Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Steinar Myhre, Petitioner v. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement American Union International Missionary Society, et al.

No.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SThTJNA1 /'4Y/1'E-

PETITIONER

-

(Your Name)

vs.

5A4 j/4' /NS7 Al- .

RESPONDENT(S)

-

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

L S. C 7Uie3 - OFAPPM 1-5 ,!R 7f&& F V&'Vi7-I

/iecoi r

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

<57/,ur/4!e

A-7vM

(Your Name)

/62-05. / ValeY C/i'CL-, fN/ rc

(Address)

(City, State, Zip Code)

(i)-2gt- 726

(Phone Number)

vu

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

May a pension be altered after it has vested for 4 years?

Do the US Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allow for a pension

contract to forbid a retiree to change his faith for the rest of his life?

May employers use pensions to bind the beliefs, opinions and conversation of a

former employee for the rest of his life?

Europeans fled to America from oppression by the church in the Old World.

Now, is it compatible with the intention of the US Constitution's guarantee of

liberty of conscience for a church in the United States to be allowed to force a

former pastor to feign loyalty to a church creed or face abject poverty?

Does "the establishment clause" in the "separation of church and state"

principle of the First Amendment permit the courts to uphold fraudulent

pension policies or give churches exemptions and immunity from just laws that

secular employers do not enjoy?

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grant employers the legal right to

"discriminate against any [employee] with respect to his compensation"

because of his "religion"?

Are US courts released by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine from ruling in

financial matters or prosecuting criminal policies and crimes committed by

religious organizations?

viii

Case No.:

: Date filed: 06/03/2018 Page: 1 of 2

LIST OF PARTIES

& Corporate Disclosure Statement

in Compliance with Rule 29.6

Steinar Myhre vs. IMS Corporations

The following is a full and complete list of the trial judge(s), attorneys, persons,

associations of persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have an interest in

the outcome of this case or appeal, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates

and parent corporations, including any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or

more of the party's stock, and other identifiable legal entities related to the party:

Bashant, Cynthia, United States District Judge for the Southern District

of California

Brooks, Ruben B., Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the

Southern District of California

Chancey, Joseph C. of Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP

Guerrero, Meredith Riggs of Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP

Hanna, Paul of Manning, Kass, Elirod, Ramirez, Trester LLP

International Missionary Society Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reform

Movement, General Conference, a Georgia corporation (formerly a

California corporation)

Jones, Steve C., Untied States District Court for the Northern District of

Georgia

Kramer, Melody A. of Kramer Law Offices, Inc.

Louth, Kevin H. of Manning, Kass, Elirod, Ramirez, Trester LLP

lx

Case: 15-13755 Date filed: 06/03/2018 Page: 2 of 2

Miami Dade Area Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reform Movement,

International Missionary Society, Inc., a Florida corporation

Myhre, Steinar

Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reform Movement, American Union,

International Missionary Society, a New Jersey corporation

Stark, Patrick, Attorney

Tampa Bay Area Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reform Movement,

International Missionary Society Inc., a Florida corporation

The Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reform Movement, American Union,

International Missionary Society, a Florida corporation

The Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reform Movement, American Union

IMS, Inc., a Georgia corporation

The Seventh-day Adventist Church, Reform Movement, International

Missionary Society, a Texas corporation

Twyman, Christopher Paul of Cox, Buyington, Twyman & Johnson, LLP

Wade, Lori B. of Manning, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Being that Appellant is an individual and not a corporation, neither corporate stock

nor a percentage thereof is involved. Therefore, in past briefs and petitions

submitted to the district and appellate courts, Appellant has never submitted a

corporate disclosure statement.

