[Editor’s notes: The date on this report changes to November 5, 1978 as of page 2.
[None of the referenced attachments in this document were included.]
BB-31-b-40
To Carolyn Layton
Law Office Report #54 • November 4, 1978 • page 1 • from June [Crym]
1. PT v. Stoen lawsuit:
a. Without consulting any of us, Charles [Garry] filed in October a notice of deposition for examination of Stoen’s bank records. We knew nothing of this until Nov. 1, when Hallinan filed a responsive motion for protective order against such deposition. See copies attached. At that time Charles filed a responsive declaration in support of his motion for deposition. Hallinan attached as exhibits to TOS’s supporting declaration copies of excerpts from letter sent to media accusing Stoen of things, and copy of letter sent to Franchise Tax Board accusing TOS of working against PT. Charles blew up when he saw the exhibits and said here was another example of how we do things without his authorization. Well, this deposition business was done without our authorization. Charles told Jean [Brown] that this was done in consultation with [Joe] Mazor, and that Mazor had the account number of a Swiss bank account and told Charles he didn’t know whose it was, and Charles said if it wasn’t Stoen then it must be ours. He said this to Mazor. This whole operation was done by Charles in conjunction with Mazor, not with us.
If you read TOS’s declaration, you will see his usual pattern of sticking in irrelevant stuff in order to attach outrageous exhibits, and this time he focuses on letter campaigns. The letter to the Franchise Tax Board is a form letter which would have been used by someone to rewrite, and his publicizing it informs us that someone has given it to him. However, the issue of the deposition concerns bank accounts and has nothing to do with the letter-writing.
The hearing on the deposition is this coming Tuesday, November 7. Charles will not be there. He will be in Santa Rosa on another case. Tom [likely Adams] called him in an effort to change his mind and get him to appear for us, but Charles became angry and explained that this was a strategy of his because Pesonen is on intimate terms with the judge, that he meets with him in his chambers on a lot of cases, and Charles does not have a good relationship with the judge involved. He was angry at our telling him what to do. Same old story.
2. Medlock v. PT
The hearing on the motion for change of venue lost, and the judge ruled against us. So Charles and a new attorney in his office, Neil Rosenbaum, who is not a California attorney, but is licensed through the NY & Pa bars and did the research and writing of the pleadings, filed a Petition of Writ of Mandate. See attached. I talked with Rosenbaum a little because I had to come in and sign a verification. He is young, English accent, careless enough that he forgot to add the verification till after Charles had taken the papers to LA to file them so the verification had to be sent in late. He was in a rush, and I didn’t get to talk to him much, but he’s part-time and will only be there for a month, after which you will be working for a judge.
—–
bb-31-b-41
To Carolyn Layton
Law Office Report #54 • November 5, 1978 • page 2 • from June
3. Apostolic Corp. – The past decision up to now has been to let the corporation lapse, don’t formally dissolve it. Attached is copy of the latest we’ve received from Franchise Tax Board. In the past we were told to ask Bentzman about this, and when we did, he asked the usual questions about where are the records, did you file a return, and why didn’t you. We already know the answer; no return was filed; the penalties are greater for not filing than for filing and not paying. The records are not here of course. So any help Bentzman can give is extremely limited and I would rather not pursue it with him anyway. As these forms come in, are we to continue to ignore them as if they didn’t exist? What will eventually happen in re to “enforcement action”?
Another thing with Apostolic: we’ve received the attached checks from time to time, and when I sent a question over about them some time ago, I got a note back from Maria [Katsaris] saying “a letter needs to be written asking that these checks be reissued in the name of the president of the corporation because it has been dissolved, and include corp. resolution.” Well, I asked about this when I went overseas, and Sarah [Harriet Tropp] and [Eugene] Chaikin didn’t have any final answer on it mainly because the corporation is not dissolved and the minutes of the corporation were back here and we didn’t know who the current officers were would sign such a letter. I have looked up in the minutes the current status of the corp and officers and this is it: Terry Carter, is president; Annie Moore is secretary; and Mike Prokes is Vice President. There is no treasurer. The corporation made an official resolution discontinuing corporate operations as of January 31, 1977. Nothing further was done to dissolve the corporation. Going through the file I found the attached Dissolution form which was sent by Janet Evans of the Stark firm, which you may wish to re-examine should there be a change of heart.
