Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00291)

Thanks Eldon for the additional information.

In most of the matters like this case, the problems seem to start with money
changing hands -- usually large sums when taken on the whole. If no money
was involved, there is much less chance of any of charges being filed. When
any organization or program tend to charge attendees, I generally try to
keep away from the programs. If on the other hand they need help, I have
always done what I can.

mkr

At 11:17 AM 3/31/98 -0800, you wrote:
>MKR:
>
>>Thanks for the information. More background information we have, better off
>>and each one of us can do the research for ourselves and come to our own
>>conclusions without taking anyone else's words.
>>
>>mkr
>>
>>>In 1940, the federal courts indicted Edna Ballard and her son, Donald
>>>Ballard, and many I AM leaders on 19 counts of fraud. This litigation
>>>and scandal, widely publicized at the time, caused massive defections.
>
>--------
>
>The following is an excerpt from an article by Robert Ellwood
>entitled "Making New Religions: The Mighty 'I AM'". It deals with
>the charges against the group, which were recently mentioned on
>theos-talk. (This article appeared in a journal several years
>back, I don't have the name and date of it handy at the moment.)
>
>-- Eldon
>
>> Then in July 1940 came a happening which Bryan could only insert
>> in his work as a last-minute Publisher's Note. Edna Ballard, her
>> son Donald, and a score of other prominent leaders of I AM were
>> indicted for mail fraud. In essence, the charge was that they
>> had devised the I AM religion knowing that it was a fabrication,
>> and then used it as a means of garnering large sums by soliciting
>> and receiving donations through the mails. The wife of a United
>> States Senator from North Dakota testified that she had spent
>> considerable amounts attending I AM classes hoping to cure her
>> husband's blindness, without success. Many similar accusations
>> were submitted. Counterbalancing testimonies on the part of many
>> others were offered of the immense value of I AM. This was the
>> case which was to end in the United States Supreme Court in a
>> landmark decision.
>>
>> It was first tried in the US District Court for Southern
>> California. There Edna and Donald Ballard were convicted of
>> using the mails to defraud. In his instructions to the jury, the
>> judge had said that the case could not be decided on the truth or
>> falsity of the Ballards' religious beliefs, but only on whether
>> they did 'honestly and in good faith believe those things'. If
>> they did, he said, they should be acquitted; if they did not,
>> they were obviously guilty of fraud. The jury evidently believed
>> the latter.
>>
>> The Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the conviction on
>> the grounds that the judge's instructions were in error. It
>> ruled that, to establish fraud in this case, the jury would have
>> to take into account the truth or falsity of the religious
>> doctrine or beliefs to show that at least some of its
>> representations were patently false.
>
>>
>> The case finally reached the US Supreme Court in 1944. Mr
>> Justice Douglas, a stalwart liberal, gave the majority opinion on
>> April 24th of that year. It ruled that the Circuit Court was in
>> error in requiring that the truth or falsity of the religious
>> doctrines or beliefs be determined, for that power is not granted
>> to any court or legislature by the US Constitution The Court's
>> majority opinion proclaims:
>>
>> Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe
>> what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of
>> their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences
>> which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to
>> others. The religious views espoused by respondents may seem
>> incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those
>> doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding
>> their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the
>> religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake
>> that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment
>> does not select any Two dissents were presented One, by Mr Chief
>> Justice Stone, in concurrence with two other Justices, contended
>> that freedom of religion was not at issue but that, when fraud is
>> charged, the facts must be ascertained thus the District Court
>> had acted correctly. The other, by MT Justice Jackson, another
>> liberal, went beyond Justice Douglas to argue that not only can
>> the courts not deteine the truth or falsity of any religious
>> claims, they also cannot determine anyone's sincerity or
>> insincerity in holding them, citing William James and other
>> psychologists of religion on the subjective complexities of faith
>> and unfaith. This too is an area beyond the cognizance of the
>> law, and beyond simplistic issues of fraud. 'There appear to be
>> persons let us hope not many' Justice Jackson wrote, 'who find
>> refreshment and courage in the teachings of the I AM cult. If
>> the members of the sect get comfort from the celestial guidance
>> of their "Saint Germain," however doubtful it seems to me, it is
>> hard to say that they do not get what they pay for...
>> Prosecutions of this character easily could degenerate into
>> religious persecution.'
>>
>> Justice Jackson thus contended that the whole indictment should
>> be dismissed and 'have done with this business of judicially
>> examining other people's faiths'. Justice Douglas' opinion,
>> however, carried, and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court
>> with instructions to proceed in accordance with the majority
>> opinion and to consider further issues originally raised by the
>> Ballards and not previously considered by the Circuit Court.
>>
>> Upon remandment the Circuit Court affirmed the original judgment
>> of conviction of the trial court. The conviction was again
>> reversed by the Supreme Court on December 9th, 1946, but on the
>> basis of additional issues raised in the record. The majority
>> opinion, once more delivered by Justice Douglas, cited the point
>> also of civil liberties importance - that women had been
>> systematically excluded from the convicting jury. This was,
>> Justice Douglas argued, unconstitutional.
>>
>> Justice Jackson concurred, but on the different grounds of his
>> earlier dissent, that the questions of religious truth and
>> sincerity of belief at the heart of the case were beyond the
>> jurisdiction of any court. Justice Stone and others dissented,
>> saying that the jury selection process was neither illegal nor
>> sufficient to reverse the case. They did, however, make a point
>> of adding that if this case were to come before the high court a
>> third time, the freedom of religion issue, presumably in the form
>> consistently raised by Justice Jackson, would have to be faced
>> fully. One now gets a feeling that others of the court are
>> beginning to lean his way, and senses a hint to the prosecution
>> in the lower courts that it might find better ways to occupy its
>> time than in dragging this case out interminably with still
>> further trials.
>>
>> The matter was dropped, though the movement was denied use of the
>> mails until 1954. ...
>