tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60062546123831123052024-02-20T12:44:08.928-08:00Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of AppealsOpinion, Judge Sykes, p 14-15: "When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed". US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306. Baha'i Faith vs other Bahai denominations. November 23, 2010Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-26114176682556847622011-08-22T12:35:00.000-07:002011-08-22T12:35:39.281-07:00Reform Bahai Faith Forum<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">NEW > the Reform Bahai Faith Forum!<br />
<br />
Reform Bahai Faith Forum<br />
<a href="http://reformbahai.org/forum/">http://reformbahai.org/forum/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
"To be a Bahai simply means to love all the world; to love humanity and try to serve it; to work for universal peace and universal brotherhood." -- Abdu'l-Baha<br />
<br />
The Reform Bahai Faith affirms the universal spiritual and moral principles taught in all of the great religious traditions. Similar to Mahayana Buddhism and the Buddha's Example of compassion, Reform Bahais believe the Example set by Abdul-Baha during his travels to Europe and the United States in the early 20th century, an Example of universal love and brotherhood, was perhaps his greatest Teaching. As Abdul-Baha often suggested, far from having the exclusive truth and the fanaticism to which that notion has so often led, Reform Bahais look to what is universal in the world's religious experience, and include prayers and meditations from other religions in their private and community worship, listen to and learn from God's other religions.<br />
<br />
The Reform Bahai Faith, known during Abdul-Baha's time as the Bahai Movement or Cause, is not an organization, but a way of life.<br />
<br />
The Reform Bahai Faith is an independent denomination that reforms Baha'u'llah's Dispensation and offers humanity His Teachings in the universal Interpretation of Abdul-Baha. Reform Bahais follow Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant: <a href="http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant.html">http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant.html</a><br />
<br />
See the Reform Bahai Faith website for further details: <a href="http://www.reformbahai.org/">http://www.reformbahai.org</a><br />
<br />
NECESSARY POLICY: <br />
<br />
This Bahai discussion forum is for members of the Reform Bahai Faith and people of *goodwill* interested in exploring Reform Bahai or just curious. The Reform Bahai Faith Forum is closed to members of the Wilmette-Haifan Baha'i Faith. Members of other Baha'i denominations are welcome. Acceptance of this Registration Agreement constitutes that you are not a member of the Baha'i denomination located in Haifa, Israel.<br />
<br />
Disrespecting and denouncing other Bahais as "covenant breakers," essentially the Shiite practice of "takfir," violates the civil rights of the individual as well as the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha. It will not be allowed or tolerated in this Forum. For details see the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois, November 23, 2010: <a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306</a></div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-44574823525706270822011-06-28T12:55:00.000-07:002011-06-28T12:55:36.582-07:00Baha'i Lawsuit Articles from The Chicago Tribune<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
Judge: Baha'i believers can call themselves Baha'i Chicago BreakingNews November 23, 2010<br />
<a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html">http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html</a><br />
<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court says. November 25, 2010 By Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune reporter.<br />
<a href="http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html">http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html</a><br />
<br />
Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group<br />
November 25, 2010 8:12 PM<br />
<a href="http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html">http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
Chicago Tribune. Baha'i rift. Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith<br />
<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_orthodox-community-rift-jesus-and-muhammad">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_orthodox-community-rift-jesus-and-muhammad</a><br />
<div><br />
</div><div><div>Comments posted in response to The Chicago Tribune: </div><div><a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html </a></div></div><div><br />
</div><br />
</div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-40567920886805087642011-06-28T12:50:00.000-07:002011-06-28T12:50:07.970-07:00Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">From<br />
<a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table><tbody>
<tr><td><h2><span style="color: blue;">Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals</span></h2><span>Public Access to Oral Argument recordings,<br />
Opinions, Unpublished Orders,<br />
and other selected case materials</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><table><tbody>
<tr><td><span><b>View or Download Documents</b></span></td><td align="RIGHT"><a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_case08-2306"><img align="ABSMIDDLE" border="0" src="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/rss.gif" title="RSS Feed for this case" /></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<form action="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx" method="POST"><table><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT"><table cellspacing="5"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="3"><i>08-2306 : Nat'l Spiritual v. Nat'l Spiritual</i></td></tr>
<tr><td>Case Type: Civil</td><td>;</td><td>Nature of Suit: Oth Stat Act-federal Question</td></tr>
</tbody></table></td><td align="RIGHT"></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span>If the document you are looking for is not in this system, keep in mind that most documents for 2008 and later cases are now located in the CMECF system.</span><br />
<hr /><table cellspacing="5" style="text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td width="33">Doc</td><td width="71">Uploaded</td><td width="71">Filed</td><td width="300">Description</td><td width="71"></td></tr>
<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td valign="TOP">2</td><td valign="TOP">02/20/2009</td><td valign="TOP">02/20/2009</td><td valign="TOP"><a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-2306_002.mp3">Oral Argument</a></td><td valign="TOP"></td></tr>
<tr><td valign="TOP">3</td><td valign="TOP">11/23/2010</td><td valign="TOP">11/23/2010</td><td valign="TOP"><a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-2306_003.pdf">Opinion</a> <span>(SYKES)<br />
<br />
</span></td><td style="text-align: left;" valign="TOP"><br />
</td><td valign="TOP"><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div></td></tr>
</tbody></table></form></div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-9397679363638222242011-05-01T07:38:00.000-07:002011-05-01T07:38:11.001-07:00Personal Reflections on the Baha'i lawsuits<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #010101; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
<h4 style="color: black; font: normal normal normal 13px/18px Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The lawyer that represented the Orthodox Baha'i Faith before Judge St. Eve has just posted an insightful reflection on the implications of the US Federal Courts ruling. I share it here for those who might find it interesting and informative about how the Wilmette-Haifan Baha'i Faith actually behaves behind the backs of its largely innocent and gullible followers, deceived and brainwashed into despising and violating the principles of the US Constitution:<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
Jeffery Goldberg, Personal Reflections on the Baha'i lawsuits in US Federal Courts from 2006 to 2011. April 29, 2011<br />
<a href="http://www.truebahai.com/2011/04/personal-reflections.html" style="color: #1f6d87; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.truebahai.com/2011/04/personal-reflections.html</a></h4></div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-76676951907801580632011-01-03T13:56:00.000-08:002011-01-03T13:56:58.751-08:00Putative nsa will file with the US Supreme Court<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
<pre>On 12/30/2010 03:33 PM, Jeffrey wrote:
> Yesterday, the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit denied the
> Wilmette NSA's petition for rehearing. The NSA has 90 days to file a
> petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court or the decision
> will then become final.
>
> For information on the court case:
> <a href="http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html">http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html</a>
>
> Jeffrey
No surprise. In my opinion, the putative nsa will file
with the US Supreme Court. Their exclusivism and fanaticism
prohibit any other action.
Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
<a href="http://bahaifaith7thcircuitcourtofappeals.blogspot.com/">http://bahaifaith7thcircuitcourtofappeals.blogspot.com</a>
Chicago Tribune. Baha'i rift. Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith
<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_orthodox-community-rift-jesus-and-muhammad">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_orthodox-community-rift-jesus-and-muhammad</a>
Comments posted to The Chicago Tribune Forum on one page:
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html</a>
Yahoo Group - ReformBahai
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ReformBahai
Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship</a></pre>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-38555804500572440942010-12-31T11:16:00.000-08:002010-12-31T11:16:57.772-08:00Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit denies Baha'i Petition for Rehearing"Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit denies Baha'i Petition for Rehearing<br />
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit denied the<br />
Wilmette NSA's petition for rehearing. The NSA has 90 days to file a<br />
petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court or the decision<br />
will then become final."<br />
<br />
For information on the court case:<br />
<a href="http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html">http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html</a>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-3897156690412388452010-12-19T16:31:00.000-08:002010-12-19T16:32:32.582-08:00NOTE WELL, "a church," 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Haifan Baha'i<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"></span><br />
<pre>Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 - November 23, 2010
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html</a>
p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."
NOTE WELL: "a church," i.e., the Court clearly states, as a matter of incontestable historical fact, that the Wilmette nsa merely constitutes one of many interpretations of the Baha'i Faith.
-----
The root of the problem with the Wilmette, Haifan interpretation of the Baha'u'llah's Teachings is that it leaves out Abdul-Baha's actual 1912 Authentic Covenant, substituting the spurious will and testament forged by Shoghi Effendi's family in 1921. </pre><pre>The Bahai Faith can be Reformed but only by returning to the Interpretation clearly outlined by Abdul-Baha in Europe and America prior to his death. The evidence and record of his Interpretation has been preserved in the Star of the West for anyone willing to read with an independent mind, free of the decades of deception and brainwashing into blind belief administered by the Haifans.