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Rule 39 ......................i-vi

Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ............... vi

Cover Page Rule 34 .................................................................vii

Questions presented for Review ....................................................viii

List of Parties & Corporate Disclosure Statement....................................ix-x

Table of Contents ......................................................................xi

Index of Appendices .................................................................xii

Appendix A: Appel. Ct's 01/02/2018 dismissal of Myhre's case ............xiii

Appendix B: District Court's 07/24/2018 dismissal of Myhre's case ........xiv

Appendix C: Appellate Court's 03/05/2018 dismissal of Myhre'

Petition for Rehearing en banc .................................................xv

Table of Authorities ..............................................................xvi-xiv

Opinions Below (None) ................................................................1

Jurisdiction .................................................................................2

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ................................3-4

Statement of the Case + BODY of Petition for Writ .........................5-23

24-25

Reasons for Granting the Writ (See National Significance, pgs 5-6)

Conclusion ..............................................................................................24

Index to Exhibits A-D of the Petition ..............................................xv

Exhibit A: IMS AU Human Resources Manual the three items of

eligibility for a pension ......................................................xvi

Exhibit B: The AU Board makes reception of pension contingent on

Myhre's silence ..............................................................xvii

Exhibit C: The AU Board reverses its decision to require Myhre's

silence as a prerequisite for receiving his pension ....................xviii

Exhibit D: AU Delegation vote to stop Plaintiff's pension payments ........xix

Proof of Service ......................................................................xx

-

-

....

-

xi

Index of Appendices

Appendix A:

The U.S. Appellate Court of the Eleventh Circuit on 01/02/2018

DISMISSED Myhre's (reply brief and) case (#15-13755).

-

Appendix B:

The U.S. District Court of Northern Georgia on 07/24/2015 DISMISSED

(ORDER, Document 169) Myhre's case (#1:14-cv-03899-SCJ).

-

Appendix C:

The U.S. Appellate Court of the Eleventh Circuit on 03/05/2018 DENTED

Myhre's timely filed Petition (case #15-13755) for Rehearing en banc.

-

xii

On January 02, 2018, Appellant's reply brief and case (Appeal #15-13755)

was DISMISSED by Circuit Judges William Pryor, Martin and Jill Pryor of the

Eleventh Circuit Appellate Court. See the two following pages.

Appendix A

xlii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

cited in Body of Petition

-

Page 3 of the Petition:

"Under common contract law, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing attaches

to all contracts, and cannot be waived or disclaimed under any circumstances."

http ://www.businesslawbasics.cornlchapter- 18-contract-law

Page 3 of the Petition:

"No state shall ... pass any .... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

The US Constitution, Article I, Section 10.

-

Page 4 of the Petition:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse

to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any

individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of

employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin." Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Appellant's italics.

https://www.eeoc.jzov/laws/statutes/ti. tlevii.cfm

-

-

Page 4 of the Petition:

"This Section applies where an individual has been denied benefits

or has received lower benefits because of his age, disability, race, color, sex,

national origin, or religion, or motivated by retaliation." Appellant's italics.

(https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/benefits.html).

-

-

Page 4 of the Petition:

"Under Title VII, an employer may never base benefit decisions on race, color, sex,

national origin, or religion." Ibid. Appellant's italics.

-

Page 5 of the Petition:

"Under Title VII, employers may not consider a person's race, color, sex (including

pregnancy), national origin, or religion in determining: eligibility for; amount of;

or charges for employee benefits. The cost of the benefit is not a defense." Ibid.

Appellant's italics.

-

Page 6 of the Petition:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press.. ." First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Appellant's emphasis.

-

xvi

Page 8 of the Petition:

"Religious institutions in America don't have special permission to harbor

criminals or protect them from the government."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and politics/explainer/2006/08/cancriminals

hide in church .html

-

Page 8 of the Petition:

"People's [and religious institutions'] sincere religious beliefs may occasionally

conflict with the law. Usually, it's the religious beliefs that must yield, as the law

rarely accepts them as a defense to criminal charges. If a government has decided

that certain activity is illegal, then it's usually no excuse to say, 'I did it because of

my religious beliefs." Appellant's insert. http ://www.nolo .com/legalencyclopedia/are-religious-beliefs-defense-criminal-charges .html

Page 9 of the Petition:

"Even if she [or anyone] sincerely holds them, her religious beliefs won't

constitute a defense to a charge." See State v. Neumann, 832 N.W.2d 560 (Wis.

2013); Wis. Stat. § 948.03. Appellant's insert.

