Wednesday 3 October 2012

COVENANT IN COURT


Appeals Court rules in favor of Orthodox Bahá'ís

The Court of Appeals for the United States Seventh Circuit issued its ruling on November 23, 2010, in the appeal brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States ("Wilmette NSA").  The Wilmette NSA brought the appeal after losing to the Orthodox Bahá'ís in the trial court on the NSA's motion to find the OBF in contempt for allegedly violating the 1966 Judgment entered against the Remey NSA.  The trial court found, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, that the OBF was not legally identified with the Remey NSA and therefore the OBF was not bound by the 1966 Judgment.  In effect, the OBF may continue to use the sacred symbols and names of their faith, including the word "Bahá'í" unless and until a court decides otherwise.

Baha'i believers can call themselves Baha'i


Here is a breaking news article:


[Updated 18 May 2009]: The action by the NSA finally gets the attention of the press.  Click here for information about the Chicago Tribune's article about the action pending in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois.  The appeal was brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith

[Revised 28 February 2009] The parties are awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois in the appeal brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith and the Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant, which are two separate and distinct entities.

The NSA had called upon the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division to hold in contempt members of both minority Bahá'í organizations who, the NSA claimed, were in violation of an injunction its predecessor obtained some 40 years ago against a rival Bahá'í body (the NSA loyal to Mason Remey).

In legal documents provided to the court on December 6, 2006, the NSA claimed that members of the current minority Bahá'í groups, although not parties to the case brought against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey, nevertheless are bound by the 1966 Judgment.  While not providing any specifics with regard to how the minority bodies have harmed the majority body, the NSA contended that the websites (including this one) of the smaller organizations were doing irreparable damage to the NSA.

The basic contention of the NSA was that the members of the minority groups were violating the NSA's alleged trademarks on the name "Bahá'í" and the religious symbol of the "Greatest Name", and it sought from the court a ruling which would prohibit the minority members from using the alleged trademarks to the detriment of the NSA.

The NSA sought to restrain both those individuals who at one time were even remotely associated with the enjoined rival Bahá'í body and any 'nonparty' members who have since developed different Bahá'í organizations.

Those members of the minority group who call themselves  Orthodox Bahá'ís, to distinguish themselves from the members of the majority organization, stated that the trademark by the Wilmette NSA on the "Greatest Name" is the equivalent of a Christian denomination trademarking the Cross and then saying that no other Christian congregation can use that symbol in their activities or in their contacts with others.

Additionally, Orthodox Bahá'ís maintain that the name "Bahá'í" is in the public domain and cannot be the exclusive property of one organization. They say that like the name "Christian" and "Muhammadan", which refer to followers of Christ and Muhammad respectively, the name "Bahá'í" refers to a follower of Bahá'u'lláh, who all Bahá'ís acknowledge as the latest Prophet from God.

For some 35 years the Orthodox Bahá'ís have been employing the name "Bahá'í" in their newspaper and magazine publicity and in the telephone Yellow Pages, and during that time the NSA has made no move to implement the provisions of the injunction that the majority organization is now using to seek contempt citations against members of the minority groups. Should the NSA be successful in its efforts to curtail their activities, Orthodox Bahá'ís contend that, for them, the First Amendment of the Constitution is no longer valid.

The NSA on 23 May 2008 filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Chicago Trial January 7, 2008 005 Seventh Circuit of a ruling that the Orthodox Bahá'ís were not in contempt of a injunction entered in 1966 against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey."[T]he chain of successorship lacks a link," wrote the Honorable Amy J. St Eve, United States District Court Judge,in her Judgment in favor of the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith and the Bahá'í Publishers Under the Provisions of the Covenant. The Court ruled on 23 April 2008 after holding an evidentiary hearing on 7 January 2008 in Chicago, Illinois on the contempt motion brought by the NSA. In her decision, the Court stated that: "the vast weight of the record (including credible testimony) reflects that there was a significant doctrinal rift on a critical tenet of each group’s faith, and that the PNBC’s membership varied materially from that of the NSA-UHG. The record further reflects a demonstrable lack of intent to violate the injunction, and that the PNBC was not created to avoid the effect of the injunction. Simply put, there is no substantial continuity between the NSA-UHG and the PNBC, and, as a result, Mr. Schlatter, Mr. Marangella, and the PNBC have not violated the injunction."

The appellate case had been fully briefed when the parties argued in Chicago Illinois on 20 February 2009 before a panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals: the Honorable Daniel A. Manion, the Honorable William J. Bauer, and the Honorable Diane S. Sykes.

Appearing on behalf of the Orthodox Bahá'ís was James McClymonds, a New York attorney who is the grandson of A.S. Petzoldt, the chairman of the NSA under the Hereditary Guardianship (under Mason Remey) and whose deposition was taken by the NSA in the original case.  James was a small child when his grandfather expressed the wish that someone would one day come forward to overturn the outrageous judgment that the Wilmette NSA had obtained against Remey's NSA.

The appellate briefs and a recording of the oral argument held on 20 February 2009 are available on the web site of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago Illinois:

Appellate Briefs: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/briefs.htm  Enter the Year = "08" and the Case Number = "2306"  Then click "List Cases", then click the Case Number for a listing of the briefs in PDF format.