</pre>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-6670412054549746002010-12-18T05:21:00.000-08:002010-12-18T05:22:32.017-08:00Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith. Baha'u'llah & Abdul-Baha. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">148 pages. $2.99 With a new Introduction and the original 1912 Foreword. Reform Bahai Press, 2008. 148 pages. Hardcover: </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">ISBN-13: 9780967042138 - ISBN-10:0967042135. $19.99. Paperback: ISBN-13: 9780967042107 ISBN-10: 0967042100. $11.99. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Ebook Edition 2010 9780982677803. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Kindle or ePub format </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://books.fglaysher.com/Universal-Principles-of-the-Reform-Bahai-Faith-9780982677803.htm">http://books.fglaysher.com/Universal-Principles-of-the-Reform-Bahai-Faith-9780982677803.htm</a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">The Universal Principles of the Reform Bahai Faith collects many of the early writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, published in the West, seeking to restore and preserve their vision of the oneness of God, humanity, and all religions. In addition to all of the 1912 Universal Principles of the Bahai Movement, the book includes Baha'u'llah's Arabic Hidden Words, selections known as the Spiritof the Age, an address by Abdul-Baha at the Friends' Meeting House in London in 1913, and many Bahai prayers for community and individual worship and meditation. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Though beginning in 2004, the Reform Bahai Faith traces its origin to the early Bahais Ruth White, Mirza Ahmad Sohrab, and Julie Chanler, who sought to preserve the Teachings of Abdul-Baha after his passing in 1921. They and other early American Bahais understood the Bahai Faith was being turned into an oppressive organization, under what the British Museum document expert Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell judged to be a fraudulent will and testament. Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Bahai Faith, believed in and taught a moderate, universal religion, grounded in a separation of church and state, not a theocracy, and members of the Reform Bahai Faith seek to recover and renew that universal, pluralistic vision for all humanity. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">-- </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Reform Bahai Faith </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Rochester, Michigan USA </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.reformbahai.org/">http://www.ReformBahai.org </a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">About the Reform Bahai Faith </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.reformbahai.org/about.html">http://www.reformbahai.org/about.html </a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant.html">http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant.html </a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant_comments.html">http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant_comments.html </a></span>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-17145526750340767112010-12-17T03:53:00.000-08:002010-12-17T03:54:17.093-08:00Haifan Baha'i Cult files Rehearing with 7th Circuit Court of Appeals<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">"The Wilmette NSA has filed a Motion for Rehearing. A copy of it can be found at: </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html&usg=AFQjCNG8-3mh-F5MonYGLq4Dvr_1qXDoLg" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html</a> </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">It appears they are only seeking reconsideration as to the OBF respondents." </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">I’m delighted to hear that the Wilmette nsa has demonstrated yet once again that it is a corrupt, decadent, power-lusting corporate organization, having violated Abdul-Baha’s 1912 Authentic Covenant, replacing it in 1921 with the fraudulent document of Shoghi Effendi’s family, leading thereby to the deceiving and brainwashing of Baha’is over several generations and the near-destruction of Abdul-Baha’s simple, pure, universal Interpretation of Baha’u’llah’s Teachings for the modern world. </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Nothing could help more the disillusionment and awaken of unsuspecting Baha’is throughout the world and the United States, their eventual release from the Haifan cult. </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 - November 23, 2010</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html</a></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;">Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://bahaifaith7thcircuitcourtofappeals.blogspot.com/">http://bahaifaith7thcircuitcourtofappeals.blogspot.com</a></span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Chicago Tribune. Baha'i rift. Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_orthodox-community-rift-jesus-and-muhammad&usg=AFQjCNHep-DMBjJHpp-Bga22YTYuJkG6tQ" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_ortho...</a> </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Comments posted to The Chicago Tribune Forum on one page: Bahai<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html&usg=AFQjCNGjQF-p4No7_gALwAVx5faes76TcQ" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html</a> </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship&usg=AFQjCNGfweyin7JbnNByzgvUlLs4fA6JTQ" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship</a> </div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-7593154796322593712010-12-07T15:49:00.000-08:002010-12-07T15:49:47.430-08:00Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">7th Cir: Public online 08-2306 case documents as PDF and oral argument MP3</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">Opinion in case# 08-2306, Judge Sykes:</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">"When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&n\%20um=2306" style="color: #cc3300; text-decoration: none;">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&n\ um=2306 </a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/US_Court_of_Appeals_7th_District_11-23-2010.pdf" style="color: #cc3300; text-decoration: none;">Or download Opinion as PDF in one click</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">p 7: False finding of "fact" by Judge Austin in 1966</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">p 13: "...civil authorities may not make judgments about religious controversies when deciding church property disputes. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116. (The church-autonomy principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.”)."</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"> "Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyterian Church that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.”</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">p 17: "’It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.’ ”"</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">p 20: The court expands on and concludes that the parties were simply not in privity with the 1966 flawed decision by Judge Austin.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">NOTE WELL: "a church," i.e., the Court clearly states, as a matter of incontestable historical fact, that the Wilmette nsa merely constitutes one of many interpretations of the Baha'i Faith.</span>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-54938023439158477352010-12-06T05:08:00.000-08:002010-12-06T05:08:25.442-08:00Selected Newspaper Articles - Updated 12-6-2010Selected Newspaper Articles<br />
<br />
Ian RoeBuck commented on November 24, 2010 9:43 AM on chicagobreakingnews.com<br />
"Actually after reading the decision, it did not "sidestep the issue of whether a religious organization can trademark its name or icons." It said 1. the original ruling was troubling because it was determining issues of sucession, and 2. because there is a difference between symbols and icons of a faith rather than a church. In other words one can trademark syumbol of hte Prevyterian church, one can not trade mark the symbol or name Christian or the cross as those are generic to the faith and not the church."<br />
<a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html#comment-784202">http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html#comment-784202</a><br />
<br />
Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group<br />
(FULL TEXT on one page)<br />
<a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ChicagoBreakingNews+(Chicago+Breaking+News)">http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ChicagoBreakingNews+(Chicago+Breaking+News)</a><br />
<br />
The Kansas City Star<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
(FULL TEXT on one page)<br />
<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/25/2472247/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html">http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/25/2472247/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a><br />
<br />
Chicago Tribune: Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life<br />
http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Chicago-Tribune-Orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling-themselves-Bahai-court-rules.aspx<br />
<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The News & Observer<br />
<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/25/826913/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html">http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/25/826913/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a><br />
<br />
Breaking: Judge Rules in Favor of Minority Bahá'í Sect<br />
<a href="http://wilmette.patch.com/articles/breaking-judge-rules-in-favor-of-minority-bahai-sect">http://wilmette.patch.com/articles/breaking-judge-rules-in-favor-of-minority-bahai-sect</a><br />
<br />
7th Circuit: Baha'i Groups Not Bound By Old Trademark Injunction<br />
By Howard M. Friedman<br />
<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/11/7th-circuit-bahai-groups-not-bound-by.html">http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/11/7th-circuit-bahai-groups-not-bound-by.html</a><br />
<br />
India Times<br />
<a href="http://oneclick.indiatimes.com/article/00XA8NY3JId9y">http://oneclick.indiatimes.com/article/00XA8NY3JId9y</a><br />
<br />
7th Circuit Rules for Splinter Baha'i Group<br />
By JOE CELENTINO<br />
<a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/29/32158.htm">http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/29/32158.htm</a><br />
<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The Republic, Columbus, Indiana<br />
<a href="http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/">http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/</a><br />
<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The State, South Carolina's largest newspaper<br />
<a href="http://www.thestate.com/2010/11/25/1578536/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html">http://www.thestate.com/2010/11/25/1578536/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a><br />
<br />
The Herald, Rock Hill, S.C.<br />
<a href="http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/11/25/2642982/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html">http://www.heraldonline.com/2010/11/25/2642982/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a><br />
<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The Olympian<br />
<a href="http://www.theolympian.com/2010/11/25/1452828/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html">http://www.theolympian.com/2010/11/25/1452828/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a><br />
<br />
Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court says.<br />
November 25, 2010 By Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune reporter<br />
<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-25/news/ct-met-bahai-decision-20101125_1_baha-u-llah-baha-i-community-shoghi-effendi">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-25/news/ct-met-bahai-decision-20101125_1_baha-u-llah-baha-i-community-shoghi-effendi</a><br />
<br />
EagleTribune.com<br />
<a href="http://www.eagletribune.com/worldnational/x1468309040/Orthodox-believers-can-call-themselves-Bahai">http://www.eagletribune.com/worldnational/x1468309040/Orthodox-believers-can-call-themselves-Bahai</a><br />
<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
<a href="http://dailyme.com/story/2010112500003716/orthodox-believers-calling-bahai-court-rules.html">http://dailyme.com/story/2010112500003716/orthodox-believers-calling-bahai-court-rules.html</a><br />
<br />
Court sides with splinter group<br />
http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/article_020fcce2-ff2c-11df-90e3-001cc4c002e0.html<br />
Leagle<br />
h<a href="ttp://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020101123167.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR">ttp://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020101123167.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR</a><br />
<br />
The News Tribune<br />
<a href="http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/25/1439701/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html">http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/25/1439701/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a><br />
<br />
Court of Appeals for the division of the Baha 'I Court Rules<br />
<a href="http://www.dragonparadox.com/student-loans/studentloan-consolidatestudentloan-collegestudentloan-studentloandebt-federalstudentloanconsolidation/federal-agency-federal-ministry-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-division-of-the-baha-i-court-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-2078">http://www.dragonparadox.com/student-loans/studentloan-consolidatestudentloan-collegestudentloan-studentloandebt-federalstudentloanconsolidation/federal-agency-federal-ministry-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-division-of-the-baha-i-court-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-2078</a><br />
<br />
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS NEXIS 24028 Full Case Display<br />
<a href="http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&caseID=1&format=FULL&resultHandle=8106795326bb30be50011f68f845d00e&pageLimit=10&xmlgTotalCount=1&citation=2010%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2024028">http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=FCLRetrieveCaseDetail&caseID=1&format=FULL&resultHandle=8106795326bb30be50011f68f845d00e&pageLimit=10&xmlgTotalCount=1&citation=2010%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2024028</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1545624.html">http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1545624.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/3D1FFQRO.pdf">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/3D1FFQRO.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Orthodox Bahá'í Faith wins appeal before 7th Circuit Court of Appeals <br />
