Courtroom Scene
DESCRIPTION OF THE COURTROOM SCENE
Testimony was given by witnesses from each side by Judge Bill Logue eleven of the twelve jurors chosen. (One juror became ill, and was unable to continue, and thus the trial proceeded with only eleven jurors by mutual consent)
Perhaps it was providential that in a case of this religious nature, all the jurors were Christian men and women, well qualified to render a just decision. After, their decision was rendered, two of the Jurors made it known that each session in the jury room was opened and closed with prayer. All of them were of the opinion that Tom Street's trusteeship is illegal, and that the property should be returned to Davidians.
Some humor was injected into the scene when part of the testimony termed "hearsay" when Mrs. Eaken (Sister Houteff) testified that Brother Houteff appointed her vice-president, and that part of her testimony was ruled out under the dead man's statute, after which she admitted that she was elected vice-president by the remaining members of the Council.
Among those present in the courtroom were Elder L. E. Rodgers, the local Seventh-day Adventist pastor, two of his church members, and Elder Bob Thrower, Conference Evangelist, who was conducting a two-week revival in Waco, and both of their wives, all of whom ridiculed the Davidians for being in court -- showing their divided condition, Elder Rogers was seen talking to Judge Logue at length in the courtroom, the afternoon before the charge was given to the jury.
Former Davidians present were, Mr. & Mrs. Fayne Worth, Mrs. Tim Worth, Mrs. Vanoy Smith, Mrs. Eaken (Sister Houteff), her mother, Mrs. Sophie Hermanson, H.C. Sealey, and Mrs. Donaldson.
Other Davidians on hand were, Mr. & Mrs. Wesley Green, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haylock, Mr. & Mrs. H. G. Warden, Mr. & Mrs. George Saether, O.A. Atwood, W. J. Barton, Mr. & Mrs. Emil, John H. Betz and Jerry Strickland.
Quite a large representation from the Branch group now living on Mt. Carmel and headed by, Ben L. Roden, who has an option with Tom Street to buy New Mt. Carmel, were also present. It has been reported to the Committee that he decided not to buy, the property after hearing the evidence presented.
Mr. Roden claims that he, too, intends to set up an Association to carry out the original purpose of the Davidian Movement, and provide facilities for all who have paid second tithes to the movement since its inception, regardless of their present beliefs. He said that the elderly Davidians should be furnished the security for which they were assured under the second-tithe system; and in the courtroom, restated his willingness to unite with other Davidian factions to make it a reality. With each of the factions wishing to work out this project, it would seem that they could get together in a joint program and accomplish their desires.
Page 1
Several of his adherents were present in the court room and offered some evidence for each of the lawyers. Marie Smith, came from Odessa with V.W. Johnson, and her son, Grubbs Smith, flew down for the jury's decision. Mrs. V. W. Johnson, Helen Rogers, Mr. & Mrs. Perry Jones and children, Miss Edith Rosselot, Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Gallman, Mr. & Mrs. Phillip Florreich, Mr. & Mrs. R.C. Green, Dr. & Mrs. W. T. Bucholz, Mr. & Mrs. George Roden and children, Mrs. Ben Roden and daughter, Rebekah, were present during the four days of testimony.
Different groups of young lawyers sat in daily to observe, as the six lawyers representing the parties involved, presented their evidence and cross-examined the witnesses. A number of curious visitors, besides News Reporters came and went. Several articles regarding the trial appeared in the Waco newspapers.
MAIN POINTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE TESTIMONY
OF WITNESSES IN THE COURT
1. "The membership of this Association shall be composed only of persons who subscribe to the whole credenda and embody in their lives the whole agenda of the aforesaid Association. "--The Leviticus p.5: 2.
2. Those who rejected Brother Houteff's teachings were not members, and thus had no authority to dissolve the Association.
3. No one could be found who had actually seen any proxy votes for the March 11, 1962 session. One witness, who cast 35 votes in that session, testified that he had not actually seen the proxies, but someone had told him that he had 35 proxy votes."