Article on the Oral Argument with Transcribed Portion of NSA Argument

Judge St. Eve's decision favoring the Orthodox Baha'is

The oral arguments of the Wilmette NSA's appeal of Judge St. Eve's
decision favoring the Orthodox Baha'is was held on 20 February 2009 in Chicago Illinois.
Here is a transcript of part of the exchange between Mr. Handelman,the attorney for the NSA, and a couple of the Judges of the Court of Appeals. No matter how hard he tried to obfuscate the outrageous position of the NSA, the Judges carefully questioned him and exposed the oppressive and fascist nature of the NSA's position, and it is here for all the world to see. [Incidentally, Judge Bauer below persistently questions Mr. Handelman on how the 1966 injunction was entered and Mr. Handelman evades the fundamental truth that only the NSA appeared at the "hearing" and that the Remey organization did not
appear and put on evidence (for some unknown reason). Mr. Handelman later admitted that only the NSA appeared which means the Injunction was effectively entered by "default"]
Here is part of the oral argument.
 Handelman, for Defendant-Appellant National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States: The principle we are here advancing today has been adopted by other courts of appeals and that is that a-- while the general rule is that a nonparty cannot be
bound by an injunction issued in a case in which it wasn't named as a party, there are -- there is an important exception to that general rule and that is a nonparty is bound by an
injunction if he is legally identified with the defendant corporation...
Judge William J. Bauer: Do you know of any case involving that particular rule that you enunciated to us in a civil rights case?
Handelman: Your honor, there are a couple of cases on point, the Federal Circuit in Additive Controls addressed this question of what do you do in applying an injunction when the corporate defendant has been dissolved.
Judge Bauer: That had to do with a patent infringement case?
Handelman: That is correct.
Judge Bauer: Other than a patent infringement case, do you have anything besides-- civil rights cases that involve that theory that you just enunciated?
Handelman: The two cases we rely on-- one is a patent infringement case Additive Controls. The other one is a trademark infringement case
Judge Bauer: Also from the Circuit?
Handelman: That is from the First Circuit
Judge Bauer: The First Circuit?
Handelman: Correct. Both of these cases draw on, first of all, the fact that Rule 65d codified the common law in this regard and so Justice Jackson in the Regal Knitwear case summarized Rule 65d: "is derived from the common law doctrine that a decree of injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them
in interest."
Judge Bauer: Let me intrude myself again. Was the original injunction a consent decree or was it a fought out battle?
Handelman: No the scenario leading to the injunction, the...
Judge Bauer: No, all I ask is a very simple question. Did Judge Austin formulate this decree himself or was it a consent decree?
Handelman: It was not a consent decree.
Judge Bauer: OK
Handelman: There were findings of fact and conclusions of law...
Judge Bauer: Based on a contested argument before, and presentation of evidence before Judge Austin?
Handelman: The... my understanding is that the NSA...
Judge Bauer: See you weren't around in those days. I was.
Handelman: But your Honor Judge Austin.. Bare in mind this was the counterclaim, the original was, was against the NSA. The trademark infringement claim was brought by way of a counterclaim. So they started it. We responded and there was a findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by Judge Aspen.
Judge Bauer: After a hearing?
Handelman: I do not know if there was testimony at the hearing. I do not believe there was testimony given at the hearing by both sides but Judge Austin...
Judge Bauer: What was the predicate for the decision? Stipulation of facts?
Handelman: No, there was no stipulation, the NSA...
Judge Bauer: Then how did he arrive at a decree at all?
Handelman: The uh, I believe, the NSA submitted, appeared at the hearing and presented Judge Austin. I don't know if there was live testimony at the hearing or not but it presented evidence on which the findings and conclusions were based.
Judge Bauer: What evidence did they and how did they present it?
Handelman: Well, for example, the deposition of the chairman of the UHG was taken and submitted to the Court, so we had the deposition...
Judge Bauer: Accepted by both sides as factually true?
Handelman: The testimony was sworn deposition testimony of the Chairman
Judge Bauer: There is sworn testimony on each side of the case normally but I want to know, how did Judge Austin arrive at the conclusion if there was no presentation of live witnesses?
Handelman: Um
Judge Bauer: Was it a stipulation of facts? In which case..
Handelman: No I do not believe it was a stipulation, your honor. We can look into whether
Judge Bauer: It was a question of fact, and he made a resolution based on affidavits?
Handelman: If I could look into that and get back to you I would prefer to do that.
Judge Bauer: I have no idea how the decree came to be, thats my problem
Handelman: OK
Judge Diane S. Sykes: Do you know whether the constitutionality of issuing such an Injunction was litigated, given the religious context?
Handelman: Yeah, I believe Judge Austin made explicit findings that the trademark laws apply equally to religious organizations and commercial organizations and that this, this case involved a blatant infringement of trademark rights that were recognized under federal law.
Judge Sykes: The legal landscape in this area of course has changed since then. We are talking of, about an injunction issued 40 years ago and the Supreme Court, in the meantime has issued the Presbyterian Church case that talks about the principles, the neutral principles doctrine that needs to be applied in this context, and of course that
case wasn't on the books at the time.
Handelman: That is correct your honor. With respect to, first of all the validity of the trademark and the finding of infringement, those issues are not open to be retried in the context of a contempt proceeding as a prefatory matter, but beyond that the law is well
settled that religious organizations as I mentioned are entitled to the protection of the trademark laws and in this case...
Judge Sykes: But they are not entitled to a judicial declaration that their church is the one true church and thats what Judge Austin said.
Handelman: Well if, your honor, in the context of a religious case under the Lanham Act, the mark is valid. There is no per se rule against trademark protection in the religious organization context. What you look at is whether the mark in question signifies affiliation or membership with a single organization and in this case the National
Spiritual Assembly has a three tiered administrative structure as is laid out in the briefs. You have the Universal House of Justice at the highest level, you have the national spiritual assemblies at the intermediate level of which there are 183 worldwide, and then you have the local spiritual assembly. The Baha'i mark is federally registered, is extensively used, was federally registered at the time of the original injunction, and it signifies members who are affiliated with national spiritual assemblies authorized by the Universal House of Justice in Haifa. Now whats happening in this case, the Alleged
Contemnors, are through their web sites calling themselves the official, in one case, the SIBC has a web site where it calls itself the official Universal House of Justice, and as a result prospective members are going to that site thinking they are contacting our client, the Universal House of Justice in Haifa Israel, when they are not. They are also believing that the content on the site is approved by the Universal House of Justice, when it is not. And this is precisely the harm that the Lanham Act is intended to prevent and Professor McCarthy in his treatise recognizes as much, and if I could quote briefly: "If a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion it is entitled to protection against the minority's use of the same name. For example, a preliminary injunction can be obtained by the Mother Church against a local which has disaffiliated as it stops paying to the Mother Church and the rationale makes sense because without a preliminary injunction the Mother Church would be outside of..."
Judge Bauer: Who are you quoting at the moment?
Handelman: Professor McCarthy, his treatise on Trademark and Unfair Competition. So he is recognizing...
Judge Bauer: He is recognizing but the Supreme Court is more significant than Professer McCarthy is I would suspect, wouldn't you?
Handelman: But the point is that this case does not call upon this Court to evaluate religious doctrine. It calls upon this Court to apply the Lanham Act to religious organizations which has been done before.
Judge Sykes: Well to the extent that you are reading the injunction as prohibiting anyone other than the NSA from using the word Baha'i in the title of the religious organization's name, um, that clearly raises some constitutional concerns. Is that how you are reading the injunction? That you have exclusive, that your client has exclusive rights to the term Baha'i and no schismatic organization, schismatic group, breakaway group could ever use it into perpetuity in the United States?
Handelman: As long as the trademark rights are valid and federally registered and not abandoned, that is correct, as Professor...
Judge Sykes: The word Baha'i? So to use a hypothetical. Someone could copyright Christianity. Somebody could copyright Judaism, and that would prohibit anybody else from using that terminology in the title of their religious organization?
Handelman: No, each, each religious name or
Judge Sykes: I am sorry, not copyright, trademark.
Handelman: Yeah, each religious name or mark has to be evaluated on its own merits. There is no blanket...
Judge Sykes: But whats the response to the hypothetical, though?
Handelman: The hypothetical is yes, we. In other words a splinter group that is not affiliated with the National Spiritual Assembly authorized by the Universal House of Justice is not permitted to use the term Baha'i in a way where it is holding itself out as being affiliated with the group headed by and authorized by the Universal House of Justice.
Judge Sykes: Well that's, that's, different. But they can use the word Baha'i in the name of their new church, but they just can't use it in a way that implies affiliation with the Mother Church.
Handelman: That is correct. They cannot, cannot confuse the public into believing that they are affiliated with the Mother church when they are not, particularly where, as here, their doctrines are in many cases antithetical to those espoused by the Mother Church.
Judge Sykes: What could they call themselves and escape liability for contempt?
Handelman: They would have to use a non-confusingly similar name because they are not...
Judge Sykes: Can they use the word Baha'i?
Handelman: It would depend on-- not if it suggested affiliation with the Mother Church.
Judge Bauer: How about Reform Baha'i? Can they use that term?
Handelman: That would be a hypothetical that...
Judge Bauer: That's my hypothetical...
Handelman: It would...
Judge Bauer: And I want a hypothetical answer.
Handelman: If the use suggested affiliation...
Judge Bauer: I just gave it to you. Reform Baha'i.
Handelman: No that. Under the injunction, that would be prohibited. The injunction...
Judge Bauer: Yeah, I read the Injunction. I just don't know how it came to be. But you're going to enlighten me on that subject.
Handelman: So the injunction would prohibit a use likely to cause confusion as to affiliation....
COMMENT BY JEFFERY GOLDBERG
Funny thing is Mr. Handelman quotes from Professor McCarthy that "If a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion it is entitled to protection against the minority's use of the same name." Of course, the Wilmette NSA DOES NOT REMAIN TRUE to the tenets of the religion as the Orthodox Baha'is are constantly pointing out.
We do not know how the Court will rule, but clearly the Judges of the 7th Circuit are not fooled by the NSA's obfuscation. The NSA wants the Courts to enforce their belief that they are the one and only Baha'i Faith, and the NSA has proved itself to be in contempt of the basic religious freedoms of this country, even while the publicly whine about similarly motivated persecution against them in Iran, a country that does not have the same traditions of freedom of religion.
The true colors of the NSA come out here. They would trample over our freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution.
This is the World Order they seek to impose upon the world.
Jeffrey