-

Page 9 of the Petition:

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine stands for the proposition that the First

Amendment prohibits civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over matters

concerning "theological controversy, - church discipline, ecclesiastical government,

or the conformity of the members of a church to the standards of moral required of

them." Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713-14, 96 S.

Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976).

-

Page 11 of the Petition:

"Because a court can decide plaintiff's contract-based claims applying 'neutral

principles of law,' without entangling the Court in an ecclesiastical dispute or

interpretation, we hold that the ecclesiastical doctrine does not require dismissal of

plaintiff's complaint." Bigelow v. Sassafras Grove Baptist Church, 786 S.E.2d

3581,365-66 N.C. Ct.Appl. (2016); Jones, 443 U.S. at 602.

-

Page 11 of the Petition:

"Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Require Dismissal of Breach of

Contract Claim." Shannon v. Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church U.S., TX

App., July 21, 2015.

-

xvii

Page 12 of the Petition:

"The courts do have jurisdiction, as to civil, contract and property rights which are

involved in, or arise from, a church controversy." Reid v. Johnston, 241 N.C.

201,204,85 S.E.2d 114, 117d. (1954).

-

Page 12 of the Petition:

A case of wage discrimination (policy) against a female employee in which a

religious organization was required to make amends: The 482 F. Supp. 1291

(1979), EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (U. S. A.),

Appellant, v. PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, Defendant. No.

C-77-1619-CBR. US District Court, N. D. California. December 28, 1979.

https:Hlaw.justia.com/cases/federal/district courts/F Supp/482/ 1291/2095517/

Page 12 of the Petition:

"Later decisions of the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit recognize the

possibility of a fraud and collusion exception to the general rule of deference. See,

Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 404,509n.8(1979); Crowder, 828 F.2.d at 725 n.18,

726 ('Nevertheless, the grievants retain a strong interest in obtaining a civil forum

where the religious tribunal's decision is tainted by fraud or collusion.')" U.S.

Distr.Ct. of N.GA, Judge Steve C. Jones, 07/24/2015 ORDER, Doc 169 in Myhre's

case, pages 10-11.

-

xviii

OPINIONS BELOW

To Appellant's understanding, nothing here applies in this case.

JURISDICTION

Establishing the timeliness of the petition for a writ of certiorari:

On 01/02/2018 Appellant's reply brief and his case was DISMISSED by the

U.S. Appellate Court of the Eleventh Circuit.

On 07/24/2015, Myhre's case was DISMISSED by the U.S. District Court of

Northern Georgia.

On 03/05/2018 Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Bane was DENTED.

The U.S. Supreme Court Guide for Prospective Indigent Petitioners for

Writs of Certiorari, under Section III. The Time for Filing, reads: "You must file

your petition for a writ of certiorari within 90 days from the date of the entry of the

final judgment in the United States court of appeals or highest state appellate court

or 90 days from the denial of a timelyfiledpetitionfor rehearing." (Appellant's

italics.)

Appellant's petition to the Eleventh Circuit Appellate Court for a rehearing

en bane was timely filed on January 23, 2018 and was DENTED on March 05,

2018. Counting 90 days from the latter date brings the deadline for submitting a

petition for a writ of certiorari to June 03, 2018.

On 05/23/2018 Appellant submitted a timely Request for an Extension to

submit a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. On May 30, Justice Thomas extended the

time to and including June 17, 2018. Copy of letter granting extension follows.

CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Statutory provision is believed to confer on this Court jurisdiction to review

on a writ of certiorari the judgments or orders in question.

"No state shall

...

pass any

....

Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10.

-

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment to the U.S.

-

Constitution.

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine stands for the proposition that the First

Amendment prohibits civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over matters

concerning "theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government,

or the conformity of the members of a church to the standards of moral required of

them." Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713-14, 96 S.

-

Ct. 23725 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976).

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges

or immunities of citizens of the Unite States; nor shall any State deprive any

person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any

3

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

to the U.S. Constitution. Appellant's italics.

