True Bahá'í

NSA testimony reveals true reasons for court action

The US District Court in Chicago held an evidentiary hearing on January 7, 2008, on the question of whether the OBF was in privity with Mason Remey's organization (the NSA of Bahais under the Hereditary Guardianship) and therefore bound by the 1966 Judgment entered against the Remey group. The hearing was held in order for the Court to decide material issues of fact in dispute in connection with the sans-Guardian Wilmette NSA's motion for contempt against the Orthodox Baha'is (and also the Neal Chase organization.

One of the Wilmette NSA's witnesses was NSA member and former Secretary Dr Robert Henderson, who testified about the reasons for bringing the motion.  What is startling about this testimony, as against the OBF, is that the NSA's motion has offered up the pretense that the OBF's use of its trademarks (that is, the word "Baha'i") is causing reputational harm to the NSA. 

In this testimony, Dr. Henderson admits that the only thing objectionable about the OBF web sites is the "thematic misrepresentation" that there is or could be more than one Baha'i faith (or one other than the sans-Guardian one).  In other words, it is the very existence of the OBF that bothers the NSA, and its motion seeks to silence the OBF:

MR. JEFFERY A. HANDELMAN, Attorney for NSA (Direct Examination):
Dr. Henderson, what caused the NSA to file the current contempt motion
that is now pending before the Court?

DR. ROBERT HENDERSON: The National Spiritual Assembly became aware, as
a result of reports, that there were Web sites that were
misrepresenting Baha'i belief and claiming to be official institutions
of the Baha'i faith. We hadn't seen them, but we began to get reports.
And upon investigation, we were alarmed to find that there were Web
sites claiming to be the official institutions of the Baha'i faith and
-- and -- presenting beliefs which were in direct conflict to Baha'i
teachings and Baha'i principles and at broad variance.

We had significant concerns about this. First, we were concerned about
Baha'i refugees who were forced to flee their homes and their home
countries because of their belief in the Baha'i faith, and who, in
some cases, had corresponded with the wrong institutions, thinking
that they were corresponding with the international
governing body of the Baha'i faith and, in fact, they were sending
their correspondence to some other institution.

Secondly, we were concerned about the public because one of our major
strategies is to advise the public of the teachings and the fact and
general aim of the Baha'i faith through the Internet. In fact, our Web
site has won several awards for excellence from the National Religious
Communication -- Communicators -- Council, which is an organization
that looks at religious publications and Web sites and videos, and so
forth.

And we won the gold medal, in fact, as having the best Web site of the
faith communities in the United States.

And, so, this is a primary means by which we communicate Baha'i
belief, and who are the Baha'is, and what do we believe, and what do
we do, and where can you find Baha'is close to you.

Suddenly, we began to receive some alarming reports from people who
were not Baha'is, but who were investigating the Baha'i faith through
the Internet, concerned about what they were reading on Web sites
claiming to be official Baha'i Web sites. And their concern was
stimulated by the fact that the content on these Web sites was in
direct conflict with their understanding of Baha'i belief; and, in
fact, it was in direct conflict.

And, then, lastly, there were -- or penultimately, we were concerned
about the Baha'is themselves who might be misled and find themselves
involved in discussions -- in fact, this did occur; find themselves
involved in Internet forums and the like and corresponding -- with
organizations that were not part of the National Spiritual Assembly.

And last, we were concerned with reputational harm. As I mentioned, we
have extensive and longstanding relations with the United Nations,
with the White House, with the -- with both Houses of Congress, with
the human rights community. And these are based on principles of peace
and cooperation, of universal fellowship, of race unity, of the
equality of women and men, and so forth. All of the Baha'i principles
centered around facilitating unity and cooperation and universal well-
being and social progress.

These Web sites have alarming content that were in direct conflict
with Baha'i teachings and, in some cases, even suggested that harm
would come to institutions that we have long supported.

For example, in one case -- as I mentioned, we have had a non-
governmental organization in the United Nations since its formation in
1948 and have consultative status with ECOSOC, and so on and so forth.
One of the Web sites we read said that the United Nations would be
nuked.

Well, there's no such Baha'i teaching suggesting that. It is
completely antithetical to the teachings of our faith and very
damaging to a member of the United Nations that might read that and be
confused and think that Baha'is believe that destruction would come to
an organization that we have been so vigorously supportive of and so
deeply involved in.

