The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

 

 

Selected Messages

 

From: "John MacLeod" <macleod@beloved.com>
Subject: Re: The text or the Interpretation
Date: Monday, January 01, 2001 9:43 PM

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010101050614.07479.00014296@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> Dear John,
>
> I'm not saying I couldn't understand what the Writings were saying. I'm
saying
> I was having the same difficulties that Karen is currently having,
namely
> making what is in those texts jive with what I saw (or thought I saw) in
real
> life.
Yeah, but what I mean is that what Baha'u'llah actually wrote re the
Covenant has very little to do with the issues which trouble people.
Certainly it is about obedience to God and most particularly the
Manifestation, the text, and possibly the succession though I can't find
that spelt out.  However the idea that authorities can do no wrong or
should never be opposed would be hard to deduce from what Baha'u'llah
Himself wrote about the covenant.
>
> >But when one reads all the
> >stuff that is written about the covenant nowadays I can't make any
sense
> >of a lot of it.
> The result is a certain over-reaction and a tendency to
> >dismiss the Covenant itself as nonsense.
>
>
> Do you really think the stuff that was written three decades ago was any
> better? I challenge you to go back and read it. No, I think we have to
find new
> ways of talking about the Covenant to avoid the extremes we see on both
sides
> today.
Agreed, my 'nowadays' referred to the last 100 years or so.  Actually,
outside the confines of these newsgroups and Bahai studies and other
bizarre areas I think the believers are developing quite reasonable
attitudes about the lesser Covenant (if there is such a thing).  I see
absolutely no serious challenge to the UHJ as the authority within the
Faith.  People seem to accept the UHJ for much the same reasons that they
accept the authority of say the British or French governments etc.  There
is a knowledge that there is some history involved, and some of it may be
a bit complicated but it is over.  There is very little interest in for
example the Will and Testament (I actually don't think I have heard it
quoted from or discussed in about 10 years outside these newsgroups).
Speculation about 'authorised interpretation' and 'the institution of the
Gaurdianship' is ignored. The Gaurdianship never existed - Shoghi Effendi
was the Gaurdian.  Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi's Writings are taken as
part of Baha'i Scripture (much as Christians take Paul's letters as part
of Scripture).  The UHJ (normally used with little distinction from World
Centre as a whole) is just seen as the leadership and no-one is
particularly concerned as to whether they are interpreting, elucidating,
or whatever other words are used.  I think it all fairly healthy though
some parts sadden me personally.  The very stability and acceptance of
this structure of the Faith probably gives people confidence to question
and criticise.

>
>  >Nowadays of course 'covenant breaking' seems to mean only challenging
the
> >rules regarding transfer of authority.
> >Baha'u'llah's most common use 'breaking the covenant' seems to me to
refer
> >to people who do not accept the new manifestation.
>
> In practice that's what it principally did mean in Baha'u'llah's time.
But when
> we get to the Master, the Guardian and now the House, it has different
> implications. But the most basic principal which underlies them all is
that
> which is embodied in the primordial Covenant, the Covenant of Alast when
God
> addresses all creation with the words, "Am I not your Lord?" and we
either
> respond or not respond. It is a question of whether we accept the God
who comes
> to us, or try to create him in our own image.
I am sure we will succeed in creating God in our own image - at least in
this life but you are right - we should try not to even though we will
fail.
"Men of wisdom, who had but a notion of the revelation of Thy glory,
conceived a likeness of Thee according to their own understanding, ......"
(The Bab:  Selections from the Bab, page 207)
From my favourite prayer.  If men of wisdom so fail what chance have I?


From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Origins of a Modest Proposal
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:06 AM

Author: Arfarf5215 <arfarf5215@aol.com> wrote: -

>As I have watched the periodic discussion of the Modest Proposal article
over time I have >found it interesting that the origin of the title has
rarely been alluded to.  It was originally a >"biting" satirical piece
written by Jonathan Swift back in 1729 suggesting that the Irish should >put
their children to "good use" by eating them. While the proponents of the
current day >"Modest Proposal" put forth a veneer of civility, they were in
fact fully aware of the swift >article and were setting a tone of clear
disrespect and sarcasm with regard to the Institutions of >the Faith.    For
those who might be interested in perusing the original, it can be found at
the >following URL:
>
.https://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
>
>I just think it's important to have a little perspective here.  There is
far more going on besides a >modest proposal.

What the Dean actually proposed was that the landlords eat the Irish
children as they had already consumed the parents and the rest of the land.
As the authors of "A Modest Proposal" - Bahai style - are erudite and
educated persons, I would have little doubt that the tone of the Dean's
original was fully understood and the allusion obvious.  The AO has consumed
the spirit of the BF and left nothing in its place.

The AO attacked the Bahai authors as rabidly as the landlords had ravished
Ireland.  Where the latter left pestilence and famine the former have
created a desert inhabited by reptiles of the variant apologists for it
present on this and other similar lists.

Actually, for your information, there is a lot less going on because the
Modest Proposal was ignored and spurned.

Dermod.

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Article on the LA study class
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:55 PM

Rick

There was no "dissension or contention" in the study class.  The sessions
were generally wide ranging discussions no different than you would
experience in any college class on any topic.  Ask any participant, like
David Young.

Most of Kazemzadeh's warnings were rather vague in nature and his main
concern as stated on the day he visited seemed to be that the faith of other
Baha'is might be severely tested.

On the other hand the nature of the newsletter was mostly just to allow
individuals not living in Los Angeles a chance to participate.  Most of
these individuals were doing graduate level work in history or social
sciences.  Unfortunately some people had a tendency to allow others to
photocopy these newsletters and thus disseminate them to a wider audience
than intended by the class but still very small.

Very few Baha'is had ever heard of the study class or ever read a newsletter
of the group, still true today I'm sure.  There was no intent at all to
disseminate anything until of course Dialogue magazine was started as a way
of engaging the wider community.

Cheer up Rick, you can't spend all your time putting people down.

>That has to be the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen for not
> telling the whole truth.

Randy

--

Rick Schaut <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:95o8r301naq@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Karen Bacquet" <kalamity@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:95ntmk$7i2$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <95netr0acq@news1.newsguy.com>,
> >   "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> > > Your article still manages to leave out significant facts
>
> > There is very little evidence in the written record that references to
> > the Writings were made either in the talk given to the group by Dr.
> > Kazemzadeh or the one given by Judge Nelson.
>
> At the same time, the "written record" is far from complete.  There is
some
> correspondence that we know of only because letters from class
participants
> refer to them.  We don't know what was or was not in those letters.
>
> Also, these class participants were rather well-read individuals.  Would
it
> have been unreasonable for the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly to presume
> that they were familiar with the numerous passages in Gleanings in which
> Baha'u'llah condemns dissension in no uncertain terms?
>
> Your claim is a general claim, and isn't limited to what the participants
in
> that study class supposedly knew.  Are you claiming that you, yourself,
are
> ignorant of the numerous passages in the Writings relating to conflict,
> contention and dissension regarding Baha'i Instituions?
>
> Yes, Karen, you can be faulted for not conveying relevant facts of which
you
> do have knowledge even if those facts aren't in the so-called "written
> record".  That has to be the most pathetic excuse I've ever seen for not
> telling the whole truth.
>
> > I am not convinced that either 'Abdul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi meant to
> > limit all discussion of community issues to controlled venues.
>
> And, no one is claiming that those texts limit all discussion of community
> issues to "controlled venues".  The issue has to do with how _criticisms_,
> particularly those that have little constructive value, are to be voiced
> within the Baha'i community.  The National Spiritual Assembly would rather
> hear these criticism directly rather than via the proverbial grape vine--a
> medium well known for its ability to distort the truth and twist facts.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Article on the LA study class
Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:55 PM

Rickster wrote: -

>Your article still manages to leave out significant facts, probably most
important being the >extent to which the institutions have cited
>authoritative Baha'i texts as the basis for their concerns.

Didn't Karen put you right on that - very few quotations (if any) dealing
with the subject matter, more a huffing and puffing around the fact that the
AO just didn't like the whole idea.  After all something positive might have
come out of it - Bahais might have learned to think for themselves and
there'd be no need for these silly Training Institutes or the prats who run
them.  And dear old Randy was a participant in the LA Study Group and didn't
he put you straight on the whole business too.  Once again Rick runs in
where fools fear to tread!

>For example, your article states, "At the root of the problem lies the
administration's insistence >that the only appropriate forum for expressing
concerns about community functioning is within >certain limited arenas..."
The article fails to point out that the basis of these limits lie in the
>writings of `Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and is not something that
Baha'i institutions have >concocted out of some general distaste for
criticism and dissidence.

One of these days somebody will put baffles in the void between your ears so
that when a concept enters it will at least rattle around a bit and perhaps
collide with a brain cell in which it can find rest.  As has been amply
verified
from Juan Cole to Alison Marshall and back again via Michael McKenny,
Dialogue and the whole LA Study Group business, there is no room within the
AO for dissidents or people who like to think for themselves.  Bahai
institutions don't like to be criticised at all and they're prepared to tell
lies to try to stop it.  Lovely People and all who sail with them!

Now don't forget that perfect system that you've found out there!  We're all
waiting with tremendous excitement for your pronouncement!!

The Prim Keeper.

From: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Origins of a Modest Proposal.
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 9:45 PM

Karen Bacquet wrote:

> Somewhere in my surfing, I ran into a post where David Langness
> actually apologized for the title, and acknowledged that it was a
> mistake.

> I ran a search on "A Modest Proposal", and it's surprising how widely
> the title is used for various things.  Kazemzadeh explained the meaning
> of the title at that Convention for those who didn't get it, and people
> were horrified.  I already recognized the reference, and I think that's
> why I remembered the name of the article after all those years.
> However, because of the title, I thought the article itself was
> actually some kind of satire,(I also thought the letters from the
> Dialogue editors that he read were part of the article.) and that's one
> reason I was so shocked when I found it on the web.

Hi Karen, thanks for that info about David.

This fuss by certain parties about the title of the article is, IMHO, a
clear indication of much that has gone wrong with the administrative
mindset in the Baha'i Faith. Putting the facts about that article and
the histrionic responses to it before any rational believer in tolerant,
democratic government would be a certain way to poison their attitude
towards the Baha'i Faith forever. The article is a subdued collection of
suggestions written in a moderate tone of voice, and 'Abdul-Baha
guarantees that free speech exists in the Baha'i Faith for all
expressions written politely. But the authors chose a title that was a
mild satire! How malicious! How subversive! They must be CAMPAIGNING!

The blindness of those making this sort of defence of the AO is mind
boggling, and their complete inability to see how this would be seen by
rational non-Baha'is is even more staggering.

It seems to me that there is a belief by administrative thinkers that
the AO has some kind of right to introspect about the private thoughts
of individuals as indicated by the flimsiest tissue of a hint (such as
the harmless title of this article). Actually, Baha'u'llah told
_individuals_, not administrators, to search into the hearts. It is an
interesting historical fact that this idea currently framing the
administrative Baha'i mindset was rejected as immoral over four hundred
years ago by a monarch who wasn't always above doing mean things: Queen
Elizabeth rejected advice from her ministers for more limitations on
Catholics because she didn't want "a window into men's souls."

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
              https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house

A rose grows in the Earth's good soil.From: "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: For Michael: "Rebels Within the Cause?"
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:46 AM

Greetings, Karen.
    Many thanks for letting me read this article. It was fascinating.
What a sad tale. You may not be aware that one of the accusations that
was hurled at liberals on Talisman was that we'd been infected by this
LA study class. I replied at the time that the closest I'd been to LA
was Edmonton, Alberta (April 1972) and Chicago (July 1975), so Juan and
I couldn't have been having tea together in LA at the time of this
study class (an allusion to Muslim allegations that Baha'is were
putting something in the tea and this explained conversions). 
    FreeNet claims Themestream articles are improperly addressed, so
I'm not able to read them. I would thus be grateful if you posted the
ones about the expulsion of Alyson Marshall and Talisman. 
    Many thanks for this. I think it's a story that should be as
widely known as possible. Having independent investigation of truth
as an essential principle, declaring this is the age for the maturity
of humanity and adopting the slogan of "Unity in Diversity" are not
compatible with an imposed doctrine of uniform, thoughtless obedience
to each and every dictate of Council, including the rule of censorship.
                        To Glastnost and Perestroika Within Baha'i,
                                           Michael 

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your interest in my article.  I pasted this straight from
my rough draft, and although I looked it over, there still may be some
slight descrepancies between this and the final published version.

