Author's Note: This article is undoubtedly biased. No matter how hard I might try, I cannot deny my role in the story, as inconsequential as it may be. I am a Christian Scientist, active in the "mainstream" of the Church. The principal figure in this story, while he too calls himself a Christian Scientist, is considered and referred to in the mass media as a "dissident." I could claim this piece is an example of new journalism, which allows the author to insert himself into the center of the story. While it is such, I would have instinctively preferred it to be more traditional. Unfortunately, for it to be truly unbiased, I could not have been its author.

I have not consulted the Church about the story and do not know if they know about it. In a sense, the Church and the Christian Science religion are irrelevant to the story. I prefer it that way. Then, we can judge the story, not on the theology, but on the facts.

Tale of Two Suits

It was the best of suits, it was the worst of suits -- depending on whether you were the plaintiff or the defendant, depending on which court you were in, depending on whether you won or lost -- of course.

It is the age of wisdom, it is the age of foolishness, it is the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity, it is the season of Light, it is the season of Darkness, it is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair, we have everything before us, we have nothing before us, we are all going direct to Heaven, we are all going direct the other way.

This story, as documented in the records filed in various courts of law, is of wisdom and foolishness, of belief and incredulity, of hope and despair, of light and darkness. The verdict has yet to be delivered. We have yet to know which way we will go.

The building in which you will find the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is as imposing as their names. It is constructed in monolithic bureaucratic style, out of gray, depressing stone. There is no lightness about the building, outside or in. The halls are wide, paved with marble, the sound of marshals' marching echoes down the hollow corridors. The courtrooms are immense and empty, even when they are full. It is the least inspired building among a forest of uninspired architecture.

At the other end of the nation is a not-so-busy courthouse. While Hawaii is both the largest island and the largest county in the fiftieth state, it is not the busiest court jurisdiction. The county, stretching the size of Connecticut, has only three circuit judges, who hold court primarily in Hilo, the largest town on the island. As their titles imply, the judges sometimes "ride the circuit" and visit Kona on the south side of the island.

The courtrooms, judges' chambers and offices share the two storey state office building at 75 Aupuni Street with other state agencies -- revenue, drivers licensing, consumer protection, health. The clerks are located in a well-lit though crowded file room, protected by an imposing counter. Like their species behind similar barriers throughout the country, clerks can be an amicable group, ready to help the stranger who must be particularly solicitous of their well-being.

Midway between Washington, D.C. and Hilo, Hawaii, is a branch of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. Other courts, from a California probate court to the Hawaiian Supreme Court, also have interwoven interests in this story.

The Copyright of Science and Health

In 1971, just up Pennsylvania Avenue from the federal courthouse, the United States Congress promulgated an unusual law, when it granted a special copyright extension to an unusual book, Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy. The book, known as the textbook of the Christian Science religion, is unique because it is the "pastor," along with the Bible, of the church. Since Christian Science has no professional ministers, its adherents must turn to these books for spiritual guidance. The law was unique because no other manuscript has ever been given such extensive protection.

In August 1985, back down Pennsylvania Avenue, the checks and balances of the federal system created by our founding fathers were in operation. The U.S. District Court declared that the Congress had erred in granting the copyright extension. According to the court, the Congressional action was unconstitutional. Subsequently, the federal appeals court upheld the decision, finding that the copyright extension violated the First Amendment separation of church and state. The special extension, according to the court, was in effect a Congressional law aiding the "establishment of religion." The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Had the plaintiff in the lawsuit, one David Nolan, not been preoccupied elsewhere, he might have been thrilled at prying the control over this book out of the clutches of the Christian Science church hierarchy, called The Mother Church, based in Boston, Massachusetts. Nolan, however, was defending himself in the Hilo circuit court, trying to avoid the judicial reach of Judge Shunichi Kimura.

David Nolan is chairman of the United Christian Scientists, the plaintiffs in United Christian Scientists, David James Nolan, and Lucille J. Place v. Christian Science Board of Directors (civil action 83-3486)(U.S.D.C. for District of Columbia) and David James Nolan, et. al., v. State of Hawaii, Governor George Ariyoshi, Judge Shunichi Kimura, et. al (civil action 86-20356)(U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California); the defendants in the guardianship cases of In re Rae Dering Richardson (G85-11, Third Circuit Court of Hawaii) and In re Helen Jane Mitchell (G85-014, Third Circuit Court of Hawaii); and a party to at least one of two probate cases, In re estate of Helen Jane Mitchell (P86-044, Third Circuit) and In re estate of Rae Dering Richardson (P86-057, Third Circuit). Not among these cases are the appeal of the District of Columbia case, a withdrawn appeal of the two guardianship cases to the Hawaiian Supreme Court, and a competing California probate case. And, there could always be more.

Nolan, according to his original complaint filed in the copyright case, "is a qualified healer whose sole vocation is the advocacy of Christian Science and the teaching and practice of spiritual healing through Christian Science." His complaint in the federal case in California claims "Plaintiff David Nolan is a world-wide renowned teacher and Practitioner of Christian Science and provides care to others of the faith who are afflicted with physical and emotional problems. Hundreds of such individuals have turned to Nolan as an acknowledged, experienced practitioner of Christian Science who has engaged and continues to engage publicly in the inspirational, prophylactic and therapeutic application of Christian Science."

Complaints are the documents used to formally initiate civil cases. Like most other legal documents, complaints make statements that are not necessarily accepted as truth or fact before a court of law. Other documents, such as affidavits signed under threat of perjury prosecution, make statements that are presumed to be true or factual.