-

141 Amendment

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On November 14, 2013, Myhre initiated this lawsuit in the U.S. District

Court of Southern California against Appellees Seventh-day Adventist Church,

Reform Movement, American Union (AU), International Missionary Society

(IMS), a New Jersey corporation and the General Conference (GC) of the same

organization, a California corporation.

Both levels of the organization, one national, the other international, are

being sued since, because by the hierarchical structure of the organization, the

power and decision-making in important matters work their way from top down.

The AU may not oppose GC directives.

Basis of the lawsuit: After 27 years of service, Plaintiff went on church

pension in 2009, meeting all the requirements for receiving such pension. After

four years of paying Appellant's vested church pension, however, as of October

2013, the AU discontinued these retirement payments. Find details in Petition.

On December 8, 2014, Myhre's case was transferred to the U.S. District

Court of Northern Georgia. On July 24, 2015, district court Judge Steve C. Jones

dismissed Myhre's case "for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction," citing the

ecclesiastical abstention doctrine (EAD) against all Myhre's original seven

complaints.

Myhre appealed and the appellate court of the Eleventh Circuit carried the

case until that court affirmed the decision of the district court on January 02, 2018.

A petition for a rehearing en banc at the appellate court was denied as of

March 05, 2018. Myhre is presently petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ

of certiorari, which petition was due on June 03 but, by extension, is due on June

17, 2018.

The lower courts went through the required and formal procedure.

Nonetheless, Myhre claims that there's a serious glitch in the courts' application of

the EAD, to the point of diametrically undermining contract law, civil rights and

religious liberty. Such breaches in applying justice are of national magnitude.

Thus, basic federal and constitutional issues are here involved.

BODY OF PETITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Introduction

Appellant, Myhre, has described in detail how he believes that the policy of

his former employer to stop his pension because he changed his religious beliefs is

unlawful and unconstitutional. Because the responses he has been getting from the

lower courts appear to him shallow and avoidant, Myhre is appealing the decisions

of these Courts to the supreme Court.

Although Appellant has shown in his appeals, citing decisions of former

cases, that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine (EAD) does not apply to this case,

the courts have merely reiterated the doctrine without showing how his case is

different and how this doctrine applies to this situation.

If truly the EAD applies, which Appellant does not see, then he wonders

how the EAD could be constitutional.

A. National Significance

Losing this lawsuit would set a legal precedent for further religious abuse.

Using a pension as leverage to silence pastors who know too much about their

church, their doctrines and its leaders is extortion. Robbing pastors of their pension

and consigning them to pauperism if they disclose what they know is no small

threat. This has the potential of corrupting the very institutions that have kept the

'A

moral fabric of our society. America is great because freedom of speech forces

transparency. Appellant hopes to show how setting a precedent allowing churches

to force people to silence will return America to the abuses of the Dark Ages. This

brief is about keeping Americans free to speak their minds and free from the kind

of religious coercion that prompted the pilgrims to flee Europe.

Myhre's case is not an isolated case with the International Missionary

Society (IMS). It is common practice with them. And if she continues to get away

with this, it can spread to other churches. One pastor after 35 years of amazing

leadership, about 12 of those as American Union (AU) President, and several years

as General Conference (GC) Vice President, unwittingly became political

competition and was ousted for an unproven infraction. In his old age this great

man ended up spending his retirement working as a greeter at Walmart to survive

until he became too senile to continue; his elderly wife worked as a cleaning lady

to try to make ends meet.

America cannot allow such practice to continue. This is elder abuse and a

threat to all pastors, none of whom can be sure that they will not change their

minds about their religious beliefs as they mature over time.

B. Legal Considerations

1. THE PENSION ISSUE AND CONTRACT LAW

ro

May a pension be stopped after it had legitimately vested and even been paid

for four years? (See Exhibits C & D.)

As an employee of the International Missionary Society (IMS)' for 27 years,

according to the 2009 edition of the Human Resource Manual (FIRM) published by

the IMS American Union (AU), Myhre was promised a pension on the following

three conditions:

He has remained a member in good standing of the

denomination;

He had worked 10 or more years for the AU;

He was at retirement age as prescribed by the Social

Security Administration HRM 26 (Exhibit A).