Other group members might note that I don't get paid my two cents from
Themestream when people read my articles on a newsgroup. It is my hope
that this will put the silly charge that I'm doing it for the money to
rest.

It is, however, an even greater hope, Michael, that you will enjoy the
article.  Did you get to see my articles on Alison Marshall's expulsion
and the Talisman crackdown?  If you are interested and have time to
read them, I would be happy to post those for you as well.

Love, Karen

--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee
is justice . . ."  Baha'u'llah

https://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Article on the LA study class
Date: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:01 PM

Rick

I don't think these notes were ever distributed very widely at all before
the internet thing.  For example every so often one of the Orthodox groups
sends out a mailing to all the LSA's in the U.S.  Did you know this?  Have
you ever received one?

Now if the LA Study Group had done something like that with material which
questioned say the status of the UHJ in the community then I would have been
the first to object.  The LA Study Group never sent out "wide" mailings in
any sense of the word.  They probably would have been smarter not to have
mailed anything to someone who didn't regularly attend meetings but that
wouldn't have prevented the members from acting to distribute papers to
friends or people they thought would be interested in it.  At best that
would only have delayed what eventually happened by a year or so.

I think what is more relevant is that with the advent of the WWW this very
thing has become a crucial sticking point for the entire AO.  I think the
faith rises or falls on its ability to grant its members freedom of thought,
freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.

Cheers, Randy
--

Rick Schaut <RSSchaut@email.msn.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9619le02nb@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:a3mg6.2795$k06.274136@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > I guess if they are on the internet everyone can read them now.
>
> I was hoping to get at some relatively rigorous notion of what "too wide"
or
> "not too wide" a distribution means in this context.  If the best we can
do
> is say that it's a judgement call, then guess who gets to make that
> judgement call?
>
> > I guess you
> > can always forbid people to think if you don't like the results.
>
> Actually, I think one root of the problem was people not thinking enough,
> but that's probably another discussion altogether.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>

From: "Ian McCarthy" <ianmcca@tiscalinet.it>
Subject: Bugs in the Software
Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 7:33 PM

Rick Schaut observed that:
> Baha'u'llah appointed `Abdul-Baha
> ....Abdul-Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi
> ... Baha'u'llah established the Universal House of Justice
> `Abdul-Baha stated that we are obligated to be obedient to it,
> We aren't talking about fine points of esoteric questions of mystical
spirituality.
> We're talking about clear instructions.

It seems to me, Rick, that for you religion is just a set of instructions, a
software program.

You run it and it doesn't work. You run it again and it still doesn't work.
You keep on running it and sometimes it seems that it sort of looks like
it's almost going to work (maybe tomorrow) but it never really does what
it's supposed to do. But you don't blame the software, because the label
says it's infallible. *Thank you for buying the Most Perfect Program. It is
indeed Most Perfect. If it doesn't work its not our fault, it's yours*. How
about that for a product warranty!

I'm not saying that it should enable you to reach instant enlightenment. I'm
not talking about fine points of esoteric questions of mystical
spirituality. I don't go in for navel gazing anymore. I'm talking about
changing the world. About, for example, growing to a critical mass to be
able to have an actual physical effect on the real world out there, to steer
it in a certain direction. To ring in the Kingdom. I don't see the Baha'i
Faith doing that and I don't see it being able to do it even in the far
distant future at current rates of growth and in its current sad condition.
And above all with its current inflexible attitude of arrogant
self-sufficiency.

The software is not working. The instructions are clear but they don't work.
What do you do?

I know! - You blame humanity, you blame everyone else. The Program is
Perfect but humans aren't. The software is not corrupt, but people are. They
are stupid and they can't understand it. They don't understand how to use it
and they haven't the sense to realise that it really is working perfectly
even though it looks as if it's doing nothing and going nowhere. But one day
many years from now they will all wake up and suddenly understand that it
only wasn't working because they didn't believe that it was.

Or not enough of them. If only everyone had been like Good ol' Rick and
always read every page of the instruction manual and followed the perfectly
clear instructions to the very last letter, then everything would have
worked just fine... and suddenly everything will, because they will finally
have got the Most Perfect Message!

And I suppose that's all perfectly possible, but would you really expect all
reasonable people to agree that it is probable? Isn't it much more likely
that there are some bugs in the software? Instead of frantically bashing
away at your keyboard and repeating ad infinitum *I'm sorry sir, that's
impossible. There can't be anything wrong with the Most Perfect Program. It
must be working because it says it is! It must be Infallible because it says
so on page 333 of the Most Perfect Manual!*, wouldn't you be better employed
listening to the users all around the world who are calling in to report the
bugs that they have found?

I mean, really, what kind of way is that to run a religion? *The Customer is
always Wrong*.

Most Perfect Regards,

Ian

P.S. Can I be Al Marbig now too?

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Article on the LA study class
Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 3:37 PM

Dear Robert--

<rlittle95@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:962rne$io7$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This approach to understanding the "AO" and your statement that "I
> think the faith rises or falls on its ability to grant its members
> freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience."
> posits a mental attitude which I feel reveals what I would term as
> childish. I don't mean that in any judgemental way, but rather in the
> medical way explained by Dr. Eric Berne (author of Games People Play).

I don't think it's childish at all, in fact I think it is the opposite.  I
think Baha'is have a right to expect the AO to treat them with not only the
same respect and rights that they can receive in ordinary society but in
fact even greater rights!  If the faith has anything to offer at all to this
sorely tried world it must be something superior to whatever we have come to
expect in our daily world.  As an American citizen I enjoy and expect
certain things, as a Baha'i I should have even higher expectations.

Robert have you ever heard of someone saying to a state or city employee
"Hey, I'm a tax payer, I pay your salary?"  And you know what kind of reply
you get from a statement like that?  Well that kind of reply from the faith
is not good enough for me and I don't think it is good enough for the
central figures either.!

> Baha'u'llah gave us an understanding - as best I can understand - of
> the human race as being in a constant, progressive state of development
> through a series of stages corresponding to the development of a human
> individual, starting with birth and ranging up to and beyond a point in
> time which separates the childhood of mankind from its maturity, and
> then continuing to evolve through successively higher stages of
> adulthood to a point where the race achieves all its potential to know
> and to love God.
>
> I believe that the Baha'i revelation marks the point in time when the
> race crosses over from childhood into adulthood. It is a process,
> rather than a particular date, and we are now engaged in that epochal
> transformation.

This process should be marked with a greater degree of introspection on the
part of the AO.  They need to ask themselves at every instance if they are
truly serving Baha'u'llah and the faith in the way it needs.  The faith pays
lip service to the idea of consultation!  That is the primary ingredient!
Without consultation you have a pretty thin soup, my friend.  People today
are starving for what the faith has to offer but we aren't doing a good
enough good of cooking to live up to the appeal of the cookbook
illustrations!

> In my estimation, the viewpoints which Randy expresses reveal an
> individual utilizing the mental and emotional tools of a child to
> explain and understand the adult it is in the process of becoming. It
> is easier to look backward than forward, into uncharted territory.
> Well, not easier, but more rewarding.

I'm sure you think you have a point here, but I'll be damned if I can figure
out what it is.  Why is it more rewarding to look backward, wouldn't it be
easier?  Wouldn't it be tougher but more rewarding to look forward in to
uncharted territory.  Maybe I am looking forward into the uncharted
territory and I don't like what I see?  Can you prove that each person who
becomes a Baha'is also miraculously becomes someone incapable of committing
a crime, or wrong doing, or acting in a greedy self-serving fashion?  Are
some Baha'is above the law?  In the U.S. we have managed to get to a place
where we say even the President is not above the law, but in the U.S. there
are places you can take a problem involving the President to and expect to
get a hearing.  If you have a problem with a decision of the UHJ where do
you take it?  I don't think asking this question is out of line for any
honest person.  This is an honest question that needs to be answered if
*non-baha'is* are to learn to love and respect the faith and its
institutions.  That is the true thrust of my points which you find merely
childish.  How we present ourselves to the world and how well we live up to
that image is the paramount test of maturity.

>
> I think that the relationship between "unfettered search after truth"
> and "absolute obedience to everything He hath revealed" is crucial to
> understanding and living that maturity which Baha'u'llah promises will
> be ours. To a child, one can either obey absolutely, or one can be
> unfettered, but not both. However, an adult ought to be able to
> understand that life is choice, all choice and nothing but choice,
> including the choice of obedience - rational, logical, consistent
> obedience to God. This is what Baha'u'llah seems to me to be requiring
> of His servants.

I get the sense that you are mixing two or three ideas together here.  Is
this a kind of stew or goulash?  Do you actually expect a child to be
absolutely obedient, or would you prefer that the child be obedient in
certain things that might jepordize his life but a little more adventursome
in things that might provide a good learning experience.  Does one stay
absolutely obedient as an adult?  If mankind is transforming from the
childhood to an adulthood doesn't that imply that he will become even more
capable of making adult like choices?  Don't we then get an even greater
freedom rather than a diminution thereof or worse yet a complete cessation
of?  How can obedience to God be rational, logical and consistent?  Can love
be rational, logical and consistent?  I don't think so!

Robert, I think you have some confused ideas on the nature of personal
freedom and the idea of obedience to the teachings of God and the
institutions.  Could this be the result of unresolved childhood conflicts
(this is a joke, no need to answer)?

>
> We have seen what can happen when individuals or groups stray into one
> extreme or the other. We have inflicted on ourselves numerous societies
> which demand total obedience, but examples of societies which require
> freedom of conscience have been vanishingly rare. Modern democracies
> such as the United States have attempted to achieve that marriage of
> faith and freedom which Baha'u'llah so beautifully illustrates, but
> their successes have been something less than total.

No problem with that.  U.S> democracy is hardly perfect, but it is "free" to
attempt to "perfect" itself even if such a state is impossible to achieve.

> The "AO" so often referred to in a disparaging way by critics is in
> reality the community of Baha'is. There are people who consider
> themselves Baha'is at present who do not participate in the life of
> their community, so in a functional way the Baha'i administrative order
> is something separate from them and their lives, but for those Baha'is
> who do participate in the life and activity of their community, the
> reality is that the elected institutions extend outward through
> committees, trees, task forces, councils and the like to include every
> living Baha'i. It is one organic whole, a composed organism.

This says nothing about honest criticism meant to help the faith grow and
mature.  When David proposed his Modest Proposal was he expecting an honest
debate on his suggestions or a vicious unreasoned attack that would last
years and drive him from the faith?  How does David participate in the AO
now?  Do you suppose he attends feast?  Do you see him at the annual
elections?  Can we get Vic Bonds to explain this?

In India they have four castes, and they also have the "untouchables."
Casteless persons who are not allowed to touch people of caste or even to
look at them in public.  If the body politic of baha'i doesn't include
everyone,  including the critics, then aren't you creating a new class of
untouchable?  People who the AO says are not *good enough* to be Baha'is?

>
> It is not for the Baha'i administrative order to grant anything. The
> very idea is contrary to the central concept of the oneness of mankind
> as I understand it.

Well, I'm glad you understand it.  It sounds like if the faith is an organic
whole then whatever it does is justice, so any punishment it decides on is a
just punishment.  Correct?  Yet we know that the AO can also reverse a
decision.  If the first decision was in fact perfectly just and correct,
what do you call the second decision?

Why would the AO even if it is the entire body politic not be able to grant
something to itself?  Who will set society's rules if not the AO? Are you
saying the the UHJ will never legislate, will never make a decision, will
never change any ruling or ordinary law?  If something isn't forbidden in
the text don't they have the right to grant it?

You act as if you have to oppose something I say not because of what I say
but because I say it.

> I obey my House of Justice/Spiritual Assembly not
> because the House of Justice tells me I must, but because Baha'u'llah
> tells me I must and I have freely chosen to do so. I question my House
> of Justice not because I wish to force it to think as I think, but in
> order for it's decisions and actions to reflect the very best
> understanding possible at that moment. I must both obey and question,
> not one or the other, or neither.

I'm with you up to the last sentence.  The last thing I would want is for
anyone else to think like I think.  But your last sentence sounds confused
and unfinished in thought.  If you question in a halfhearted uncaring way
without passion how can you pose the best questions you are capable of?  In
U.S. law, which is hardly perfect, the accused gets a passionate advocate.
English law is different but they still get an advocate.  What do we get in
Baha'i?

