Opinion ID: 887107
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: A Review of the Colony's Documents

Text: ¶ 75 I submit that a complete, careful review of the Colony's organizational documents reveals that there is no express, secular language  severable from religious language  that defines an individual member's right to church property or church support. To the contrary, as discussed herein, expressly non-secular, religious language must be considered to determine how a member is supported by the colony. I turn to the documents, working from the general provisions to the specific. Although the Court ignores most of these provisions, and thus fails to satisfy the Chase methodology, they are critical to properly resolving the case. ¶ 76 The Constitution of the Hutterian Brethren Church and Rules as to Community of Property, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: [A]ll the Colonies of the Church adhere to and practice the teachings of the New Testament substantially as expounded by one Peter Rideman as set out in a book or work entitled, ACCOUNT OF OUR RELIGION, DOCTRINE AND FAITH, GIVEN BY PETER RIDEMAN OF THE BROTHERS WHOM MEN CALL HUTTERIANS, and in accordance with the ways of the Hutterian Brethren which includes community of goods. Recitals, paragraph 3 (emphasis added; capitalization in original). Colony means and includes a community, association, congregation or colony, incorporated or unincorporated comprised of persons who have joined together to have, hold, use, possess and enjoy all things in common, being all of one mind, heart and soul, according to the ways of those whom men call Hutterians.... Article 1 (emphasis added). ¶ 77 I would note that the Colony's Constitution repeatedly emphasizes, the above provisions being two examples, that the Colony is organized to hold all property as community goods. The inverse principle is also emphasized, with the Constitution providing that [n]o individual member of a Colony shall have any assignable or transferable interest in any of its property, real or personal. Article 36. The Constitution makes clear that each member undertakes what is commonly known as a vow of poverty. See Article 38. Further, if a colony is dissolved, no individual member shall be entitled to any of the assets of the Colony.... Article 44. Consistent therewith, the Bylaws provide that no Member of the King Colony Ranch shall have vested in them any real or personal property, but the same shall be held foreever [sic] and perpetual as the Cooperative properties of the King Colony Ranch in accordance with the ordinances of the Cooperative Hutterische Church Society and its Rituals and belief in the humility of man before his Maker and God. Article VIII, Bylaws. Property can be held, therefore, only by the Colony and in accordance with... the belief in the humility of man before his Maker and God. ¶ 78 It is clear already that the Court's decision violates the above cited language. Contrary to the Court's conclusion that the Colony holds property in trust for the individual members, no individual member shall be entitled to any of the assets of the Colony. Article 44, Constitution (emphasis added). The property is held for the members as a collective religious society, not as individuals. The individual members have no right to the Colony's property outside the collective interests of the group as a whole, and the Court can cite to no such provision in the documents. As noted above in ¶ 60, this property arrangement was found by the Hearings Examiner to be based upon the Bible. ¶ 79 Distribution of the Colony's property, also found by the Hearings Examiner to be based on the Bible, is specifically addressed in the organizational documents: The objects and powers of the Church are: (a) To obtain for its Colonies and their members ... educational and economic assistance based upon the life and mission of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in the spirit and way of the first Christian community in Jerusalem and of the community re-established by Jacob Hutter in 1533 at the time of the origin of the Baptisers' movement in such a way that the members achieve one entire spiritual unit in complete community of goods.... Article 3, Constitution (emphasis added). This provision demonstrates that economic assistance is provided to members based upon the life and mission of Jesus Christ and the Apostles and, importantly, in the spirit and way of the first Christian church, so that spiritual unity in a complete community of goods can be achieved. The Constitution later states that these objects (including providing economic assistance) must be carried out by following exactly the spontaneous direction of the Holy Spirit.... Article 3. ¶ 80 Support of individual members is also expressly addressed by the documents, which make clear that this is no promise of such individual support. The members of a Colony shall be entitled to ... be supported, maintained, instructed and educated by that Colony, according to the rules, regulations and requirements of that Colony during the time and so long as they obey, abide by and conform to the rules, regulations, instructions and requirements of that Colony and the Church.  Article 41, Constitution (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to the Court's conclusion in ¶ 29, joining the Colony, without more, does not entitle the member to receive payment of individual expenses by the Colony. Although the Court cites to general provisions regarding property held for the benefit of the members, additional, more specific language from the Colony's Constitution demonstrates that the benefit of such property is made expressly contingent upon the rules, regulations, instructions and requirements of that Colony and the Church and, further, upon a member's compliance with the tenets of the Church. ¶ 81 Further, medical expenses or any other kind of benefit which may be provided to members by the Colony are based upon religious-based discretion exercised by the Colony's governing body, a Board of Directors composed of five (5) adult male members of Hutterische Church Society.... Article VII, Articles of Incorporation. The Board has complete authority to dispose of and use church property, executed by the Colony's President, Article X, Bylaws, and must make such decisions in accordance with the tenets of the Church. Articles 39 and 47, Constitution. Thus, the decisions about individual support, including the kind of support to be provided, are made by church elders who decide such matters pursuant to church doctrine and an assessment of the life of the individual member. Articles IV and VII, Articles of Incorporation; Article 41, Constitution. ¶ 82 In summary, a careful review of the organizational documents leads to the clear conclusion that economic benefits are made available to the members on the basis of religious tenets. In this respect, the majority  though it draws the wrong conclusion from it  is correct when it states in ¶ 28 that the language found within the organizing documents of KCR is internally consistent and unambiguous. Indeed, the language is carefully constructed to convey the religious purposes with which the Colony acts in all that it does. It is not possible to sever purely secular language from the documents in order to determine the legal relationship between the Colony and its members, at least, without doing violence to the religious meaning therein. All property is held for the common or community good, in accordance with the belief in God. The claimants have no individual property rights in any Colony property; they have taken a vow of poverty. While they are entitled to look to the Colony for support, decisions regarding financial benefits are discretionarily made by the Colony Board in accordance with Church tenets. The Board's authority includes the right to withdraw support from a member who does not comply with Church tenets or instructions, to expel a member without compensation, or to determine what kind of support shall be provided. Even to members in good standing, economic assistance is provided based upon the life and mission of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in the spirit and way of the first Christian community in Jerusalem and following exactly the spontaneous direction of the Holy Spirit. I respectfully ask the Court: How can an obligation conditioned upon following exactly the spontaneous direction of the Holy Spirit be interpreted by application of trust law? ¶ 83 I submit that this is a question civil courts are not to answer. There is no express, legal trust, in favor of individual member needs, as the Court concludes. A review of the documents requires the conclusion that a member's support is a matter of faith and doctrine, including the member's good works which the organizational documents illustrate are a part of the Hutterite faith. All of the Colony's property has been donated to further these religious purposes and no express or constructive trust can be imposed by this Court to alter those purposes. To so order is a direct contamination of the personal beliefs of the members and of the religious tenets of the Colony. ¶ 84 These are religious decisions, not secular. A member's support is premised upon religious principle, not secular legal obligations. This is, no doubt, why other governmental entitlement programs have already concluded that the property of Hutterite Colonies is not to be considered in determining benefit eligibility. After an examination of the organizational documents and considering the evidence herein, I would reach the same conclusion about the Montana Medicaid program. It is not the province of the civil courts to determine the Colony's obligation, founded as it is on religious principles, to the members.