4. There was not a quorum, even of the members listed in 1961, in attendance at the March 11, 1962 session. Therefore, the vote to dissolve the Association was entirely illegal.
5. As a part of the select number of 75, the council members paid themselves huge, so-called wage adjustments. Mrs. Eaken (Sister Houteff) admitted that she received $20,000.00. Sister Hermanson testified that she received over $10,000.00. Neither of them could remember the amount that was paid to Brother and Sister T. O. Hermanson. The family stands to receive some $10,000.00 more from the second tithe fund, should the Judge decide to sustain the trust agreement, and Tom Street sells the property and distributes the proceeds.
6. Heirs of deceased persons were not entitled to receive credits due a member, yet Mrs. Eaken (Sister Houteff) testified that she received $8,000.00 as Brother Houteff"s part in the so-called wage adjustment, in spite of the fact that she was not a legal heir.
Page 2
7. Mrs. Eaken, (Sister Houteff) testified that E. T. Wilson had resigned as Vice President of the Association before Brother Houteff's death, thus leaving a vacancy for the council to fill. (Who knows the real facts?)
8. Testimony revealed, that according to The Leviticus, the Council could not administer the affairs of the Association, and that the prophet-president, was the chief administrator of the Association and chairman of the Council, without which, they were powerless to act in creating, or filling a vacancy. The President, only, appoints the Council. The Leviticus, page 6.
9. To be legal, the Council must consist of seven members, one of which is the chairman, the Prophet-President, and without which the Council cannot function, and cannot call sessions, as the Code is written by him, according to The Leviticus, p. 9, Section 1 (a) and Sections 3 and 4.
10. Testimony showed that Sister Houteff and her Council departed from the teachings of the Prophet-President, thereby separating themselves from the Association, while those holding to the original teachings represented the true Association.
11. The Leviticus, by Brother Houteff, was accepted by the Court as the rule for determining the legality of the council's action, and as the rule of faith for a successor organization.
12. Evidence presented in testimony indicated that the second tithe was originally intended to be, at least in part, social security for those who paid it, and that all who have ever paid second tithe should benefit from it---not just the favored few who followed Sister Houteff and her Council in their private interpretation and departure from Brother Houteff's message.
FACSIMILE REPRODUCTION OF THE CHARGE
TO, AND THE DECISION OF, THE JURY IN THE
COURT CASE CONCERNING THE MT.
CARMEL PROPERTY
GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF DAVIDIAN
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, INC.
In the District Court of McLennan County,
Texas, 19th Judicial District
GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF DAVIDIAN
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, ET AL
Page 3
No. 51246
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:
This case is submitted to you on Special Issues; that is, you are called upon to answer some questions as to particular facts in the case, from the evidence you have heard in the trial. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, but in matters of law you must be governed by the instructions in this charge.
You are instructed that you must not speculate on matters not shown by the evidence and about which you are asked no questions.
You are further instructed that you are not to try to reach a verdict by lots, or chance; and do not return a quotient verdict, by adding together figures, dividing by the number of jurors, and agreeing to be bound by the result. Do not do any trading on your answers, that is, some of you agreeing to answer some questions one way if others will agree to answer other questions in another way.
In your deliberations, you shall not relate to your fellow jurors any personal experience of your own, not shall you relate any occurrence, happening, or event known to you, and not shown by the evidence in this case. In all your deliberations, and at all times while you are considering your verdict, you will confine yourselves strictly to the evidence introduced before you in this case.
Do not decide who you think should win, and then try to answer the questions accordingly. If you do that, your verdict will be worthless. Simply answer the questions as you find the facts from the evidence without concerning yourselves about the effect, of your answers. All questions must be answered by the unanimous consent of all the jury.
Do not discuss the case, or even mention it to anyone whomsoever nor permit it to be mentioned in your hearing, except in the jury room when all jurors are present. If anyone attempts to mention the case to you otherwise, you must report it to the Court at once.