There has been no evidence that the Orthodox Baha'is have any web sites or publications that confuse the public to believe that we are affiliated with the headless UHJ. To the contrary, everything on our sites is critical of that organization and expressly points out our differences. But they have taken the position that simply use of the word "Baha'i" somehow creates the confusion and this is an absurd and over-reaching view.
Jeffrey

The suit involves both the Orthodox Baha'is and the Baha'is under the Provisions of the Covenant (which is the Jensen/Chase group and I believe is responsible for the web site you mentioned). My point was that there is nothing like that from the OBF group. The NSA's actual position, as stated by Handelman after questioning by the Judges, is that nobody else can use the word Baha'i, and this position is outrageous if only you could see dispassionately and free of fanatic blinders.
Jeffrey

There is no confusion in use of terms. The NSA's attorney was trying his best not to state what their position was, but after being hammered by the Judges, he was forced to admit that the NSA wants to enforce the Judgment's finding that they are the one true Baha'i Faith and they are the only ones who could call themselves Baha'i.
This finding happens to be unconstitutional and goes against a long line of Supreme Court precedent which began in 1969, several years after the Judgment was entered. This is what bothers the Judges of the Court of Appeals. The NSA is asking them to deny us our religious freedom-- the right to call ourselves Baha'is.
Jeffrey

The comments of the heterodox believers demonstrates their lack of understanding of the Faith. They don't think that preventing us from calling ourselves Baha'i would prevent us from practicing our religion. But isn't that what the Iranian authorities are doing:
"Stop saying you are a Baha'i and then we will restore your rights"?
They effectively wish us to recant our Faith.
Jeffrey

The Supreme Court case was not decided until 1969, and at the time of the 1966 Judgment the federal courts were split on the issue (which split was resolved by the Supreme Court).
The Orthodox Baha'is did raise the issue and the line of cases from 1969 on neutrality principles, but Judge St. Eve never even reached the issue because she ruled that the Orthodox Baha'is were not even bound by the Judgment. Since we are not bound by it, the question of the Judgment's enforceability did not have to be decided.
Jeffrey

I believe this is a correct statement. There is binding authority and persuasive authority. A decision of this Court of Appeals is binding only in the 7th Circuit, although its logic and reasoning will be persuasive beyond that.
Jeffrey

Not only does Judge Bauer mention Reform Baha'i but he insists that the NSA's attorney answer whether or not someone could call himself a Reform Baha'i, and the NSA attorney finally is forced to admit the NSA's position which is that nobody can call themselves a Baha'i unless they are recognized by his client's UHJ.
Jeffrey

Not only is it disgraceful, but it is extremely hypocritical for them to run to Congress seeking its condemnation of Iran for persecution of Baha'is when they are doing the same to us.  While the NSA's persecution of the OBF may be different in scale (but only because the NSA does not have the power to imprison us or execute us), they are
motivated by the same idea that they perceive us to be heretical and because we are opposed to their religious authority. It is mind- boggling for these people to expect the federal courts in the United States to enforce their version of the Baha'i Faith, to say they are the one true Faith and everyone else cannot be Baha'is.
It really does not matter, though, whether they get a court order against us, or whether they have suckered a whole bunch of people so that they have larger numbers.  It does not matter how small we are.

The only thing that matters is what is true and what is false.  They are false and they are destined to fail.  Their entire organization is a house of cards ready to tumble down at any time. Thank God for that!
Jeffrey

Friday 10 February 2012

संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के राष्ट्रीय अध्यात्मिक सभा के बहाई आस्था के संरक्षक के खिलाफ कानूनी हमले पर व्यक्तिगत प्रतिबिंब

जेफरी गोल्डबर्ग द्बारा*

  मेरी निराशा की कोई सिमा ना रही जब २६ नवंबर २००६ को (शासन को कारन बताव) प्रसताव की एक प्रत मुझे प्रापत हुई जो की अमेरीका के बाहाईयों की अध्यात्मिक साभा द्वारा संरक्षक जोएल। बी.मेरनजेला, सुष्टिकर्ता के सहायक फ्रंक्लिन शेटलर, अंतिम राष्ट्रिय बाहाई परिषद (PNBC) और संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के रुढिवाद बाहाईयों ( ORTHODOX ) के खिलाफ दायर कीया गया था।

   बाहाईयों के सारे समुहों का अभ्यास कारने के बाद मैं 1997 में रूढिवादी (ORTHODOX) बाहाई बन गाया। इससे पहले मैं १९८० से बहुमत समुह वाले बाहाई आसथा का सदस्सय और एक अछ्छा कार्यकरता था, जिसका कोई संरक्षक ( गारज्ञियन ) नहीं है, इसका मुख्यालय वीश्व नेयाये मन्दीर है जो की हैफा में है। ( बाद में इन्हें बाहाई विश्व आस्था (BWF) कहा गया ) इससे पहले मैं किसी और बाहाई संगठन को नहीं जानता था जब की वे शरु से ही अस्तित्व में थे। उनके बारे में कहा जाताथा की वे बाहुत पहले हि खतम हो चुके हैं। मगर मुझे सच्चाई का उस समय पता चला जब मैं ने इनटरनेट पर सरफींग शुरु की मुझे ढेर सारे बाहाई समुह मीले जो सारे के सारे इनसे अछ्छे थे, मैंने उनकी बहुत सारी सामगरी को पढा, जिन्हें येह लोग वचन तोडने वाला ( Covenant Breaking Groups) कहते हैं। परन्तु मैने उन लोगों में किसी परकार कि अध्यातमिक बिमारी नहीं पाई, इसके बजाए मुझे येह अनुभव हुआ कि हम लोगो से कभी सच नहीं काहा गया है, जाने अनजाने में बाहाउल्ला के सच्चे वचन के विरोध में विश्व बाहाई आसथा (BWF) को अपना समर्थन देने के पुण्य से एक झुट बोलने और सत्य को छुपाने का अध्यातमिक रोग मला था।