>
> Any effort to divide and separate the community of mankind, or the
> Baha'i community, is an effort which is contrary to the spirit and the
> intent of the Baha'i writings. The Baha'i community is highly
> imperfect, but it is growing progressively more mature, more obedient
> and more questioning. You may decry its faults, or you may strive to
> perfect it. Choice.
>
> From time to time, some individuals will stray over into blind
> obedience or into blind lack of faith. Those individuals tend to be
> unhappy people, by and large. In fact, I believe that a radiant joy of
> life is a fairly good indicator of an individual who is in balance and
> on the right path.
>
> What question did 'Abdul-Baha' invariably ask His listeners while in
> America? "Are you happy?" He asked it repeatedly, and asked if we are
> not happy in this Day, for what day were we awaiting?

Some people find their happiness in posing questions.  Some people who are
actually good at this pose difficult questions.

Cheers, Randy


From: "Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au>
Subject: Re: REPOST - Petition for a Bahai Reformation
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 5:23 PM

Fred,
    I think it is about time you stop cross-posting to the others. They
assume you are a Baha'i and get pissed off at us. It's about time I get out
your address and phone number and I'll cross-post it here and I'll make sure
to include every interesting NG I can find.  I was presented with a list of
para-military groups that have NGs and I'll include those. I've done it
before so don't feel I wouldn't again. You need to realise that you are
causing harm and we're tired of it.
MEE
"

From: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Theocracy
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 6:57 PM

Hi Pat,

>The liberal government of the US only recently, the past 35 years, decided
>to
>protect the rights of all adult citizens equally.  It was not so long ago,
>nor
>far away, when signs reading "Whites Only" and "Colored" were displayed in
>various public facilities on this side of the pond.  Drive down the Falls
>Road,
>for the scenic route in civil tolerance.  Ah, the shrines of western
>liberalism
>- they smell like smoke, they look like mirages, they sound like Orangemen
>marching by their charred victims.

We can justify everything by reference to revealed religious truth - aren't
there guys up in the backwoods who advocate their own form of Theocracy, per
the Bible, which will entail returning the Blacks to slavery as their proper
place in life because, as we all know, black skin is the mysterious mark
placed on Cain for the murder of his brother.

You know when we scratch away at every conflict, right there at the heart of
it is religious rectitude of the most righteous kind - "My religion is right
which means that yours is wrong and therefore I have a God-given right to
beat the shit out of you or do anything else to you to convert you to my
religion when, in turn, you can also beat the shit out of anybody who
doesn't agree with us.  And when we get to be 51% of the population or
simply take over power by some other way, we can beat the crap out of
everybody!"

From Kosovo to Auschwitz, via Bosnia and Rwanda, circling through South
Africa, taking in the Klan en route, a detour to the Aboriginal peoples of
the Antipodes, marching up the Falls Road, provided you're a good Fenian but
Orange feet shall never walk from Drumcree via the Garvaghy Road
https://www.grandorange.org.uk/   As they say in certain quarters: -

"What's the difference between an apple and an orange?
You'll never find an apple bastard"

Arrogance, superiority, bigotry, hatred - all of these superlative qualities
and more are to be found in the organisations which rule every religion.  Is
the Bahai Faith any different?  Most certainly not - it exhibits these
qualities in exquisite intricacy.  Fortunately it is not in any other
position than to gauge enviously at those religions which have achieved the
numerical status to actively practice their barbarisms and envisage
wistfully the day when it hopes to be able to do likewise.

When we look back we see that when the religions were put in their place all
sorts of good things flowed - from schools (Churches never liked an educated
flock), to statutorily established social welfare (Churches always liked
charities which controlled the flock), to a free press (Churches never liked
a press which might expose their corruption) but above all to a society
whose government refused to regulate private morality.

So long live the secular state - may it increase in power and influence and
succeed in keeping the religious organisations in their proper place - away
from anything that would allow them to continue to practise their
barbarities.  In the West we have had 2 millennia of Christian hatred - it
will take time to undo its influence but I, for one, have no intention of
seeing Christian bigotry replaced by Bahai brutality.

As ever,

Dermod.


From: "Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au>
Subject: Apology to Mr. Glaysher
Date: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:41 PM

I would like to apologise to Mr. Glaysher, publicly,  for threatening him
with a posting of his name and address on the Usenet NGs. I shall no longer
be conversant with Mr. Glaysher in any way. This action, had I taken it,
would have compromised my commitment to acting as a Baha'i and to guidance
given us by the Universal House of Justice. I can only hope that I learn to
recognise my need to communicate within the boundaries of humility and
service rather than my own need for personal gratification.
Mark E. Elderkin

From: "Gerald Smith" <gerald.smith38@gte.net>
Subject: Hmmm.... Interesting!
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2001 3:05 PM

Greetings, everybody!

I am Gerald Smith and I was a Bahai for 15 years, though I have no faith
whatsoever in that or any other form of Middle Eastern Monotheism.  I find
it interesting that the dragon's teeth of totalitarianism sown by the
leaders of the Bahai Faith are starting to sprout.  I was led out of the
faith by my awareness of how badly the faith was stagnating in the 1980's,
by the obvious inflexible rigidity of the leadership of the faith, parroting
the same thing over and over again they are still parroting, by the heavy
emphasis on proselytizing combined with lack of any real community spiritual
life, and most of all, by spending a year in Saudi Arabia where I got to
know some true, enlightened Muslims (none of whom were Saudis) and realized
that the best parts of Bahai were stolen wholesale from Islam.

It doesn't surprise me that the seedlings of what I saw ten years ago are
bearing fruit now. It is obvious to me that the Covenent is dead, the Bahai
Faith a mere cult of no real importance that will doubtless linger for a
long time but has lost its chance to become a first-class world religion.  I
believe it was Shoghi Effendi himself who said the Faith would have poor
chances at long term survival if it were deprived of the Guardianship and he
was right, but the fault is largely his for not writing a will, not having
children and excommunicating every relative who could have succeeded him.
The faith has effectively been dying since and has largely already
accomplished the little further that could be expected of it.  Now that the
"dirty linen" the leaders of the faith so long successfully hid from the
public is being prominently displayed, only long term decline can be
foreseen.

I don't regret the time that I spent as a Bahai, but it is to bad the faith
has been so ill-served by its leadership. Has anyone noticed how closely the
organization of the Bahai Faith as instituted by Shoghi Effendi parallels
that of the Communist Party? Right down to dictatorial control of the center
by a self-perpetuating oligarchy, "democratic centralism" and multi-year
plans.  This is a great way to organise a small, power-hungry core of
disciplined fanatics into a totalitarian regime, but as with Marx-Leninism
it will guarantee the long term decline and eventual disappearance of the
faith.

Oh well, please keep in mind there is no one true religion and there are
plenty of other faiths you can explore in your spiritual seeking. I could
recommend the more liberal and enlightened forms of Sufi but I myself am
Pagan and polytheistic and more interested in the Primordial religions of
the Earth.

Peace and Joy to you, Pilgrim!

JerryBear

From: "Gerald Smith" <gerald.smith38@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Hmmm.... Interesting!
Date: Sunday, March 11, 2001 9:19 PM

Hmmmm..... Even more interesting!

Well, Mr. Elderkin, It would seem YOU are the one who is out of place here.
This place is dedicated pretty much to those critical of the Way Things Are
in the Faith.  You are the one supporting Orthodoxy on here against us
infidels, apostates and assorted heretics.  I have to congratulate you on
your mastery of being nice in a nasty way or being nasty in a nice way.  It
seems to be one of the major accomplishments of Fundamentalist Bahai's such
as yourself, you raise hypocracy to a fine art indeed!

In the beginning of the Faith in this country, Bahai was to a large extent
seen as a personal mystical path by quite a lot of the earliest American
believers. I believe that in the long run, a return to this tradition may be
the salvation of the Cause.  The current attempt to garner political power
on the part of the current institutions is increasingly pathetic and doomed
and endangers the future of everything the Founders of your Faith attempted
to accomplish.  This is the real reason behind the hypocracy and tyrrany
that increasingly strangles the Living Spirit of the Faith and turns it into
a mere cult of political correctness.

 I am sorry, but it is increasingly apparent to me that Shoghi Effendi
effectively destroyed the Covenent by failing to make provision for another
Guardian to succeed him after his death and the Faith has since been cast
adrift. The complete and abject failure of the Universal House of Justice to
fulfill the original vision of the Founders has become apparent.  Shoghi
Effendi once said that the Bahais could very well fail completely at their
task and it would accordingly be up to the followers of the next
dispensation to bring about the Most Great Peace. I would say that his
gloomy scenario has pretty much come about, no?

I believe, anyway, that all Gods (and Goddesses,  including the "One True
God" of the Middle Eastern Monotheistic traditions are ultimately human
archetypes.   They are attempts to connect to the One, the shadowy inhuman
utterly mysterious force that is behind Fate.  A really good God archetype
may be favored by the One if it supports Its purposes and be given real
power. I believe that the Founders of the Bahai Faith had a real sense of
the One's future purposes and could have generated a religion of immense
power but apparently it didn't quite work out.

All that we really know of the One is the evidences we see of It's Will
being worked out in the world.  My current preferred tradition, Asatru
refers to the One as "Wyrd".  My preferred God is Woden, the God of my long
ago ancestors and my Goddess is Freya, the Lady.  Woden is dedicated to
discovering the purposes of Wyrd with a view to ensuring the future survival
of the human race and the world.  Since the Great Calamaty long foreseen by
nearly every known tradition (including my own, it is called "Ragarok")
appears to be waiting to happen in this century, I want to be a helper in
this great purpose.
The essence of Woden is the ideal of wisdom earned through sacrifice.

I feel, once most Bahais have finally given up the pathetic delusion that
they are going to take over the world and feel a need to emphasize spiritual
life rather than politics, power and proselytizing, then perhaps they will
consider making a reconciliation with the more enlightened elements of
Islam, especially Sufi, with whom Bahais otherwise have so much in common. I
sense that someday Bahais will start to feel the need to get in touch with
their Islamic roots. The Bahai Faith is a sort of Islamic version of the
Unitarian/Universalist Church.

In my case, I very strongly believe in reincarnation. I have only been a
human being 2 or 3 times and I still know what I was in the animal world
before I was first born as a human (a bear, of course, for a million years
or more).  My main task and interest is still solidly located in THIS world
and I won't be ready to transcend to whatever it is that lies beyond for
many lifetimes yet.  Thus, I am a natural follower of Earth-based religions,
such as paganism and shamanism.
I have very pleasant memories of the Bahai Faith and I am sorry to see what
has happened  to it.  I  would still be willing to help the true spiritual
essence of your Faith to survive, and once it has become truly spiritual and
democratic and free of its current political pretensions and dictatorial
power structures might even be willing to include some of its practices
among my own spiritual disciplines, though I would never become a member of
it again.  Maybe a few dozen lifetimes down the transmigration pipeline...

There you have it Mark,  some reasons for my interest in being here. Keep in
mind that on here you have absolutely no power to silence or censor anyone,
though you of course can attempt to manipulate or intimidate people if you
think you can get away with it.

Have a NICE day!

Sincerely,

JerryBear
Mark Elderkin wrote in message <3aabfa3f.0@news.acay.com.au>...
>Dear Gerry,
>        I am sorry you have decided to go on your own route, but that is
the
>way you feel it seems. I hope you relieved yourself here, in some way, and
>will now find a news group dedicated to your new convictions.
> Be in peace,
>MEE

From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fred's valued contributions - how to killfile Patrick
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:25 PM

>
> "Stuart Palin" <kweezil@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:_hpx6.6631$u93.932586@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AC6130A.13BB6207@ameritel.net...
> >
> > Welcome to usenet, TRB and ARB, Stuart,
>
 Indeed yes! Stuart!  Welcome to Hell on Earth!  BTW how is Stroke
City these days?
>
> Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

Mein Gott! The AO speaks the secret of its failure!