UCS, Nolan's group, in the California complaint, called itself "an international religious and scientific educational foundation," incorporated in New Jersey on September 30, 1976, but with headquarters in San Jose, California. One of the goals of UCS, according to its literature, was to establish an independent center for the study of Christian Science in Hilo. The site was identified as the crossroads of the Pacific basin. The center would include radio and television studios and conference facilities for workshops and lectures for "like-minded independent thinkers."

Nolan and UCS refer to themselves as "independent." The Mother Church refers to them as "dissident."

The copyright gave sole legal possession of Science and Health to the Christian Science Board of Directors, a self-perpetuating body. The Board of Directors appoints a Board of Trustees and a Manager to operate The Christian Science Publishing Society. According to Article XXV, Section 8 of the Manual of The Mother Church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts, by Mary Baker Eddy, "Only the Publishing Society of the Mother Church selects, approves, and publishes the books and literature it sends forth." These books and literature are generally referred to as "authorized."

The preceding section places rigid limitations on the type of behavior permitted "in the rooms where the Christian Science textbook is published or sold." Article XXI of the Manual provides for Christian Science Reading Rooms, operated by each local Christian Science church. Only the writings of Mrs. Eddy and the literature of the Publishing Society are available in the reading rooms.

In effect, according to Nolan, Science and Health can only be obtained through a Christian Science Reading Room. This is not true, as copies can be found in commercial bookstores and public libraries.

"Independent" Christian Scientists argue that the message of Science and Health must be spread more widely. They claim that the Church administration has limited the book's accessibility. They want the ability to reproduce the textbook commercially; to publish edited or annotated versions, perhaps with explanations of difficult passages; and to republish earlier editions. They claim that the earlier editions, controlled by the copyright, could give insight into the changes in the thinking of the author. Nolan has said that he wants to distribute reprints, audio cassettes and video tapes of versions of Mrs. Eddy's writings which differ from the currently published and "authorized" editions.

Without the copyright, mainline Christian Scientists fear that the "dissidents" and anyone else will distort Science and Health. Selective excepts could easily change the essential message. Selective annotations and explanations could easily recast the meaning of original passages. One need only to look at the development of dozens of conflicting editions of the Bible -- King James Version, New Catholic, Revised Standard, Good News, New English, Paraphrased, etc.

The copyright provision in the United States Constitution allows the Congress "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) A copyright gives protection to the "fruits" of one's intellectual labor. It is a property right.

In the United States, there is no such things as a "common law copyright." Only the Congress, and no one else, may grant a copyright. The Congress has delegated the administrative responsibilities for copyrights to a copyright office under the Librarian of Congress.

The right, so long as it exists, is exclusive. However, the Constitution does not specify the length of time for a copyright protection, though it clearly states that the time shall be limited. It is up to the Congress to set the time limits for copyright protection. Subsequent court cases have affirmed the right of the Congress to extend, by special acts, the time limits.

In 1875, by special act of Congress, Mary Baker Glover (later to by Mary Baker Glover Eddy) was granted her first copyright for Science and Health. With Mrs Eddy's passing in 1910, the copyright transferred to her successors, currently the Christian Science Board of Directors. In 1971, by another special act of Congress, the copyright was extended for an additional 75 years.

The scope of the extension was unheard of. Was the Congress out of line, in effect going beyond the "for limited times" clause of the Constitution? Furthermore, by extending guaranteed control over a religious text to a specific church, was the Congress violating the First Amendment, which declares "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...?"

David Nolan and United Christian Scientists went into the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the constitutionality of the 1971 special law. They won and The Mother Church appealed. The case then went before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Nolan won, again.

Nolan in Hilo -- Where Did the Money Come From?

As interesting as the legal issues are, there is a practical side to any case, especially this one. The federal courts, as lower courts of the U. S. Supreme Court, are being asked to interpret the constitutionality of a federal law. The remedy or result will be simple -- either the Christian Science church keeps the copyright or it doesn't. There is no money involved; no big fee award or settlement.

Nevertheless, it is not cheap to take a case such as this through the federal court system. The original complaint was filed on behalf of Nolan and UCS by the Washington, D.C. law firm of Hogan and Hartson. The firm is large, well-known, and expensive. Where did the money come from? Is UCS that large or that wealthy? Understandably, UCS has been reluctant to reveal its financial base.

Part of the answer came out of that small courtroom on the other side of the United States. It came in the form of November 12, 1985 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, delivered to my desk a week later by a student reporter covering the copyright case for The Principia Pilot. The headline of the article announced "2 Elderly Women Bilked of Funds: Judge Orders House Sold for Trust to Support Victims." The article was accompanied by the photograph of a bearded man, with the caption "David Nolan -- Victimizes Two Women."

The first paragraph of the article read: "A former Hilo man, who successfully fought a copyright on a Christian Science religious textbook, bilked two elderly women of $529,000 to do so, Circuit Judge Shunichi Kimura has ruled." The article appeared to be based on a document issued by Kimura called "a finding of facts and conclusions of law."

On December 9, 1985, Judge Kimura issued a criminal bench warrant for David Nolan for failure to appear in court. The warrant extends throughout the state, ordering law enforcement officials to arrest Nolan for "failure to appear in civil case," a violation of Hawaii Revised Statue 710-1077, criminal contempt of court. Nolan had already been found guilty of criminal contempt on October 25.