4. Truth Enterprises, Inc. – on law office report #53, section III, under “Tax Things for Tish [Leroy], Item 1″ I described a problem we’re having with the Board Equalization because of the error in Harold’s having posted SF Bart tax onto the use tax permit quarterly reports. Tish sent a radio message back saying phone the person in charge of that Board, say account is closed, that records were sent to Tish and she will correspond with them there, no longer operative, and do nothing without consultation.” May I remind you folks that the letter sent to the Board explaining that the SF Bart tax inclusion is a bookkeeper’s error, was done without consultation; rather it was done via radio instructions received July 16, 1978, and further that I discussed this whole thing with Tish when I went overseas and she said nothing about any change in direction. Bonnie [Beck] informs us this weekend that the Board called the Ranch Friday and asked about the SF Bart tax inclusion, and Bonnie told them that the bookkeeper was in San Francisco and the business itself wasn’t. The telephone call will be made and the latest info re bookkeeper Tish, etc. will be conveyed, but we are dubious what will happen after that. Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for instructions on how to dissolve Truth as a corporation – were
—–
bb-31-b-42
Law Office Report #54 • November 5, 1978 • page 3 • from June
promised instructions via the radio last July but have heard nothing further, and no one had anything to give me when I went overseas. See Tim Clancy’s latest memo on Truth Enterprises, attached. We would like to have some direction on this please.
5. See law office report #53, section III, tax things for Tish, Item 14. This concerns the notice from the Franchise Tax Bd that we received for several months, just labeled “LE, 1859 Geary” and eventually came addressed “LE TEMPLE.” The latest on this is that I called Bentzman to help us by calling Franchise Tax Board, but he did not have time, so I called Franchise Tax Board myself. I explained how we have been receiving these notices for several months but couldn’t identify them until the latest that came addressed LE TEMPLE, and it finally dawned on us that they must mean the church, and I explained that ours was a tax exempt charitable church corporation, and we did not pay income tax and this did not make sense. It didn’t make sense to the woman I talked to either, and she agreed that it must be a computer error, especially after I pointed out to her the mix up in the account number, which had been spaced out to look like a Social Security number but after we double checked, it turned out to be our federal employer identification number, divided up to resemble a Social Security number. She said don’t worry and that she would send us an explanation. In the meantime I typed up a letter for attorney Bentzman’s signature, confirming the telephone call and he signed it and it went to SF and Sacramento Franchise Tax Boards. The next day he called Franchise Tax Board himself and they explained after checking that the reason for the mix-up was that the Bank of Montréal had been sending interest statements to the Franchise Tax Board. Apparently every month the Bank of Montréal sends us interest statements on a savings account we have there and Jean Brown deposits that interest into a PT account. That must have been interpreted as income by the Franchise Tax Board and thus the slip-up. This is still going on and being unraveled, in a letter is going to the Bank of Montréal explaining the situation.
As far as Tish’s radio instructions of 11/1 in which she said tell Bentzman to do nothing, get an extension of time, and send her full copies of reports Bentzman filed on annual information returns – by the time those instructions came, the phone call had already been made and the letter sent to the Franchise Tax Board. Also, see Law Office Report #26, dated April 20, 1978 (I am attaching a copy of it) re the late filing of the annual information returns. Tish says there was a mistake on these forms. Sorry but we do not have any clearer directions to go on, nor do we have any figures other than past years to compare. So we did work had to be done in order to get the forms in on time, and Jean and Bentzman and I sat down together and prepared the info returns for 1974, 1976 and 1975, and they all went in together at once, late but finally it was resolved as you will see from the attachment.
