5-a (73)

Law Office Report No. 13                  page 5             February 12, 1978                   from June

Oreen Armstrong Poplin – Made an appointment by herself to see Eric, came up from LA this week and talked to him. Wants to sue Kaiser Hospital in SF because she says they discharged Earl and sent him home when he was still sick with uremic poisoning. When it happened, she and Earl and Sylvia Grubbs traveled on plane down to L.A. to where Earl had regular doctor, and Kaiser Hospital there admitted him and kept him at least 1 month before he passed. Mildred checked with Erics assistant and was told that Eric told Oreen she did not have a case and to go home. The interview went well, I am told, but he told her there was no case and not to pursue it. She ignored this, as usual, and made appointment with Kaiser Hospital attorneys to meet with them Wednes. morning. It was Mildreds feeling and mine that we should stay out of it; we did not know at this point that Eric had said there was no case, but we didn’t think the church should be involved in any way because of the general way the lady acts and tells stories… So I told Kris Kice, who had been asked by Oreen to come with her to the session with Kaiser’s legal counsel, not to go; Kris told David Gally, who had already assured Oreen independently without any consultation that he would go with her, not to go [Handwriting in right margin: “Sent 3/4/78” [Handwriting in left margin: “Does she live in LA [illegible word]”

Wednesday evening she was not in service, but she did come into the dining room earlier when everyone was eating dinner and complained loudly about how no one here would help her and that the attorneys at Kaiser told her she had no case. She had a written statement in her hand, Kris Kice saw it, signed by Clara Johnson, which must have been prepared when Earl was still alive. Kris read it – it summarized how Earl had been accepted by SF Kaiser, examined and kept 1 night, then sent home in a cab although they thought he had something wrong with his colon. Went on to explain trip to LA, named Hue Fortson and Sylvia Grubbs. In discussing it with Kris, she made a good point – that to make a case, Oreen would have to get hte LA Kaiser Hospital to criticize the SF Kaiser Hospital, which is not likely to happen.

Oreen told Kris that Eric had said she had a case.

B-5-a (74)

Law Office Report No. 13                  page 6             February 12, 1978                   from June

  1. Leona has been asking from time to time if we can return original signed deeds to people who have stopped coming. These are unrecorded deeds. I think we shouldn’t now that we have found the deed file, because [appears to have been whited out] they are incomplete, they do not have the grantee filled in, much like a blank check. They would have been filled in eventually if the house were sold and the deed were first recorded in Rex’s name to avoid capital gains tax, etc. But these were not sold, people just turned in their old deed and signed grant deeds as an act of donation. If we were to turn these back now, I should think it could backfire on us. We could return old original property papers, insurance policies, deeds that gave title to the member in the first place, as those aren’t ours anyway. But I think we should keep the donation deeds. What do you think? She is asking this because some former members are now talking around in the community that we took their property deeds (J.B. & Margie Robinson are the ones she mentioned to me [handwriting between “to” and “me”: words joined in print with edit mark to add space] [Handwriting in left margin: “Answer needed.” “Don’t give back.”] [Handwriting at bottom: “Tell them that they have been destroyed.] [Handwriting in right margin: “Sent 3/7/78”]
  1. Old Chaikin lawsuit – We got a letter from an attorney in L.A. who represents defendants in a case that Ed used to be involved in but is no longer. (O’Leary v. 3550 Wilshire Corp.) Ed’s old client was a Charles M. O’Leary. The attorney wants to take a deposition of Ed. I wrote a letter explaining Ed in S.A. for several months and would they take a signed statement instead. If Chaikin can remember this case he should write a letter to be relayed to this attorney, who is J. Joseph Connolly of Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, 523 West 6th St, LA 90014. The information he wants from Ed has to do with factual issues concerning negotiations and drafting of 1967 ground lease between Mr. & Mrs. O’Leary and 3550 Wilshire Corp. [Handwriting in right margin: “Sent 3/4/78”] [Handwriting at bottom: “Can’t be ???? of SA J.”]
  1. Notary Publics – Under the new Notary Public law effective Jan 1, 1978, one of the requirements that Calif. Secretary of Stte [stet] is requiring is that notaries keep photostat copies of whatever material they xerox. JRR and I have both read the statute but cant find that requirement anywhere; it may be a procedural rule just required by the Sec. of State. Anyway, we would prefer to keep copies of powers of attorney, deeds, whatever business transaction that comes up that requires notarization, but not keep extra copies of personal affidavits made by people as witnesses to incidents, mainly because of the content of the affidavit. Whatever copies JRR as notary would made would be kept in a central notary file, locked up as are the passports, with the same security. We will do this unless you advise otherwise. Also, under the new notary law, the notary has to have a chronological book with each item entered one by one, no back datin, have the person being notarized sign the notary book, provide identification such as drivers license no., which gets recorded in the book, and the notary records the time [Handwriting: underlined] of the transaction. JRR’s notary license expires in October 1978. I think we should get some more notaries, because he may have some trouble renewing, consider-