>
>  Perhaps Mr Glaysher,
>  if you backed up your venom with facts, rather than grandiose and
>  unsubstantiated claims I would consider your opinions worthwhile.
As it
> is,
>  from a purely objective point of view, you seem to spend most of
your time
>  pouring out tired posts attacking this religion. You reiterate the
same
>  points over and over again under new header and avoid any form of
>  intelligent debate. Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism
fit you
>  like a glove.
>
Well now, Stuart!  Before you start making half cocked statements
like that I suggest you take a wee trot over to Fred's site and take a long
slow look because it is full of FACTS about the unmitigated corruption at
the
heart of the AO.  No doubt Fred is a tad angry but maybe he deserves that
having been treated like dirt by the obsequious venomous toads in the AO.
But
one thing you got to say for him - he has got his facts and the facts of
others, similarly treated, well posted at that site together with links to
other sites that may just be as interesting and as full of FACTS.  Of
course nobody expects a BIGS to be able to distinguish the fact that Fred's
site is full of FACTS - it's a kind of mental block that years of adherence
and subservience to the AO has accomplished.

So! Like! Use yur loaf and tak' a wee dander over there, afore ye
open yur bake again, cos ye've blarged intil an area where some folks don't
take kindly tae gulpins!

>  I only joined this newsgroup today in the hope of some intelligent
>  discussion, instead I find tired arguments being trotted out for a
>  peanut-gallery crowd. Such a waste of time, both mine and yours. I
hope
> you
>  all enjoy Mr. Glaysher's spectacle, I certainly won't be staying
for
> another
>  encore.

You sure came to the wrong place.  You need the kinder moderated
places like SRB where everything is kissing the ring and everybody's pals in
the
 unmodulated self praise of those who are in the right religion and
everybody else is an poor unfortunate or an "enemy of the Faith".  If you
want intelligent conversation you have no chance here - full of fundie
bigots.  Of course you might feel at home with that type of client.

Chin Chin

 Dermod.

>
>

From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Re: < bahai > - New Mexico LAWSUIT **against** bahai
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 10:33 PM

> "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010331002616.28097.00002915@ng-mi1.aol.com...
>  Dear Pat,
>
>  She is not going to be able to persuade a judge that there is something
> wrong with applauding someone. A judge would like find it nonsensical
>that electioneering was termed "rigging.'  And she says nothing about the
> Baha'i teaching that might make this intelligible.
>
>  warmest, Susan

Dear Lady,

 Are you fishing again?  No doubt, when it comes to a hearing,
evidence will be adduced to show that "electioneering" is forbidden in the
Bahai
system. Now the question that will then be posed is, in light of this ban,
what actions could constitute electioneering that would be in
contravention of the ban?

Now is it conceivable that behaviour that drew particular attention
to one individual over and above any other in an atmosphere of quiet and
prayerful consideration of the respective merits of all persons in the
community, might just be construed as a subtle, but nonetheless, illegal
electioneering technique?  We must needs await the evidence in a hearing
before
coming to a conclusion.

As in most things you fundies miss the point - it is inconceivable
to you that anybody would, in the name of conscience, oppose the evil
fascist empire that you support.  Ring out a crisis, see the "enemies of the
faith" on the march and out you people come from your lairs like maggots
and vultures attracted by the blood of a fresh smelling corpse?

Then the fishing starts and maggots are good bait for coarse fishing!  There
is information of sorts in the Complaint filed before the Court but
if you start appearing critical and incredulous perhaps more information
might be gleaned that you can bring back to the Gruppenfuhrers who control
you and pull your strings.  Sad to say there is no information out here for
you to glean. Like I said Yorgos is a sharp cookie who does more with his
head than keep his hat up in the air.  The guy is playing it close (just
enough disclosed to show that there is a case to answer) but I think he has
already hoist this LSA and the NSA - after all, no lawyer goes to Court
without having a better than fifty per cent chance of winning.

Of course if he is, as Rickster has suggested, a "rookie" he is all
the more dangerous.  "Rookies" like to win - there are reputations to be
made
from that.  So maybe he is that bit better prepared, maybe he has taken a
longer harder look at the evidence, put more hours into it than usual -
maybe, if it is his first case he has decided not to take it to Court unless
he has a better than 80 per cent chance of winning.

Who knows but that the LSA/NSA have screwed up the preliminaries so
much that they have actually handed him a case?  The Complaint notes that
Ms Buchorn has complained of these matters to the NSA but it has done
nothing.  It invites the question - has the NSA sat on the complaint for a
long time, has it ignored it and is thus caught with its trousers down when
the
lawyer comes on the scene?  Or perhaps the NSA responded to the Complaint
with a 'snow' job - the embryonic immaturity sob story that is invariably
invoked under option one as a means of dealing with dissent?  Been there,
seen it - loada waffle!

None of your prattling on this or any other forum about this case is
relevant however - like me, you're not involved.  Like me you don't
have even "hearsay" evidence to proffer.  Your comments to date have been
naught but ill-informed speculation - efforts to rubbish a case you have no
hard information on.  Why are you doing it?  Are your puppet masters so
worried that they have got to try to proffer some defence on this forum or
are they already setting the scene for a pre-trial surrender or a post trial
humiliation?  Are you endeavouring to set up the faithful to view
this as another bit of martyrdom inflicted by yet more of these internal
enemies of the Faith?

What this case represents is a BIGS standing up for what she
believes to be a total abomination of Bahai and civil law, in which it is
alleged
the NSA has knowingly colluded in failing to take steps to rectify the
situation.  I note that Nima who has lived in this community has been unable
to
offer any information contrary to the details noted in the Complaint and I
assume that there is weight of evidence ready for Court, otherwise this
Complaint would not have been filed in Court.  Irrespective of the outcome,
the fact
that such a Complaint has been filed in Court is a damning indictment of
the AO modus operandi.

This is nothing new of course; we have all seen it before - Alison,
Michael etc etc. ad nauseam.  But ponder this, dear lady: -

 "The worst enemies of the Cause are in the Cause and mention the
Name of God.  We need not fear the enemies on the outside for such can be
easily dealt with.  But the enemies who call themselves friends and who
persistently violate every fundamental law of love and unity, are difficult
to be dealt with in this day, for the mercy of God is still great.  But ere
long this merciful door will be closed and such enemies will be
attacked with a madness.. "
Abdul-Baha answers questions asked by Dr. E. C. Getsinger in the
Holy Land: Star of the West, Vol. VI, No. 6, p. 45)  - Multiple Authors:
Lights of Guidance, page 93

Now what was it one the named defendants is alleged to have said? Something
about the "voice of God" - is that it?

As ever,

Dermod.

From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: ^^ bahai ^^ - New Mexico LAWSUIT for Fraud  & Libel (sound familiar?) - FULL TEXT - against bahai instit
Date: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:11 PM

Pete,

Whiny or not, listen to what he has to say. The problems he outlines about
the Baha'is and their authorities are very REAL. I can testify to them
myself.

cheers,
Nima

"PBridge130" <pbridge130@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010331180243.29043.00001194@ng-mr1.aol.com...
>From: "Stuart Palin" kweezil@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk wrote:

>A dead link, like all of your members.nbci.com links. Perhaps Mr
Glaysher...(snip)....Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism fit you
>like a glove.

Fanatic?  I just find him whiny.  He reminds me of the socially inept kid in
grammar school, the one the teacher had to ask the class to please be nice
to.
Now he's all grown up, but he's still looking for an authority figure to
make
everyone else play nicely with him.

Fred's motto:  "Enough about me and my problems -- let's talk about what YOU
can do for me and my problems."

From: "Thirinel" <thirinel@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: bahai - LAWSUIT - ** "Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby" ** - FRAUD & LIBEL
Date: Saturday, April 28, 2001 2:09 PM

Here, Mark is a kleenex to help you get over your emotional damage.

While I don't agree with Fred's posting to other newsgroups and you will
note I have removed the non-relevant ones, and I more often than not don't
agree with the points he is making, still I think he has as much right as
any other to follow his conscience. And I wonder at a Faith that finds it
necessary to disenroll someone because of criticism

Alma
Mark Elderkin wrote in message <3aea8bab.0@news.acay.com.au>...
>Everytime I read through ARB/TRB I suffer emotional damage from posts by
>Fred Glaysher. At least now, some of the responders from other NGs are
>seeing you for your antics and are realising that you have no connection
>with the Baha'i Faith. It is a real shame that a grown man, while claiming
>some academic attributes, can't find something better to do. Why don't you
>work on your website........?
>M
>> 44. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>
>

From: "Mr Mahdi" <mrmahdi@aol.com>
Subject: Maneck slanders Fred on AOL bahai message board
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:29 AM

Susan Maneck has gotten away with slandering Fred Glaysher on the AOL bahai
message boards by claiming that he hates the bahai faith:

Subject: Re: Suing bahai KGB on AOL
Date: 6/13/01 12:44 AM Central Daylight Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <20010613014429.13674.00007438@ng-ch1.aol.com>

>
>You are using Mahdi as an example!  Now THAT is funny.     
>

Yeah, ironic isn't it? I don't know that Fred and Mahdi have anything in common
other than their mutual hatred for the Baha'i Faith. One is a libertarian while
the other is a rigid fundamentalist. 
warmest, Susan 

https://www.susanmaneck.com

Mahdi Muhammad

https://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.html pdodenhoff 
7/1/01 10:30 AM  33 out of 35   
 

PK,
Though I'm certain it will have no effect on you, I just want to say that my reasons for speaking of *my* experience as an assistant have nothing to do with bragging about having an *in* with the AO. Those who know me personally, *and who are still Baha'is* can vouch for my character. 
I did not base my response to you on your single post, but rather from thevery obvious attitude you *took* in that post. I did not attck you, *you* attacked me because it is clear that you are an example of the type of individual (Baha'i or not) who cannot bear questioning or criticism of *anything.* You did not answer any of the questions posed by me or otehrs in this thread. You just jumped in with your perceived sword of righteousness swinging in all directions.
Yes, it is people like you who force others from their faith.
Your last post is simply another example of the fundamentalist, fanatical, behavior that is leading the Baha'i Faith down the road of parochialism and cultism, a road on which everyone must march "lock-step" with you and other fundamentalist-minded individuals or be stepped on, shoved out of the way, or worse. 
Personally, I don't believe you will succeed. While I may disagree with some Baha'i teachings and left because of them (oh, thanks for theleft-handed compliment by the way)we are still very friendly with many Baha'is who recognize the teachings of Baha'u'llah as something far above the sectarianism you are trying to turn it into. 
And it is to *thos* Baha'is I direct my questions and comment, those who can be civil and to whom I will be civil in kind.
I checked out these threads because RM had posted here and found some interesting discussions happening. When I read your response initially my reaction was simply to leave. But though I think you would prefer that, I will not. Instead, I'll just ignore you. Will that be good enough for you?
Paul  
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: common ground
Date: Friday, January 12, 2001 12:18 AM

Karen

Questioning peoples motives has been the critique du jour of the Baha'i
community since the beginning of the Guardianship.  It is the single modus
operandi for eliminating those with ideas that are out of joint with the
conservative fundamentalist clique that runs the U.S. NSA and the UHJ.  It
was used a lot by the U.S. NSA members starting in the 1920's and they have
never stopped using it.  I doubt that they ever will because they are
clearly unable to come up with real ideas and real concerns that would
justify their actions.  Also it has worked well for them all these years (at
least until the advent of the internet).

Basically when the good Doctor runs out of rational arguments she tends to
get really really worried about your motives.  I am sure she is worried
about my motives right now!

Cheers, Randy

--

Karen Bacquet <kb4@mail.csuchico.edu> wrote in message
news:93lo32$9k5$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> If Dr. Maneck would care to condescend to look through the recent
> archives of this newsgroup, she would see that I have, in fact,
> enumerated my motives, since they were so recently called into
> question.  In fact, I think that post may be somewhere in this "common
> ground" thread.
>
> I don't think my critics care much about my motivation at all.  I think
> they just don't like the fact that I write articles about current
> Baha'i issues. The questioning of my motives is just an attempt to
> destroy my credibility.  It's a whole lot easier than writing articles
> expressing the opposite point of view, or facing that what I have to
> say makes sense to a whole lot of people. (My articles have over 1000
> hits now.)  I am currently the highest rated author in Themestream's
> Baha'i category, with seven of the top ten articles being mine.  And I
> didn't do that -- the readers did that, because they are the ones that
> rated me.  If people didn't like what I was saying, those articles
> would sink like a rock to the bottom of the list and be heard from no
> more.
>
> I think there are some people here who, if they are concerned about
> motives, would benefit from consulting a mirror.
>
> Karen
>
>   bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny) wrote:
> > Greetings, Susan.
> >     This is a fascinating position. You seem to argue that the UHJ
> judges
> > individuals on the basis of the motives of these individuals and that
> the
> > individuals themselves do not know what their own motives are.
> >     This justification of inappropriate behaviour by authority is a
> Most
> > Great Unacceptability for any decent society.
> >     And with that this green Druid slips back into the verdant woods.
> >                                                          To Life,
> >
> Michael
> >
> > Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
> > >
> > > Yeah, it mostly has to do with motive which is sometimes not all
> that easy to
> > > discern.
> > >
> > > Well, since Karin has removed herself from the Baha'i community she
> really
> > > isn't subject to Baha'i standards of conduct anyhow, so I don't
> know that it
> > > much matters. As for Karin's motives, I'm not sure she knows what
> they are.
> > >
> > > warmest, Susan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space,
> with no time
> > > left to start again . . "
> > > Don McLean's American Pie
> > > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> > >
> >
> > --
> > "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> >        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> https://www.deja.com/

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:24 PM

Dave

I think you need some counseling help.