Nolan fled to the mainland. Lucille Place, UCS secretary, in a footnote to a UCS mailing of October 15, 1985, reported, "David James Nolan is now in California, attempting to relocate as quickly as possible. . . ."

According to Hawaiian court documents, Nolan's last known legal address is 2603 Skylark Drive, San Jose, CA 95125, with a mailing address (as of April 13 of this year) at P.O. Box 8048, San Jose, CA 95155. Unable to serve the bench warrant, Hawaiian law enforcement officials entered the warrant into the NCIC -- the national criminal information computer maintained by the FBI -- on January 2, 1986.

Less than five weeks earlier, Judge Kimura found Nolan guilty of defrauding the two elderly women out of more than half a million dollars. The October 27, 1985 decision followed six months of legal maneuvering and a month-long hearing which culminated in the issuance of the 77 page "finding of facts, conclusions of law and court order" against Nolan.

According to the legal documents, Nolan convinced Raye D. Richardson (then 83) and Helen J. Mitchell (then 77) to make him their legal and financial guardians. As a result, he was able to gain control over their extensive financial resources. According to Kimura's final judgement, Nolan and UCS owed Richardson $144,577.29 and owed Mitchell $390,158.43.

The Star-Bulletin article summarized the findings of the Hilo court:

"Kimura determined that Nolan used the women's assets in fighting the court battle (the copyright case) against the church (The Mother Church)."

"Nolan conducted many of his activities, including the court battle, under the name United Christian Scientists, Inc. of which he is chairman."

"Judge Kimura determined that Nolan obtained at least $370,000 from Mitchell and $139,000 from Richardson, but did not provide care for them of equal value."

"Nolan also used the women's assets to buy property in Hilo at an undisclosed price and to build a $96,000 home on it, Kimura said."

"After the home was built in 1984, the women lived there with Nolan, but in such bad conditions that Kimura ordered them removed from Nolan's care."

"A public health nurse found Richardson naked in bed except for a diaper, Kimura said. Nolan also physically abused Mitchell, the judge said."

"Testimony in the guardianship hearings also indicated that Nolan was trying to rid Mitchell form his care when her assets were gone so he could make room for a Florida woman with assets."

Nolan evidently testified that people at the house abused each other. Kimura, in the final order, indicated that Nolan, in fact, gave testimony against himself. The judge, in harsh terms, concluded that Nolan repeatedly gave misleading, contradictory and incoherent testimony, and that the evidence in his defense, as a result, was not credible.

Kimura also determined that UCS was Nolan's "alter ego." The court determined that Nolan commingled personal and UCS funds, and paid personal bills with UCS monies.

The public records of UCS revealed many things. The group was incorporated in New Jersey, but still has no known bylaws, which could be a possible violation of New Jersey law. The records also indicated that UCS has never had an annual meeting of either its members or directors since it was incorporated in 1976, another possible violation of New Jersey law. The commingling of funds between a non-profit organization and a private individual could make UCS ripe for an Internal Revenue Service investigation. This is complicated by the fact that UCS operated as if it were a fully registered charity, in possible violation of many state charity registration and solicitation laws.

Judge Kimura had to decide, based on the absence of any corporate records and corporate behavior, whether UCS was no more than an extension (or "alter ego") of Nolan. He considered Lucille Place, the other "active" director and UCS secretary to be no more than Nolan's agent.

The UCS records along with many other documents and much of the personal property of the two women were left in Nolan's care, with strict orders from the court that nothing be done with them. The property included a Lincoln Continental and many antiques. The legal aid attorneys, assigned to represent the two women, discovered that Nolan had placed an ad in the local Hilo paper in an attempt to sell the car. Technically, the car was not his to sell and the action was a direct violation of the court order. The legal aid attorneys also discovered that Nolan had arranged for the personal property to be crated and delivered to the dockside for shipment to California, again in direct violation of the court order. The property was intercepted at the warehouse.

The court also ordered that the house be preserved pending the return of the assets to the women. One day, while reading the local paper, the public aid attorneys discovered that Nolan was publicly advertising the house for sale. This action, like the others, was in contempt of court.

The court records indicate that Nolan often missed hearings and appeared to try to manipulate the judicial process. As a result, he was cited for both civil and criminal contempt of court. He failed to appear for a December 9 hearing. As a result, Kimura issued the bench warrant for Nolan's arrest.

Nolan's Story

Nolan's California (federal lawsuit) complaint outlined his initial relationship with the two women. According to the legal document, Richardson first met Nolan in May 1974 when Nolan was broadcasting an informational program about Christian Science over San Jose radio station KFAX. The two entered into a "life-care contractual agreement" on July 14, 1982 and a conservatorship agreement on July 23, 1984. In effect, Richardson turned over control of her financial assets to Nolan in return for his caring for her for the rest of her life. Richardson conveyed all of her financial assets, personal property and home at 443 Los Encinos, San Jose, to Nolan. The document declared: "This transfer of my assets is final and non-reversible."

The first document was witnessed by Lucille J. Place and Kenneth M. Huggins. The second document, written after everyone had arrived in Hawaii, was witnessed by Huggins.

Mitchell, then living in her home state of Kansas, not far from Kansas City, ordered audio tapes from the United Christian Scientists in September 1978. In May, 1983 Mitchell invited Nolan to come to Kansas, which he promptly did. One of the legal documents implies that she asked his hand in marriage. On May 27, she wrote Nolan into her will, making him the executor and giving him the "residue" ("what is left") of her estate. On the same day as the Richardson conservatorship (July 23, 1984), Mitchell and Nolan entered into the same type of arrangement.