===================================================
Later:

MR. JEFFREY A. GOLDBERG, Attorney for the OBF (Cross Examination): You
said in your testimony that you found these Web sites that were
mimicking the official institutions of the faith. Can you tell me
which ones they were? Were those Orthodox Baha'i Faith Web sites?

DR. ROBERT HENDERSON: There were several of them. The one that comes
readily to mind is Baha'is Under the Provision of the Covenant. And,
then, there were Web sites claiming to be the official Universal House
of Justice. And --
(Brief pause.)

BY THE WITNESS:

A. Those are the ones that come readily to mind.

BY MR. GOLDBERG:

Q. So, the Orthodox Baha'i Faith Web site -- for example, Joel
Marangella's Web site where he claims to be the Guardian of the Baha'i
faith -- was that -- do you consider that an official institution of
the faith?

A. No. The official institutions of the Baha'i faith are the ones that
I mentioned: The Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel; the 183
National Spiritual Assemblies in countries around the world; and, the
26,000 or so recognized local spiritual
assemblies.

Q. So, has the Orthodox Baha'i Faith ever represented that it was the
Universal House of Justice --

A. I don't know.

Q. -- or the National Spiritual Assembly?

A. I don't know.

Q. And you also mentioned that there were beliefs in conflict on the
Web site of the Baha'i teaching. And with the exception of the
Orthodox Baha'i Faith's teachings about that they believe that Joel
Marangella's the Guardian, can you identify any beliefs that are set
forth in our -- in the Orthodox Baha'i Faith -- Web sites that has
anything that is in conflict with Baha'i teachings as you know --
understand them?

A. There were -- in the range of Web site material that I've read,
there were -- several thematic misrepresentations and factual
representations.

The first was that there is an alternate Baha'i faith. There is not.
This notion that we are orthodox or true, that we are official, stands
in direct conflict to the fundamental principle of the Baha'i faith;
which is, the unity of faith.

Anyone is free to believe what they wish. Privately they can enjoy
freedom of belief, and they can think of themselves as whatever brings
meaning and spiritual cohesion to their lives. But when you begin to
present yourself and to present counterclaims as being official or
orthodox or more true to an established entity, the Baha'i faith is --
has teachings and laws and principles and structure that make up the
faith itself. That provides its cohesion and its integrity.

The -- these Web sites claim to be the orthodox manifestation of that
or the official counterpart to that. It's a fundamental conflict in
Baha'i belief. It simply does not parse in Baha'i teachings or
principles.

Court Case Update

I have updated the web page on the pending court case (the Wilmette NSA's contempt action against the Orthodox Baha'is). Go to http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

I have added the NSA's Post-Hearing Brief and the OBF's Response Brief.  The NSA's reply is due February 4, 2008.

I will have more about the trial in the near future.

Jeffrey

Courtroom art images of OBF hearing

This is to announce the release of images of the January 7, 2008 hearing in Chicago on privity created by a courtroom artist. 

Click here to see the photo album:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/photos/trial/index.html

Jeffrey

Orthodox Baha'is among those to testify at hearing on NSA's contempt motion

The Honorable Amy J. St. Eve, Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, presided over the hearing, on January 7, 2008, to take evidence on the question of whether Orthodox Baha'i Faith Respondents Joel B. Marangella (the present Guardian of the Cause of God), Frank D. Schlatter, and the Provisional National Baha'i Council of the United States, and also the organization established by Dr. Leland Jensen that recognizes Neal Chase as the Guardian, are legally in "privity" with the defunct National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States Under the Hereditary Guardianship ("NSAUHG") the the national organization that once presided over the followers of Charles Mason Remey. The Court held the hearing in order to determine factual issues related to the sans-Guardian NSA's motion for contempt of the 1966 Judgment that was entered against the NSAUHG.

The City of Chicago racked up record high temperatures for that normally cold and snowy time of year, with temperatures in the mid 50's. Perhaps this was the result of the prayers of the Orthodox Baha'is who were forced to leave a moderate climate in New Mexico in the beginning of January, in order to defend their right to use word "Baha'i" in their names and on their websites, in a far away courthouse situated in a considerably colder climate.

After the attorneys for the parties gave their opening argument, the witnesses testified under questioning by attorneys for each party.  The first witness was Dr. Robert Henderson, the former Secretary of the NSA. Next was Frank Schlatter and then Marilyn Meyer of the Orthodox Bahai Faith. Finally, Neal Chase faced questions about his organization's relationship, if any, with the NSAUHG. The parties also submitted designations of transcript deposition testimony for the witnesses who were not present. All parties also submitted document exhibits into evidence.