Sincerely, Randy

--

Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109141001.2fd2b8c@posting.google.com...
> Little Better Than the Terrorists
>
>  FG
> 9/14/01 7:51 AM  1 out of 2
>
> Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
> articulated in the Writings....
>
> FG
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> To: Fred
> From: the white hot ball of anger in my gut.
>
>
Snip
make me sick.

From: "Curious" <Curious_105@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:32 AM

NightShadow <seals_jay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba302b8.758896975@news...
> There was someone named "Curious" <Curious_105@hotmail.com> who once
Snip

>. Most of the time I will try to respond to
> messages addressed to me, but if I smell bait, I try to shy away- I
> don't like hooks getting caught in my mouth. In some of your responses
> I smelled bait, so I didn't respond. In other portions, I simply
> haven't had the time to.

You feel 'baited'? Apprehensive that someone/me is out to 'hook' you?
Mate, I have been 'fishing' for explanations and answers for years.
The initial 'lure' I cast within the community- "What constitutes Baha'i
due process" was ignored, over and over again, for years.
So, eventually, I came here, onto the net. Changed fishing hole, changed
questions, lures and baits.....same response.....nothing.

Yes, I am baiting the Baha'i community, independently fishing for the truth.
Nobody is prepared, willing or able to answer basic questions.
"Why are the fundamentals of due process denied to members of the Baha'i
community".
There is no 'hook'.......just a question that deserves an answer.

> Please don't be condescending with me. I have not been so with you.

No, you have been evasive or absent in response to the questions...
and I have been patient with the Baha'i community too long. If Baha'is,
as a community or as individual representatives on the net cannot, over
a prolonged period, 'condescend' to explain, justify or rectify the absence
of fair due process.....then yes.....my indignation inclines me to
condescending
and demanding language.

> I
> am an individual. Despite the "fundie" mudslinging that goes on here,
> and sometimes in my general direction, you will find that I am content
> to listen to rational commentary as long as it isn't personally
> insulting or repugnant.

I have not called or inferred that you are a "fundie".
If am unaware of anything that might be considered 'insulting' or
'repugnant'...
......a fart reference perhaps?;-). By all means, cite or repost any such
behavior.

> I do not find evidence of a lack of due process, according to your
> wishes, to be embarrassing.

In a community that proclaims Justice to be the best beloved of all things?
The absence of due process is not embarrassing?
I'm a Baha'i.....I find it profoundly embarrassing, repulsive and un
necessary.

> I DO find it unfortunate, and I am
> investigating some stories on my own, but I don't do it out of
> embarrassment. I am learning- which takes audacity and patience.

With respect....How long does it take to determine, as I believe you have
conceded, the absence of due process? What further 'learning' is required?
Why is there such 'audacious' silence on the issue?
What stands in the way of simple action and implementation?
(Beyond the current 'culture of denial and avoidance ;-)

> >1/ You could be thinking about it? What's there to think about? Whether
> >or not you as a Baha'i want justice in the community?
>
> Don't try to bait me, please.

What makes the above question 'bait' mate? It is honest, open, simple and
straightforward.......no 'hooks', no secret or hidden agendas.....I want to
know.....so I ask.....you infer something unpalatable or deceptive about the
questions.....you take the time to talk about and around the questions.....
but....in accord with all my previous experience....you do not address or
answer
the questions.
Why?

Snip
>Of course I want
> justice in the Baha'i community- any sane Baha'i would. That is not to
> say that I think justice is overwhelmingly lacking, but I concede that
> is HAS lacked at times.

No Baha'i, over a ten year period, has been able to delineate the
'processes'
(not 'principles') by which Justice is determined and achieved within the
faith.
In those circumstances it must be concluded that any justice achieved has
been the happenstance consequence of 'good luck' and 'good will/intention'.
We have no statistics on outcomes, only the growing number of disillusioned,
disenfranchised and ex Baha'is who object to the absence of fair due
process.
Why equivocate, why not act?

>Don't presume that I haven't thought about it-

I don't, I presume-on the basis of your posts- that there is something
more that needs to be known or determined or some passage of time
that needs to transpire before some basic action can take place.
I reject all the rationales, excuses, explanations and justifications that I
have heard thus far.

> I am also investigating on my own, to make sure that my thoughts are
> valid. I go at my own pace. And forgive me if it *sounds* insulting,
> but I'm not likely to take anyone else's word for anything without
> backchecking their info- that includes you, so posting anecdotes of
> other people's experiences is mere conjecture to me... heresay.

Then I invite you to rely upon and examine no more than the administrative
procedure handbooks themselves....there you will find no reference to
the basics of fair due process. That is not 'conjecture' or 'hearsay'...that
is
examination of determinable facts. There is nothing in the Baha'i procedures
that ensures the provision of a fair hearing.

> >2/ You agree with the majority of what I posted? Hmmmmmm;-)?
>
> Agreement is not necessarily to be equated with belief. I agree that
> there *might* be potential for the Baha'i AO to blunder unjustly-
> which, I believe, is at the heart of your concerns...

No, that is not the "heart of my concerns". It is far from a case of *might*
be "potential" for the AO to "blunder unjustly"....It is that in the absence
of due process the AO *must* and unavoidably *has* blundered *repeatedly*.
How could it possibly be otherwise?
You might as well tell me that a Surgeon who never follows the procedure of
washing his hands or instruments before operating *might* expose *some*
patients
to infection. I don't care how well intentioned or prayerful he might
be....no
sane/modern person would.....it is dangerous neglect....pure and
simple....and the
cause of hearty and reasonable concern.

>not that the AO
> *has* been unjust so much that it might become more so if things don't
> change or at least get acknowledged. Of course, I understand your
> concern that the AO *has* been unjust in the past- who wouldn't be?-
> but each case is unique and should be looked at with a spiritually
> discerning eye.

With all the respect and restraint I can muster.....this is bunk, piffle,
crap.
I cannot express sufficiently my dismay and disgust for the propensity
of Baha'is to invoke 'Spiritual Principles' in response to the absence
of 'Procedural Safeguards'. It is offensive in the extreme.
In the past I have gone so far as to deem such behavior as constituting
no more than 'Spiritual Masturbation' and I do so again here.

Here is the "core" of my concern....played out again as it has been so many
countless times before....I speak to you of broad fair due process-and you
evoke
the need for a case specific "spiritually discerning eye".
There in a nutshell is the core of 'Baha'iThink'...."if there is something
wrong it
must be a 'spiritual' problem requiring a 'spiritual' investigation and the
application
of an individual 'spiritual' solution...................SPIRITUAL
MASTURBATION.

From day one, years ago, when I first experienced a serious unsubstantiated
allegation from a fellow Baha'i...found myself surrounded by 'spiritual
people'
who embraced 'quietude' in the face of abuse of a fellow member....found
myself denied the opportunity to respond to the allegation...found my self
in
a community that immediately reached for the 'spiritual solution' and
invited
all, aggressor and victim, to "Hold hands and visualize the purifying white
light of the love of God".......................and then watch the abuse
take place
again...............and again.

I hold the application of such 'spirituality', then and now, to be
contemptible.

>To make blanket accusations, that the Baha'i AO is
> categorically unjust, is an unjust statement in and of itself, IMHO.
> There is a fine line between what I agree with and what I believe.

Again......I never made such a 'blanket accusation' and I am prompted
to wonder why you might have abundant time and energy to respond to
statements that I have not made and so little time for the questions I have
asked?
I state, 'categorically' that there is nothing within Baha'i procedures to
ensure basic fair due process. That renders the pursuit of justice to be
a matter subject to chance and good intentions....any organization operating
on such a basis can only be described as derelict in its duty of care.

> >3/ Somebody beat you to the punch? I must have blinked....who, has ever,
> >responded to the issue and clearly delineated due process?
>
> I told you already, that I have no answer for that question as I am
> unqualified. That should suffice, should it not? Who knows what
> someone else's answer might be in the future? All I can tell you is
> what *I* know- and I know that I can't answer that question. In
> regards to due process, I am abdicating any supposition on what should
> be done in favor of more educated minds. Perhaps YOU could answer it
> better than I.

And I have already answered that question....and....ignored as it is, time
and
again....I invite any 'sane' Baha'i to turn their 'spiritual eye' to the
obvious absence
of procedures that would ensure fair due process AND BEGIN TO ACTIVELY
ADVOCATE THEIR IMPLEMENTATION!!!!
Starting with...."No Baha'i shall be subject to an unsubstantiated
allegation or be
denied the opportunity to know the nature or origin of a charge nor denied
the
opportunity to a fair and open hearing".

These basics require no more than the *will* to implement...
That will is obviously absent.

> >> Do not mistake silence for ingorance.
> >
> >I don't, in this context I take it to be rudeness.
>
> It is nice to know that there are people out there who can judge, from
> silence, the intentions of another person's mind.

As I advised Rick....my assessments and predictions are based on observed
behavior not on psychic ability. The pattern of denial, silence, obfuscation
and platitude is, as far as I am concerned,.......rude.

> Perhaps your crystal
> ball isn't as broken as you think. When I am rude, you'll know it-
> it'll be as clear as day-glo.

Have you considered the possibility that you have already been rude
and that 'you' did not know it?
Can you endeavor to grasp just how offensive the notion of "turning
a spiritual eye" to a basic procedural issue is? Is it conceivable, that
in the context of this issue and discussion and in the light of the prior
objections, to utter and evoke the 'spiritual eye' is a denial of Baha' u'
llahs
call to 'Justice'?.............Potentially as 'insulting' as a response
could be?

> >If I am called out or over to discuss an issue and, having engaged the
> >subject,
> >simply turn away without word or explanation....I would  consider that
> >a lapse in good manners and a failure of intellectual integrity.
> >(At least Rick tells me he is going to cut and run before he does
so....then
> >he will even come back to tell me he is going to do it again;-)
>
> It's refreshing to meet someone who doesn't always want the last word.

I never requested the "last word"....I would have been content with
advisement
of other obligations or the end of conversation.

> But, sometimes, you should be grateful for it. Furthermore, you've
> given me food for thought. Let me chew on it and stop rushing me! You
> don't want me to get the spiritual/mental equivalent to acid
> indigestion, do you?

Yes.....I want your, and every Baha'is, gut to burn with righteous
indignation
and outrage. People are leaving the faith almost as fast as they come
in...often
as a consequence of the absence of basic justice procedures.
HURRY UP.......there is no reason to delay or time to waste.

> >>Silence CAN be thoughtful.
> >
> >In the context of this discussion...am I to take it that the Baha'i
> >community
> >has been 'thinking' about whether or not it wants the procedures that
will
> >facilitate justice for over two decades?!?......For it has certainly been
> >'silent'
> >on the issue;-)
>
> No. In the context of MY reply, you are to take it that *I* prefer to
> remain silent when I have nothing to respond with. I am not perfect in
> this, but I do not like to engage in discussions when I KNOW what I
> *don't* know. I can't answer what's on the mind of the entire Baha'i
> community, or the AO- I'm simply not that perceptive. I'm all for
> justice, man, but I cannot mete out justice on the scale which would
> suit you because I am one amongst many.