On May 2, 1983, UCS bought the lot at 72-B Halaulani Place. Two months later, Richardson and Mitchell joined Nolan in Hilo. Kenneth Huggins also joined the growing group in Hilo. Huggins may have been the person to alert the Hawaiian officials about the condition of the two elderly. However, he subsequently recanted any accusations against David Nolan. The Hilo band eventually grew to include Dona or Donna Bentley and Roy Oness. According to his own statements, Oness sat in court on Nolan's behalf since the cases started in April, 1985. He also filed two "amicus" or friend-of-the-court briefs. While they do take sides, such briefs are filed by non-parties with the purpose of aiding the judge in understanding complex or difficult issues.

Oness's "briefs" were "varified" [sic] and filed as a "friend" of David Nolan. The first brief was filed on October 28, after Kimura's findings were published. The essence of the brief was to defend Nolan, who Oness claimed had been denied the right to respond to the court's conclusions. Nolan had probably already fled to the mainland by this time.

Both Oness and Bentley were asked to testify during the Hilo guardianship proceedings. Oness, however, refused to "solemnly swear or affirm" to an oath. Instead, he referred to Matthew 5:33-37:

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not foreswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths;

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne;

"Nor by earth; for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

"Neither shalt thou swear by the head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Visit to the Court

I may have met Oness and/or Bentley right after the bench warrant was issued. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin article intrigued me enough to drive to Hilo while on vacation on Hawaii.

I decided to visit the Hilo circuit court clerk's office to learn more about the guardianship cases by reading the court files. Like most court documents, these files are available to the public to read and copy, the latter at substantial cost. Since I did not initially know the "caption" or formal legal name of the case or the case number, I armed myself with the names of the three parties -- David J. Nolan, Helen, J. Mitchell, and Raye D. Richardson -- and ventured into the clerk's office.

I asked to see the indexes for guardianship cases and civil cases, and was unable to find anything. I mentioned the names of the two women to the clerks, which did not ring any bells. I then said, in passing, Nolan's name. Their response was immediate: "Oh yes, we've got the files right here." Nolan was well known around the courthouse.

The cases were divided into two sets of nearly identical folders, one set of four for each woman -- G85-11 for Richardson and G85-014 for Mitchell. Each folder was between 3 and 5 inches thick, containing all the documents -- legal and non-legal, relevant and irrelevant -- filed in the cases or submitted to the court. There was one exception -- the trial transcript -- which has yet to be transcribed.

Two and half years later, while on a business trip to the islands, I returned to the courthouse to learn the progress of the cases. I inadvertently gave the case numbers without the "G" for guardianship) prefix. When the clerk could not locate the files, she looked up the names of the two women in the indexes. The clerk then returned with two sets of files, each with the prefix "P." Both of the women had died within four months of my first visit and their estates were now the subject of probate (hence the "P") proceedings.

Richardson's file (P86-057) was a single, rather thin folder, reflecting the uncomplicated nature of the case. Mitchell's file (P86-044) consisted of three thick folders. Nolan was contesting her probate proceedings.

Nolan, in his literature and court statements, declared that representatives of the Christian Science church were prompting government attorneys -- providing them with legal advice and secret information. The documents in the files revealed only one instance of contact between those involved in prosecuting the case -- the attorneys, the judge, the clerks -- and anything connected with the Mother Church or mainstream Christian Science. The prosecutors evidently consulted a Christian Science Journal, a monthly religious periodical of the church, which lists the Christian Science practitioners considered "authorized" by the church. Nolan's name was not on the list.

Nolan's fear of conspiracy, sprinkled throughout his documents, was seductive. It did not take long to feel that the conspiracy was all around. While the clerks in Hilo were very helpful, I wondered if one was an plant in the courthouse for Nolan. They indicated that the case had caused more than a little local notoriety. And, knowing the local "cast of characters," they were sure to know that I was an outsider.

I am no stranger to religious intrigue. After law school, I worked for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. During my time there, the Justice Department investigated and began legal proceedings against the Church of Scientology. In retaliation, the Scientologists mounted an infiltration operation against the department, which resulted in their successfully stealing copies of our internal documents.

A Scientologist had been hired as a low-level secretary in a centralized, highly sensitive office. As our documents (as well as FBI investigative reports) in the federal law suit against that church were processed, the secretary would xerox a second set and take them home. The Scientologists discovered the government's legal strategy. They discovered who our informants were. They learned of all the evidence the government had gathered against them. Among those papers were documents for which I was responsible.

The FBI, with federal search warrants in hand, entered church offices in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles and retrieved hundreds of pages of federal documents. The church had the audacity to sue the government for taking "their documents" -- I suppose under some bizarre theory that possession of stolen confidential documents is equivalent to ownership.

Eventually, several Scientology officials were sent to federal prison.

When I returned from lunch on my first visit to the Third Circuit Court, I discovered a well-dressed, middle-aged woman sitting in the chair next to mine and a casually dressed, middle-aged man (both "haoles," the Hawaiian word for whites) standing at the counter. They watched me as I entered and sat down with the files.

Normally, I find that people waiting for the clerks readily make room for those working with court documents. When the woman did not move, I figured that she was either interested in me or in the documents. The man also kept looking at me. The space in front of the counter and around the single table in the waiting area was small enough to remove any doubt that I was the center of their attention.

The man broke the heavy silence with a friendly, out-going, "I see you're interested in the same files I am. May I see the last one?"

I replied with a helpful, "Sure, be my guest."