   मरे वचन तोडने और झुट बोने की अध्यातमिक बिमारी का इलाज उस समय हुआ जब मैं संरक्षक जोएल. बी. मेरेनजेला की देख रेख मे चल रहे बाहाई समुह मे आगया। बाहाई आस्था (BWF) की निरलज्य प्रतिक्रिया को देख कर मेरे निर्णय की पुष्टी सामान्य ढंग से हो गई। जो की बहादुरी और अखंडता रहीत था। उनकी प्रतिक्रिया भय और जिद्दीपन से भरी हुई थी इतना कि सच्चाई सुन्ने को भी तय्यार नहीं थे। मुझे और मेरे परिवार को वचन तोडने वाला (covenant breaker) घोषित कर दिया गया, और हमारा त्याग कर दिया गया। मेरी 12 वष्रीय बेटी त्बाह हो गई थी जब समुदाय के सदस्यों ने जिन्हें वह अपना दोस्त जानती थी (मेरी गैर हाजरी में) कहा की हम तुम लोगों से एक कारन की वजह से कभी बात नहीं करेंगे, यह उसकी समझ के परे था, उन लोगों ने उसे समझाने का भी कष्ट नही कियी, इस क्रूर व्यवहार के कारन वह कई वर्ष सदमें में रही, उन लोगो को अपने किए पर शर्म आनी चाहिए उनके पास उनकी सफाई में कुछ भी नही है, जब उनकी आत्मा आभा राज्य में प्रवेश करेगी तो उन लोगों को अपने इस अपराध का जवाब देना होगा।

   जब एक सामयिक प्रेक्षक लोगों के समुह को देखता है तो उसे इन में बाडा प्यार दिखाई पाडता है, परन्तु इस के भितर ऐसा माहोल है की लोग खुद को भी मुक्त नहीं कर पाते हैं, वह हर समय अपने प्रबंधक को जवाब दे रहते हैं।

   सबसे उल्लेखनीय बात यह है की बाहाई आस्था (BWF) साभी व्योक्तियों में जो मेरे दोस्त कहलाते है उन में से केवल एक व्यक्ति ने माना की मैने आस्था के बारे में सच्ची खोज की ( और वोह भी OBF में शामील हो गई और उसे भी वचन तोडने वाला घोषीत कर दिया गया ) समुदाय में इतना तर्कहीन डर है की वे किसी प्रकार की भी बहस से कतराते हैं इस विषय पर वे अपने स्वयं के लेख को भी पढने से घबराते हैं। यह सभी जानते हैं की स्वंय अपने आप को परामर्शदाता ( Counselors ) कहेलवाने वालों ने मेरे बारे में फैसला कीया था की मैं एक वचन तोडने वाला हूं इसलिए मुझे अध्यातमिक बिमार घोषीत करते हुए त्याग दिया गया, शायद वे यह सोचते हों की में ईमानदार हूं जो की वे अच्छी तरह से जानते थे प्रन्तु वे मेरे बारे में सुन्ना नही चाहते थे। इस्से यह आसानी से स्पष्ट हो गया था की मैं बाहाई आस्था ( BWF ) नहीं था। और वास्तव में मेरे BWF के बिल्कुल बाहाई नहीं हैँ। उन में सच्ची श्रध्दा नहीं है उन में भय है और उसके सदस्य BWF को जोड तोड कर और हेर फेर  करके, सच्ची बातों को छिपा कर संचालित करते हैं। यह सत्य है की विश्व बाहाई आस्था पुरी तरह से धोखाधडी है।

   हाइफा आधारित संगठन विश्व न्याय मन्दिर की अचुकता का दावा खुल कर सामने आजाता है।

   वास्तव में मैने इस ओर ज्यादा ध्यान नही दिया और अपने जिवन में व्यस्थ रहा। लगभग एक दशक बाद मेरी समीक्षा, जांच पडताल के लिए राष्ट्रिय अध्यातमिक सभा द्वारा अवमानना गती प्राप्त हुई। मेरे रुढीवादी बाहाई ( OBF ) के साथीयों को पहले ही से पता की संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के जिला न्यायालय शिरागो, इलिनोइस में वकीलो के समुदाय में वकील था। प्ररंभ में मुझे राष्ट्रिय अध्यातमिक साभा के इस व्यवहार पर विश्वास नहीं होरहा थास, रुढीवादी बाहाईयों के लिए बाधा डाल रहे थे कि वे खुद को बाहाई ना कहें, माहानतम नाम और प्रतिकों का उपयोग ना करेंस, और इस में वे इतने अन्धे हो गए कि उन लोगो ने संघीय अदालत की शक्ती का उपयोग किया यह बताने के लिए की बाहाउल्ला के मानने वाले केवल हम हैं और कोई नही और यह दावा किया की इसे लागु करने की अनुमति दिजाए। वे इतने कट्टर थे की अमेरीका के संशोधन सिध्दांतों को नुकसान पहचाना चाहते थे। और इनसे असहमत बाहाईयों को खामोश कराना चाहते थे। और वे इन्हें रेमिटिस कहते थे। (संरक्षक रेमी  की  राष्ट्रीय आध्यात्मिक सभा  के खिलाफ एक चुक पैर निर्धारित निर्णय १९६६ में प्राप्त किया ) सही एनएसए होने की वजह से संपत्ति पर नियंत्रण के लिए मेसन रेमी के कहने पर, रेमी एनएसए ने विल्मेत्त एनएसए के खिलाफ मुकदमा दायर किया था. विल्मेत्त एनएसए ने जवाबी दावे में खुद को हक़दार बताया था

     धार्मिक संगठोनो के बिच हुए धार्मिक विवादों का फैसला अमेरिकी अदालते नहीं कर सकती थीं क्यों  की उस समय वहां  पर इस प्रकार का कोई कानून नहीं था अदालतें केवल धार्मिक संपत्ति के विवादों का फैसला कर सकती थीं  इसलिए, चाहे विल्मेत्त एनएसए हो या रेमी एनएसए बहाउल्लाह के कानून के तहत वैध थे. परन्तु संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका की अदालतों के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं है.
संघीय कानून के तहत, विल्मेत् एनएसए स्पष्ट रूप से विजेता रहा था, क्योंकि संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में बहाई आस्था की संपत्ति इसी के  नियंत्रित में थी. विल्मेत्त एनएसए अगर एक निगमित निकाय के रूप में मेसन रेमी का साथ दिया होता तो भी आस्था की संपत्ति  की सभी परिसंपत्तियों पर उसी का  नियंत्रण होता. हालांकि विल्मेत्त एनएसए संपत्ति कानून के तटस्थ सिद्धांतों के तहत वैसे भी जीता गया होता, फिर भी उसने रेमी एनएसए के खिलाफ १९६६ में कुख्यात जजमेंट प्राप्त किया .