"Mete out justice on the scale which would suit me"? Again we are dealing,
not with what I have said, but with what is 'projected' upon what I have
said.
I would be satisfied if I could find 'one' Baha'i....in the community or on
the net
...who would take a stand for or active role in the implementation of the
'basics'
that precede the dispensing of justice.
"One amongst many"? Jay.....each 'one' I speak to is reflective of the
'whole body'
in common preparedness to evocke the 'spiritual' in place of the practicle,
pragmatic
and essential.
(What do Baha'is do when their car runs out of petrol? Pray for mobility
none the less?;-)

> >Silence CAN be thoughtful. It CAN also be rude, evasive, a sign of
> >embarrassment,
> >intellectual and moral defeat and confusion.
>
> It's all a matter of perspective- yours or mine... and I'm kinda
> partial. Attribute whatever views you wish to me, but in the end only
> I know what's going on with me. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I 'judge' the inadequacy and dysfunction of current procedures, I 'judge'
the collective denial, silence, obfuscation and platitude, I 'judge' each
individual response to be either reflective of the culture of denial or
indicative
of a desire for change, a fair go and justice. Thus far I have found no
Baha'is
active and satisfied within the faith who are prepared to seriously take on
board the need for reform or willing to advocate same. Yet many on the
fringe, inactive or ex who hold the issue to be obvious, urgent and
consistently
denied from within. I 'judge' that to be a matter of profound sorrow.

> >If the sudden silence is never preceded or followed by an
explanation....who
> >would
> >know?;-)
>
> I dunno. Next time, try asking politely and you might get an answer.
> This is not to say that you haven't asked me politely... you haven't
> asked me at all, before now. You merely drew your own conclusions
> about me and my thoughts before being armed with information about me.

Did I? Or did I offer a range of potential explanations for and readings of
the absence of response? Did I draw a conclusion about you or have you
extrapolated that from the 'potential range'? Feel free to cite;-)

The last word is yours;-)

Rod.

> It is not my responsibility to tell you what's going on in my own head
> ALL the time- and it's not your right to know all the time, either.
> But if you'll ask, I'll generally answer- especially if I am able. If
> I don't respond fast enough for you, it's safe to ask me why.
>
> Jay



From: "Mr Mahdi" <mrmahdi@aol.com>
Subject: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Friday, September 21, 2001 11:19 AM

Greetings,

I would like for people here to discuss the impact Fred Glaysher has created by
his efforts in informing the public of certain elements within the bahai faith
he believes have twisted and perverted its teachings.  From my perspective, I
have seen that Fred' website and of course the creation of alt.religion.bahai
and talk.religion.bahai has brought in a new age in the bahai faith.  For the
first time I believe in the history of the bahai faith, the bahai faith is
being critically reviewed in a forum (the Internet) where there is basically no
control.  This created more dissenting voices and further insight into the
bahai faith as well as the lives of bahais and ex-bahais.

I personally believe that what Fred has done will have long term ramifications
and will even cause a revolution of change or at least widespread awareness of
many issues in the bahai faith that will be subject to criticism and attempts
to rectify it.

I would like to thank Fred for providing and advocating forums where knowledge
about certain opinions and interpretation of the bahai faith are available and
where people who are critical, whether they be bahai or not, can voice their
sentiments without free of being censored.

Mahdi Muhammad

https://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.htmlFrom: "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Reaper_Mk2@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Impact of Fred's website and efforts
Date: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:57 PM

Dave,

Before coming to the Internet I thought that I was the only one in the world
who saw the potential for and actual corruption within the AO.  The first
site I found on the Internet was Fred's.  you cannot imagine the reaction
when I found I was not alone.  I think that anybody with an enquiring mind
is bound to have second thoughts about the platitudes of the AO after he has
seen Fred's site and explored the many links - especially that of a certain
Professor of History.

We all know that you think the AO is just wonderful.  Fortunately not
everybody is like you!

Dermod.

"Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109211315.ab77b7f@posting.google.com...
> The internet is rapidly acquiring the reputation for being a very
> unreliable source of information.  Quantity can not substitute for
> quality.  You can find every shade of opinion on the net.  That does
> not make them all valid.
>
> I have sent several seekers to Fred's site.  They read it and walked
> away with a bad taste in their mouth.  Not about the Baha'i Faith but
> about Fred.  They have seen the Baha'i Community close up and none of
> the posts on Fred's site related to their experience with the Baha'is.
>
> Fred is a single voice.  He is a confrontational voice.  His methods
> have driven many people away from him.  So I hope he keeps talking
> because it will only make the experiences people have with the Baha'is
> seem that much better.
>
> Fred's impact in my view has been positive because he is the negative
> to the Baha'i positive.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Due Process and Consultation - resources
Date: Friday, October 05, 2001 12:29 AM

In fact what really saps the strength of the Faith is not

>The continued assertions by some few
> people of the errant direction taken by the Baha'i Faith in these
newsgroups

but rather the fact that these views are not engaged by the wider community
and discussed in the manner of consultation.  The rulers of the Faith have
chosen to try and cut off certain groups and points of view rather than
discuss them.

Without that it might be possible to see some of the persistent "ownership
of points of view" cease!

Cheers, Randy
--

Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CS6v7.11600$SO.2080787@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> A couple of days ago I quoted some passages from Stars of the West
> concerning this very issue. The writings clearly demonstrate that even if
> you're right, if you dispute and persist in retaining ownerhsip of your
own,
> personal point of view, you're wrong.  The continued assertions by some
few
> people of the errant direction taken by the Baha'i Faith in these
newsgroups
> is an onslaught on the very unity that this Faith is designed to generate.
>
> It might be instructive to look at a logic string, if that is the correct
> term, starting with Baha'u'llah, to 'Abdul-Baha', to Shoghi Effendi. The
> goal of unity overrides all other principles, no matter how compelling
they
> might initially appear.
>
> Baha'is must deepen on the process of consultation, for it is the only
> process by which that unity can be attained. Violation of its principles,
no
> matter how nobly that violation is couched, nor how elegantly that
deviation
> defended, leads us (back) into division.
>
> Robert A. Little
>
> "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:sm0v7.254$E51.58521@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> > Who decides what is what?  Cultural differences anyone?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > --
> >
> > Robert Little <rlittle1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:cSUu7.8777$SO.1627964@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > > Arguing is itself a significant problem, and not part of consultation.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

From: "Ron House" <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: That's right: Opinions are not banned!
Date: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:28 PM

Dave Fiorito wrote:

> Karen,

> > > That is not what I am saying.  I am saying that there is a line
> > > between voicing an opinion and calling for others to accept that
> > > opinion as the truth.  It is a line that should not be crossed.>>
> >
> > And exactly how is a person supposed to know where that line is?  That's why
> > I find the situation so unjust.  I don't approve of them pouncing on people
> > because of their opinions, but if they are going to do that, they at least
> > ought to be clear about what opinions are banned.

> Opinions are not banned.  Methods of expressing an opinion that cause
> disunity or the undrmining of the AO is the problem.

I am sorry Dave, but it is not necessary, as others seem to be doing, to
defend whether they are on one side or the other of some imaginary line.
It is _you_ and the unreflective persons in the administrative order,
who "just don't get it": If you don't like what someone says, _that is
just too bad_! Go and say some prayers until you learn the skills
necessary to deal with living in the human race. "From the clash of
differing opinions" comes the spark of truth. From the stimulation of
hearing others of differing views trying to convince us - Yes! Trying to
convince us they are right! - it is from that challenge that we
ourselves hone our own thinking, discover our own oversights, and come
to a better understanding of reality.

Now, your big, big problem in the various questions discussed commonly
here is, to put it bluntly, that the UHJ is wrong and its critics
(excepting one particular person) are mostly right - to the nearest
one-sentence approximation. Therefore any reasonable attempt to provide
evidence in support of any of the usual criticisms will naturally sound
like an overwhelming argument and, if one has a religious mind-block
that prevents one accepting the clear consequences of the evidence, then
it will of course sound like 'disunity' and 'undermining'. The truth is
the truth, though, so the more you push this barrow the sooner the
wheels will fall off.

In case you are wondering what I mean by 'the critics are right', here
is a short list of some points that come to mind as I write this over a
quick tea break. I regard the following as proven beyond reasonable
doubt:

1. The NZ NSA lied about Alison Marshall being 'counselled', and the UHJ
has, culpably and dishonestly, never corrected the lie.

2. There are widespread problems in the Baha'i administration in the
USA, and a great many heavy-handed outrages contrary to the fundamental
principles of unity have occurred, such as the denunciation of the
Dialogue magazine and the inquisition of Juan Cole. The UHJ is curiously
inactive in ever bringing any of this activity to heel.

3. By heavy-handed authoritarian tactics, the UHJ has brought continuing
criticism upon itself that is surely much worse than the original
problems; I am thinking of the various carpetings and, worse, the
expulsions from the Faith for such trivial reasons as Michael thinking
(like most Baha'is, incidentally, but saying so just a bit more
vociferously) that women should serve on the UHJ.

4. The scope of freedom of thought, belief, and expression within the
Baha'i Faith has been narrowed tragically from the wide, generous
horizons envisioned by Baha'u'llah, until the modern typical believer is
scared of his own shadow, always careful to 'vet' every comment in case
it offends some dictum from on high. The very notion that others'
comments have to conform to some standard that the AO is authorised to
lay down as to 'tone' and 'methods of expression' is contrary to
Baha'u'llah's clear teachings regarding freedom of speech. Yes,
Baha'u'llah gives us a lot of guidance as to how to speak wisely, but
that guidance does not constitute a right for _someone else_ to vet the
contents or style of any person's speech.

So, Dave, a good person like you will sooner or later run into this
conundrum. On the one hand you see and are inspired by the wonderful
truths in Baha'u'llah's revelation, but on the other, you have no good
arguments to offer to defend the current-day administrators who run the
religion. Therefore you fall back on inspecting people's 'tone of
voice', or their 'method of expression', or some such irrelevancy. That
sidetrack will only take you so far, and one day you will have to face
the actual problem. When you do, you will have a choice of being true to
reality, or taking the path of least resistance by rationalising the
wrongs that have been publicised here. If you take the latter path, you
will destroy your own integrity. You might not know you have done so,
but everything you think or do from them on will be compromised by the
built-in paradox in your own soul. If, however, you take the former
path, then expect life to be hard: for a start, the current problems
will be a severe challenge to your faith in Baha'u'llah and, perhaps,
even in God. But you will be a whole person, your mind will be sound,
and you will have grace in God, which, eventually, will result in the
real answer to every question, the true answer that wipes away every
tear, being given unto you.

-- 
Ron House     house@usq.edu.au
              https://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/houseFrom: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Morals of a Mole
Date: Monday, January 15, 2001 4:07 AM

Dear Lady,

Nima wrote about she who is variously known and described, few of which
comments are complimentary: -

>Btw, Susan,
>speaking of hypocrisy. You really think I >believed that your mole on
>Zuhur19 was actually Cal Rollins?? Good >attempt at obfuscation, babe

Should not the world know, or at least the honourable members of these
august fora, that she who is amongst the most vociferous in condemning the
forwarding of private correspondence, does not fail to stoop to the same
underhand stratagem when it serves her own purpose.  Last week we had the
spectacle of her publishing a private letter which had been sent to her by
Cal Rollins.  What we did not have was the explanation that this had been
sent to her by mistake and that Cal had written to her, on realising that a
mistake had been made, asking her to disregard the letter sent.  The dear
lady being of a dishonourable nature and finding the gossip contained in the
same letter, "too too delicious" and irresistible therefore ignored this
message and went ahead and published, thinking thereby that she had exposed
the secret of Al Marbig, the evil genius behind Brave New World and,
incidentally, put one over on Mr Mahdi, never mind enhancing her own
reputation and electoral prospects in the dreadful AO of the cult to which
she has the misfortune to belong.

The dear lady also omitted to inform the honourable members that the said
letter had been a part of an operation to expose her "mole" on Zuhur 19.  As
I made clear to her in private correspondence this had been "bait" and like
all "bait" had to be attractive - in this case, there was more than a
semblance of truth behind the letter.  I had indeed been a part of the
creation of BNW in 1994 (along with others) in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore what had appeared in the original appeared, 6 years later
online, unaltered in substance.

Cal had been asked to forward this letter to Zuhur - instead he forwarded it
to some of the members and, inadvertently, had included the dear lady in
this.  The message was intended to be picked up by the dear lady's mole and
utilised by her, to prove that she had a mole there and to identify that
mole.  Both objectives were achieved.