The Court has set a briefing schedule for post-trial submissions (in lieu of a closing argument).  The NSA is to file its brief on January 14, 2008.  Responses are due January 22, and the NSA's reply is due January 28, 2008.  Due to a delay in receiving the hearing transcript, those deadlines are expected to be moved back.

After the submissions have been provided to the Court, it will rule on the pending contempt motion by written order.  There is no way to determine when the Court will issue its decision.

Jeffrey

 

CLICK HERE FOR COURT DOCUMENTS

Court case update

This is an update on the court case.  As you may know, the sans-Guardian National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is for the United States has filed a contempt motion against the Orthodox Baha'i Faith (and also a Baha'i denomination that follows Neal Chase as the Guardian). The motion seeks to enforce a Judgment against the OBF that had been entered in 1966 against the NSA of Charles Mason Remey's organization. That Judgment prohibits the use of the word "Baha'i" and the Greatest Name symbols, among other things, stating that such use infringes upon the NSA's trademark.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for January 7, 2008 on the question of whether the OBF (and the Chase organization) are in "privity" with the Remey NSA and therefore bound by the Judgment.

All of the pertinent court documents are available here:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

We have recently added various trial documents such as the exhibit lists, witness lists, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the OBF and NSA.

There is a status hearing on December 17, 2007 in Chicago.

Jeffrey

Baha'i for Sale

In the litigation [http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html] brought against the Orthodox Baha'is by the NSA of sans-Guardian Bahais currently headquartered in Wilmette, the Wilmette NSA is attempting to prevent the OBF from using the word Bahai, claiming that they own a trademark to the name.  They say that the OBF's use of the word "Bahai" is deceptive, misleading and irreparably damaging to the NSA.  The OBF counters that it is the generic term for a religious teaching, and that the NSA does not have the exclusive right to use the term, and that the OBF's non-commercial use of the word to describe its religious beliefs is lawful.

The thing that is so sick about the Wilmette NSA's actions is that if anyone is damaging the name Bahai, it is them, in the undignified manner in which they advertise and promote the Faith (using billboards, for example).  If you want to see how low it has become, go to amazon.com and search for "Baha'i" and see what you get.  You will find t-shirts, sweatshirts, and caps with slogans such as "Army Baha'i" "Baha'i Power" "Kiss Me I'm Baha'i" and the ever appropriate "Do Not Hate Me Because I'm Baha'i".  You can get "I Love (heart) Baha'u'llah" coffee mugs, and you can be a hit with the ladies with the "I Love (heart) Baha'i Girls" t-shirt.  You can even purchase "I Love (heart) Baha" keychains and a lawn sign resembling a street sign that says "Baha'i Way."

The Wilmette NSA is so protective of the Baha'i name, but it apparently has no problem with the cheapening of the Greatest Name on apparel and novelty items.  They sicken me.

Update on Court Action Against the Orthodox Baha'is

An evidentiary hearing on the Wilmette NSA's contempt motion against the Orthodox Bahai Faith and the Baha'is under the Provisions of the Covenant is scheduled for January 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM in the United States District Court, before the Honorable Amy J. St Eve in Courtroom 1241 in the Everett McKinley Dirksen Federal Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.  This will be a "mini-trial" on the issue of whether the respondents are in "privity" with the NSA under the Hereditary Guardianship (Mason Remey's organization) and therefore bound by the 1966 Judgment against that NSA.  Witness testimony will be taken at the hearing which is scheduled for two days.

To see the recent Court orders, go to our updated page:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

Court Update- Wilmette NSA's Contempt Motion Denied "without prejudice"

This is an update regarding the Wilmette NSA's court action against the Orthodox Baha'is (and the Bahais Under the Provisions of the Covenant).

To see the court pleadings against the Orthodox Baha'is, go here:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

At the status hearing held in the United States District Court in downtown Chicago on August 8, 2007, the Court denied the Wilmette NSA's motion for rule to show cause (or contempt motion) "without prejudice."  The Court stated there were issues of fact in dispute and ordered the parties to meet and confer and establish a plan for holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the Orthodox Bahais were in privity with the NSA under Charles Mason Remey and therefore bound to the Judgment that the Wilmette NSA obtained in 1964 against the Remey organization. 

The next status hearing is set for August 23, 2007 at 8:30 AM.