"May I see the file?" he queried again.

"Sure, they're public records. Go ahead," I replied.

As he reached in front of me, he declared, inviting a response, "I'm a friend of David's." My smile was evasive.

"What's your interest in the case? Are you a friend of David's?"

Pleasantly I answered, "Nope, I just read about the case and was interested in it." While attempting to be polite, I wanted to send all the non-verbal signs that I was not interested in conversing. I was so unprepared for a confrontation.

The man took the most current folder, looked at it briefly, and returned it to the table. He and his silent partner left, carrying small legal folders of their own. As they walked out the glass door, I watch to see if they would turn to monitor me. They did, but saw my gaze and resumed walking.

I wondered to myself, "Who alerted them to my interest in the files?" I immediately suspected the imaginary spy in the clerk's office.

Upon returning the files at the end of the day, I made a point of thanking the clerk who came to retrieve them. Instead of immediately leaving, I decided to engage a clerk, randomly selecting one sitting near the counter, in conversation. I innocently asked who the couple was that had just left.

"Oh, he comes in here every day to see if anything new has been added to the files. He thinks he's an attorney," she cheerfully volunteered.

We talked a little more about the case in general. I commented on how "strong" the judge was to put up with the "grief" caused by Nolan and his supporters. She added that the clerks had to put up with it, too.

Ever the paranoid, I walked around the courthouse looking for all the exits and trying to spot anyone watching me. I worried that someone would track me down by the license plate of the car I was driving. In order to spot anyone tailing me, I drove across the island via a difficult and narrow mountain pass. No one followed.

Disinformation

Throughout the latter half of 1985, Judge Kimura received approximately fifty letters from private citizens concerned about Nolan's treatment by the court. The letters, although from such distant parts of the United States as California, New Jersey and Washington state, sounded alike. In general, they made three statements -- they attested to Nolan's good character, they asked that the court harassment end (suggesting that it was in retaliation for Nolan's success against the "Boston church" in the copyright case), and they implored that the UCS records be kept confidential, especially from the Mother Church. Curiously, many of the letters, in different typefaces and handwritings, employed many of the same words -- such as "inquisition."

Toward the end of the year, one of the prosecuting attorneys went to Kimura with a revelation. Out of the blue, a mainland citizen wrote the attorney about a letter she had received from Nolan. The writer included the letter, signed by Nolan on UCS letterhead. The mass mailing read, in part: "YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION IS URGENTLY NEEDED!!! Upon receipt of this letter, will you kindly write a note or letter in your own words to [Kimura]." The mailing asked that the readers request of the court: "The Chairman David James Nolan be spared any further inquisition that would have the effect of manacling him and thereby preventing him from carrying forward his ten-year crusade to liberate the Christian Science movement."

Perhaps attune to the last request, Kimura held "in camera" ("in secret") inspections of the UCS documents and determined that many of them were irrelevant to the cases. The documents were boxed up and returned to the UCS.

In a June 2, 1985 mailing on UCS letterhead, UCS secretary Place commended Kimura, stating: "He refused to release documents which would have revealed the names and addresses of all who have ever supported UCS...their children could be removed from Principia." The implication is that UCS supporters work at the church headquarters and send their children to Principia, a school for Christian Scientists.

Based on their literature, the UCS officers (Nolan and Place) are concerned about retribution, especially since their "crusade" is aimed at the church hierarchy in Boston. The copyright suit appears to be just one element in the overall strategy to "liberate the Christian science movement" and to "liberate our Leader's textbook." Curiously, the "citizen" letters to Judge Kimura were all signed and addressed. Had I wanted, I could have copied down the names and addresses of each writer. I didn't. Their identities were none of my business. They were just exercising their Constitutional right to petition. Nevertheless, their names and addresses remain on public record. The UCS concern over protecting the identities of its members may have backfired.

Since Judge Kimura sealed and returned UCS' membership records, there is no independent way to verify the size of its membership. The Washington Post, in a May 4, 1985 article about the copyright case, repeated the assertion of the UCS attorneys that UCS "claims 16,000 members nationwide." An article in The Principia Pilot reprinted The Washington Post figures without question in a late Fall, 1985 issue.

The Pilot article drew a quick response from a former Pilot editorial writer who was on the staff of Christian Science Committee on Publication, the officer of the church organization responsible for monitoring and responding to the public discussion of Christian Science in the mass media.

The letter was published in the first edition of The Pilot in Winter Quarter, 1986. The writer, David Brooks Andrews, offered this brief introduction: "It's not an official church statement but has been written by a staff member of the Committee on Publication who is familiar with the copyright extension granted to Science and Health." The letter read, in part: "By picking up and repeating errors made for the most part in the Washington Post column, the Pilot gave a distorted impression of ... the size of the plaintiff's support.... David Nolan's group has nothing like the membership of 16,000. Its mailing list -- much of which apparently was lifted straight from the Principia alumni directory -- may be that large. The number of actual supporters is small, although this is sometimes belied by their vociferousness. This individual's widely publicized national gatherings, which he quit holding over five years ago, rarely drew over several dozen people, some of whom were merely curiosity seekers."

Nolan, it so happens, attended Principia College briefly in the late 1960's. According to the college's alumni directory, he would have graduated in the Class of 1971. However, the notation indicates that he did not graduate from the college.