-

"Under common contract law, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing

attaches to all contracts, and cannot be waived or disclaimed under any

circumstances." http://www.business1awbasics.com/chapter- 18-contract-law

-

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10 reads: "No state shall

any

...

...

pass

Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

2. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: RELIGIOUS

DISCRIMINATION

Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allow for a pension contract that

discriminates against a retiree who changes his faith?

'The IMS is not affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

When he retired in 2009, Myhre had met all the three prerequisites.

However, the policy of the IMS continues into the next page. It reads that retirees

may "continue to receive their pensions" upon "maintaining their membership in

this denomination" HRM 27 (Exhibit A). This means that Myhre may for the rest

-

of his life, potentially as much as 35 years, never change his mind about what he

believes. If he does, he must choose between living a life of hypocrisy or lose the

pension which was a part of his compensation and become a ward of the state.

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer

(1) to fail or

-

refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against

any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of

employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin." Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Appellant's italics.

-

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

Thus, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids an employer to have

policies in which the compensation for a person of a different persuasion is

different from those of the same persuasion. A pension is a vital part of the

compensation package promised to an employee.

"This Section applies where an individual has been denied benefits

or has received lower benefits

-

because of his age, disability, race, color, sex,

-

national origin, or religion, or motivated by retaliation." Appellant's italics.

10

https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/benefits.html

"Under Title VII, an employer may never base benefit decisions on race,

color, sex, national origin, or religion."

Ibid. Appellant's italics.

-

"Under Title VII, employers may not consider a person's race, color, sex

(including pregnancy), national origin, or religion in determining: eligibility for;

amount of; or charges for employee benefits. The cost of the benefit is not a

defense."

Ibid. Appellant's italics.

-

Appellant fully supports the right of any employer to dismiss an employee

whose changed beliefs would interfere with his performance. But it makes no more

sense for a religious organization to employ the services of any man and then to

refuse to compensate him for work already performed because he is a nonmember, than to refuse to compensate him for work already performed because he

has become a non-member.

This is especially so if it was the employer who terminated his membership.

A lawyer put it something like this: To allow a pension contract between the

Church and Plaintiff that requires him to remain in good standing with the church

beyond his employment, as a condition of continued payment, gives rise to a

situation as absurd as children who murder their parents being allowed to collect

orphan benefits. Such a contract opens the door for abuses in which an unethical

church or cult could profit financially from their unethical decisions.

11

3. THE BILL OF RIGHTS: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Does "the establishment clause" in the "separation of church and state"

principle of the First Amendment permit the courts to uphold fraudulent pension

policies or give churches exemptions and immunity from just laws that secular

employers do not enjoy, that is to infringe upon the rights of conscience by

extorting dissenters?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the

press..." First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Appellant's emphasis.

-

This amendment, among other things, forbids the government to give

religion special privileges (or special burdens) that are not allotted to other

organizations. It essentially puts each religious organization in the free market to

sink or swim on her own merits without government intervention.

The First Amendment was adopted into the US Constitution on the backdrop

of what had transpired in Europe all through the Dark Ages: The established

churches had employed the power of the states to enforce their dogmas,

threatening, persecuting and eventually executing dissenters. Europeans had fled

Europe to escape the powerful church, which used the state to rob citizens of their

freedom to speak, write and worship with respect to their own consciences.

12

When the European system of the church manipulating the state was

imported to the New World, Roger Williams of Rhode Island fought for and was

banished from the colonies for upholding the right of the citizens not to be coerced

and oppressed by religion manipulating the state. Williams held liberty of personal

conscience above human enactments.

The writers of the U.S. Constitution, with these events vividly in memory,

agreed with Mr. Williams and wanted to assure that the oppression of the church

would NOT be repeated in the New World! So, our founders wrote the First

Amendment to prevent churches from manipulating the government into allowing

them to oppress people

especially their consciences.