    यह १९६६ का  जजमेंट संघीय अदालतों और एनएसए के लिए काफी शर्मनाक था . रेमी  एनएसए फैसले की समय अनजान था (१९६६ प्रलय के शीघ्र बाद रेमी एनएसए की हुई बैठक के अनुसार)क्योँ की  उनके वकील सुनवाई के समय नहीं पहुच सके थे और विल्मेत्त एनएसए ने एक पहले से लिखी हुई  प्रलय पर न्यायाधीश द्वारा हस्ताक्षर प्राप्त कर लिए. उस प्रलय में यह निष्कर्ष दिया है कि विल्मेत्त  एनएसए संगठन ही  केवल सच्ची बहाई आस्था है और केवल शोघी एफ्फेंदी ही गार्जियन थे, और रेमी एनएसए और उनके सदस्यों को सार्वजनिक रूप से खुद को "बहाई घोषित करने की अनुमति नहीं है और न ही सार्वजनिक रूप से महानतम नाम के पवित्र शब्दों और छवियों सहित बहाई शब्द का इस्तेमाल जायज़ होगा. इस जजमेंट के तहत वे निजी तौर पर आस्था रख सकते है परन्तु वे इसका प्रचार नहीं केर सकते हैं (जो हर आस्तिक का एक व्यक्तिगत दायित्व है) के तहत अनुमति दी गई.

    संघीय अदालत से बहाई विश्वो आस्था की यह मांग की केवल उन्हीं के संगठन को पुरे संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में बहाई कहलाने की अनुमति दी जानी चाहिए. एनएसए की ऐसे जजमेंट की चाहत संचालन संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के पहले संशोधन को ख़तरे में डालना था. हालांकि ४० वर्ष में भी कुछ नहीं हुआ.

    लेकिन २६ नवंबर, २००६ को, जब मैं विल्मेत्त एनएसए के केस को  देख रहा था जिसमें वे अदालत की अवमानना में OBF को पकड़ना चाहते थे, मेरे लिए यह समझना असंभव था कैसे विल्मेत्त एनएसए निहायत असंवैधानिक और गलत जजमेंट लागू करने की मांग कर रहा था, वह भी एक आधुनिक कोर्ट में. अतीत में मेरे खिलाफ उनके शर्मनाक अदालतई कार्रवाई और इस संगठन द्वारा शर्मनाक उपचार के बावजूद, अभी भी मुझे विश्वास नहीं हो रहा है कि ये संगठन इतना नीचे गिर सकता है.

    अगरचे मेरे खिलाफ उनके समाज बाहर करने का व्यवहार पर्याप्त नहीं था, उन्होंने मेरी  स्वयं की  व्यक्तिगत वेब साइट को भी उनके केस में विशेष रूप से प्रलय १९६६ के उल्लंघन में शामिल किया था. यह अपमानजनक प्रलय अब मुझे मौन और मेरे खुद के धार्मिक विचारों को प्रचार करने से रोकने के प्रयास में इस्तेमाल किया जा रहा था!

   इस  अवमानना के प्रसताव के हेतु OBF और  रेमी  एनएसए  एक ही थी, इसलिए  हम "रेमेयितेस" थे और हम सभी उस जजमेंट द्वारा बाध्य थे. एनएसए मूल रूप से यह कह रहा था कि १९६६ के जजमेंट के हिसाब से OBF संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में अवैध रूप से है (और BUPC जोकि एक अलग संगठन है इस पर भी विल्मेत्ते एनएसए द्वारा आक्रमण किया गया था) और बहाई आस्था के गार्जियन सार्वजनिक स्तर पर यह घोषणा नहीं कर सकते थे कि वह एक बहाई हैं !

    रेमी  एनएसए ने १९६६ के प्रलय पर कभी पलट कर अप्पिल नहीं की क्योंकि मेसन रेमी ने उन्हें परिणामों की परवाह किए बिना यह निर्देश दिया था की नेयायाले के फैसले पर पुनर्विचार और अपील न करें. क़ानूनी दृष्टिकोण के हिसाब से यह एक अविश्वसनीय रूप से मुर्खता थी , क्योंकि इससे कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता कि यह असंवैधानिक है या नहीं , प्रलय अगर एक बार अंतिम हो जाता है तो फिर आम तौर पर उसे चुनौती नहीं दी जा सकती है और ना ही उसे पलट सकते हैं. हालांकि रूढ़िवादी बहाई यह विश्वास नहीं करते थे की  रेमी उस समय पर गार्जियन थे,और रेमी एनएसए के सदस्यों का मानना था के वो उस समय पर भी गार्जियन थे इसलिए उनलोगों ने उसकी बात मानी, और ये जजमेंट अंतिम बन गया. रेमी के कहने पर, रेमी एनएसए को भंग कर दिया गया था और संरक्षकता के तहत बहाई आस्था व्यावहारिक रूप से अस्तित्व में समाप्त हो गया था. कुछ समय बाद उस संगठन के बाकि लोग भी निष्क्रिय हो गए.

     चालीस साल बाद, यह सब मुझे रूढ़िवादी बहाई आस्था की वकालत करने के लिए एक समस्या बन गया. न्यायालय निष्पक्ष धार्मिक कानून के तहत सुनवाई में वास्तविक यह निश्चित करना चाहता था की OBF और रेमी एनएसए में वैधानिक "भेद" था की नहीं. अगर यह भेद में था तो OBF संभाव्यतः जजमेंट द्वारा बाध्य होगा और OBF अपनी वैधता को चुनौती देने में सक्षम नहीं होगा. ऐसा होता यदि OBF और रेमी एनएसए की पहचान कानूनी तौर पर एक ही होती और इसलिए प्रलय के तहत यह अधिकारों और दायित्वों में समान होंगे. इसका यह मतलब होगा कि OBF भी रेमी एनएसए की तरह प्रभावी ढंग से १९९६ के प्रलय द्वारा गैरकानूनी हो गया है.

     अचानक OBF की स्थापना के बहुत अजीब इतिहास न्यायालय के निष्कर्षों के लिए बहुत प्रासंगिक थे. एनएसए ये दिखाने के तत्पर था कि OBF रेमी  एनएसए की एक निरंतरता है. नएसए की यह बहेस थी की: १९६५ में रेमी एनएसए को भंग करदिया गया था और वह बंद हो गई थी कुछ समय बाद इस संगठन के अवशेष जैसे  सुष्टिकर्ता के सहायक फ्रंक्लिन शेटलर (Hand of the Cause of God ) और गार्जियन, जोएल बी मेरेंजेला ने सभी व्यावहारिक प्रयोजनों के लिए रेमी  एनएसए को OBF और PNBC के रूप में पुनर्जीवित किया. इसलिए, फ्रेंकलिन शेटलर और जोएल बी मेरेंजेला (यह दोनों जिनहोने रेमी संगठन में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई थी इस संगठन के यंत्र थे), PNBC, और वे  सभी जो OBF के लिए आकर्षित थे, वे लोग भी उसी जजमेंट के तहेत बाध्य हैं. PNBC रेमी  एनएसए के बदल के आलावा कुछ नहीं था. यह बस रेमी एनएसए के बाकि बचे हुए लोग थे जो PNBC के नाम के तहत रेमी एनएसए का कार्य जारी रख्खे हुए थे इन में केवल यह अंतर था की यह धार्मिक उत्तराधिकारी के रूप में मेरेंजेला को मान्यता देते थे.