Do not let bias, prejudice, sympathy, resentment, or any such emotion, play any part in your deliberations.
For your guidance in answering the following Special Issues, you are instructed as follows:
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE: By the term preponderance of the evidence, as used in this charge, is meant the greater weight and degree of the: credible evidence before you; and by the term "'credible" is meant worthy of belief.
Page 4
You are instructed that the phrase "General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists" and the word "Association", as used in this charge, has reference, for the purpose of answering the issues in this charge, to the organization of which Mrs. Houteff purported to be Vice President.
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 1:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists is a defunct or disorganized church or congregation?
Answer "Yes" or "no".
ANSWER: (yes.)
By the terms "church or congregation" is meant to refer to a local congregation of believers in Christ, and not to a denomination or communion as a whole.
The terms "defunct or disorganized" are meant to apply to an organization which formerly maintained regular forms of work and worship in a given community such as the Bible School, Communion Services, preaching Services, etc. at regular intervals, and which has ceased to function in these and similar capacities as a church for a period of one or more years.
If you answer the foregoing Special Issue "yes", and in that event only, you will answer the following Special Issue:
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 2:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists may be revived or reorganized within a reasonable time? Answer "yes" or "no".
ANSWER: (no.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 3:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc., is a church or congregation, denominational communion or organization of like faith--and order as the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists? Answer "Yes" or "no"
ANSWER: (yes.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 4:
Do you find a preponderance of the evidence that the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist, Inc., is a successor organization to the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists? Answer "Yes" or "no".
Page 5
ANSWER: (yes.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 5
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Davidian Seventh-Day
Adventists Association, is a church or congregation, a denomination or communion or organization of like faith and order as the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists? Answer "yes" or "no".
ANSWER: (yes.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 6:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists Association, is a successor organization to the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists? Answer "Yes" or "no".
ANSWER: (yes.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 7:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that the executive counsel in office in February 1955, had the authority to appoint Mrs. Florence Houteff Vice President of the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists? Answer "It did" or "It did not"
Answer: (It did.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 8
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that notices of the session of March 11, 1962, were sent to all members entitled to receive them? Answer "They were" or "They were not".
ANSWER: (They were not.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 9:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that the proxy votes used in the session of March 11, 1962, were actually received? Answer "They were" or "They were not".
ANSWER: (They were not.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 10:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that the contributors of the Second Tithe were induced to make said contributions by representations as to the purpose for which said Tithe was to be used? Answer "They were" or "They were not".
Page 6
ANSWER: (They were.)
If you have answered the above and foregoing issue "They were", and only in that event, you will answer the following issue:
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 11:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any that the contributors relied upon said representations? Answer "They did" or "They did not".
ANSWER: (They did.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 12:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that the contributors would not have contributed to Second Tithe if they had not relied upon said representation? Answer "They would" or "They would not".
ANSWER: (They would not.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 13:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that the assets and property in question were purchased with the Second Tithe funds? Answer "They were" or "They were not".
ANSWER: (They were.)
If you have answered the above and foregoing issue "yes", and only in that event, you will answer the following issue:
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 14:
Do you find, from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that according to, the representations made by said Association if you have so found were to hold the assets in trust for the use and benefit of the contributors? Answer "It was" or "It was not".
ANSWER: (It was)
If you have answered Special Issue No. 9 "They were", you will answer Special Issue No. 15; otherwise you need not answer same.
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 15:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that those present in person, together with such proxies constituted a majority of the membership of the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists on March 11, 1962? Answer "They did" or "They did not".
Page 7
ANSWER: (No answer needed.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 16:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that there was not a majority of the membership of the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist either present or by proxy voting for the resolution on March 11, 1962? Answer "There was not a majority" or "There was a majority".