B-5-a (75)

Law Office Report No. 13                  page 7             February 12, 1978                   from June

ing the allegations made by Schwartzes, etc. when the media flak was coming out earlier in the year. Could we have Tom Adams, Robin Tschetter Vera [Handwriting: underlining names and “OK  Ed”] apply for notary – license is good for 4 years. Fee is $15, plus bond fee which may be $20-$25. We have to check that out specifically and will know more next week about exact cost per notary application. If the above is ok, or if there are any other suggestions for notaries, please send message back. [Handwriting in right margin: “3/4/78 sent”]

  1. Sale of Office Complex, RWV – When this was sold, Harold did the property inventory of things that were to remain on the property to be kept by the buyer. There is an air compressor in the garage which works and which was not listed on the inventory. Are we to assume that we keep this? Rob says it is of medium quality, works, and will be kept there til we move the buses out of the Garage in April at the end of the lease, at which time it will come back to SF, get spare parts for it, and probably ship it over. Please check with Harold to see if he mentioned the air compressor to the buyer; otherwise we will keep it and not mention it. [Handwriting in left margin: “Harold Cordell Answer”] [On duplicate page at B-5-a(116), Handwriting in left margin next to item: “FU” encircled; “3/4/78 to June”; in right margin: “if not listed try to take it — [illegible word] her know it was there”;]
  1. Anita Kelley auto accident of 4/22/77 – Betty got a letter from Reserve Insurance Co. saying they could not honor Anita’s claim unless she submitted an accident report. Betty looked through her files and found the attached accident report, but we dont know why it was never sent out. Please ask Anita, Ellen Klingman and Ed why; we will send it out when we hear from you. [Handwriting in left margin: “Answer needed”] [Handwriting at bottom: Ed is underlined and “not recall“ written below it] [On duplicate page at B-5-a(116), Handwriting next to item: “FU” encircled; in right margin: “no problem of sending it in to June 3/4/78”]
  1. Lois Ponts property – We have received in mail property insurance policy renewal on 490 Lake Mendocino, Ukiah; insured is Ellen Lorrain Tipton, Lois’s sister to whom she sold her property. Renewal premium is $227, for 1 year, 1/20/78-1/20/79, sent to Lois ℅ Ed, as Lois is mortgagee. Are we to pay this? Are we to send this to Lois’s sister? What ware we to do with this? See attached face sheet of policy. [Handwriting in left margin: “Answer needed” circle around text with arrow pointing to more text] [Handwriting at bottom: “Don’t pay – Ed – Yes, sent to lois sister insurance guy should take care of this – calling for lois and see if premiums were paid. Her insurance guy take care of premiums – call and ask if it has been paid – see if way of selling mortgage w/o sister knowing.”]

[On duplicate page at B-5-a(116), Handwriting at bottom: “If not on inventory list our machine”]

B-5-a-(76)

B-5-a-(77): Newspaper clipping on Rev. Sun Myung Moon from Berkeley Barb (Jan. 27-Feb 2 1978)

B-5-a-(78): Segment of a tax letter noting the Charity Disclosure Bill

B-5-a-(79): Sample Freedom of Information Act request letter authorizing attorney Charles R. Garry to act on a person’s behalf.

B-5-a-(80): Letter from the CIA acknowledging a FOIA request for information pertaining to James Rudolph, Paula Adams, Rheaviana Beam, Joyce Touchette and Linda [Sharon] Amos.

B-5-a-(81): Page two of CIA letter.

B-5-a-(82): Letter from the Department of Justice FOIA-Privacy Acts Branch noting requested documents are enclosed.

B-5-a-(83): Explanation of exemptions to FOIA request

B-5-a-(84): Results of FBI file check on Eugene Chaikin

B-5-a-(85): Notification of a default hearing for Douglas Sanders’s failure to answer summons

B-5-a-(86): Request from District Attorney Albert M. Leddy to enter default declaration for Douglas L. Sanders

B-5-a-(87): Declaration of mailing the request to enter default

B-5-a-(88): Accident report from Anita Christine Kelley

B-5-a-(89): Copy of State Farm rental insurance renewal for Ellen Lorraine Tipton

Pages B-5-a, (90)-(109) duplicate B-5-a, (70)-(89)

Pages B-5-a, (110)-(118) duplicate B-5-a, (71)-(76)

Originally posted on March 23rd, 2021.

Skip to main content