     एनएसए ने जो बहेस की थी वह आसानी से OBF का इतिहास बन सकती थी, परन्तु ऐसा नहीं हुआ.OBF ने न्यायाधीश सेंट ईव से पहले शिकागो में परीक्षण के लिए OBF की स्थापना की तथ्यों को प्रस्तुत किया. इस परीक्षण की तैयारी में, यह अजीब और शर्मनाक इतिहास स्पष्ट हो गया और यह ओब्फ़ के लिए परमेश्वर की ओर से एक उपहार था, क्योंकि इन्केअलावा और कोई भी इतनी अच्छी तरह से एक परिपूर्ण मामले को पेश नहीं कर सकता था. OBF के मूल, तथ्यों की सच्चाई जो इतिहास ने प्रस्तुत की यह एनएसए के आरोपों के खिलाफ OBF के बचाव के लिए बहुत अच्छा तह.

   वसतो में परीक्षण में यह दिखाया गया है कि मेसन रेमी की संगठन और इनके सभी अवशेष खुद मेसन रेमी के आदेश द्वारा संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में कार्येभार, किंवा समारोह के लिए बंद था. जोएल बी मरंगेल्ला इन आदेशों के जामिनदार नहीं है और उनपर यह लागु भी नहीं होता क्योंकि जोएल ने १९६५ से गार्जियन होने का दावा किया था जब मेसन ने अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बहाई परिषद (IBC) को जोएल के साथ सक्रिय किया दूसरे अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बहाई परिषद के अध्यक्ष के रूप में जो कि मेसन की शिक्षाओं के तहत दुसरे संरक्षता के रूप में था दुसरे संरक्षकता का मतलब यह था कि रेमी ने पहले संरक्षक का इनकार कर दिया था और इस संरक्षकता को मोड़ दिया जोएल बी मरंगेल्ला की ओर. उस समय जब मेसन ने रेमी  एनएसए को यह निर्देश दिया की जजमेंट के विरुद्ध में अपील न की जाये, उस समय जोएल गार्जियन था  इसलिए OBF को कामयाबी नहीं मिला क्योंकि अंतिम फैसला रेमी के हाथ में था. कानूनी सिद्धांतों के तहत, दो संगठनों के बीच विभाजित किया गया था. OBF और रेमी  संगठन के बीच कोई भेद नहीं था क्योंकि OBF और मृत रेमी संगठन और उसके अवशेष कई वर्षों से दो अलग अलग संरक्षता के तहेत विरुद्ध संगठन थे. और इन दोनों संगठनों के कार्य में कोई समानता नहीं हो सकती थी. इन दोनों संगठनों के बिच केवल एक समानता थी और वह उनका धार्मिक विश्वास था, जिसकी कोर्ट के सामने को हैसियत नहीं थी इस आधार पर धार्मिक विवादों का निर्णय लेने के कोर्ट सिविल कानून का पालन करने के लिए बाध्य है और धार्मिक तटस्थ के लिए अप्रासंगिक हैं.

    यह निश्चित रूप से परमात्मा की मदद थी कि मेसन ने संरक्षकता सिंहासन को त्याग दिया था और ज़ाहेरी तौर पर बाद में भूल भी गए की उन्होंने ऐसा किया था, इसलिए उन्हों ने गार्जियन के रूप में कार्य को जारी रखा   भले ही उन्हों ने जोएल को आध्यात्मिक प्राधिकारी विरासत में पारित किया था. इस वजह से अगर आप को OBF में  शामिल होना है तो आप को रेमी एनएसए संगठन के असंगठित अवशेष को छोड़ना पड़ेगा और उनके धार्मिक संगठन से दूर रहना होगा, फिर जोएल के अंतर्गत अलग संगठन में अच्छी तरह से कानूनी तौर पर शामिल होना हो गा.

     परमात्मा की मदद के लिए धन्यवाद, की OBF रेमी  एनएसए के साथ कानूनी भेद में नहीं थी इसलिए इसे उस जजमेंट द्वारा बाध्य नहीं किया गया था. अगर इतिहास के तथ्यों में ऐसा न होता तो न्यायाधीश सेंट ईव के लिए यह साबित हो जाता की OBF भेद में था और इसलिए १९६६ का अपमानजनक फैसला इस पर भी लागु होता. मैंने २००६ में न्यायालय में यह बहेस कि के, अगर इस घटना में OBF को भी शामिल किया जाता है तो भी इसपर केवल उस जज्मेंट की संवेधानिक बातो को ही लागु किया जा सकता है न की असंवैधानिक बातो को, जैसे OBF वेब साइटों और खुद अपने स्वयं को आस्था की पहचान से रोक लगाना. हालांकि, मैं बहुत खुश हुआ कि न्यायाधीश सेंट ईव ने यह निर्णय लेने की कोशिश भी नहीं की क्योंकि वह पहले शिकागो इलिनोइस के फैसला के प्रस्तुत तथ्यों पर विचार करने के बाद, यह निर्णय दिया कि संघीय कानून के तटस्थ सिद्धांतों के तहत OBF वही संगठन नहीं न ही उसका सिलसिला था न ही कानूनी तौर पर रेमी  एनएसए के निरंतन में था और इसलिए ये प्रलय OBF पर लागू नहीं होता.

    बहुत खुशी की बात है की १९६६ का जजमेंट अब इतिहास में खो गया. शुक्र है, की अब किसी के लिए कोई खतरा नहीं है. दुर्भाग्य से, आज भी विल्मेत्त एनएसए उन लोगों की धार्मिक स्वतंत्रता लिए एक खतरा है अपने आप को बहाई कहते हैं परन्तु विल्मेत्त एनएसए धार्मिक विचारों से असहमत हैं. मुझे यह आशा है की एक न एक रोज विल्मेत्त एनएसए को यह एहसास जरुर हो गा की अदालती आदेशों द्वारा  एकता नहीं ला सकते. एनएसए के पास केवा मार्ग है की  कम से कम संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में बहियों के अन्य समूहों के अस्तित्व को बर्दाश्त कर लें नहीं तो ये बहाई धर्म के लिए जोखिम हो सकता है और हमेशा के लिए आस्था के नाम पर कलंक लग जायेगा और "अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता और आस्था के दुश्मन." में निश्चित रूप से इन की गिनती हो गी और मैं दुसरे बहियों के अस्तित्व को सहन करने और अन्य बहाई समूहों के साथ रहने के लिए तैयार हूँ. ये परवाह किए बिना कि क्या मैं उनके आस्था के साथ सहमत हु या नहीं. यह कैसे संभव है की हम दूसरों के धार्मिक विचारों को बर्दाश्त न करें जबके हम अपने आप को बहाई कहते है.

[* जेफरी गोल्डबर्ग १९९७ से रूढ़िवादी बहाई आस्था (OBF ) के सदस्य हैं. इससे पहले, वह कई वर्षों तक बिना गार्जियन वाले बहाई जिसका मुख्यालय विश्वो नीय मंदिर, हैफ़ा, है के सदस्य के रूप में जाने जाते थे. वह वर्तमान में संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका के राष्ट्रीय बहाई परिषद (NBC) जो की रूढ़िवादी बहाई (OBF ) की (governing body ) शासी निकाय के सचिव हैं, वह आस्था के धर्म्भुजा सामान है, और वह दुनिया के विश्वा रूढ़िवादी बहाई समुदाय के लिए. अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बहाई काउंसिल के कोषाध्यक्ष हैं.