—–
bb-31-b-43
Law Office Report #54 • November 5, 1978 • page 4 • from June
6. Stockton property in the name of PT – former Loren Roberts property. Loren Roberts does not come to the church anymore and is hostile. His sister Lorine Davis left some months ago also. Years ago he turned over deeds on his property in Stockton and it was recorded in PT’s name. At the same time he turned over pink slips on cars and personal papers, and we still have some of those papers. He eventually sold the house himself, but the Stockton property remained in our name and we are still stuck with it. At one point the City wanted to demolish it and I think that was done because it was a public eyesore. Now there are back taxes on it, dating back to 1972, in the total amount of $766.36. See attached statement of delinquent taxes. [Jim] McElvane as always said we should pay this because of negative PR value, but I have disagreed because the property has been ours for years. We have neglected and has been sold to the State for taxes because it ran past the 5 year limit – but we’re still listed as owner, along with the State, and we get the tax bill.
We have just received a letter from McFarland Energy Inc. wanting to lease for oil and gas exploration purposes, for 5 years, pooling this lease with group of other leases to have a large enough block of land in which to drill a gas well, at $5.00 per acre rental, or $10 per single lot. In other words, they are offering us $10 to lease out the lo.
- How do we get rid of this property?
- Do we have to pay back taxes? What will happen if we don’t?
- Should we sign the lease and accept the oil/gas offer?
7. Clearances on people to go over:
- Esther Johnson, mother-in-law of Coty Johnson, and son Bobbie. Lives in LA. Her husband, dad of Bobbie, is not a member. They are not separated. He wants her and Bobbie to go, and he has signed consent for the child to go. He has asked her when will she be going overseas, because who wants to move his daughter in the house when she leaves. He told her he bought her clothes to take overseas and he doesn’t understand why she’s not gone yet. He says he doesn’t want his son to get in with the LA gangs. Vee [Hollins] thinks that the real reason for him wanting to get Esther out of there is that he has another woman he wants to bring into the house. The husband has in the past attended the church 6 times; he doesn’t go to any other church. The child Bobbie is 12 years old.
- Melvin Lowery – he is officially off probation as of October 26, and we have the attached Certificate of Discharge to prove it. Archie [Ijames] needs him to stay and work on the crew, because as Archie puts it, he has only 3 consistent workers – Melvin, Don Davis, and David Gallie. So as far as we’re concerned, legally Melvin is okay to go, but it will be awhile because of the tremendous workload on the crew, with the crating and packing of the barrels, etc.
—–
bb-31-b-44
Law Office Report #54 • November 5, 1978 • page 5 • from June
8. Law Office overseas supplies – Shipments are going out with each person that goes over, in duffel bags. We have been able to procure everything so far, and I think the only thing we will have to buy is the legal ruled pleading paper, the onion skin paper, and the batteries, earphones, foot pedal, and cassettes for the tape recorders. Otherwise, we have access to everything else. It has to go out little by little in the duffel bags, because there is such a rush on Patty’s [Cartmell] Christmas stuff, and both items have equal priority. If we crate it, you won’t get it for a year. So, into duffel bags it will go. Don Davis has been able to score a great deal in his late night garbage runs, in the financial district outside of stationery stores, etc. I have packed up a bunch of beautiful large legal size envelopes he found, about 200 of them white Japanese rice paper, beautiful grain to it, and some more manila envelopes which are imprinted First Class Mail on them. He found a huge crate of the stuff and that will go over on one of the regular crates, but I scavenged about 300 out for us. Be sure to check the inventories – I labeled everything and wrapped each item in plastic, labeled “BEA ORSOT, LAW OFFICE, RUSH” or BEA GRUBBS.. I wanted to keep the law office stuff out of Patty’s bags because I was afraid that Patty’s bags would go on upriver but apparently everything is all mixed up so check each inventory carefully to catch the stuff before it goes onto Patty.
9. One question that was asked previously was how many people remain back here who gave property.
LA is still checking on this, but Vee recalls:
Clara Causey – she stopped coming, didn’t want to leave her children.
Hunnicutts – they are working on wife’s passport.
Dorothy Lewis – not ready yet.