The Lost Teachings of the Bahá'í Guardianship

One of the more interesting aspects of the litigation against the Orthodox Bahá'ís brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the United States headquartered in Wilmette (hereafter called the "sans-Guardian Bahais"), was the way in which the sans-Guardian Bahais acted as if the principles of the Guardianship were created by Charles Mason Remey and Joel B. Marangella.

Althought the Orthodox Bahá'ís believe that Shoghi Effendi was the first Guardian, Charles Mason Remey was the second Guardian and Joel B. Marangella was the third Guardian, it was not any of the Guardians who created the idea of the Guardianship.  Throughout the litigation, the sans-Guardian Bahais acted as if the principle of the hereditary Guardianship is what distinguishes the Orthodox Bahá'ís from the sans-Guardian Bahais.  This, of course, is untrue. The teachings of both organizations have the idea of the hereditary Guardianship. This is a teaching espoused by `Abdu'l-Bahá in His Will and Testament, and Shoghi Effendi (who was accepted by the sans-Guardian Bahais) wrote extensively on the subject.  The idea did not originate from the Guardians.  The only difference between the sans-Guardian Bahais and the Orthodox Bahá'ís, is that the sans-Guardian Bahais lost their faith in the Covenant after the death of Shoghi Effendi, falsely believing that the essential Institution of the Guardianship had come to an end.  However, the fundamental teachings of the Faith have become so lost, that the sans-Guardian Bahais act as if the Guardianship is not part of their teachings.

During the deposition taken by Mr. Dolan for the sans-Guardian NSA of Orthodox Bahá'í Hand of the Cause Marilyn Meyer, he questions her about her duties as a Hand, and on the hereditary Guardianship, as if these things were somehow unknown to the Wilmette NSA.  On cross-examination, the Orthodox Bahá'í attorney had to get Ms. Meyer to teach these lost but fundamental teachings of the Faith to the Wilmette NSA:

EXAMINATION
12   BY MR. GOLDBERG:
13       Q.   Okay.  I have a few questions for you just to
14   clarify some of the things that you testified to.
15       A.   Okay.
16       Q.   You said that the goal of the National
17   Spiritual Assembly of the -- under the Remey
18   organization was to teach the guardianship.  Can you
19   tell me what that means, what does it mean, what is
20   the guardianship?
21       A.   The guardianship is the unique feature of the
22   revelation of Baha'u'llah.  It is the guardian -- we
23   should -- that we should never be without a point of
24   guidance.  The guardian's job is to interpret the
25   writings among other things, to elucidate on the
00130
  1   writings.  And he is head of the Universal House of
  2   Justice without which they cannot function.
  3       Q.   Is the guardianship unique to the Remey NSA?
  4       A.   To the Remey NSA?
  5       Q.   Yes.  Did that -- did it arise out of Mason
  6   Remey's teachings or --
  7       A.   No, the guardianship is unique.  And Shoghi
  8   Effendi has written that it's unique to the Baha'i
  9   faith all together.  And Shoghi Effendi stressed that
10   point.
11       Q.   And Shoghi Effendi you testified earlier was
12   the first guardian.  How did he become the guardian?
13       A.   Shoghi Effendi was appointed by Abdu'l Baha,
14   [chosen]shows in by Abdu'l Baha to be the first guardian.
15       Q.   And so the guardianship then is a feature of
16   the heterodox or the Wilmette group as well as the
17   Remey NSA; is that correct?
18       A.   That's correct.
19            MR. DOLAN:  Objection, leading.
20   BY MR. GOLDBERG:
21       Q.   So what is the difference between the
22   Wilmette NSA group and the believers under the
23   guardianship?
24       A.   We hold the same beliefs up until the passing
25   of Shoghi Effendi; that is, we believe Baha'u'llah to
00131
  1   be the manifestation of God.  We believe his eldest
  2   son, Abdu'l Baha, to be the center of the covenant.
  3   We believe that Shoghi Effendi was the first guardian.
  4   The -- what are we calling you?
  5       Q.   Wilmette group, Wilmette NSA.
  6       A.   I forgot, I'm sorry.  Has not acknowledged a
  7   guardian since the passing of Shoghi Effendi.  That's
  8   the point of divergence.