-

Thus, the First Amendment was primarily established to protect the rights of

individuals to practice their religious beliefs without interference or oppression

from any church that purports to influence the government in her favor. This

Amendment, then, was not intended to restore power to churches, which are prone

to oppression; it was to weaken the power of both church and state in favor of

individual freedom.

Europeans fled to America from oppression by the church in the Old World.

Why would it now be compatible with our Constitution for churches to be allowed

to force a former pastor to choose between either feigning loyalty to a church creed

or face abject poverty?

13

4. LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE TO COMMIT CRIMES?

Does liberty of conscience mean that religious organizations may commit

crimes against US citizens, because it is a part of their belief system to do so?

Even today, some religions have doctrines or policies that allow them to

commit crimes against their members and especially against dissenters: ISIS kills

infidels. Fundamental Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) promote statutory rape and rape in

marriage. Word of Life Christian Church (WOLCC) leaders beat two youth who

wanted to leave the church

one of them to death. The IMS extorts dissenting

-

pastors and robs their pensions; but

...

is that OK?

May employers use pensions to bind the beliefs, opinions, writings and

conversation of a former employee for the rest of his life? And, if the former

employee doesn't submit, to retaliate against the pastor by robbing him/her of

hundreds of thousands of dollars, committing him/her to beggary?

"Religious institutions in America don't have special permission to harbor

criminals or protect them from the government."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news and_politics/explainer/2006/08/can criminals

hide in church .html

"People's [and religious institutions'] sincere religious beliefs may

occasionally conflict with the law. Usually, it's the religious beliefs that must

yield, as the law rarely accepts them as a defense to criminal charges. If a

14

government has decided that certain activity is illegal, then it's usually no excuse

to say, 'I did it because of my religious beliefs." Appellant's insert.

(http ://www. nolo.cornllegal-encyciopedialare-religious-beliefs-defense-cri minalcharges .htrnl).

"Even if she [or anyone] sincerely holds them, her religious beliefs won't

constitute a defense to a charge." See State v. Neumann, 832 N.W.2d 560 (Wis.

-

2013); Wis. Stat. § 948.03. Appellant's insert.

Whether it is ISIS' murder of infidels, FLDS' statutory rape of children,

WOLCC' assault on unbelieving teens or IMS' extortion and larceny, religious

organizations in the U.S. are not authorized to commit crimes against American

citizens just because doing so is their written policy.

5. THE ECCLESIASTICAL ABSTENTION DOCTRINE

Does the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine" release courts from ruling in

financial matters or prosecuting criminal policies and crimes committed by

religious organizations?

This court ordinance stands for the proposition that the First Amendment

prohibits civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over matters concerning

"theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the

conformity of the members of a church to the standards of moral required of

15

them."

Serbian E. Orthodox Diecese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713-14, 96 S.

-

Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151. (1976.)

This paragraph prohibits the court from ruling in internal church squabbles.

However, it doesn't prevent the court from ruling over financial matters between

the church and non-members, much less from ruling over real crimes committed

against members or non-members under cover of doctrines, beliefs or policies.

During the litigation process of Myhre's case in the courts, Defendants have

repeatedly argued that, under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the district

court was constitutionally prohibited (by the First Amendment) from adjudicating

the underlying dispute, which hinged on the question of whether Myhre remained

in "good standing" with the church.

This is nonsense. This isn't about Myhre's standing in the church at all. He

understands why he was dismissed from the church and he has not disputed this in

the courts. He is quite clear that continued membership in that church would not

serve him or the church. This is about whether, under cover of the ecclesiastical

abstention doctrine, our Constitution gives a church the right to discriminate based

on religious conviction when it comes to compensation for work already completed

and whether they are permitted to extort and then retaliate against elderly pastors

who no longer agree with them and who refuse to be bullied into silence.

16

The lower courts, agreeing with the Defendants, repeatedly dismissed

Myhre's case, citing the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. However, Myhre never

asked the courts to judge in an internal squabble. He has NEVER asked the court

to rule in "theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or

the conformity of the members of a church to the standards of moral required of

them."