<a href="http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html">http://www.truebahai.com/court_case.html </a>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-46983117990998192592010-12-03T13:49:00.000-08:002010-12-03T13:54:02.031-08:00Judge Sykes' Opinion - Wilmette, Haifan Baha'iAgain, Judge Sykes' Opinion did not sidestep "questions about whether a religious organization can trademark its name or icons." In fact, it directly answers the question:<br />
<br />
p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."<br />
<a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&num=2306</a><br />
<br />
The Court clearly states, as a matter of incontestable historical fact, that the Wilmette nsa merely constitutes one of many interpretations of the Baha'i Faith.<br />
<br />
<div><br />
</div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-21795466842675547972010-12-03T05:01:00.001-08:002010-12-03T05:01:51.513-08:00Excerpts 1-5 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 OptionsNovember 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois <br />
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes. <br />
Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 <br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html&usg=AFQjCNGlPfpL2YQjQe09x3u8ccDYLB1pow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe...</a> <br />
<br />
In the <br />
United States Court of Appeals <br />
For the Seventh Circuit <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
T HE N ATIONAL S PIRITUAL A SSEMBLY OF THE <br />
B AHÁ’ÍS OF THE U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA <br />
U NDER THE H EREDITARY G UARDIANSHIP, INC., <br />
Plaintiff, <br />
v. <br />
N ATIONAL S PIRITUAL A SSEMBLY OF THE B AHÁ’ÍS <br />
OF THE U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , INC ., <br />
Defendant-Appellant, <br />
v. <br />
F RANKLIN D. S CHLATTER, JOEL B. M ARANGELLA, <br />
P ROVISIONAL N ATIONAL B AHÁ’Í C OUNCIL OF THE <br />
U NITED S TATES, et al., <br />
Respondents-Appellees. <br />
____________ <br />
Appeal from the United States District Court <br />
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. <br />
No. 1:64-cv-01878—Amy J. St. Eve, Judge. <br />
____________ <br />
A RGUED F EBRUARY 20, 2009—D ECIDED N OVEMBER 23, 2010 <br />
____________ <br />
2 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
Before B AUER, M ANION, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. <br />
S YKES, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from a civil-contempt <br />
proceeding alleging violations of an injunction entered <br />
more than four decades ago. The case is complicated not <br />
just by the passage of time but also because it arises in the <br />
context of a religious schism, and the individuals and <br />
groups against whom contempt sanctions are sought were <br />
not parties to the original litigation. The underlying suit <br />
was a trademark and property dispute between the <br />
American Bahá’í church—formally known as the National <br />
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States of <br />
America, Inc. (“National Spiritual Assembly”)—and a <br />
dissident group incorporated in 1964 under the like- <br />
sounding name of the National Spiritual Assembly of the <br />
Bahá’ís of the United States of America Under the Heredi- <br />
tary Guardianship, Inc. (“Hereditary Guardianship”). In <br />
1966 a district-court judge enjoined the Hereditary Guard- <br />
ianship from using the trademarked names and symbols of <br />
the National Spiritual Assembly. Within months the <br />
Hereditary Guardianship dissolved, and the dissenting <br />
faithful thereafter disagreed among themselves over issues <br />
of spiritual leadership and doctrine. This disagreement <br />
eventually produced a second schism. Over time the <br />
former followers of the Hereditary Guardianship estab- <br />
lished several new religious groups and a publishing firm, <br />
all operating in varying ways in the name of the Bahá’í <br />
faith. <br />
Forty years later, the National Spiritual Assembly <br />
returned to the district court and asked for contempt <br />
sanctions against several of these groups and their princi- <br />
pals for allegedly violating the terms of the 1966 injunction. <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
3 <br />
This required proof that the alleged contemnors—all <br />
nonparties to the original lawsuit—were in privity with the <br />
Hereditary Guardianship and therefore bound by the <br />
injunction. In a comprehensive opinion, the district court <br />
rejected the privity claim and on this basis denied the <br />
contempt motion. In reaching this conclusion, the judge <br />
expressly declined to follow the approach to the privity <br />
question adopted by the First Circuit in G. & C. Merriam Co. <br />
v. Webster Dictionary Co., 639 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1980). The <br />
judge said that Merriam was in “silent tension” with Judge <br />
Learned Hand’s venerable opinion in Alemite Manufactur- <br />
ing Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930). <br />
We think these two important opinions can be reconciled. <br />
The common-law rule expounded in Alemite—essentially <br />
codified in Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- <br />
dure—holds that an injunction is binding on the parties to <br />
the proceeding; their officers, agents, and employees <br />
(acting in that capacity); and nonparties with notice who <br />
are either “legally identified” with a party or who aid and <br />
abet a party’s violation of the injunction. The “legal <br />
identity” component of this rule often operates to bind a <br />
party’s successors and assigns, and sometimes other <br />
nonparties as well, but only when doing so is consistent <br />
with due process. As such, the “legal identity” justification <br />
for binding nonparties is limited to those who have notice <br />
of the injunction and are so closely identified in interest <br />
with the enjoined party that it is reasonable to conclude <br />
that their rights and interests were adjudicated in the <br />
original proceeding. In Merriam the First Circuit held that <br />
a former employee of an enjoined corporation had such a <br />
key role in the company and in the underlying litigation <br />
4 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
that he could be “legally identified” with the enjoined <br />
corporation and therefore held in contempt for using a <br />
newly formed company to circumvent the injunction. 639 <br />
F.2d at 39-40. This is a specific application of the “legal <br />
identity” category of nonparty contempt identified in <br />
Alemite; we do not read Merriam as inconsistent with Judge <br />
Hand’s formulation. <br />
Although the district court should have applied Merriam, <br />
the judge’s findings are thorough enough to permit us to <br />
resolve the privity question without a remand. The respon- <br />
dent nonparty religious groups and their principals are not <br />
sufficiently identified in interest with the Hereditary <br />
Guardianship to permit a conclusion that they had their <br />
day in court back in 1966. We affirm. <br />
I. Background <br />
A. The Bahá’í Schism and the 1966 Injunction <br />
The Bahá’í faith originated in Persia in 1844 with the <br />
teachings of the Báb, who foretold that God would soon <br />
reveal a prophet to the world. In 1863 Bahá’u’lláh, one of <br />
the Báb’s followers, announced that he was this prophet <br />
and began several decades of spiritual teaching and <br />
writing. With Bahá’u’lláh’s death in 1892, spiritual leader- <br />
ship passed to his eldest son, Abdu’l-Bahá. Abdu’l-Bahá <br />
died in 1921, and his eldest grandson, Shoghi Effendi, then <br />
led the faith as its Guardian. Effendi died unexpectedly in <br />
1957 without having clearly designated a successor. <br />
Spiritual authority passed temporarily to the Hands of <br />
the Cause of God, a group of 27 Effendi-appointed spiritual <br />
leaders who stewarded the religion until 1963. At that <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
5 <br />
point the Hands transferred supreme authority of <br />
the Bahá’í faith to the newly established Universal House <br />
of Justice in Haifa, Israel. <br />
The National Spiritual Assembly, whose predecessor <br />
organization was formed in the United States in 1909, <br />
recognizes and accepts this described line of succession. <br />
Charles Mason Remey did not. Remey, one of Effendi’s <br />
appointed Hands, proclaimed in 1960 that Effendi’s <br />
spiritual authority had passed to him as the Second <br />
Guardian of the Faith. The other Hands rejected this <br />
claim, believing that Effendi was the first and last Guard- <br />
ian of the Faith, and they expelled Remey from their ranks. <br />
The National Spiritual Assembly likewise views Remey as <br />
a schismatic figure. <br />
In 1962 Remey instructed his followers to establish the <br />
National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United <br />
States Under the Hereditary Guardianship. The <br />
Hereditary Guardianship was incorporated in New Mexico <br />
in 1964, and it served as the coordinating body for <br />
an affiliation of individuals, groups, and local spiritual <br />
assemblies in the United States dedicated to Remey’s <br />
Guardianship. The Hereditary Guardianship itself <br />
was comprised of nine “Members” who essentially acted as <br />
a board of directors and, at least initially, followed Remey’s <br />
declarations and directives.1 <br />
In the year of its incorporation, the Hereditary Guardian- <br />
ship commenced a civil action against the National Spiri- <br />
1 <br />
For the sake of simplicity, we refer to them as “board mem- <br />
bers.”Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-60879560268902750672010-12-03T05:00:00.001-08:002010-12-03T05:00:53.539-08:00Excerpts 6-10 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 OptionsNovember 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois <br />
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes. <br />
Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 <br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html&usg=AFQjCNGlPfpL2YQjQe09x3u8ccDYLB1pow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe...</a> <br />
<br />
6 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
...tual Assembly in federal court in the Northern District of <br />
Illinois. The Hereditary Guardianship claimed entitlement <br />
to the majestic Bah House of Worship in Wilmette, <br />
Illinois, pictured here: <br />
and also sued for all other properties and funds in the <br />
National Spiritual Assembly s possession. The National <br />
Spiritual Assembly in turn asserted counterclaims against <br />
the Hereditary Guardianship for trademark infringement <br />
and unfair competition, among other causes of action. <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
7 <br />
In a decision issued on June 28, 1966, Judge Richard <br />
Austin sided with the National Spiritual Assembly. <br />
Among other factual findings, Judge Austin found that <br />
Shoghi Effendi was the only Guardian of the Baha i <br />
Faith, and there is no Guardian at the present time <br />
and has been none since 1957. The procedures <br />
followed by the Hands of the Cause and the succession <br />
of authority from Shoghi Effendi to The Universal <br />
House of Justice were in full accordance with <br />
the controlling documents and sacred writings and <br />
teachings of the Faith. <br />
Nat l Spiritual Assembly v. Nat l Spiritual Assembly, No. <br />
64 C 1878, 1966 WL 7641, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 1966). The judge <br />
also found that the National Spiritual Assembly is <br />
the highest authority of the Baha i Faith in the <br />
continental United States, and has been recognized and <br />
authorized as such by The Universal House of Justice and <br />
its predecessor supreme Baha i Faith authorities. Id. at *3. <br />
On the basis of these and other findings of fact, Judge <br />
Austin concluded that [t]here is only one Baha i Faith, <br />
and that the National Spiritual Assembly is the highest <br />
authority for the Faith in [the] continental United States <br />
and is entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols <br />
of the Faith. Id. at *11. The judge went on to hold that <br />
the National Spiritual Assembly owned valid trademarks <br />
in several specific Bah symbols, names, and <br />
phrases including a trademark in the word Bah 픗all <br />
of which the Hereditary Guardianship had infringed. <br />
Judge Austin then entered the following injunction: <br />
8 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the <br />
counter-defendant, [the Hereditary Guardianship], its <br />
officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all <br />
persons in active concert or participation with them, <br />
including [affiliated local groups], and individuals, or <br />
any of them, be and they are hereby enjoined from <br />
using in their activities the designations National <br />
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha is of the United States <br />
of America Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc., <br />
Baha i News Bureau, Baha i Round Robin, <br />
Baha i, trademark representations of the Baha i <br />
House of Worship, the Arabic design The Greatest <br />
Name, and any other designation which by colorable <br />
imitation or otherwise is likely to be mistaken for or <br />
confused with [the National Spiritual Assembly s] <br />
name or marks as indicated above or is likely to create <br />
the erroneous impression that [the Hereditary Guard- <br />
ianship s] religious activities, publications or doctrines <br />
originate with [the National Spiritual Assembly], and <br />
from otherwise competing unfairly with [the National <br />
Spiritual Assembly] or infringing [the National Spiri- <br />
tual Assembly s] rights. <br />
Id. at *12. <br />
Remey acquiesced in the injunction, and he forbade the <br />
Hereditary Guardianship and its followers from pursuing <br />
reconsideration or appeal regardless of consequences. A <br />
few months later, in December 1966, the Hereditary <br />
Guardianship ceased all activities and dissolved. Remey <br />
eventually reconstituted his church and changed his title to <br />
the First Guardian of the Abha Faith. <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
9 <br />
B. The Current Dispute <br />
In 2006 the National Spiritual Assembly returned to court <br />