The Attorneys and Their Struggles -- Part I

Nolan's Hawaii attorney, Andre' S. Wooten, filed a notice of appeal of the guardianship cases two days after Christmas, 1985. The appeal was docketed with the Hawaiian Supreme Court on February 5, 1986, as case #1141. Two weeks later, on Feb. 19, Wooten filed a motion to withdraw the appeal. Nolan had not paid Wooten for the appellate brief and the attorney did not want to finance the case himself. Furthermore, as the person forcing the appeal, Nolan was responsible for paying for transcription of the trial transcript which he had not done.

This was not the first headache Wooten faced in representing Nolan. He had become Nolan's attorney in June, after Nolan had fired his earlier attorney, Joy Hutson. Hutson appeared ready to resign anyway, having filed a motion to withdraw in early June.

Wooten tried to resign on November 22, 1985. Judge Kimura denied the motion, insisting that the client had to be present in court to agree to the resignation. Nolan, however, had already fled to the mainland. He tried to conduct his defense by telephone. For example, December 5, four days before Kimura issued the bench warrant, Nolan called the judge. Nolan told Kimura that he was leaving for Switzerland the next day and would be returning on December 14. According to the judge's telephone notes, Nolan had "retained Melvin Belli of San Francisco and William Cohen of Denver." Belli, known as "the king of torts," is one of the most famous personal injury laws in the nation.

On May 16, prior to Wooten's participation in the case, the court issued an order barring Nolan and his agents from contacting Mitchell. That very day, Dona Bentley had attempted to call Mitchell twice at her nursing facility. The nursing home administrator claimed to have heard Nolan in the background giving Bentley instructions. One of the messages for Mitchell was for her to go to a local Christian Science reading room and pick up a ticket for the mainland. Bentley later admitted making the call. The next day Nolan, as well as a person claiming to be Nolan's stepfather, attempted to contact Mitchell.

The restraining order was extended to Nolan's new wife, Alisi Halaholo, in the fall, after she had attempted to invite Mitchell out for dinner.

Judge Kimura noted all of these incidents but decided to withhold legal judgment. After periodically issuing "show cause" orders and threatening both criminal and civil contempt charges, Kimura acted. Nolan was found guilty of criminal contempt of court on October 25 for violating the no-contact order.

Attorney Wooten was also found by the court to have improper contact with Mitchell, although he disputed the circumstances. On January 7, 1986, Deputy Attorney General Thomas Farrell got a civil contempt citation against Wooten. Since the charge could be grounds for an ethical investigation by the state bar association, Wooten attempted to fight the citation.

On October 21, Mitchell disappeared from her nursing home. Ten days later, agents of the Hawaii social services department and the state attorney general office, accompanied by San Jose police officers, found Mitchell at the San Jose address of Nolan, Place and UCS.

Nolan's version of the event appeared in the California federal complaint: "On or about Oct. 20, 1985, Plaintiff Mitchell escaped her confinement in Hawaii and procured an airplane ticket to California. Upon arrival in California she took up residence with Lucille J. Place, secretary UCS, and David Nolan, chairman UCS. On Oct. 31, 1985, Defendant Moore from the Hawaii Attorney General's office and Defendant Lenore Kozohara from the D.S.S.H. traveled to San Jose, California for the purpose of kidnapping Plaintiff Mitchell and returning her to the Stat of Hawaii."

The Conspiracy

The wrestling of the guardianship of Mitchell and Richardson was seen as just one more element of "the conspiracy." Place, in a p.s. to the June 2 UCS mailing, warned: "It is believed that these proceedings in the Hilo Court are being instigated by the Federal Government of the USA in collusion with the State Government of Hawaii in light of the fact that the UCS Committee sued the US Federal Government for its role in acquiescing to the demands of the Boston church." The original complaint was directed (incorrectly as it turns out) at the Registrar of Copyrights.

In spite of the alleged involvement of the federal government in a conspiracy, one of the citizen-writers claimed to have corresponded with President Ronald Reagan and Nolan wrote about contacting then-Attorney General Edwin Meese. In a June 4, 1985 letter to Judge Kimura, Nolan stated: "Yesterday Edwin Meese, Attorney General in Washington, D.C. was thoroughly briefed concerning this atrocity being allowed to proceed here in Hilo with myself individually -- and United Christian Scientists collectively, threatened with unjustified penalty."

Place's September 13 mailing reported: "That the Legal Department of the 'Mother' church in Boston is in collusion with the State of Hawaii in an attempt to destroy UCS and its Chairman I haven't the slightest doubt, though Judge Kimura stated that my remark to that effect on the witness stand was quite ridiculous."

A September 30 UCS mailing, headed "EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY!," warned: "Church and State are working together to destroy UCS and its Chairman." It continued: "Now The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston in collusion with the State of Hawaii is doing everything possible to discredit David James Nolan, Chairman of UCS, myself [Place], and all who have contributed to the work of this Committee for nearly ten years."

The letter asked the reader to write "in your own words" to request that the The Spotlight (300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003) "assign an investigative reporter to expose the latent, as well as the overt, acts of the alien Communist influence operating in the Boston church; and how that element has maneuvered to use the Christian Science Movement as a test case to ascertain their ability to curtail all religious freedom in this great Christian Republic." It added: "If The Spotlight will make the initial investigation into this crime against all Americans and the Constitution of the United States of America, it will be exposing a conspiracy which will make Watergate look like a Fourth-of-July picnic!"

The letter also mentioned: "You may wish to add that Erhlickman and Haldeman are directly responsible for this dilemma that I am bringing to your attention." H.R. "Bob" Haldeman was President Nixon's chief of staff and John Erhlickman was Nixon's senior domestic policy advisor. The Washington Post article, which was the basis for the original Principia Pilot article, alleged that the two Nixon White House aides were instrumental in securing the copyright protection for Science and Health.