Appellant has not been a member of the IMS since 2011, therefore her

breach of contract is not an internal matter at all, but a civil one. That IMS policy

allows her to stop a pension over a person's religious beliefs is a violation of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for the courts to use the EAD to support her religious

discrimination because she is a church means granting her a special privilege and

thus violates the First Amendment.

Furthermore, the courts ignored the following references to previous cases

and refrained from explaining how these cases do not apply to the case at hand:

"Because a court can decide plaintiffs contract-based claims applying

'neutral principles of law,' without entangling the Court in an ecclesiastical dispute

or interpretation, we hold that the ecclesiastical doctrine does not require dismissal

of plaintiff's complaint." Bigelow v. Sassafras Grove Baptist Church, 786 S.E.2d

-

358, 365-66 N.C. Ct.Appl. (2016); Jones, 443 U.S. at 602.

17

"Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Require Dismissal of Breach

of Contract Claim." Shannon v. Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church US., TX

-

App., July 21, 2015.

"The courts do have jurisdiction, as to civil, contract and property rights

which are involved in, or arise from, a church controversy." Reid v. Johnston,

-

241 N.C. 201,204,85 S.E.2d 114, 117d. (1954.)

A case of wage discrimination (policy) against a female employee in which

a religious organization was required to make amends: The 482 F. Supp. 1291

(1979), EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (U. S. A.),

Appellant, v. PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION, Defendant. No.

C-77-1619-CBR. US District Court, N. D. California. December 28, 1979.

https ://law.j ustia. corn/cases/federal/district courts/F Supp/482/ 1291/2095517/

"Later decisions of the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit recognize

the possibility of a fraud and collusion exception to the general rule of deference.

See, e.g., Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 404, 509 n.8 (1979); Crowder, 828 F.2.d at 725

n. 18, 726 ('Nevertheless, the grievants retain a strong interest in obtaining a civil

forum where the religious tribunal's decision is tainted by fraud or collusion.')"

U.S. Distr.Ct. of N.GA, Judge Steve C. Jones, 07/24/2015 ORDER, Doc 169 in

Mybre's case, pages 10-11.

C. Brief History and Summary of Arguments

ii:

-

In a letter from the AU Board (dated 06-08-2009, Exhibit B), Appellant was

informed that, since he disagrees with a church doctrine, he must retire and may

receive his pension contingent upon his silence and his effectiveness in keeping his

wife silent about the disagreement. This attempt to turn Appellant's pension into

hush money was extortion.

As Appellant deemed living a life of silent hypocrisy as unthinkable and

dishonest, in response, Appellant and his wife wrote a 12-page open appeal (dated

07-14-2009) to the 2009 AU delegates regarding the spiritual, financial, and legal

ramifications of their demand, asking them to overturn the decision. In his last

point, Appellant warned the AU that he was a member in good standing, thus

eligible to receive his pension and that the AU letter was extortion, punishable in

California, where Appellant lived, by 4 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

Appellant received a reply from the AU (dated 08-05-2009, Exhibit C), in

which the A U conceded that Appellant was eligible to receive his pension without

silence being required of him. Defendants then began procedures to defrock

Appellant and expel him from the church, paving the way to deprive him of his

pension; yet, despite their policy they continued to pay Myhre's pension.

After having received payment for four years, Appellant received a letter

(dated 08-17-2013, Exhibit D) announcing that Plaintiff's pension would stop after

his September (2013) installment. This letter was written 1'/2 months after

19

California's 4-year statute of limitation for extortion had expired. And the reason

given for stopping the pension was "the damage you have caused this institution."

The IMS was fully following through on her original extortion threat

-

'shut your

mouth, or else!' She retaliated but waited to do so until after the threat of

prosecution for the extortion letter would pass.

As previously stated, Appellant not only accepts, but believes, that all

employers have the right to dismiss people whose religious beliefs conflict with the

expressed purpose and values of the company or organization. Furthermore,

Appellant does not dispute that the IMS has a written policy to deprive ministers

who are not members in good standing with the church of their pension. But

Appellant asserts that this policy violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that for

the courts to grant the church immunity violates the First Amendment. He flatly

denies that employers have the right to deprive a former employee of his vested

pension based on the employee's church membership, that is, religious convictions.