seeking contempt sanctions against five religious organiza- <br />
tions and individuals all remnants of the Hereditary <br />
Guardianship but nonparties to the original litigation for <br />
allegedly violating the 1966 injunction. The National <br />
Spiritual Assembly contended that the alleged contem- <br />
nors were in privity with the Hereditary Guardianship and <br />
therefore bound by the injunction. The named respondents <br />
can be classified into two groups. The first includes Joel <br />
Marangella, Frank Schlatter, and the Provisional National <br />
Bah Council of the United States, Inc. The second <br />
includes the Second International Bah Council d/b/a <br />
Bah s Under the Provisions of the Covenant ( Second <br />
International Council ) and Bah Publishers Under the <br />
Provisions of the Covenant ( Bah Publishers ). We offer <br />
a brief description of each. <br />
1. The First Group of Alleged Nonparty Contemnors <br />
Joel Marangella was the president of a council <br />
that functioned essentially as a liaison between Remey <br />
and the Hereditary Guardianship. While not a <br />
board member of the Hereditary Guardianship, Marangella <br />
was actively involved in the organization and <br />
participated in some aspects of the underlying litigation, <br />
basically as a trusted assistant to Remey. A few years <br />
after the Hereditary Guardianship dissolved, Marangella <br />
split with Remey and forced a second schism. He pro- <br />
claimed himself to be Remey s appointed Third <br />
Guardian of the Bah Faith. Remey disputed Marangella s <br />
10 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
claim; he had already announced that upon his <br />
death, Donald Harvey was to succeed him as the next <br />
Guardian. Remey and M arangella thus parted <br />
ways. Starting in 1970, Marangella organized a <br />
succession of religious assemblies dedicated to his Guard- <br />
ianship. The first, the National Bureau of the Orthodox <br />
Bah Faith ( National Bureau ), was established in <br />
New York as an unincorporated body. In 1972 Marangella <br />
moved the National Bureau to New Mexico and later <br />
changed its name to the Mother Bah Council, which <br />
was incorporated under the laws of New Mexico in 1978. <br />
In 2000 the Mother Bah Council changed its name to <br />
the Provisional National Bah Council of the United <br />
States, Inc. ( Provisional National Council ). <br />
Franklin Schlatter was a founding board member and <br />
officer of the Hereditary Guardianship. He appears to <br />
have been involved with the Hereditary Guardianship s <br />
activities to a considerable degree and was part of the <br />
board that voted to sue the National Spiritual Assembly. <br />
W h en the Rem ey-M arangella schism occu rred , <br />
Schlatter followed Marangella and served as secretary of <br />
the Provisional National Council (and its predecessors) <br />
from 1978 through 2001. In 1997 Marangella appointed <br />
Schlatter as a Hand of the Cause of God to assist and act <br />
on his behalf. <br />
The Provisional National Council governs all believers <br />
within the United States who recognize Marangella as <br />
the Third Guardian, much like Hereditary Guardianship <br />
governed those who recognized Remey as the <br />
Second Guardian. Marangella personally appoints all <br />
Provisional National Council board members and....Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-66414769631309909262010-12-03T04:59:00.001-08:002010-12-03T04:59:57.801-08:00Excerpts 11-15 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 OptionsNovember 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois <br />
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes. <br />
Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 <br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html&usg=AFQjCNGlPfpL2YQjQe09x3u8ccDYLB1pow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe...</a> <br />
<br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
11 <br />
reviews and approves all decisions relating to the organiza- <br />
tion’s activities and affairs. <br />
2. The Second Group of Alleged Nonparty Contemnors <br />
The Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers <br />
were created by Dr. Leland Jensen, who signed the incor- <br />
poration papers for the Hereditary Guardianship <br />
and served as a board member from April 1963 to May <br />
1964. In 1964, however, Jensen lost reelection to the board, <br />
and he thereafter disassociated himself from any formal <br />
governance role in the Hereditary Guardianship. Accord- <br />
ingly, he was not a board member when the Hereditary <br />
Guardianship sued the National Spiritual Assembly, <br />
nor did he have any role in the litigation. Dr. Jensen <br />
continued to follow Remey’s Guardianship, however, <br />
and when he and his wife moved to Missoula, Montana, <br />
sometime later that year, they established a small commu- <br />
nity of believers there. <br />
In 1969 Dr. Jensen formed the Bahá’í Publishers as <br />
a publishing trust and incorporated it in Montana in <br />
1987. Bahá’í Publishers publishes books and pamphlets on <br />
Dr. Jensen’s interpretation of the beliefs of the Bahá’í <br />
faith “under the Provisions of the Covenant.” Dr. Jensen <br />
also helped establish the Second International Council <br />
in 1991, which was incorporated two years later. The <br />
Second International Council handles administrative <br />
responsibilities for believers in the Bahá’í faith “under <br />
the Provisions of the Covenant” and describes its “main <br />
responsibility” as “giv[ing] guidance to anybody <br />
who requests it.” Jensen died in 1996. <br />
12 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
C. The District Court Rejects the Privity Claim <br />
Judge Austin had long since died by the time the Na- <br />
tional Spiritual Assembly returned to court in 2006, so the <br />
contempt motion was assigned to Judge Amy St. Eve. She <br />
authorized limited discovery and then held an extensive <br />
evidentiary hearing on the question of whether the alleged <br />
nonparty contemnors were in privity with the Hereditary <br />
Guardianship and thus bound by the injunction. She <br />
concluded they were not. In reaching this decision, Judge <br />
St. Eve declined to follow the First Circuit’s decision in <br />
Merriam, 639 F.2d 29, on which the National Spiritual <br />
Assembly had substantially relied in support of its privity <br />
claim. But she made detailed findings about the relation- <br />
ship of each of the alleged contemnors to the Hereditary <br />
Guardianship and/or Remey, and based on those findings, <br />
concluded that they could not be bound. This appeal <br />
followed. <br />
II. Analysis <br />
The National Spiritual Assembly argues that the district <br />
court committed legal error by rejecting the First Circuit’s <br />
holding in Merriam that a key officer or employee of an <br />
enjoined but later dissolved corporation can be “legally <br />
identified” with the corporation and therefore personally <br />
bound by the injunction. As a more general matter, the <br />
National Spiritual Assembly challenges the district court’s <br />
conclusion that the five nonparty alleged contemnors were <br />
not in privity with the Hereditary Guardianship and <br />
therefore are not bound by the 1966 injunction. We agree <br />
with the first of these arguments. Merriam is not, as the <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
13 <br />
district court thought, an overbroad statement of the <br />
principles on which a nonparty may be considered bound <br />
by an injunction. But it does not follow that the district <br />
court’s no-privity conclusion was in error. The facts here <br />
do not support a finding of privity even when Merriam is <br />
considered. <br />
A. The Effect of Presbyterian Church <br />
Before proceeding, a few words about the substance of <br />
the underlying injunction and its relationship to the civil- <br />
procedural questions at issue in this case. The injunction <br />
was entered in 1966, before the Supreme Court’s decision <br />
in Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth <br />
Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969), <br />
but after Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox <br />
Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94 (1952). Kedroff <br />
constitutionalized the general common-law principle <br />
announced in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1871), <br />
that civil authorities may not make judgments about <br />
religious controversies when deciding church property <br />
disputes. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116 (The church-autonomy <br />
principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have <br />
federal constitutional protection as a part of the free <br />
exercise of religion against state interference.”). <br />
Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyte- <br />
rian Church that “the First Amendment severely circum- <br />
scribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving <br />
church property disputes.” 393 U.S. at 449. The Court <br />
acknowledged that “[c]ivil courts do not inhibit [the] free <br />
14 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
exercise of religion merely by opening their doors to <br />
disputes involving church property.” Id. But “First Amend- <br />
ment values are plainly jeopardized when church property <br />
litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts <br />
of controversies over religious doctrine and practice.” Id. <br />
The “[First] Amendment therefore commands civil courts <br />
to decide church property disputes without resolving <br />
underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Id.; see <br />
also Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for the U.S. of Am. & Can. v. <br />
Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713 (1976) (noting “the general <br />
rule that religious controversies are not the proper subject <br />
of civil court inquiry”). Civil courts may decide church <br />
property claims based on “neutral principles of law, <br />
developed for use in all property disputes,” but have no <br />
authority to resolve religious disputes.2 Presbyterian <br />
Church, 393 U.S. at 449. <br />
Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations <br />
on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunc- <br />
tion are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only <br />
one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian <br />
and none has come since, and the National Spiritual <br />
Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in <br />
the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the <br />
2 <br />
For different views on the so-called “hands-off” doctrine in <br />
disputes over religious property, see Richard W. Garnett, A <br />
Hands-Off Approach to Religious Doctrine: What Are We Talking <br />
About?, 84 N OTRE D AME L. R EV . 837 (2009); Kent Greenawalt, <br />
Hands Off! Civil Court Involvement in Conflicts Over Religious <br />
Property, 98 C OLUM . L. R EV . 1843 (1998); Samuel J. Levine, <br />
Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Hands-Off Approach to Questions of <br />
Religious Practice and Belief, 25 F ORDHAM U RB . L.J. 85 (1997). <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
15 <br />
marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive <br />
use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the <br />
boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and <br />
Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trade- <br />
mark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits <br />
the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a <br />
district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to <br />
decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes <br />
dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the <br />
faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the <br />
First Amendment line appears to have been crossed. <br />
But a contempt proceeding is ordinarily not the proper <br />
place for collateral attacks on the underlying injunction. See <br />
Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 439-40 <br />
(1976); Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967); <br />
Reich v. Sea Sprite Boat Co., 50 F.3d 413, 415 (7th Cir. 1995); <br />
see also 11A C HARLES A LAN W RIGHT ET AL., F EDERAL P RAC- <br />
TICE AND P ROCEDURE § 2960, at 391 (2d ed. 1995) (“[T]he <br />
general principle appears to be that obedience to a decree <br />
is required, even though the issuing court has based its <br />
decision on an incorrect view of the law, unless there was <br />
no opportunity for effective review of the decree.”). We do <br />
not have the substance of the 44-year-old decree before us. <br />
Still, resolving the procedural questions at issue in this case <br />
requires some sensitivity to the constitutional concerns <br />
inherent in church property claims. Presbyterian Church is <br />
in the background and circumscribes the inquiry. Applying <br />
neutral privity principles is permissible; pronouncing on <br />
matters of religious succession is not.Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-23052013102174539872010-12-03T04:58:00.001-08:002010-12-03T04:58:53.094-08:00Excerpts 16-20 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 OptionsNovember 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois <br />
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes. <br />
Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 <br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html&usg=AFQjCNGlPfpL2YQjQe09x3u8ccDYLB1pow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe...</a> <br />
<br />
16 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
B. Standard of Review <br />
We review the district court’s denial of contempt sanc- <br />
tions for abuse of discretion. Autotech Techs. LP v. Integral <br />
Research & Dev. Corp., 499 F.3d 737, 751 (7th Cir. 2007); <br />
Stotler & Co. v. Able, 870 F.2d 1158 (7th Cir. 1989). A court <br />
abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on a legal <br />
error or on clearly erroneous factual findings. United States <br />
v. Silva, 140 F.3d 1098, 1101 n.4 (7th Cir. 1998); In re L & S <br />
Indus., Inc., 989 F.2d 929, 932 (7th Cir. 1993) (similar <br />
standard of review for district court’s determination of <br />
existence of privity); see Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., <br />
496 U.S. 384, 401 (1990) (noting abuse-of-discretion stan- <br />
dard of review is equivalent to clear-error standard of <br />
review when reviewing a district court’s factual findings). <br />