ANSWER: (There was not a majority.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 17:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that O.A. Atwood, H.G. Warden, Vida Warden, George W. Saether, E.R Heim, Gertrude Heim, the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists, represented by the Wardens and General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists, Incorporated, waited an unreasonable length of time before bringing this suit after discovering that the asset's of the original General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists had been transferred to Tom Street, Trustee? Answer "They did wait an unreasonable length of time" or "They did not wait an unreasonable length of time".
ANSWER: (They did not.)
If you have answered the foregoing special issue No. 17 "They did wait an unreasonable length of time", and in that event only, you will answer the following issue:
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 18:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the delay of said parties, if you have so found, resulted In Tom Street, Trustee, changing his position to his disadvantage? Answer "It did so result" or "It did not so result".
ANSWER: (Needs no answer)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 19:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that it was the understanding of the members of the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists that a contributor had to remain a member of the Association in order to participate in the benefits of the Second Tithe? Answer "It was the understanding" or "It was not the understanding".
Page 8
ANSWER: (It was not)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 20:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that Mrs. Charles Love, Mrs. Ruby V. Haylock, Mrs. Fleda Green, C.H. Haylock, W.H. Green, Burdsal Brewer and the General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists, Inc., waited an unreasonable length of time before bringing this suit after discovering that the assets of the original General Association of Davidian Seventh-Day Adventists bad been transferred to Tom Street, Trustee? Answer "They did wait an unreasonable length of time" or "They did not wait an unreasonable length of time".
ANSWER: (They did not.)
If you have answered Special Issue No. 20 "They did wait an unreasonable length of time" you will answer the following issue; otherwise you need not answer same.
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 21:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the delay of said parties, you have so found, resulted in Tom Street, Trustee, changing his position to his disadvantage? Answer "it did so result" or "It did not so result".
ANSWER: (Needs no answer.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 22:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any, that a majority of those present in person at the meeting of March 11, 1962, voted for the resolution to dissolve? Answer "They did" or "They did not".
ANSWER: (They did.)
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 23:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, if any that a majority of those present in person, or by proxy, if proxies were received, at the meeting of March 11, 1962, voted for the resolution to dissolve? Answer "They did" or "They did not".
ANSWER: (They did.)
During your deliberations in the Jury room you will confine your discussions to the evidence submitted before you under the rulings of the Court, and you will not mention or discuss any personal experience that any one of you may have had elsewhere.
Bill Logue
Judge presiding.
Page 9
VERDICT OF THE JURY
We, the jury, return the above answers to the questions propounded to us herein as our verdict in this case.
W. H. Goodnight
Foreman
NOTICE
Those wishing to help defray the cost of printing and mailing the Court Reporting Committee News Bulletins may send in freewill contributions. A report of "news as it happens" will be sent to all who send in their requests.
ATTENTION!
The address of Judge Bill Logue has been requested from the Court Reporting Committee, so that telegrams, cable grams, and letters may be sent to him commending the court for the favorable decision that was rendered by the jury; and urge him to render his decision accordingly thus showing him that Davidians still have a definite spirit of unity. All who have not yet contacted Judge Logue, are urgently requested to write him at once. His address is:
Judge Bill Logue
19th District Court
McLennan County Court House
Waco, Texas
FINAL POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED BY ALL
SECOND-TITHE CREDIT HOLDERS
Unless the Davidian world gets together on one point--UNITING to STOP the litigation by VOLUNTARILY voting to remove Tom Street as Trustee (as advised by one District attorney, as the only solution for saving the assets) and return the second tithe assets to the Association for equitable distribution, the funds will be dissipated in court costs and lawyers' fees, in appealing the case from one court to another.
All second-tithe credit holders are now urged to present a united front, by taking the above action BEFORE a final judgment is entered in the court records by the Judge, so that all litigation may be stopped, once and for all, and the remaining assets be preserved for the people.
In case you did not sign the previous resolution, please sign the following, and return it by air mail, to, The Court Reporting Committee Box 121 Waco, Texas