Whilst the dear lady might have gotten away with utilising the letter sent
to her by Cal, such is her incompetence that she also quoted verbatim from a
post only made to Zuhur.  Her intent was of course to place the blame on
Cal, whilst, of course proffering no proof of this by forwarding the message
received from him enclosing the relevant post.  To do so would, she thought
not be necessary.  Sufficient that Cal would get the blame, be expelled but
her "mole" would still be safe in place and able to continue to feed the
dear lady, or "M" as she prefers to be known, the delicious little titbits
of gossip that are her spiritual sustenance and modus operandi.

Sadly this didn't work - make no mistake, dear lady, your "mole" is known
and has two options - to heed my advice and quietly unsubscribe from Zuhur
OR be named on this forum.  Now, being a particularly vindictive person,
with somewhat of a sense of good theatre, I am not going to come straight
out and name your mole.  I think it would be much more fun if we did it bit
by bit, clue by clue.  This, of course, gives you the chance, if the clues
are wrong and indicate an innocent person, to opt for the sake of justice to
publish the post from Cal in which he leaked the information from Zuhur to
you.  I don't expect you to do that of course - right or wrong, you will
remain silent.  If I get it right, the "mole" is expendable - you'll look
for another one.  If I get it wrong - the innocent person is expendable to
protect your "mole."  Do, of course, remember dear lady that you gave me the
information in the first place - like the fact that the "mole" is a
"frilly," of the female gender as, naturellement, you are yourself!

As ever,

Dermod.

From: <almarbig@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Morals of a Mole
Date: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:17 PM

The only reason that my name cropped up was because you effectively
said it Nima.  You did everything but say my name, right from the
moment you said (on public newsgroups) I wasn’t Iranian and then
dropped every hint under the sun so that I would be revealed.  I
finally owned up to put at end to the blasted speculation.  Two people
were entrusted with a confidence and you both dropped me in it, the
minute it suited you.  I’m sorry that the Baha’is started
persecuting “innocent” people so that the “guilty” person would stand
up - that’s pretty poor, not to mention totally unbecoming a group that
is supposed to be divinely guided - but if you hadn’t have known who I
was, then you wouldn’t have had the ability to reveal it so that you
could come up trumps over Mahdi and the rest.  Knowledge is power, and
you had the knowledge Nima.

I do not believe that BNW is the reason why the Australian Baha’is are
after you, (not that I agree with the Australian NSA for what it wrote
in the Bulletin), but if it had ever come to court I would *in those
conditions* testify that you didn’t have anything to do with BNW - not
have it bandied about on some newsgroup for your own power trip.

BNW was a satirical magazine.  I thought it wasn’t a half bad effort
for a few amateurs.  I’m a big fan of Monty Python (BNW didn’t come
anywhere close, of course) and “Life of Brian” is my favourite Python
movie.  When I re-read over BNW, I realize that apart from the brouhaha
raised over it, it’s pretty innocent, and it raised some important
issues in a light-hearted way, that hopefully will have made some
people think.  For the record, my favourite is the ‘dropping of the
International Library from the Lesser Peace Arc prophecies’ piece
because the pesky Haifan residents won’t give up their homes.

At the end of the day, one of the list members had it right when they
pointed out that satirical material like this is catharctic for ex-
members.  It was for me.  I think I’ve finally gotten it into my head
that when I have anything to do with ‘Baha’i’, it only results in me
getting spiritually bogged down.  I shouldn’t have done BNW, not
because it’s uncomfortable for the Baha’i organization, but because I’m
not a part of the Baha’i world.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think some individual Baha’is that I have
come across have been wonderful people.  More power to them. (There
are, even, a few floating around on the internet, a rare species
indeed.) However, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the official Baha’i
organization will fall on its own merits because it shows all the
classic symptoms of a movement that has become a religious Amway
clone.  M. Scott Peck was right when he said that God doesn’t reside
inside organizations.  The Official Baha’i FaithTM fails all the tests
of what marks a spiritually nourishing community: it is closed and
exclusive; it sees enemies in an us/them world; it is not a group of
all leaders; it is firmly entrenched in hierarchy; it is not a safe
place for disarmament; it doesn’t tolerate natural clashes of opinion;
it doesn’t assess the state of its own health in admitting to
weaknesses; it doesn’t have joy.

On another side of things, the Talisman and Zuhur lists produce the
same actions but do it in reverse.  They see the “us/them” world from
the other side of the Baha’i coin.

It appears that the Baha’i religion would seem to produce individuals
who aren’t committed to basic ethics and morals – myself I sadly
conclude as well.  I got a bit *too* much fun out of producing BNW and
I am sorry if I have contributed to harming anyone’s spiritual growth.
I freely admit, my time would have better been spent in prayer and
consolidating my Muslim faith.  I have not been a good apologist for
Islam.

I took BNW off, finally, because I came to the conclusion that God was
hitting me over the head with the message that it wasn’t good for me to
be involved in anything Baha’i: be it the “official” version of it, or
the “liberaldissident” lists.  My being outed was the straw that broke
the proverbial.



Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Jenifer Tidwell" <jtidwell@animato.arlington.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Jenifer Tidwell - Letter to the LSA.
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:18 AM

My goodness.  I posted this letter a year and a half ago, and I'm
shocked -- shocked! -- that it took Fred this long to find it.  :-)
(Fred, I'm sorry I didn't tell you about it earlier.  I remember you
encouraged me to post it publicly back when I wrote it, but I wasn't
ready to do so then.  It took me a lot of time to get to that point,
and when I did post it, I did so quietly.)

In the past couple of days, your public discussions and private
letters have touched me deeply.  Thank you, everyone, for your
support, love, and willingness to discuss these issues.  Karen, it
sounds like you and I really are on the same wavelength; I agree with
much of what you say.  Susan, your wisdom is welcomed (though I
haven't gotten back to you yet).  And thank you, both Susan and
Abelard, for not writing me off.  :-)

In private email, someone asked me for a followup:  What happened
as a result of that letter, and what has it been like since I left?

First, the individuals in my local community handled the situation
very well.  I have seen them occasionally in the time since I left,
such as at a town interfaith celebration, and we remain on very good
terms, just like old friends ought to be!  One of them has since had
trouble with the Faith and spoke to me about it -- I'm afraid I wasn't
of much help to him, but apparently he's been dealing with some of
the same issues, and maybe my letter helped him work them out.

I have not encountered any hostility.  None.  That speaks so well of
the Baha'is, doesn't it?

On the other hand, no institution has responded to any of my specific
points.  In fact, National never send me any acknowledgement of the
letter at all (though the local LSA did) -- I just stopped receiving
mail from them, and that was that.  Odd, but typical, I thought:
wonderful individuals and community, yet unresponsive institutions.

So... where am I now?

My husband and I both attend the church I spoke of in the 1999 letter,
and we've been active members since we started.  It's a very liberal
place, with a female priest (who is a lesbian, by the way), lots of
strong women and young families and diverse ethnicities in the
congregation, plenty of opportunities for participation and service,
openness about the community's strengths and weaknesses, and plenty of
art and music (both of which I help create).

I am still learning so much about the Christian revelation that it
sometimes makes my head spin.  One of our parishioners is a Harvard
professor who studies the Gospel of Mary.  (Did you know that existed?
Along with the Gospel of Thomas, and other non-canonical books.
Fascinating stuff.)  And our priest finds interpretations of old,
familiar stories that stand the traditional meanings on their heads.
It's confusing, and it's wonderful.

Among this church's many blessings is the fact that my husband and I
are both in the same faith community!  I had missed that terribly when
I was a Baha'i and he wasn't.  Our marriage was already good, but I
think this has made it even better.  Likewise, I have become closer
to my Episcopal parents, simply because we have more in common to
talk about now.

Another blessing is the new freedoms I have.  For instance, I no
longer feel any hesitation about taking sides on political issues.
In fact, I feel now that if we *don't* take part in the political
process -- both individually and corporately -- we're not living up to
our responsibility to do God's work in this world.  (I'm talking more
about social justice, peace, and environmental issues than the nastier
right-wing stuff, don't worry.  But, ironically, I understand the
religious right better now.)

Oh -- and good wine tastes fabulous. In moderation, of course. :-)

Talking to friends and family about religious issues is easier for
me, now that I'm not under pressure to teach.  It comes much more
naturally.  Funny how that works.

The rituals that we go through every week at church still work for me.
They are rock-solid, ever-changing, comforting, disquieting, and
everything else I said in my original letter.

I believe (as I think I always have) that gay and lesbian couples are
wonderful, strong families that should be given all the love and
support they deserve.  There are several at our church, including
couples with adopted children.  It would be utterly inhumane to tell
these couples and families that their existence is morally wrong.
Or to prevent them from forming in the first place.

I have been better able to reconcile my love of the outdoors with
Christian theology than with Baha'i theology.  I won't go into the
details of that here, but I find God's Word written into the woods,
rock, snow, and mountains as much as it is written into Revelation.
That's a personal thing; I don't doubt there are Baha'is who feel the
same way.

I don't read the Writings that often anymore, though occasionally, in
meditative moments, the daily obligatory prayer comes unbidden.
(Christian prayers do, too, sometimes.)  Now that I think about it, I
do miss the Writings.  But I can't read them in quite the same way now
that I used to.  Nevertheless, I am willing to believe I was wrong
about them having "pat answers for everything," and I'm reading this
netnews discussion with eagerness...

Finally, let me share a story with you.  Last summer, having been out
of the Faith for a long time, my husband and I were driving up the
Maine coast near Kittery on a sunny afternoon.  I suggested we take a
certain back road instead of the main highway, just because it looked
interesting.  As we drove down the road, it began to look familiar.
Part of me gradually became aware of why.  I was not surprised when
we saw the sign for Greenacre finally appear before us.

"Let's go in," I suggested.  I expected that there would be some
weekend program going on, but I wanted to see the buildings again,
having not been there in many years.  As soon as we parked the car, we
saw people we knew!  And in the inn, more old friends!  We hung out
talking with them for a while, then wandered around the grounds,
soaking up the Maine sunlight.  I swear I have never seen Greenacre
that beautiful.  It was one of those mysterious, perfect events that
could never have been planned.

I'm not sure what God was trying to tell me that day.  It might have
been, "Come back to the Faith," but it might also have been, "It's OK
to be where you are.  This Faith will always be here if you need it,
even if you remain outside it for a while."

Someday I'll know.

God bless all of you who seek to understand.

- Jenifer Tidwell

P.S.  Please, continue the discussion; this is fascinating!
From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: quastion about conflicts among Bahais
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2001 5:20 PM

Paul

You've hit the nail on the head with your comment below.  The official "one
and only" Baha'i Faith only accepts people who are willing to enroll with
them and then be willing to forever turn off their brains from thinking or
criticizing anything or anyone in the Organization for the rest of their
lives.

Some on this NG repeat over and over that only those who maintain absolute
obedience to the Organization are really to be considered Baha'is.  Any one
who publicly criticizes a decision or an act of this Organization faces
delisting or shunning.  There are no other choices as far as the
Organization goes.

Cheers, Randy

--

Paul Hammond <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3a746fd2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...

> Anyway, I think the problem with Roger's view, above, is that
> it is tantamount to defining the problem out of existence.  In this
> case, the definition of a Baha'i would be of a person who is
> registered with the Baha'i organisations - which certainly makes
> sense legally, and has scriptural basis (Baha'u'llah explicitly disallowed
> the formation of rival sects in this age of increasing unity).
> But, someone who stays in the organisation, is
> virtually by definition not going to be someone who argues against
> the present direction of the organisation.  This seems a little
> unfair to the people who have dropped/been pushed out.
>
> Hmm.  Maybe I haven't expressed that quite clearly.  Certainly,
> it is possible to remain a member of an organisation, and attempt
> to change its direction from within. Abdu'l Baha, Baha'u'llah's son
> and appointed successor, is often quoted as saying that the
> spark of truth only emerges from the clash of differing opinions,
> so criticism within the Faith should be possible.
>
> All I am saying is that some people who still consider themselves
> to be Baha'is have found themselves unable to remain members
> of the Faith (or in a small number of cases have been expelled
> against their will).
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Paul
>
>

From: "Ian McCarthy" <ianmcca@tiscalinet.it>
Subject: Re: That may be the road of becoming a Real Baha'i.
Date: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:10 PM

"Susan Maneck " wrote
There was no sentence. Otherwise, she would have either lost her
administrative
rights or have been declared a Covenant breaker. It was instead decided that
she did not sufficiently meet the qualifications of membership within the
Baha'i community to be held responsible for her actions, in that sense.