Factual findings are not clearly erroneous unless “ ’the <br />
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the <br />
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been <br />
committed.’ ” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, <br />
573 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 <br />
U.S. 364, 394-95 (1948)). <br />
As the proponent of the contempt motion, the National <br />
Spiritual Assembly had the following burden: <br />
To prevail on a request for a contempt finding, the <br />
moving party must establish by clear and convincing <br />
evidence that (1) a court order sets forth an unambigu- <br />
ous command; (2) the alleged contemnor violated that <br />
command; (3) the violation was significant, meaning <br />
the alleged contemnor did not substantially comply <br />
with the order; and (4) the alleged contemnor failed to <br />
make a reasonable and diligent effort to comply. <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
17 <br />
S.E.C. v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2010). In addition, <br />
the National Spiritual Assembly had the burden of estab- <br />
lishing that the alleged contemnors, nonparties to the 1966 <br />
injunction, are nonetheless bound by it. See Levin v. Tiber <br />
Holding Corp., 277 F.3d 243, 250-51 (2d Cir. 2002) (applying <br />
the clear-and-convincing standard to the question of a <br />
nonparty’s liability for contempt). <br />
C. Injunctions and Nonparties <br />
This appeal raises the question of the proper reach of an <br />
injunction—more specifically, the extent to which an <br />
injunction binds persons who are not parties to the action <br />
in which it is entered. “ ’It is a principle of general applica- <br />
tion in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not <br />
bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he <br />
is not designated as a party or to which he has not been <br />
made a party by service of process.’ ” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 <br />
U.S. 880, 884 (2008) (quoting Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, <br />
40 (1940)); see also Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, <br />
798 (1996); Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 761 (1989); Zenith <br />
Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 <br />
(1969). This principle is based on the “ ’deep-rooted historic <br />
tradition that everyone should have his own day in <br />
court.’ ” Taylor, 553 U.S. at 892-93 (quoting Richards, 517 <br />
U.S. at 798). It limits the extent to which a judgment is <br />
given preclusive effect in a subsequent suit, see id. at 891- <br />
95, and (more pertinent here) the extent to which an <br />
injunction may be enforced against nonparties, see Zenith <br />
Radio, 395 U.S. at 110-11; see also Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd. <br />
v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 511 F.3d 762, 766-67 <br />
(7th Cir. 2007). <br />
18 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
There are some well-established exceptions to the general <br />
principle that an injunction binds only the parties. Rule <br />
65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which <br />
governs injunctions and temporary restraining orders, <br />
codifies both the general principle and its exceptions: <br />
(2) Persons Bound. The order binds only the follow- <br />
ing who receive actual notice of it by personal service <br />
or otherwise: <br />
(A) the parties; <br />
(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employ- <br />
ees, and attorneys; and <br />
(C) other persons who are in active concert or <br />
participation with anyone described in Rule <br />
65(d)(2)(A) or (B). <br />
F ED. R. C IV. P. 65(d)(2).3 <br />
By its terms, Rule 65(d) makes injunctions binding on the <br />
parties to the underlying action and their “officers, agents, <br />
servants, employees, and attorneys,” even if those “offi- <br />
cers, agents,” etc., are not named as parties to the litigation. <br />
F ED. R. C IV. P. 65(d)(2)(B). This is based on the idea that <br />
“[a]n order issued to a corporation is identical to an order <br />
issued to its officers, for incorporeal abstractions act <br />
through agents.” Reich, 50 F.3d at 417; see also Wilson v. <br />
3 <br />
We quote from the current version of Rule 65(d)(2), which was <br />
amended in 2007. The amended rule contains “no substantive <br />
difference” from its predecessor. Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd. v. <br />
Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 511 F.3d 762, 767 (7th Cir. <br />
2007). <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
19 <br />
United States, 221 U.S. 361, 376 (1911) (“A command to the <br />
corporation is in effect a command to those who are <br />
officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs.”); <br />
Additive Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., <br />
154 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Rule 65(d) specifically <br />
names ‘officers’ of a defendant as among those who are <br />
bound by an injunction, and there is a substantial body of <br />
case law in support of that proposition.”). As such, officers, <br />
employees, and other agents of an enjoined party must <br />
obey the injunction—even though they are not named <br />
parties—when they act in their official capacities. See New <br />
York ex rel. Vacco v. Operation Rescue Nat’l, 80 F.3d 64, 70 (2d <br />
Cir. 1996) (“An injunction issued against a corporation or <br />
association binds the agents of that organization to the <br />
extent they are acting on behalf of the organization. . . . <br />
Generally, persons who cease to act in one of the desig- <br />
nated capacities are no longer bound by the decree.” <br />
(citation omitted)). <br />
This aspect of the rule is not implicated in this case. <br />
Although the individual defendants might have qualified <br />
as “officers” or “agents” of the Hereditary Guardianship <br />
in June of 1966 when the injunction was entered, after <br />
the organization was dissolved in December of that year, <br />
they obviously no longer held that status. They cannot, <br />
in other words, act in their official capacities to cause <br />
the Hereditary Guardianship to violate the injunction. <br />
As to other nonparties who might properly be bound by <br />
an injunction, the Supreme Court has explained that Rule <br />
65(d)(2) is <br />
20 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
derived from the commonlaw doctrine that a decree of <br />
injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also <br />
those identified with them in interest, in “privity” with <br />
them, represented by them or subject to their control. <br />
In essence it is that defendants may not nullify a decree <br />
by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and <br />
abettors, although they were not parties to the original <br />
proceeding. <br />
Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945). Broadly <br />
speaking, both the rule and the common-law doctrine <br />
contemplate two categories of nonparties potentially <br />
bound by an injunction. One includes nonparties acting in <br />
concert with a bound party; many cases hold that a <br />
nonparty may be held in contempt if he aids or abets an <br />
enjoined party in violating an injunction. Id.; Chase Nat’l <br />
Bank v. City of Norwalk, Ohio, 291 U.S. 431, 436 (1934); <br />
S.E.C. v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 673-77 (7th Cir. 2008); Rockwell <br />
Graphic Sys., Inc. v. DEV Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 914, 919 <br />
(7th Cir. 1996). This principle is codified in subsection <br />
(2)(C) of the rule, which provides that nonparties “who are <br />
in active concert or participation with” a bound party are <br />
themselves bound and may be liable for aiding and <br />
abetting the party’s contempt. See F ED . R. C IV . <br />
P. 65(d)(2)(C). This category of nonparty contempt liability <br />
is also not at issue here. <br />
The other category is captured under the general rubric <br />
of “privity.” It is generally accepted that an injunction may <br />
be enforced against a nonparty in “privity” with an <br />
enjoined party. E.g., Golden State Bottling Co. v. N.L.R.B., 414 <br />
U.S. 168, 179-80 (1973); Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14;Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-52600975875630333972010-12-03T04:57:00.000-08:002010-12-03T04:57:25.753-08:00Excerpts 20-24 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 Options<h3 style="color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">nion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 - November 23, 2010<br />
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html</a></h3><div><br />
</div>20 No. 08-2306<br />
derived from the commonlaw doctrine that a decree of<br />
injunction not only binds the parties defendant but also<br />
those identified with them in interest, in “privity” with<br />
them, represented by them or subject to their control.<br />
In essence it is that defendants may not nullify a decree<br />
by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and<br />
abettors, although they were not parties to the original<br />
proceeding.<br />
Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945). Broadly<br />
speaking, both the rule and the common-law doctrine<br />
contemplate two categories of nonparties potentially<br />
bound by an injunction. One includes nonparties acting in<br />
concert with a bound party; many cases hold that a<br />
nonparty may be held in contempt if he aids or abets an<br />
enjoined party in violating an injunction. Id.; Chase Nat’l<br />
Bank v. City of Norwalk, Ohio, 291 U.S. 431, 436 (1934);<br />
S.E.C. v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 673-77 (7th Cir. 2008); Rockwell<br />
Graphic Sys., Inc. v. DEV Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 914, 919<br />
(7th Cir. 1996). This principle is codified in subsection<br />
(2)(C) of the rule, which provides that nonparties “who are<br />
in active concert or participation with” a bound party are<br />
themselves bound and may be liable for aiding and<br />
abetting the party’s contempt. See FED. R. CIV.<br />
P. 65(d)(2)(C). This category of nonparty contempt liability<br />
is also not at issue here.<br />
The other category is captured under the general rubric<br />
of “privity.” It is generally accepted that an injunction may<br />
be enforced against a nonparty in “privity” with an<br />
enjoined party. E.g., Golden State Bottling Co. v. N.L.R.B., 414<br />
U.S. 168, 179-80 (1973); Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14;<br />
No. 08-2306 21<br />
Rockwell Graphic Sys., 91 F.3d at 919. This concept can be<br />
hard to pin down; the use of the term “privity” has expanded<br />
over time. See Taylor, 553 U.S. at 894 n.8 (“The term<br />
‘privity’ . . . has also come to be used more broadly, as a<br />
way to express the conclusion that nonparty preclusion is<br />
appropriate on any ground.”); Richards, 517 U.S. at 798<br />
(“[T]he term ‘privity’ is now used to describe various<br />
relationships between litigants that would not have come<br />
within the traditional definition of that term.”). In this<br />
context, “privity” has come to be “seen as a descriptive<br />
term for designating those with a sufficiently close identity<br />
of interests” to justify application of nonparty claim<br />
preclusion, Tice v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 162 F.3d 966, 971<br />
(7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), or the<br />
enforcement of an injunction against a nonparty, see Regal<br />
Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14.<br />
The concept of privity, however—both in preclusion<br />
doctrine and in the law of injunctions—is ultimately<br />
bounded by due process, which starts from a “presumption<br />
that each person has a right to her day in court.” Martin H.<br />
Redish & William J. Katt, Taylor v. Sturgell, Procedural Due<br />
Process, and the Day-in-Court Ideal: Resolving the Virtual<br />
Representation Dilemma, 84 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1877,<br />
1881 (2009); see also Richards, 517 U.S. at 798 (“[T]here<br />
are clearly constitutional limits on the ‘privity’ exception<br />
. . . .”); Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 13 (“The courts, nevertheless,<br />
may not grant an enforcement order or injunction<br />
so broad as to make punishable the conduct of persons<br />
who acted independently and whose rights have not been<br />
adjudged according to law.”); Tice, 162 F.3d at 971 (cautioning<br />
against too relaxed an approach to privity because<br />
22 No. 08-2306<br />
“serious due process problems would arise if the earlier<br />
nonparty were barred from her own day in court”).<br />
Both preclusion doctrine and Rule 65(d)(2) are concerned<br />
with the scope and effect of a judgment, and “[i]n no area<br />
of procedure has this [own-day-in-court] ideal traditionally<br />
played a more important role than the field of judgments.”<br />
Redish & Katt, supra, at 1877. When privity is invoked as a<br />
basis for binding a nonparty to an injunction, it is “restricted<br />
to persons so identified in interest with those<br />
named in the decree that it would be reasonable to conclude<br />
that their rights and interests have been represented<br />
and adjudicated in the original injunction proceeding.”<br />
11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND<br />
PROCEDURE § 2956, at 340-41 (2d ed. 1995).<br />
The caselaw suggests that when it comes to injunctions,<br />
the concept of nonparty privity has at least two subcategories.<br />
One line of cases holds that an injunction will bind<br />
nonparty successors in interest to an enjoined party. E.g.,<br />
Golden State Bottling Co., 414 U.S. 168; Regal Knitwear, 324<br />
U.S. at 14-15; Walling v. James V. Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S.<br />
671 (1944); Reich, 50 F.3d 413; Panther Pumps & Equip. Co.<br />
v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8 (7th Cir. 1977); see also Operation<br />
Rescue Nat’l, 80 F.3d at 70 (“[A party may not] circumvent<br />
a valid court order merely by making superficial<br />
changes in the organization’s name or form . . . .”). Another<br />
line of cases holds that a nonparty may be bound by an<br />
injunction if the nonparty is otherwise “legally identified”<br />
with the enjoined party. See, e.g., Merriam, 639 F.2d at 37-40;<br />
see also Flowdata, 154 F.3d at 1352 (using “legal identification”<br />
test and favorably citing Merriam).<br />
No. 08-2306 23<br />
The main dispute in this case centers on the First Circuit’s<br />
decision in Merriam, and specifically whether its<br />