The June 2 letter announced: "The Communist element operating within the Christian Science Center in Boston unequivocally identifies David James Nolan as their foremost opponent in their objective to obliterate legitimate Christian Science from the world community."

The conspiracy theory, including references to communist infiltration, are not new themes in dissident and "non-authorized" literature. One letter spent nearly two-thirds of its space to allegations that The Christian Science Monitor was part of a world-wide communist or "one-world" conspiracy.

A book published by The Gethsemane Foundation of Dallas, Texas repeats the same theme. The book, called Mary Baker Eddy: The Prophetic and Historical Perspective, was written by Paul R. Smillie in 1979. It has gone through at least two reprintings.

Over three hundred pages of tight print, the book is sent free to selective people. The cover letter says: "A dear friend of yours has asked that we send this book to you. It is a gift. As you see, it has been out since 1979. It is not well known because the distribution has not been public and has been very selective, and for that reason limited."

The letter, signed by Paul R. Smillie, the author, contains with a "P.S.": "To answer your question before it is asked -- the book has already been paid for by contributions to The Gethsemane Foundation. The Gethsemane Foundation is a non-profit, tax-exempt foundation whose aim is to give a clear concept of Mary Baker Eddy to the Christian Science Movement and to the general public."

Page 298 contains the claim: "Every problem in America stems from the Movement. You must look at the Movement to see what is wrong with America. Don't look at the world and shudder, for that is the decoy. There is not a single national or world problem that does not have its roots in Boston, from starvation to women's lib to socialism, communism, inflation and the crime wave."

Page 303 continues: "Mesmeric internationalism has made deep inroads into the Christian Science Movement." The paragraph goes on to discuss changes in Massachusetts law that allows "citizens of the world rather than citizens of Massachusetts, hence only American citizens, to become members of the Board of Directors of The Mother Church."

Page 312 repeats the general theme of the chapter: "Turning away from their responsibilities, Christian Scientists have promoted humanism in its many forms in socialism, communism, sociology, psychology, Keynesian economics, and Dewey's philosophy of education. The Monitor then reflects a Movement lacking self-government, self-discipline, and unwilling to uncover sin."

An October 15, 1985 letter signed by Nolan on UCS stationary tied the Washington, D.C., and Hilo, Hawaii cases together. It read, in part: "When in April 1985 it became clear to the rulers of the Boston-based church that Judge Jackson [the federal district court judge who ruled the copyright extension unconstitutional] was not one who could be manipulated and that the church would lose its case, they began a most infamous scheme to discredit UCS and its chairman. One evidence of this fact was that the state attorney requested the judge of the Circuit Court in Hilo, Hawaii, to permit a general search of the entire UCS facility for all UCS records. There has been no abatement in the attempt by the lawyers for the State of Hawaii to find the names of those who have supported UCS, thereby contributing to the winning of the copyright suit."

Nolan's letter continued: "Were the State of Hawaii successful in its attempt to discredit UCS and me, the Boston church authorities would be unchallenged in their attempt to appeal and reverse Judge Jackson's monumental decision in the copyright case...."

The letter also explained how UCS could have been able to afford legal counsel such as Hogan & Hartson. It acknowledged: "The case involving me was a 'guardianship case.' Both ladies involved in this action (both of them life-long students of Christian Science) had in years past voluntarily conveyed some of their assets to assist UCS in the legal arena in which we were actively challenging PL 92-60 [the copyright extension law]. These two ladies were both as interested in freeing the Christian Science textbook as was UCS."

On November 5, Nolan issued a 12 page "progress report." On page 7, he reported: "Both ladies made voluntary contributions of their personal resources when income from the Field did not meet the necessary amount to sustain the lawyers in their representations of our goals."

On May 30, 1986, Nolan filed a civil suit in federal court (Nolan, et. al., v. State of Hawaii, et. al. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Civil No. C86-20356) alleging "conspiracies to deprive Nolan and the other plaintiffs of certain State and Federal constitutional rights and common law torts" in the guardianship cases. Among the defendants were George Ariyoshi (then governor of Hawaii), the state's attorney general, various state officials, Judge Kimura, the clerk of the court, social workers, and a number of police officers in Hawaii and San Jose, California.

The case was filed by William A. Cohen of Cohen & Stahl in Denver and David Kraft of San Jose. The plaintiffs included Nolan, UCS, and the estate of Helen Mitchell, although the legal representative of the estate does not appear to have agreed to have the estate be made a party to the suit.

The federal suit alleged that Judge Kimura's action in the guardianship cases "set forth herein were undertaken knowingly and willfully as a part of a conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their rights, privileges and immunities." The conspiracy, according to the complaint, began on July 15, 1984. The defendants allegedly violated nearly a dozen sections of the federal criminal code, sections of both the California and Hawaii penal codes, and the United States Constitution.

The 45 page complaint listed sixteen counts and demanded $70 million in compensatory and actual damages. The accusations included civil racketeering, two interferences with the freedom of contract, interference with contractual obligations, violation of freedom of association, unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure, violation of due process of law, violation of right to trial, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and abuse of process. The complaint alleged: "Defendants, through a thoroughly orchestrated, far reaching and well organized conspiracy, deprived plaintiffs Nolan, Mitchell and UCS of their freedom to exercise their religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment." The complaint alleged both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous conduct of defendant was committed with the purpose of effectuating the aforesaid conspiracy." And, the complaint also alleged defamation in that "the defendants caused to be published" the Honolulu Star-Bulletin article anouncing Judge Kimura's findings against Nolan, the very article that led me to Hilo, Hawaii.