Exie Eleby – Vee since there is no way that Exie would ever leave Melita Gibson, the child of which she is legal guardian and Jean Gibson is the natural mother, behind. So that puts us in an awkward position as Jean Gibson’s latest attitude his relief that the child light [might] remain with her rather than go with Exie overseas. If we get a court permission for the child to travel with Exie, we risk Jean Gibson’s attitude; if we have Exie remain, we risk problems because hers is the case where the deed is being challenged by her son who says it was a forgery and he never signed over his interest to her before she gave it to PT. We have heard nothing further from him on that, and Vee remembers that Exie’s son is very ill in the hospital right now so that may be done with…
10. Mary Baldwin is overseas. She should write to her children right away. Apparently one daughter is a co-signer on her checks, and has not been able to cash the checks since Mary went over, but told Vee she is planning to sign Mary’s name to them and will not go through the process of forwarding the checks to Mary. Has not heard from Mary at all and this does not help the situation. When Mary lived in LA, she did not know how to write and this may be one reason she is not written to children, but by now, knowing Jonestown, she may have been taught to write – someone should look into this case.
—–
bb-31-b-45
Law Office Report #54 • November 5, 1978 • from June • page 6
10. Taxes
a. Shanda and Bruce Oliver – someone should sit down with them and fill out the attached card – no refund will come without it. It’s probably because they’re married and Shanda’s first income tax return using the name Oliver.
b. Annette Jones – latest received from IRS on tax liability due.
c. Danny & Edith Kutulas – statement of adjustment to account on 1974 income tax return. I’m not sure if this is a bill or a refund. Judging from the code number explanation on the reverse side for #01 and 30, it sounds like there was a penalty for not filing and tax unpaid when due; but then the penalty was eliminated…???
d. Patricia Cartmell – latest notice from IRS on tax due for 1975, $39.66
12. Sale of Ernest Jones property – escrow has closed and the money is held up until a 2nd trust deed is cleared up – apparently Ernest Jones owed on a 2nd trust deed and Mac [Jim McElvane] needs to know if it was paid off and to whom and where he you get proof of it being paid off without having to go to a title company and paying $13 an hour for them to make a search. See attached page describing the deed of trust in question. We used to have a file on this property but I cannot find it anywhere, and the sale is held up until this is settled. This question has been asked over the radio but in case more clarification is needed, here it is.
13,. Ray and Agnes Jones refund on 1973 taxes – when I was overseas, Tish suggested possible way to try to get refund on tax which was filed way past statute of limitations, alleging having been out of the country and records missing, etc. Here is a notice from the IRS for tax returns filed for Ray and Agnes for 1973, denying the refund because the return was filed more than 3 years after due date. I checked our file on the return that was prepared by Harold [Cordell]/Tish earlier this year and the refund they would be getting is $600. So please have someone (Jann Gervich [Gurvich]) get together with Tish and with Ray and Agnes and prepare such a letter and send it in, either to me two forward on or direct to IRS. Considering the amount of the refund involved, it might be worth it, but I don’t know what the odds are that they will get anything. On closer look, they also got a denial letter for 1972, so please combine into 1 letter the request for reconsideration for both the 1973 and 1972 returns. Copies of letters from IRS are attached.
14. After I got back from overseas, waiting for me was a note from Harriet asking for stuff to bring with me to overseas – well it didn’t reach me till I got back but what I’m wondering is, will you still want the stuff: She asks for Xeroxes of rough drafts of TOS letters, drafts of corporate documents that he did; names of cases he represented us on, etc. Medlock file. LA apartment file.
—–
bb-31-b-46
Law Office Report #54 • November 5, 1978 • from June • page 7
and Xeroxes of any other thing where he shows himself as our counsel. Will you still need this for your work with Mark [Lane]? Sorry I didn’t get the note till I came back because obviously it would have helped a great deal, considering the content of Charles briefcase when we got there.
15. FOIA on Tom Adams FCC License – attached is copy of latest letter from the attorney in Washington who is pursuing FOIA for us to trying to find the Goldwater file. The FOIA stuff hasn’t been sent us by the attorney yet; tomorrow Tom is going to call him in the morning and ask him to send whatever file material he finds correct to Tom rather in care of Bentzman so that we bypass Garry’s office, since the monitored conversations may very well contain our remarks about Garry et al. and that could prove to be embarrassing and uncomfortable. We want to get the file direct, and we want to deal direct with the attorney in Washington, because as it stands now, we are paying double, a bill to the Washington attorney pending bill to Bentzman for the time that he has us in his office explaining the Washington attorney’s letters to us and setting up conference calls.