articulation of the “legal identity” basis for privity is<br />
doctrinally sound. The question arises here because the<br />
district court thought Merriam was inconsistent with the<br />
Second Circuit’s famous articulation in Alemite of the<br />
principles on which nonparties may be held in contempt<br />
and the related limits on the court’s adjudicative power.<br />
In Alemite the underlying suit involved four brothers<br />
alleged to be partners in a business that was infringing the<br />
plaintiff’s patent. Two of the brothers were never served,<br />
and the case proceeded to trial against the remaining two,<br />
John and Joseph Staff. Joseph was dismissed as a defendant<br />
after John testified that the business belonged solely to<br />
him and he merely employed Joseph as a salesman. The<br />
court then enjoined John Staff and “his agents, employees,<br />
associates and confederates” from infringing the plaintiff’s<br />
patent. Sometime later Joseph left his brother’s employ,<br />
“set up in business for himself, and was proved to have<br />
infringed the patent.” Alemite, 42 F.2d at 832. The plaintiff<br />
initiated contempt proceedings against Joseph. Though he<br />
was no longer John’s employee, and John himself was not<br />
involved in Joseph’s infringement of the patent, the district<br />
court found Joseph—a nonparty to the injunction action—<br />
in contempt. Id.<br />
The Second Circuit reversed. In a decision by Judge<br />
Hand, the court explained the background legal principles<br />
as follows:<br />
[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one<br />
but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a<br />
24 No. 08-2306<br />
court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at<br />
large, no matter how broadly it words its decree. If it<br />
assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum<br />
fulmen, and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it.<br />
It is not vested with sovereign powers to declare<br />
conduct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those<br />
over whom it gets personal service, and who therefore<br />
can have their day in court. Thus, the only occasion<br />
when a person not a party may be punished, is when<br />
he has helped to bring about, not merely what the<br />
decree has forbidden, because it may have gone too far,<br />
but what it has power to forbid, an act of a party. This<br />
means that the respondent must either abet the defendant,<br />
or must be legally identified with him.<br />
Id. at 832-33. Joseph Staff was not himself a party to the<br />
injunction and was no longer employed by John, the<br />
enjoined party; he had not aided or abetted a violation of<br />
the injunction by John, the bound party. Accordingly, the<br />
court held that Joseph could not be found in contempt.<br />
Id. at 833. “The District Court,” the Second Circuit explained,<br />
“had no more power in the case at bar to punish<br />
the respondent than a third party who had never heard of<br />
the suit.” Id.<br />
In Merriam the First Circuit invoked Alemite in another<br />
case involving two brothers, but with a different result:<br />
Merriam held that a “key employee” of a corporation could<br />
be personally bound by an injunction against the corporation<br />
even after he ceased being an agent of the company.<br />
639 F.2d at 39. Brothers John and George Hoskins opened<br />
a small reference-book marketing company known as theBaha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-39995078636711740712010-12-03T04:52:00.000-08:002010-12-03T04:52:39.622-08:00Excerpts 25-30 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 OptionsNovember 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois <br />
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes. <br />
Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 <br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html&usg=AFQjCNGlPfpL2YQjQe09x3u8ccDYLB1pow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe...</a> <br />
<br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
25 <br />
Webster Dictionary Company in 1975; John was its presi- <br />
dent and sole shareholder, and George was his general <br />
sales manager. At its peak the company had six employees; <br />
it was not in business very long. The big dictionary firm G. <br />
& C. Merriam Co. owned the rights to the well-known <br />
“Webster’s” line of dictionaries, and in late 1975 it sued <br />
Webster Dictionary for trademark infringement, seeking <br />
damages and injunctive relief. In March 1977 Webster <br />
Dictionary advised the court that it was insolvent, was <br />
discharging its attorneys, and would consent to entry of an <br />
“appropriate judgment” against it. In October of that year, <br />
the district court held that Webster Dictionary had de- <br />
faulted and entered a permanent injunction against it and <br />
John Hoskins barring them from using various Merriam <br />
tradenames and marks. Webster Dictionary went out of <br />
business and John Hoskins exited the reference-book <br />
market. <br />
George Hoskins did not. In 1976, still employed by <br />
Webster Dictionary, George incorporated Webster Publish- <br />
ing Company and two related corporations, the business of <br />
which bore “a striking resemblance to that of Webster <br />
Dictionary Company.” Id. at 34. After Webster Dictionary <br />
ceased operations, George Hoskins, through Webster <br />
Publishing, continued to use Merriam’s tradenames and <br />
marks in much the same way as Webster Dictionary had. <br />
The district court held that George Hoskins and Webster <br />
Publishing were bound by the injunction against Webster <br />
Dictionary and found them in contempt. <br />
The First Circuit reversed based on a lack of clarity in the <br />
district court’s order and remanded with a detailed <br />
26 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
explanation of the possible legal grounds for holding <br />
George Hoskins and Webster Publishing bound by the <br />
injunction though they were not parties to the underlying <br />
litigation. The court began with a discussion of Alemite, <br />
summarizing the holding in this way: “To hold a non- <br />
party bound by an injunction it is thus essential to prove <br />
either that the nonparty participated in the contumacious <br />
act of a party or that the nonparty was subject to the <br />
injunction because [he is] legally identified with a party.” <br />
Id. at 35. Because George Hoskins had not participated in <br />
an act of contempt by John, the court recognized that he <br />
could not be held in contempt as an aider and abettor. Id. <br />
The court noted that an enjoined party’s “successors and <br />
assigns” might be “legally identified” with the bound party <br />
and thus obligated to obey the injunction; this justification <br />
for nonparty contempt was also unavailable because <br />
George Hoskins and Webster Publishing were not the <br />
successors or assigns of John or Webster Dictionary. In this <br />
regard, the court observed that “[i]t is not enough to prove <br />
that the first entity went out of existence and . . . the second <br />
entity entered into the enjoined type of business activity, <br />
knowing about the injunction but without having acquired <br />
the business, or a relevant part of it, from the first entity.” <br />
Id. at 36. <br />
But the court went on to conclude that a person could be <br />
“legally identified” with an enjoined corporation and thus <br />
personally bound by the injunction if he was a “key <br />
employee” of the corporation, had a significant role in the <br />
underlying litigation, and was closely identified with the <br />
bound party in other relevant respects. Id. at 37. Impor- <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
27 <br />
tantly, the court explained that the nonparty’s status as a <br />
“key employee” of the enjoined corporation is not suffi- <br />
cient by itself to personally bind him to the injunction: <br />
[T]hat George Hoskins was a “key employee” of <br />
Webster Dictionary Company as well as “the princi- <br />
pal” of [Webster Publishing] . . . is insufficient to <br />
support the district court’s conclusion that George <br />
Hoskins was bound by the injunction. The central <br />
reason that one who is not a party to the action <br />
in which the injunction was issued cannot be bound <br />
by it is that he has not had his day in court with <br />
respect to the validity of the injunction. Cf. Alemite, <br />
supra. Absent an opportunity to contest liability, his <br />
knowledge of the injunction is not sufficient to bind <br />
him as an individual, id., as distinguished from prohib- <br />
iting him from acting in the forbidden way on behalf <br />
of the enjoined party. Thus, the relevant inquiry is not <br />
merely whether (in addition to having knowledge of <br />
the injunction) George Hoskins was a “key employee” <br />
of Webster Dictionary Company but whether he had <br />
such a key role in the corporation’s participation in <br />
the injunction proceedings that it can be fairly said <br />
that he has had his day in court in relation to the <br />
validity of the injunction. <br />
Id. The court issued these remand instructions to the <br />
district court: <br />
The evidence raises a fact issue as to whether this is <br />
a case of the same person continuing to do <br />
essentially the same thing with the same high degree <br />
of practical control, discretion and responsibility, <br />
28 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
before and after the injunction, with knowledge of the <br />
injunction, and after participating in the enjoined <br />
firm’s corporate decisionmaking regarding its position <br />
in the injunction proceedings. If it is found that George <br />
Hoskins was legally identified with Webster Dictionary <br />
Company in this way, then he is bound by the injunc- <br />
tion and the appellant corporations founded by him <br />
are also subject to it. <br />
Id. at 38. <br />
The upshot of Merriam is that a key employee, officer, <br />
director, shareholder, or other central figure in an <br />
enjoined corporation can be personally bound by the <br />
injunction even after the company has dissolved, provided <br />
he had a controlling role in the injunction proceedings <br />
and is otherwise so “closely identified” with the <br />
enjoined corporation that it may reasonably be said that <br />
he had his day in court when the injunction was issued.4 <br />
These important qualifiers keep Merriam within the limits <br />
of due process. <br />
4 <br />
Understood in this way, Merriam corresponds to one of the <br />
categories of nonparty preclusion listed in Taylor, which might <br />
be described in shorthand as “control person” preclusion. Taylor <br />
v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 895 (2008) (“[A] nonparty is bound by a <br />
judgment if she assumed control over the litigation in which that <br />
judgment was rendered.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); <br />
see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54 (1979); <br />
Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc., 365 U.S. 260, 262 n.4 (1961); <br />
Souffront v. La Compagnie des Sucreries de Porto Rico, 217 U.S. 475, <br />
486-87 (1910). <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
29 <br />
In this case, the district court rejected Merriam’s holding <br />
for essentially two reasons. First, the judge thought <br />
Merriam was in “silent tension” with Judge Hand’s opinion <br />
in Alemite. Second, she concluded that Merriam conflicted <br />
with the Supreme Court’s decision in Zenith Radio Corp. v. <br />
Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). We disagree on <br />
both counts. <br />
Though Alemite and Merriam reached very different <br />
results, the two opinions can be reconciled. For starters, <br />
Alemite specifically noted that a nonparty to an injunction <br />
proceeding may be held in contempt for violating the <br />
injunction when the nonparty “either abet[s] the defendant, <br />
or [is] legally identified with him.” 42 F.2d at 833 (emphasis <br />
added). Moreover, Alemite’s result—that a salesman is not <br />
bound along with his corporation—is consistent with <br />
Merriam’s holding that a “key employee,” without more, is <br />
not legally identified with the enjoined company. Merriam, <br />
639 F.2d at 37. To be sure, there are factual differences <br />
between the two cases, but we find no tension between the <br />
two as a legal matter. See id. at 39 (distinguishing Alemite <br />
on these grounds). Both cases recognize the following <br />
categories of nonparty contempt liability: (1) aiders and <br />
abettors; and (2) those who are legally identified with the <br />
enjoined party. “Legal identity” usually means successors <br />
and assigns, but it can include a limited class of other <br />
nonparties as well—provided the evidence establishes a <br />
very close identity of interest and such significant control <br />
over the organization and the underlying litigation that it <br />
is fair to say that the nonparty had his day in court when <br />
the injunction was issued. <br />
30 <br />
No. 08-2306 <br />
As for the perceived inconsistency between Merriam and <br />
Zenith Radio, here too we disagree. In Zenith Radio the <br />
Supreme Court reiterated the general rule that a court <br />
may not issue an injunction against a person over which <br />
the court had not acquired jurisdiction by service of <br />
process. 395 U.S. at 110-12; accord United States v. <br />
Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 794-96 (7th Cir. 1998). But <br />
the Court clearly anticipated that a nonparty may <br />
properly be held in contempt for violating an injunction <br />
if the court acquires jurisdiction over the nonparty and <br />
gives the nonparty an opportunity to contest whether he <br />
is bound by the injunction and is in fact in contempt. <br />
Zenith Radio, 395 U.S. at 112 (“[A] nonparty with notice <br />
cannot be held in contempt until shown to be in concert <br />
or participation. It was error to enter the injunction against <br />
Hazeltine, without having made this determination in <br />
a proceeding to which Hazeltine was a party.” (emphasis <br />
added)). Once a court establishes jurisdiction over a <br />
nonparty and offers the nonparty this opportunity to be <br />
heard on whether concerted action or privity exists, <br />
Zenith Radio requires nothing further insofar as Rule <br />
65(d)(2) is concerned. See Lake Shore Asset Mgmt., 511 F.3d <br />
at 767 (offering similar understanding of Zenith Radio <br />
and stating “whether a particular person or firm is among <br />
[those listed in Rule 65(d)(2)(B)-(C)] is a decision that <br />
may be made only after the person in question is given <br />