Transcript of deposition of Marilyn K. Meyer, April 18, 2007 (Exhibit C to OBF Sur-reply)

Later, the OBF attorney has to ask Ms. Meyer to explain the Institution of the Hands, another Institution that has been lost to the sans-Guardian Bahais:

Q.   Okay.  New topic.  You testified about --
  4   well, Hands of the Cause and the purpose of the Hands
  5   of the Cause and things like that.  Do you recall
  6   whether -- well, let me ask you this, is the Hands of
  7   the Cause an institution created exclusively by Joel
  8   Marangella?
  9       A.   It is not.
10       Q.   Where does the Hand of the Cause come from?
11       A.   Again, using the definitive document for the
12   administrative order, it was designed and implemented
13   by -- designed and anticipated by Abdu'l Baha.  And it
14   was implemented by the first guardian Shoghi Effendi.
15       Q.   And did Shoghi Effendi appoint Hands of the
16   Cause then?
17       A.   Shoghi Effendi did appoint Hands of the
18   Cause.
19       Q.   How about Mason Remey?
20       A.   The only relative statement that I could
21   remember was that Mason Remey said that all of the
22   supporters of his organization should be considered
23   Hands of the Cause.  There was no individual
24   appointment.
25       Q.   Okay.  And you -- well, let me ask you this,
00140
  1   is the Hands of the Cause, does it have any
  2   administrative authority or power?
  3       A.   The Hands of the Cause have no administrative
  4   authority or power.
  5       Q.   So --
  6       A.   Per the document of Abdu'l Baha's Will and
  7   Testament.
  8       Q.   So they function on their own or how do --
  9       A.   They -- they serve -- they serve the
10   guardian.
11       Q.   Okay.
12       A.   And they serve them in various ways because
13   under Shoghi Effendi they had different talents.  So
14   the hands serve at the request and bidding of the
15   guardian.

It is unfortunate that the sans-Guardian Bahais have strayed so far away from the original teachings of the Faith that they barely recognize the teachings when they hear it from the mouths of the Orthodox Bahá'ís.  For them, the Guardianship and the Hands of the Cause are relics of history instead of the living and vital Institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá'u'lláh that they were intended to be and they truly are.

For more information about the court case against the OBF, go here:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

Great Moments in Bahá'í Litigation, Part 2

As part of the court action by the NSA of Wilmette (of the sans-Guardian Bahá'ís) against the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith, the NSA's attorney traveled to Perth Australia to take the deposition of Joel B. Marangella, the OBF's Guardian.

The conclusion of the deposition seemed to sum up very nicely the NSA's case against the OBF:

    [MR. DOLAN, attorney for the NSA] Q.    Earlier you stepped through many of the articles on your web site with Mr Goldberg and you explained what the meaning of those articles were.  Do you recall that?
    [JOEL B. MARANGELLA] A.    Yes.  Yes.
    Q.    All those explanations, were those based on your personal interpretations of the documents and events captured there?
    A.    Not interpretation.  It was mentioning facts, not interpretations.  Off-hand I can't remember was it a question of interpretation;  it was a question of facts.  I mean, if someone does not accept certain conditions of the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha, it's a fact, not an interpretation.  They have no longer any Hands of the Cause, that's a fact.  They no longer have a head of the Universal House of Justice, that's a fact. , it's not an interpretation.
    Q.    And are you entitled to conclude that because you're the Guardian and so interpreter?
    A.    Well, I would tell them to read the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha and there is it.  It says that the Guardians are sacred head "sacred head for life of the Universal of Justice".  I can show that document or Shoghi Effendi has said it, "It's a sacred immutable document" and it should be endure as long as the Dispensation of Balla'u'llah endures.  So what else is it?
    Q.    So that all has to do with your reading of the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha?
    A.    Well, it's evidence, it's evidence.  Well, not my reading, it's Shoghi Effendi's statement, his clear statement, that this document is sacred  - a sacred document, co-equal on status with the Kitab-i-Aqdas which is Baha'u'llah's most sacred book.  He says its equal parts.  See, so it's there, it's his statement, inviolable.
    Q.    But those are your articles, correct, on the web site .....
    A.    Well, they're my articles, yes. 
    Q.    So - - -
    A.    I constantly quote Shoghi Effendi to support whatever I say.
    Q.    But you wrote all of those articles on your web site?
    A.    Yes, yes.  Definitely.
    Q.    I have nothing further. 
MR GOLDBERG: I have nothing else. 
    MR. DOLAN:  Thank you very much.
MR MARANGELLA:    Okay.  Thank you.  Do I say it's my pleasure?
    MR DOLAN:    Maybe a stretch - - -

DEPOSITION CONCLUDED

From Transcript of Deposition of Joel B. Marangella, April 30, 2007 (pp. 201:10 to 203:13). Exhibit A to the OBF's Surreply.

To see the Court documents go to: http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html