Appellant's pension was converted into hush money, used to extort him

(Exhibit B). When that didn't work they used their policy to retaliate for his refusal

to sell his freedom of speech (Exhibit D), robbing him of 1/2 his livelihood

potentially amounting to over $400,000.

Appellant maintains that he has a legal right to his pension because he

believes that

20

He earned it during 27 years of sincere labor for the church.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964" forbids discrimination in matters of

compensation and/or retaliation based on religion.

The "Establishment Clause" forbids the courts to grant churches

special privileges to oppress individuals.

"Liberty of Conscience" does not give liberty to commit crimes

against American citizens.

The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent the courts from

ruling in civil, contractual, much less criminal matters.

Employers do not have the legal right to use pensions to bind former

employees to any belief system, organization, or opinion, or to rob

them of their freedom of speech for the rest of their lives.

Churches do not have the legal right to bully retired employees to live

lives of hypocrisy nor to retaliate against "unbelievers," "heretics" or

"dissenters" by robbing them and reducing them to wards of the state.

And IMS pension policy constitutes institutionalized extortion and

grand larceny.

Should churches be given the right, just because they are "religious," to

abuse the trust of wide-eyed, eager, young pastors, use them and, when these have

sacrificed the best years of their lives on wages too meager to save for retirement,

21

when they become mature and experienced enough to confront wrongs, or

unwittingly become competition, or the church cannot afford to pay the pension, to

destroy them by annulling financial contracts and reducing them to beggary and

get away with it? To permit this is to bind pastors in hypocrisy, invite religious

corruption and legalize crime in the very institutions that purport to be the

educators of love and morality in our society.

Appellant is asking the Court to declare the IMS AU pension policy illegal

and therefore null and void.

This lawsuit is about the individual pastor's right to leave a church he no

longer trusts versus a church holding the pastor's pension hostage to coerce him to

stay, submit and keep his mouth shut. The intent of this lawsuit is about guarding

the basic American heritage of liberty of conscience. Appellant begs the judges not

to set a precedent by legalizing oppressive and criminal church policies and call it

"religious freedom."

E. Claims for Relief

Appellant respectfully asks the Court to award him the lump sum of ($1,200

x 12mos x 30yrs =) $432,000 for his retirement plus a reasonable amount for

health insurance as stated in the Human Resource Manual; a reasonable amount to

pay the lawyer who initiated the lawsuit and helped him for one year while the

lawsuit was in California; punitive damages for the persecution Appellant and his

wife endured during the last decade (preliminary threats, written extortion,

deception and more) and the suffering and stress they put Myhre and his wife

through during the last 41/2+ years (financial embarrassment, dependency on others,

fear for the future, and emotional and physical depression) as the Court deems just.

For the reasons explained above, Appellant is herewith petitioning the

U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari.

Signed:

-Date:

Steinar E. Myhre, Pfai~tiff

23

/O5/2OI8

REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT

-

in keeping with Rule 10

Addressing arguments and reasons for the Court to exercise discretionary

jurisdiction in Myhre's case:

U.S. Supreme Court: Please investigate the decisions of the U.S. district

court and court of appeals that Appellant has cited in this Petition.

In his Petition, page 18, Appellant has referred to "Later decisions of the

Supreme Court.. ." The Court may well be aware of other such decisions.

Are not the actions of the IMS, supported by the decisions of the lower

courts, contrary to federal law, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as it

appears in volume 42 of the United States Code, and the U.S. Constitution's

guarantees of civil rights and liberty of conscience? Is it not the mandate of the

legal system, supervised by the highest Court of Justice in the U.S., not only to

guard the interests of organizations, companies and corporations but to sacredly

guard the constitutional rights of every American citizen as well?

Appellant is asking the Court to review the orders, judgments, dismissals

and a denial by the district court and/or appellate courts against Plaintiff. He hopes

and even expects decisions to be forthcoming that are not colored by bias and the

general trend (the direction the winds are blowing), but that justice and equity be

carried out and that citizens may have the protection of the due process of law.

24