notice and an opportunity to be heard”); see also id. <br />
(Nonparties still “act at their peril if they disregard <br />
the commands of the injunction, for, if the district court <br />
ultimately determines that they are in concert with [the <br />
enjoined party], then they will be in contempt of court.”);Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-78284160601191767022010-12-03T04:47:00.001-08:002010-12-03T04:47:52.170-08:00Excerpts 31-35 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">November 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html&usg=AFQjCNGlPfpL2YQjQe09x3u8ccDYLB1pow" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe...</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">No. 08-2306<br />
31<br />
Waffenschmidt v. MacKay, 763 F.2d 711, 718 (5th Cir. 1985)<br />
(similar).<br />
The district court read Zenith Radio more generally to<br />
stand for the proposition that a non-party cannot be<br />
personally bound by an injunction unless that non-party<br />
has had an actual day in court in its own right. That s a<br />
true statement, but the day in court at issue in Zenith<br />
Radio refers to the nonparty s opportunity to contest<br />
whether he acted in concert with a party contemnor or was<br />
in privity and therefore bound by the injunction. If after<br />
an appropriate hearing the court concludes that the<br />
nonparty was in privity with the enjoined party, Zenith<br />
Radio does not require relitigation of the underlying<br />
controversy. (To the contrary, as we have noted, the<br />
general rule is that contempt proceedings may not be used<br />
to collaterally attack the injunction.) Merriam does not<br />
hold, or even suggest, that a court may find a nonparty in<br />
contempt without acquiring personal jurisdiction over him<br />
and providing an opportunity to contest the grounds for<br />
finding him bound by and in contempt of the injunction.<br />
Merriam does not violate the rule in Zenith Radio.5<br />
Finally, though we have few cases in this area, none<br />
conflict with the approach taken in Merriam, and one<br />
suggests substantial agreement. Reich v. Sea Sprite Boat Co.<br />
held that the president and sole shareholder of Sea Sprite,<br />
5<br />
The proceedings in this case fully complied with Zenith Radio.<br />
The respondents were served with process, and the court held<br />
an evidentiary hearing offering them ample and complete<br />
opportunity to contest whether they came within Rule 65(d)(2).<br />
32<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
an enjoined corporation, was in contempt for diluting the<br />
bound corporation s assets and thereafter establishing a<br />
new company to evade the injunction. 50 F.3d 413. We<br />
explained that the enjoined company s president, Robert<br />
Smith, was obliged to secure Sea Sprite s compliance<br />
[with the injunction]; instead he ensured its defiance. The<br />
formation of [the new company] for the admitted purpose<br />
of evading judgments against Sea Sprite was a further act<br />
of contempt. Id. at 417. While the new company was<br />
clearly a successor in interest to the bound corporation, our<br />
reasoning suggests that contempt against the president and<br />
sole shareholder was appropriate because he was legally<br />
identified with Sea Sprite (in the sense that he completely<br />
controlled it), personally participated in the injunction<br />
proceedings, and directed the use of the new corporation<br />
to violate the injunction. Id. ( A sale of Sea Sprite s assets<br />
to an unrelated party would pose different, and potentially<br />
difficult problems. . . . A shuffle between two corporations,<br />
both wholly owned by Smith, cannot avoid the injunction.<br />
(citation omitted)); see also Rockwell Graphic Sys., 91 F.3d at<br />
922 (Eschbach, J., concurring) (stressing that the president<br />
of an enjoined company finds no quarter in the fact that<br />
[the company] is no longer in existence ). Merriam has<br />
been cited with approval by one circuit, see Flowdata, 154<br />
F.3d at 1352-53, and has not been expressly rejected<br />
anywhere else.<br />
Accordingly, it was a mistake to reject Merriam. A key<br />
officer, employee, or shareholder of an enjoined corpora-<br />
tion may be personally bound by the injunction after the<br />
corporation dissolves if he is so closely identified in in-<br />
terest and had a controlling role in the corporation and in<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
33<br />
the underlying litigation that it is fair to conclude that he<br />
had his day in court when the injunction was issued. The<br />
Federal Circuit has identified the following factors that<br />
may be pertinent to the Merriam inquiry: [T]he officer s<br />
position and responsibilities in the enjoined corporation,<br />
his participation in the litigation that preceded the entry of<br />
the injunction, and the degree of similarity between his<br />
activities in the old and new businesses. Id. at 1352<br />
(explaining the Merriam test). It bears emphasizing that<br />
due process requires an extremely close identification and<br />
will be satisfied only when the nonparty key employee<br />
against whom contempt sanctions are sought had substan-<br />
tial discretion, control, and influence over the enjoined<br />
organization both in general and with respect to its<br />
participation in the underlying litigation and there is a<br />
high degree of similarity between the activities of the old<br />
organization and the new. See Merriam, 639 F.2d at 39<br />
(finding analogy to piercing-the-corporate-veil doctrine<br />
to be apt ).<br />
D. Marangella, Schlatter, and the Provisional National<br />
Council<br />
Although it rejected Merriam, the district court s findings<br />
are sufficiently detailed and supported by the record that<br />
we can affirm the court s no-privity finding without a<br />
remand. Of particular importance are the court s findings<br />
regarding the dissimilarities between the Hereditary<br />
Guardianship and the Provisional National Council, and<br />
the break between Remey and his followers on the one<br />
34<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
hand and Marangella, Schlatter, and their coreligionists on<br />
the other. It is true that Marangella and Schlatter occupied<br />
key positions in the Hereditary Guardianship, and both<br />
participated in varying degrees in the underlying trade-<br />
mark litigation. In other circumstances we might require<br />
more detailed fact-finding regarding the precise role each<br />
nonparty alleged contemnor played in the enjoined<br />
organization and in the underlying injunction litigation.<br />
For reasons we will explain, however, we can dispense<br />
with that here.<br />
The district court concluded that the Provisional Na-<br />
tional Council, which represents those who accept<br />
Marangella as the Third Guardian, is substantially dissimi-<br />
lar to the Hereditary Guardianship; the record supports<br />
this conclusion. Although Marangella, Schlatter, and<br />
other members of the Provisional National Council<br />
were actively involved in the Hereditary Guardianship<br />
in the 1960s, the record reflects that after the injunction<br />
was issued and the Hereditary Guardianship dissolved, the<br />
remnants of this dissident group scattered. After a two-<br />
year period of dormancy, Marangella announced his own<br />
Guardianship and broke with Remey on matters of succes-<br />
sorship, doctrine, and governance. Schlatter followed him,<br />
and a new religious organization was established, albeit<br />
(eventually) operating in the same place and with some of<br />
the same people as were involved in the Hereditary<br />
Guardianship. The new group, in due course, took the<br />
name Provisional National Council. The district court<br />
specifically found that the vast weight of the record<br />
evidence establishes that the [Provisional National Coun-<br />
cil] was not formed for the purpose of escaping the con-<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
35<br />
fines of the injunction. The court also found that its<br />
membership numbering about 40 people did not in<br />
fact encompass all of the same individuals that comprised<br />
the [Hereditary Guardianship]. Based on these facts, the<br />
court concluded that on a defining point of organizational<br />
purpose, there existed a robust doctrinal divide between<br />
the Hereditary Guardianship and the Provisional National<br />
Council. The court also concluded that the latter was not<br />
operating in effect as the former, nor did there other-<br />
wise [exist] a substantial continuity between the two<br />
groups.<br />
These findings and conclusions are sufficient to defeat<br />
any claim that Marangella, Schlatter, and the Provisional<br />
National Council are legally identified with the Heredi-<br />
tary Guardianship and therefore in privity with it and<br />
bound by the 1966 injunction. This is so even assuming<br />
Marangella and Schlatter could be considered key<br />
officers or agents of the Hereditary Guardianship. The<br />
doctrinal differences especially when combined with<br />
the passage of time make it clear as a matter of law that<br />
the Provisional National Council and its principals cannot<br />
be considered legally identified with the Hereditary<br />
Guardianship or Remey. To take note of these differences<br />
is not to decide a religious dispute; the district court s<br />
findings and conclusions do not transgress Presbyterian<br />
Church. Accordingly, even when Merriam is taken<br />
into account, the district court s no-privity conclusion as<br />
to this group of alleged contemnors was correct. </div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-85260107336375276762010-12-03T04:46:00.000-08:002010-12-03T04:46:28.619-08:00Excerpts 35-40 - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">November 23, 2010 - 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Haifan Baha'is of Wilmette, Illinois</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Opinion, Judge Sykes.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Excerpts - Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html&usg=AFQjCNGlPfpL2YQjQe09x3u8ccDYLB1pow" rel="nofollow" style="color: #0000cc;" target="_blank">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appe...</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">36<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
E. Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers<br />
The National Spiritual Assembly also challenges the<br />
district court’s decision that the Second International<br />
Council and Bahá’í Publishers are not bound by the<br />
injunction. It offers two reasons for binding these<br />
nonparties: First, they were created by Jensen, who (the<br />
argument goes) was personally bound by the injunction;<br />
and second, they are successors in interest to Remey, who<br />
also was personally bound by the injunction.<br />
1. The Jensen Connection<br />
The district court rejected the contention that the Second<br />
International Council and Bahá’í Publishers were in privity<br />
with the Hereditary Guardianship through Jensen. After<br />
declining to apply Merriam, the judge explicitly entered an<br />
alternative holding that Jensen was not legally identified<br />
with the Hereditary Guardianship even if Merriam applied.<br />
The judge acknowledged that Jensen was an incorporator<br />
of the Hereditary Guardianship, that he served as one of its<br />
first board members, and that contemporaneous evidence<br />
suggested that Jensen remained a follower of the Heredi-<br />
tary Guardianship during the underlying litigation.<br />
Nevertheless, the court found that Jensen disassociated<br />
himself from any governing role in the organization shortly<br />
after serving his one-year term on the board. This was well<br />
before the underlying injunction was issued.<br />
The National Spiritual Assembly disputes these findings.<br />
It argues that Jensen’s extensive involvement with the<br />
Hereditary Guardianship prior to the underlying litigation<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
37<br />
establishes legal identity. We see no clear error in the<br />
district court’s findings, which were amply supported by<br />
the record. Jensen’s term on the Hereditary Guardianship<br />
board ended in the middle of 1964; he was not reelected as<br />
a board member. After he lost reelection, he did not serve<br />
in a governance, advisory, or any other controlling position<br />
in the Hereditary Guardianship, and he had no involve-<br />
ment in the underlying litigation. As such, Jensen did not<br />
occupy the sort of “key” role in the Hereditary Guardian-<br />
ship—either generally or with respect to injunction litiga-<br />
tion—that could form the basis of a “legal identity” finding<br />
under Merriam.<br />
The National Spiritual Assembly argues in the alternative<br />
that Jensen (and by extension, the Second International<br />
Council and the Bahá’í Publishers) should be bound by the<br />
injunction because Jensen remained an adherent and the<br />
Hereditary Guardianship adequately represented its<br />
believers’ interests in the underlying suit against the<br />
National Spiritual Assembly. The Supreme Court in Taylor<br />
and our own recent decision in Tice recognize that the<br />
concept of privity in preclusion doctrine includes a very<br />
limited adequate-representation category. See Taylor, 553<br />
U.S. at 894 (observing that “adequate representation” by<br />
“someone with the same interests who [wa]s a party” to<br />
the earlier suit sufficed for privity purposes “in certain<br />
limited circumstances,” including “properly conducted<br />
class actions” and “suits brought by trustees, guardians,<br />
and other fiduciaries”); Tice, 162 F.3d at 973 (“[U]nless a<br />
formal kind of successor interest is involved . . . , there<br />
should be some indication . . . that the second party either<br />
had participated or had a legal duty to participate.”); see<br />
38<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
also R ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 41 (similarly<br />
limiting adequate-representation theory of privity). The<br />
trademark litigation 44 years ago does not fit into this<br />
limited category.<br />
A finding of privity based on “adequate representation”<br />
in the circumstances of this case would be entirely unwar-<br />
ranted. The Hereditary Guardianship did not conduct the<br />
underlying litigation as anything like a fiduciary for its<br />
members, and there is no evidence to suggest it was acting<br />
in a representative capacity for its followers personally. To<br />
find privity based on “adequate representation” here<br />
would treat every suit by an organization as having res<br />