{*श्री जेफरी गोल्डबर्ग वो वकील थे ,जिन्होंने हाइफ़ा आधारित संस्था की अपमानजनक आक्रामकता के खिलाफ रुदिवादी बहाई समुदाय को अदालती करवाई में बचाया. जहाँ हैफा स्तिथ संस्था को लगातार हार का सामना करना पड़ा था, और अंत में हैफ़ा आधारित संगठन की ओर से ये एक चतुर कदम था के वे सुप्रीम कोर्ट में न गए, अन्यथा उनके लिए वहां एक बहुत अधिक अपमान संग्रहीत था }

अधिक जानकारी के लिए लॉग ऑन करें:

http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html



Thursday 11 August 2011

बहाईंचे न्यायालयीन वाद

Saturday 7 May 2011

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON THE UNITED STATES NSA'S LEGAL ATTACK AGAINST THE GUARDIAN OF THE BAHÁ'Í FAITH

By Jeffrey Goldberg*

Imagine my dismay when, on November 26, 2006, I received a copy of the "Motion for Rule to Show Cause" filed by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States against the Guardian, Joel B. Marangella, Hand of the Cause Franklin Schlatter, and the Provisional National Bahá'í Council ("PNBC"), the governing body of the Orthodox Bahá'ís in the United States.

    I became an Orthodox Bahá'í in 1997, after researching the claims of the various groups who call themselves "Bahá'í." Prior to that, since 1980 I had been a declared member in good standing of the Bahá'í Faith under the majority group whose sans-Guardian Universal House of Justice sits in Haifa (hereinafter referred to as "Bahá'í World Faith" or "BWF" ). I had not previously known other Bahá'í organizations even existed, having been told that they died out long ago, but the truth became revealed when I began surfing the internet. I read the materials of several so-called covenant breaking groups, but I did not catch a spiritual disease! Instead I came to realize that I had not been told the truth, and that I already had a spiritual disease by virtue of giving my support to an organization (BWF) that was, knowingly or not, in opposition to the true Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh.

    My healing from this spiritual disease of covenant-breaking only began when I declared under the Guardianship of Joel B. Marangella. My decision was instantly confirmed to be the correct one simply by the reaction of the BWF community, which was devoid of courage, conviction, or integrity. Their reaction was filled with fear and a stubborn refusal to even consider the facts. I was declared a covenant-breaker and my family and I were shunned. My 12-year old daughter was devastated when the community members who she thought were her friends was told (outside of my presence) that they would never speak to her again for a reason that was beyond her comprehension but which they did not bother to even explain. It took her many years before she got over the shock of this cruel treatment at the hands of the BWF members. Every one of them should feel very ashamed of themselves for this cruel fanatic behavior for which there is no excuse. They will answer for this crime when their souls seek admittance into the Abha Kingdom.

     The people in the group seem so loving to a casual observer. But underneath there is this cult-like atmosphere in which people are not free to be themselves. They are constantly answering to their Administration for everything.

     The most striking thing is that out of all the persons in the BWF who called themselves my friend, only one of them even considered or listened to the true facts that I had discovered about the Faith (and she too joined the OBF and was declared a covenant breaker). There was so much irrational fear in the community that they could not bring themselves to consider any of the arguments or even to read their own writings on the subject. All that they knew was that the so-called "Counselors" had decided that I was a covenant-breaker and therefore that I was spiritually diseased and must be shunned, or even if they thought maybe I was sincere they only knew that they did not want to hear about it and risk being shunned as well. It became readily apparent that I did not belong in the BWF and that my fellow "Bahá'ís" of the BWF were not truly Bahá'ís at all but were cult members driven by fear and manipulative coercion rather than true faith. The BWF was a complete fraud.

The claim of the infallibility by The Universal House of Justice of Haifa based Organisation Stands Exposed.

     I truly did not give it much thought after that but went on with my life. It was almost a decade later when I received the contempt motion from the NSA for my review. My fellow Orthodox Bahá'ís were aware that I was an attorney already admitted to the bar of the United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois. My initial reaction was disbelief that the NSA would engage in this behavior, to try to silence the Orthodox Bahá'ís by preventing them from calling themselves Bahá'ís, publicly using the words and symbols of the Greatest Name, and that they would be so blind that they would seek to use the power of the federal court to enforce their belief that there was one and only one Faith of Bahá'u'lláh and nobody else but them should be allowed to make this claim. They were so fanatical that they would be willing to damage the First Amendment principles of the United States in order to silence a small group of "dissident" Bahá'ís they referred to as "Remeyites."

    A closer look at this matter revealed that the NSA had long ago attacked the First Amendment of the United States. There was the unsuccessful attempt to have a New York court in 1941 prevent Ahmad Sohrab from calling himself a Bahá'í. He was the former secretary of `Abdu'l-Bahá who Shoghi Effendi declared to be a covenant-breaker. After the NSA was told by that Court that it could not have the exclusive right to the term Bahá'í, the NSA tried again 25 years later, when it obtained a default judgment against the National Spiritual Assembly under the Hereditary Guardianship (the "Remey NSA") in 1966. At Mason Remey's behest, the Remey NSA had filed suit against the Wilmette NSA seeking control over the assets of the Faith as being the true NSA. The Wilmette NSA counter-claimed saying it had the right to exclusive control.

    Although it was not settled law at the time, the U.S. courts may not decide religious disputes. In a dispute between competing religious organizations, the courts can only decide questions of property law. Therefore, whether the Wilmette NSA or the Remey NSA were legitimate under the Law of Bahá'u'lláh is not relevant to the courts of the United States. Under federal law, the Wilmette NSA was a clear winner simply because it was the corporate entity that legally controlled the assets of the Bahá'í Faith in the United States. Had the Wilmette NSA as a corporate body sided with Mason Remey then the property of the Faith would still belong to that corporate body and the Bahá'ís under the Guardianship would have taken control over all assets of the Faith. Even though the Wilmette NSA would have won anyway under neutral principles of property law, they proceeded to obtain that infamous 1966 Judgment against the Remey NSA.

    This 1966 Judgment is an embarrassment to the federal courts and to the NSA. The Remey NSA was unaware there was a hearing on it at the time (this is evidenced by the minutes of the Remey NSA meeting shortly after the 1966 Judgment), its attorney did not show up to the hearing, and the Wilmette NSA apparently just wrote a default Judgment which was signed by the Judge. That Judgment made findings that the Wilmette NSA's organization was the one and only true Bahá'í Faith, that Shoghi Effendi was the one and only Guardian, and that the Remey NSA and its members were not allowed to publicly declare themselves to be "Bahá'í" or to associate themselves publicly with anything "Bahá'í" including the sacred images and words of the Greatest Name. They were allowed under the Judgment to practice privately although they could not publicly teach their Faith (which is a personal obligation of every believer).

    This was a federal court order declaring the BWF to be the one and only form of Bahá'í Faith to be allowed in the United States. The conduct of the NSA in having this Judgment entered was to jeopardize the First Amendment of the United States. However, nothing ever came of it for 40 years.