The Attorneys and Their Trials -- Part II

In July, 1986 Nolan's Hawaii attorneys filed a motion in the Hilo court to disqualify Judge Kimura from the Mitchell probate case because the judge was now the defendant in a lawsuit brought by one of the interested parties in the probate case. Kimura stepped aside and was replaced by Judge Ernest Kubota.

The Hawaii attorneys, the Honolulu law firm of Smith Himmelman, withdrew from the Hilo case on January 26, 1987, citing Nolan's failure and refusal to pay agreed upon attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 23, 1986, Nolan's San Jose attorney, Lois Kittle, hired the Honolulu law firm. In a June 6 letter to Kittle, Himmelman wrote that they had not yet received the $500 retainer, "which at this point will be insufficient to pay all fees and costs incurred to date." The lawyer enclosed a standardized proposed retainer agreement.

On June 19, Himmelman wrote to Kittle that "it was agreed" that she would send $3,500 immediately and $2,500 more in 15 days. That same day Kittle mailed Himmelman the first payment. As a precaution, the Honolulu firm prepared their first motion to withdraw from the case.

On July 17, Himmelman wrote that the second payment was "past due" and asked for "a firm written agreement." That same day Nolan sent the additional $2,500.

On October 17, Himmelman sent Nolan a notice that the legal fees in the probate case had exceeded $5,000. Four days latter, Nolan pleaded with Himmelman: "Will you please stand by me and let me do my most earnest part to pay all your out of pocket expenses and pay you in total when we prevail? There are ample funds there to meet all of your fees and if you can arrange something along those lines you will never look in retrospect and regret a decision along those lines."

On November 5, Himmelman sent another notice to Nolan. He wrote: "We have advanced over $6,000 in costs and attorneys' fees in your behalf." The lawyer sent a follow-up notice on November 7.

On January 26, the Honolulu law firm filed another motion to withdraw from the case. The supporting documentation indicated that they had attempted to reach Kittle and Nolan a number of times by telephone. Himmelman did reach Nolan on January 23. The essence of the conversation was recorded in correspondence from Himmelman to Nolan on January 27: "I was also very surprised to learn from you during the conversation that of all your attorneys now working on your various cases, Ms. Kittle is the only one whose fees are current."

That letter was sparked by Nolan's telegram of the same date, responding to the law firm's withdrawal from the case. Nolan wired: "Be advised that I object strenuously to your stated intent to withdraw from representing me in the matter of the estate of Helen Mitchell. We entered into a working relationship without the fee agreement ever being reduced in writing. You and/or representatives of your firm have received and cashed numerous substantial checks...."

Nolan attempted to send a copy of the telegram to Judge Kubota. Perhaps aware of the prohibition of "ex parte" contact with a judge, the clerk forwarded the telegram on to the Honolulu law firm.

The Deaths of Mitchell and Richardson

March 6, 1986, less than three months after Judge Kimura's findings against Nolan, was a turning point in the legal life of David Nolan. That day Hawaii's Deputy Attorney General Thomas Farrell wrote a letter to Judge Kimura. He reported that a telephone call had been placed to Mitchell at the Guillermo Care Home. As the caller claimed to be Ben Gaddis, the legal aid attorney appointed to be her guardian, the call was put through. Subsequently, the nursing home called Farrel, who contacted Gaddis. The guardian had not called Mitchell.

Farrell wrote to Kimura: "I suspect, instead, that the caller was David James Nolan who has previously been prohibited, by your order, from contacting or communicating with Mrs. Mitchell." The next paragraph read: "After receiving this telephone call, Mrs. Mitchell was observed to be in a highly nervous and agitated state. This condition was observed to have worsened this morning until, shortly after breakfast today, she collapsed and died."

Helen Jane Mitchell was born on October 11, 1907 and died on March 6, 1986, at the age of 78, in Kaneohe, Hawaii. She came to Hawaii in the summer of 1983 from Kansas. Cause of death is listed as arteriosclerotic heart disease and cerebral arteriosclerosis. The battle between Nolan and the State of Hawaii over Mitchell's estate continues today.

Richardson died April 29, 1986, at the age of 83. She was born June 10, 1902. Her estimated estate at time of death was $56,707.95, not including the money owed by Nolan. Her son, Keith C. Bishop of San Jose, will probably inherit her estate.

Nolan's November 5, 1985 progress report implored: "Will you please help us? This is all-out war with the agents of the anti-Christ and I implore you to send your support NOW so that this satanic assault can be forever silenced. I have stood, God only knows. The dragon is furious. Victory is in sight. Are you going to abandon me now that the river Jordon must be crossed? Are you afraid to get your feet wet? Please, please, I beg you to march with me forward even against these most formidable odds. Remember, our Leader has gone before us to show us the way. Can I depend on your willingness to underwrite the expensive battle which is raging all around? Collectivism is pushing in on all sides. I call with every fibre of my being for you to rouse yourselves and hold high the banner which has been placed in our hands."

The present law suits, although different from the original suits, are not over. The entire matter is in a state of legal limbo. According to medieval legend, limbo was a state of suspension somewhere between earth and Purgatory. The tale of two suits, now drowning in a sea of litigation, is more like Rod Sterling than Charles Dickens.