judicata and contempt implications for the organization’s<br />
members individually. This is contrary to the Supreme<br />
Court’s language in Taylor carefully limiting the scope of<br />
the adequate-representation category of privity.<br />
At bottom, this argument is an appeal to the theory of<br />
“virtual representation,” which the Supreme Court has<br />
firmly rejected in the field of claim preclusion. Taylor, 553<br />
U.S. at 904. Having rejected virtual-representation theory<br />
in its traditional res judicata setting, we see no reason why<br />
the Supreme Court would view it more favorably in the<br />
context of injunctions. The district court properly rejected<br />
the attempt to bind the Second International Council and<br />
Bahá’í Publishers through Jensen.<br />
2. The Remey Connection<br />
The National Spiritual Assembly also argues that the<br />
Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers are<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
39<br />
bound by the injunction through privity with Remey. This<br />
argument is based on trademark-registration filings with<br />
the United States Patent and Trademark Office in which<br />
Neal Chase, the current president of the Second Interna-<br />
tional Council and Bahá’í Publishers, explained that the<br />
throne to the “Davidic kingdom” passed by succession<br />
from Bahá’u’lláh to Abdu’l-Bahá, to Charles Mason Remey,<br />
to Pepe Remey (Remey’s adopted son), and now to him.<br />
The National Spiritual Assembly treats these filings as an<br />
admission of legal successorship to Remey, who in turn<br />
was legally identified with the Hereditary Guardianship.<br />
The district court treated the trademark-registration<br />
filings as nonbinding evidentiary admissions rather than<br />
binding judicial admissions. See Help at Home, Inc. v. Med.<br />
Capital, L.L.C., 260 F.3d 748, 753 & n.2 (7th Cir. 2001);<br />
Higgins v. Mississippi, 217 F.3d 951, 954 (7th Cir. 2000);<br />
Murrey v. United States, 73 F.3d 1448, 1455 (7th Cir. 1996);<br />
Keller v. United States, 58 F.3d 1194, 1198 n.8 (7th Cir. 1995).<br />
The National Spiritual Assembly apparently agrees with<br />
this characterization, but argues that the court gave them<br />
insufficient weight. We find no fault with the district<br />
court’s treatment of this factual matter. Other than the<br />
version of spiritual-leadership succession described in<br />
trademark filings, the National Spiritual Assembly offered<br />
no evidence of a link between Remey and the Second<br />
International Council or Bahá’í Publishers. Indeed, Remey<br />
had no involvement in either organization and died more<br />
than 25 years before the Second International Council was<br />
established. Neither the Second International Council nor<br />
Bahá’í Publishers received any money, property, or other<br />
assets from Remey or the Hereditary Guardianship. On<br />
40<br />
No. 08-2306<br />
these facts the district court properly concluded that the<br />
Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers are not<br />
successors to Remey. See Walling, 321 U.S. at 674 (succes-<br />
sors are “those to whom the business may have been<br />
transferred”); Flowdata, 154 F.3d at 1355 (nonparty succes-<br />
sorship liability under injunction requires a “substantial<br />
continuity of identity”); cf. Golden State Bottling Co., 414<br />
U.S. at 179 (finding bona fide purchaser of a business<br />
enterprise was the legal successor to the enterprise and<br />
thus subject to enterprise’s liability); Reich, 50 F.3d at 417 (a<br />
company that “acquired the business subject to this court’s<br />
order” was legal successor and bound by the order). </div><div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">AFFIRMED. </div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-33738071556140294222010-12-03T04:31:00.000-08:002010-12-03T04:31:14.481-08:00Selected Newspaper Articles - Baha'i & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals<div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Selected Newspaper Articles</div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html#comment-784202" style="color: #dfd664;">Ian RoeBuck commented on November 24, 2010 9:43 AM on chicagobreakingnews.com</a><br />
"Actually after reading the decision, it did not "sidestep the issue of whether a religious organization can trademark its name or icons." It said 1. the original ruling was troubling because it was determining issues of sucession, and 2. because there is a difference between symbols and icons of a faith rather than a church. In other words one can trademark syumbol of hte Prevyterian church, one can not trade mark the symbol or name Christian or the cross as those are generic to the faith and not the church."</div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group<br />
(FULL TEXT on one page)<br />
<a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ChicagoBreakingNews+(Chicago+Breaking+News)" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ChicagoBreakingNews+(Chicago+Breaking+News)</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Kansas City Star<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
(FULL TEXT on one page)<br />
<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/25/2472247/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/25/2472247/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chicago Tribune: Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life<br />
<a href="http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Chicago-Tribune-Orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling-themselves-Bahai-court-rules.aspx" style="color: #dfd664;">http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Chicago-Tribune-Orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling-themselves-Bahai-court-rules.aspx</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The News & Observer<br />
<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/25/826913/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/25/826913/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7th Circuit: Baha'i Groups Not Bound By Old Trademark Injunction<br />
By Howard M. Friedman<br />
<a href="http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/11/7th-circuit-bahai-groups-not-bound-by.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/11/7th-circuit-bahai-groups-not-bound-by.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">India Times<br />
<a href="http://oneclick.indiatimes.com/article/00XA8NY3JId9y" style="color: #dfd664;">http://oneclick.indiatimes.com/article/00XA8NY3JId9y</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7th Circuit Rules for Splinter Baha'i Group<br />
By JOE CELENTINO<br />
<a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/29/32158.htm" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/29/32158.htm</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The Republic, Columbus, Indiana<br />
<a href="http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/RELIG-BAHAI_3810181/</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The State, South Carolina's largest newspaper<br />
<a href="http://www.thestate.com/2010/11/25/1578536/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.thestate.com/2010/11/25/1578536/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
The Olympian<br />
<a href="http://www.theolympian.com/2010/11/25/1452828/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.theolympian.com/2010/11/25/1452828/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group<br />
Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court says.<br />
November 25, 2010 By Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune reporter<br />
<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-25/news/ct-met-bahai-decision-20101125_1_baha-u-llah-baha-i-community-shoghi-effendi" style="color: #dfd664;">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-25/news/ct-met-bahai-decision-20101125_1_baha-u-llah-baha-i-community-shoghi-effendi</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">EagleTribune.com<br />
<a href="http://www.eagletribune.com/worldnational/x1468309040/Orthodox-believers-can-call-themselves-Bahai" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.eagletribune.com/worldnational/x1468309040/Orthodox-believers-can-call-themselves-Bahai</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court rules<br />
<a href="http://dailyme.com/story/2010112500003716/orthodox-believers-calling-bahai-court-rules.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://dailyme.com/story/2010112500003716/orthodox-believers-calling-bahai-court-rules.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The News Tribune<br />
<a href="http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/25/1439701/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/25/1439701/orthodox-believers-can-keep-calling.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Court of Appeals for the division of the Baha 'I Court Rules<br />
<a href="http://www.dragonparadox.com/student-loans/studentloan-consolidatestudentloan-collegestudentloan-studentloandebt-federalstudentloanconsolidation/federal-agency-federal-ministry-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-division-of-the-baha-i-court-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-2078" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.dragonparadox.com/student-loans/studentloan-consolidatestudentloan-collegestudentloan-studentloandebt-federalstudentloanconsolidation/federal-agency-federal-ministry-of-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-division-of-the-baha-i-court-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-2078</a></div><div lang="x-western" style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><hr style="color: #0f1d40; height: 2px;" /></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Comments posted to The Chicago Tribune Forum on one page:<br />
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html" style="color: #dfd664;">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicago_Tribune.html</a></div><div style="color: black; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chicago Tribune. Baha'i rift. Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith. May 18, 2009<br />
<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_orthodox-community-rift-jesus-and-muhammad" style="color: #dfd664;">http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/news/0905170216_1_orthodox-communi\<br />
ty-rift-jesus-and-muhammad</a></div>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-50256908711890622852010-12-03T04:26:00.000-08:002010-12-03T04:27:37.452-08:00The Root of the Problem with the Wilmette, Haifan Baha'isThe root of the problem with the Wilmette, Haifan interpretation of the Baha'u'llah's Teachings is that it leaves out Abdul-Baha's actual <a href="http://www.reformbahai.org/Covenant.html">1912 Authentic Covenant</a>, substituting the spurious will and testament forged by Shoghi Effendi's family in 1921.<br />
<br />
The Bahai Faith can be Reformed but only by returning to the Interpretation clearly outlined by Abdul-Baha in Europe and America prior to his death. The evidence and record of his Interpretation has been preserved in the Star of the West for anyone willing to read with an independent mind, free of the decades of deception and brainwashing into blind belief administered by the Haifans.Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-50721261128086557862010-12-03T04:24:00.000-08:002010-12-03T04:24:34.454-08:00Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of AppealsOpinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 - November 23, 2010<br />
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/US_7th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals_11-23-2010.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/judge-bahai-believers-can-call-themselves-bahai.html">Judge: Baha'i believers can call themselves Baha'i </a>Chicago BreakingNews November 23, 2010<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/11/federal-appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-splinter-bahai-group.html">Federal appeals court rules in favor of splinter Baha'i group</a> Orthodox believers can keep calling themselves Baha'i, court says. November 25, 2010 By Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune reporter.<br />
<a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-25/news/ct-met-bahai-decision-20101125_1_baha-u-llah-baha-i-community-shoghi-effendi">Also here on ChicagoTribune.com.</a><br />
<br />
7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges hammer NSA's attorney February 20, 2009 (3 minute MP3 from the court website)<br />
Judge Diane S. Sykes: "Clearly raises some constitutional concerns."<br />
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCourt_Appeals09.htm">http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCourt_Appeals09.htm</a>Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6006254612383112305.post-8591691488765989182010-12-03T04:19:00.000-08:002010-12-03T04:20:07.476-08:00Opinion of US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 08-2306 - November 23, 20107th Cir: Public online 08-2306 case documents as PDF and oral argument MP3<br />
Opinion in case# 08-2306, Judge Sykes:<br />
<br />
"When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&n\%20um=2306">http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=08-2306&submit=showdkt&yr=08&n\ um=2306 </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/US_Court_of_Appeals_7th_District_11-23-2010.pdf">Or download Opinion as PDF in one click</a><br />
<br />
<br />
p 7: False finding of "fact" by Judge Austin in 1966<br />
<br />
p 13: "...civil authorities may not make judgments about religious controversies when deciding church property disputes. Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116. (The church-autonomy principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have federal constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.”)."<br />
"Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyterian Church that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.”<br />
<br />
p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church) [boldface added], the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."<br />
<br />
p 17: "’It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not<br />
bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.’ ”"<br />
<br />
p 20: The court expands on and concludes that the parties were simply not in privity with the 1966 flawed decision by Judge Austin.<br />
<br />
<br />
NOTE WELL: "a church," i.e., the Court clearly states, as a matter of incontestable historical fact, that the Wilmette nsa merely constitutes one of many interpretations of the Baha'i Faith.Baha'i Faith & 7th Circuit Court of Appealshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14345528366343541419noreply@blogger.com0