    But on November 26, 2006, when I was looking at the Wilmette NSA's Motion that sought to hold the OBF in contempt of court it was impossible for me to understand how the Wilmette NSA was now seeking to actually enforce this grossly unconstitutional and erroneous Judgment in a modern day Court. Despite the shameful treatment by this organization against me and despite their shameful past court actions, I still stood there in disbelief that this organization could stoop so low.

    As if their shunning behavior against me was not enough, their Motion specifically included my own personal teaching web site as being in violation of the 1966 Judgment. That outrageous Judgment was now being used in an attempt to silence me and prevent me from teaching my own religious views!

    The Motion for Contempt was stating that the OBF was the same thing as the Remey NSA, that we were "Remeyites" and all of us were bound by the Judgment. The NSA was basically saying that the 1966 Judgment made the OBF illegal in the United States (and also the BUPC a separate organization that was also attacked by the Wilmette NSA) and that the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith could not declare publicly that he was a Bahá'í!

    The Remey NSA never appealed the Judgment back in 1966 because Mason Remey instructed them not to seek reconsideration or appeal of the Judgment "regardless of the consequences". This was incredibly unwise from a legal point of view because no matter how unconstitutional it is, the consequences are that once the Judgment is final it generally cannot be challenged or overturned. Although Orthodox Bahá'ís don't believe Remey was the Guardian at the time, the members of the Remey NSA believed at the time he still was the Guardian and they obeyed him, and so the Judgment became final. At Remey's behest, the Remey NSA was dissolved and the Bahá'í Faith under the Guardianship practically ceased to exist. The remnants of that organization entered into inactivity from that point forward.

     Forty year later, this all became a problem for me as the attorney for the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith. The Court wanted to hold a hearing and make a factual determination whether the OBF was in legal "privity" with the Remey NSA under religiously neutral law. If it was in privity then the OBF would be presumably bound by the Judgment and the OBF would not be able to challenge its validity. It would be as if the OBF had the same identity, legally speaking, with the Remey NSA and therefore had the same rights and obligations under the Judgment. It would have meant that the OBF was effectively outlawed by the 1966 Judgment.

     Suddenly the very strange history of the founding of the OBF was very relevant to the findings of the Court. The NSA wanted to show that the OBF was a continuation of the Remey NSA. The NSA argued: Even though the Remey NSA was dissolved and ceased to function in 1965, the remnants of that organization such as the late Hand of the Cause of God Franklin Schlatter and the Guardian, Joel B. Marangellam, for all practical purposes revived the Remey NSA as the OBF and PNBC. Therefore, Franklin Schlatter and Joel B. Marangella (both of whom were instrumental figures in the Remey organization), the PNBC, and all those who they attracted to the OBF, were now bound to the Judgment just the same. The PNBC was nothing more than the alter ego of the Remey NSA. It simply was the remnant of the Remey NSA continuing to function as the Remey NSA under the name of PNBC and doing exactly what the Remey NSA did which was carrying on the Guardianship with the only difference being that this organization had recognized Marangella as the religious successor to Remey.

    What the NSA argued could have easily been the history of the OBF, but in truth that was not what happened. The OBF presented the facts about the founding of the OBF at trial in Chicago, before Judge St. Eve. In preparing for this trial, it became apparent the strange and embarrassing history and origin of the OBF was a gift from God because nobody else could have orchestrated such a perfect case. The truth of the OBF's origins, the facts that history presented to me, comprise the perfect defense for the OBF against the NSA's allegations.

    The facts shown at trial were that the Mason Remey organization and all of its remnants had forever ceased to function in the United States by Mason's own orders. Joel B. Marangella did not recognize these orders because Joel claimed to be the Guardian since 1965 when Mason activated the IBC with Joel as the President of the Second International Bahá'í Council, which under Mason's teachings as the second Guardian meant that Remey had abdicated the Guardianship and turned over the Guardianship to Joel B. Marangella. At the time when Mason instructed the Remey NSA not to appeal the Judgment, Joel was the Guardian and therefore the OBF did not get its day in court since it was Remey who made the ultimate decision. Under legal principles, there was a split between the two organizations. There was no privity between the OBF and the Remey organization because the OBF and the defunct Remey organization and its remnants were two distinct and competing organizations under competing leadership for many years. There was no similarity in how the two organizations functioned. The only thing the two organizations had in common were some religious beliefs, all of which are irrelevant to a Court that is obligated to apply and follow religiously neutral civil law to the dispute rather than deciding religious disputes on their merits.

    It was certainly the work of divine Providence that Mason abdicated the Guardianship and apparently later had forgotten that he had done so, continuing to assume the functions as the Guardian even though he had passed the mantle of spiritual authority to Joel. Because of this, in order to join the OBF, you had to leave the unorganized remnants of the Remey NSA organization, turn away from Mason and his religious organization, and affirmatively join Joel in a legally separate organization.

     Thanks to Providence, the the OBF was not in legal privity with the Remey NSA and therefore was not bound by the Judgment. If not for the facts of history, Judge St. Eve might have found that the OBF was in privity and therefore subject to the outrageous Judgment of 1966 without the ability to overturn the Judgment. I did raise the argument that the Court in 2006, in the event the Court did find the OBF was in privity, that it could only enforce those parts of the Judgment that were not unconstitutional because it would be engaging in unconstitutional acts such as shutting down OBF web sites and prohibiting the OBF from identifying themselves with their own Faith. However, I am overjoyed that Judge St. Eve never had to decide that question because she first decided after considering the facts presented at trial in Chicago, Illinois that under neutral principles of federal law the OBF was not the same organization or in continuity with or legally identified with the one headed up by the Remey NSA and therefore that Judgment did not apply to the OBF.

     Happily the 1966 Judgment is now a matter of history. Thankfully, it is probably no longer a threat to anyone. Unfortunately, the Wilmette NSA remains a threat to the First Amendment unless it gives up its mania for squelching the religious freedoms of those who disagree with it. It is my hope and wish that the Wilmette NSA will finally realize that you cannot enforce unity with a court order. The NSA simply must tolerate the existence of other groups of Bahá'í at least in the United States or it runs the risk of forever ruining the name of the Faith making synonymous the word "Bahá'í" and "enemy of freedom of speech and religion." I certainly would be happy to tolerate and co-exist with all of the other Bahá'í groups in existence regardless of whether I agree with their beliefs. How could it possibly be that tolerance for others' religious views cannot be attained by a group of people who call themselves Bahá'í?

[*Jeffrey Goldberg has been a member of the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith since 1997. Before that, he spent many years as a sans-Guardian Bahá'í. He is presently the Secretary of the National Bahá'í Council, the governing body for the Orthodox Bahá'ís in the United States, he is a Hand of the Cause of God, and is the Treasurer of the International Bahá'í Council for the world-wide Orthodox Bahá'ís.

Mr. Jeffrey Goldberg was the attorney who defended the Orthodox Bahá'ís in the Court case against outrageous aggression of the Haifa based organization.The Haifa based organization suffered defeat after defeat  and finally it was a clever step from their side not to go to Supreme Court. Otherwise much greater humiliation was stored for them.]

For More information about the court case log on :
http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html