An iron boot in a velvet slipper! She was kicked out after many years in the
community and despite a deep faith in its founder! Dehumanised, defined as
mentally unbalanced, "not responsible for her actions"! Not obedient enough
to be a Baha'i because obedience is all, and free thought is by definition
dangerous nonsense.

But this is wrong, Susan, it must be wrong. What kind of a community are you
trying to create if there's no room in it for different points of view?
Can't you see it's no way to unite the world? There are few enough people
becoming Bahai's as it is, without kicking the best of them out for speaking
their minds. The only reason I haven't given up altogether on the Baha'i
Faith and gone off in a huff is because of the existence of a few sensitive
and spiritually awakened souls who have made me see the finer side of the
Faith when I was washed up on the shore of Zuhur Island after a tempest out
in the sea of TRB. And these are the people who have been marginalised and
excluded by you and your heavy friends, these castaways, flotsam and jetsam
of the New World Order. You and your friends have built the walls, you have
shown them to the door, you have made them walk the plank. You have made
enemies of them and thus you have created another schism in the world, if
not yet
officially in the Faith, which is hardly important in comparison.

But we should all be together on this roller coaster ride to the Kingdom of
Heaven.
Aren't there already enough selfish people around without creating divisions
among (slightly more) spiritual
souls and world servers? Why don't you say you're sorry and let them back
into your heart and your Faith? Indeed, why don't we all stop for a moment
and give
thanks for the richness of our diversity and the learning that it brings?

When are we going to stop dividing the world into Them and Us?

Janji

----------------------------------------------------
'And as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in hell
Could break that satan's spell...'





From: <starjo8853@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Censorship foiled?
Date: Saturday, February 03, 2001 4:43 AM

Yes Fred I was behind you when you went for this unmoderated list
because I knew how the moderators thought and what their limited
guidelines were for presenting ONLY PARTY LINE THOUGHT....and I think
it is vital to have true feelings, thought, and knowledge shared. You
are a *hero upon hero's* to me in this respect. (You can see how awful
I felt when T2 came under the same kind of moderation as SRB - I gave
it a try but the same ugly pattern quickly emerged with specific
culling orders put out on me because I would not let the INEQUALITY OF
WOMEN issue drop as the top guns ordered). Of course trb attracted the
filabustering scoundrals paid by the AO to try and distroy you and it
by attacking posts and posters (as you know they still live here - but
the job pays). Interesting the way the T2 girls are palsying up with
the fundies here when they had no regard for them elsewhere. Hypocrites
everywhere.....not a favorite with Baha'u'llah but they don't seem to
care.

Star*

In article <Z_De6.273015$hD4.66223627@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
  "Patrick Henry" <patrick_Henry@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Star,
>
> I understand your experience because I've witnessed
> Juan, Susan, and other liberals and fundamentalists, in and
> out of the faith, in and out of the academic world, silence
> people for opinions they really don't want to have heard.
> Such experiences were crucial to why I fought for years
> to help create talk.religion.bahai and why I believe it
> is still the only forum in existence on the bahai faith that
> is not in effect censored at times in one way or another.
>
> Fred
>
> <starjo8853@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:95eeas$ssq$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Fred it is even worse than just censorship as the end result was
> > *shunning* a practice the people on the list say they don't
do....but
> > when you don't have a voice you are shunned. BTW Juan is always
saying
> > the Faith is founded in Islamic verities as a base and my post
simply
> > supported the Iranian influence in the Faith. I suppose Milissa
wants
> > to say the Faith has no Iranian influence ---hahahahahaaa that is
plain
> > lying. Why should Iranian Baha'is feel slurred to know that they
> > largely influence the Faith praytell?  Where WAS Milissa really
coming
> > from - the same place as her sister susan (of course milissa isn't
> > enrolled anymore so they may not be sisters).
> >
> > Thank you for understanding what I ran into in a place that I
thought
> > was free of that kind of behaviour towards its members. This is not
to
> > say that I did not benefit from the list - because I did. It was
> > educational and inconclasting of myths at times...till the killer
> > spirit of moderation showed its ugly side.
> >
> >
> > In article <37he6.270658$hD4.65500175@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>,
> >   "Patrick Henry" <patrick_Henry@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > Star is quite right here about the bias on talisman and
> > > other mailing lists devoted to the bahai faith, liberal
> > > or otherwise. Why anyone bothers to subscribe to
> > > any of them is beyond me. All of the "moderators" have
> > > their own little pet causes and protect them zealously....
> > >
> > > What Star states about Iranian bahais is no more than
> > > the truth which is banned in politically correct fundamentalist
> > > and liberal bahai newsgroups. Invariably "moderation" becomes
> > > a cover for censorship. The "liberals" are almost as guilty as
> > > the fundamentalists when it comes to suppressing views they
> > > don't want to hear....
> > >
> > > --
> > > FG
> > > www.FG.com
> > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> > > https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm
> > >
> > > "Milissa Boyer Kafes" <milissa8320@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:95bucb$n5u$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > Thanks for posting the correspondence.  I think it shows I
acted in
> > > > good faith.
> > > >
> > > > mbk
> > > >
> > > > In article <95bn8j$gg1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > >   starjo8853@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > Hi Milissa
> > > > > Seems like you still have the same problem not being able to
read
> > the
> > > > > message....and still trying to pin racism on me to all these
good
> > > > > folks. Yes I called you three women (Juan's girls) here on
trb in
> > my
> > > > > original message so I knew who you all were and what your
> > prejudices
> > > > > are toward me and why (speaking my mind). Here is your great
> > powerful
> > > > > reject letter and what Juan did about it and why it was no
longer
> > any
> > > > > good to try and get ANY message past you hypocritical
moderators
> > > > > throwing your power around....believe you passed much worse
than
> > > > > this...when you wanted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Star:
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter what I think.
> > > > >
> > > > > The proper procedure is to jointly email Alison, Milissa and
> > Rachel
> > > > with
> > > > > your appeal and ask them to formally vote on the matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > In general, I think our moderators are doing their best and
their
> > > > > instincts
> > > > > on these matters should be respected.  I think there are ways
for
> > > > Anglo
> > > > > Australian Baha'is who feel swamped by the immigrant Iranians
to
> > talk
> > > > > about
> > > > > the problems without appearing to be racists.  Milissa doesn't
> > think
> > > > you
> > > > > have succeeded, and she is the one on deck.  If you really
want to
> > > > > formally
> > > > > appeal this, you know how to proceed.  The active moderators'
> > decision
> > > > > will
> > > > > be final.
> > > > >
> > > > > cheers   Juan
> > > > >
> > > > > At 01:52 PM 1/28/00 +0800, Star* Saffa wrote:
> > > > > >MY CONTRIBUTIONS WAS NOT A FLAME BUT AN OBSERVATION - you
said we
> > > > > would be
> > > > > >able to post our ideas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Dear Juan
> > > > > >Do you agree with the rejection of my post observing the
> > sociology of
> > > > > the
> > > > > >behaviour of Persian's educated outside of Iran?  Come and
live
> > with
> > > > > second
> > > > > >and third generation Persian Baha'is living in Australia.  I
> > know the
> > > > > post
> > > > > >doesn't support what you wrote.....I don't think it is a
flame
> > and
> > > > > should
> > > > > >not be allowed to be said in relation to the discussion.
Star*
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > >From: Milissa Boyer Kafes <mbkafes@bestweb.net>
> > > > > >To: starjo@arach.net.au <starjo@arach.net.au>
> > > > > >Date: Thursday, 27 January 2000 10:35
> > > > > >Subject: Talisman9 post
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Hi Star--
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>This message is to let you know that your latest submission
to
> > > > > Talisman9,
> > > > > >"UHJ
> > > > > >>members" cannot be forwarded to the list.  It will be
perceived
> > as
> > > > > >anti-Persian
> > > > > >>racism by the list and, as such, would be considered a
flame by
> > > > many,
> > > > > many
> > > > > >people.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>This is not to judge the validity of your comments one way
or
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > >but,
> > > > > >>as moderator, I feel I cannot approve a post that would only
> > hurt
> > > > > feelings.
> > > > > >> Thanks for your understanding.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Peace
> > > > > >>Milissa
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"You can take the boy out of the country but you CAN'T  take
the
> > > > > country out
> > > > > >of the boy" Just put "Iranian" in front of boy......Take a
close
> > > > study
> > > > > of
> > > > > >the Persian's educated all over the world....and you will
find a
> > very
> > > > > close
> > > > > >link to the mother culture in the earliest memories,
alliances
> > and
> > > > > >hierarchies.  Not many marry out of their culture and set up
> > their
> > > > > >households
> > > > > >differently than the mother country......For all purposes we
> > have a
> > > > > majority
> > > > > >of Iran-think on the UHJ......Star*
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Let the good times roll-------Star*
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <959ba5$f49$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > >   Milissa Boyer Kafes <milissa8320@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Star--
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <94bs7h$b22$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > >   starjo8853@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Well Nima (fyi) while I have experienced this myself on
SRB
> > (which
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > could expect) I also experienced it on Talisman2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I cannot speak for the other moderators, only for myself, of
> > course,
> > > > > > but I remember rejecting a post of yours that I felt was
racist
> > (it
> > > > > was
> > > > > > bashing Iranians)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I felt SO SHUNNED as I was very fond of the
> > > > > > > people at T2 and in sympathy with many of the arguments
> > presented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Didn't you resubscribe to T2 under a different name?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >So
> > > > > > > the people that are complaining about the unjust
behaviour in
> > the
> > > > > > Faith
> > > > > > > carry out the same injustices when it suits them to
advance
> > their
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > claims and wish to silence outspoken women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, sister, this won't work.  The moderators at the time
> > were all
> > > > > > women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peace,
> > > > > > Milissa
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > > > > https://www.deja.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > "Look within and you will find Me standing there Mighty,
> > Powerful, and
> > > > > Selfsubsisting".......Baha'u'llah, Arabic HW #13
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > > > https://www.deja.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > > https://www.deja.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > "Look within and you will find Me standing there Mighty, Powerful,
and
> > Selfsubsisting".......Baha'u'llah, Arabic HW #13
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > https://www.deja.com/
>
>

--
"Look within and you will find Me standing there Mighty, Powerful, and
Selfsubsisting".......Baha'u'llah, Arabic HW #13

Sent via Deja.com
https://www.deja.com/From: "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: Al Marbig & BNW
Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:19 PM

Dear Dr Manek, Mr Mahdi, Moojan Momen (in absentia),

For personal reasons I had left Zuhur and Talisman in early December,
a fact which can be confirmed by Nima et al. and expected to be off
for a very considerable period of time.  However I was advised that my
name had come up in speculative posts on TRB/ARB linking me to Al
Marbig and BNW.

Indeed yesterday I received, along with some others, mail from Mr
Momen stating that he thought that an "ex-Bahai from Northern Ireland"
was involved in BNW.  In as much as I was the only "ex-Bahai from
Northern Ireland" to whom the mail was addressed I am driven to the
conclusion that I am indeed that "ex-Bahai from Northern Ireland" to
whom he refers.  The speculation is indeed fascinating and extremely
flattering!  It is indeed an
honour to be hailed as the evil genius who has diverted you all, from
your most important work for the AO, to the hunt for Al Marbig and/or
the perps of BNW.  I thank you, most sincerely and humbly, for the
compliment implied.

Mr Momen doubtless has contacts amongst the local yokels who can
testify as to my charecter.  To them, I am indeed evil incarnate, a
combination
of the Gorgon and Medusa, complete with trident, horns, fangs, claws
and cloven hooves.  Some seem to believe that, indeed, I am he, of
whom it was prophesied, "And I looked and beheld a pale horse: and his
name that sat on him was Death
and Hell followed with him" - Revelation - Chapter 7 Verse 8.  (More
perceptive BIGS can see the clear allusion of this prophecy to me you
know, the whole "Ryder/Grim Reaper" thing).  Those who know me know
that I do not bend the knee before the AO.  Were I the evil genius
behind BNW it would still be on the Web but you can all go along and
look at https://www.bahai.us.com and
https://www.geocities.com/bob_along_henderson/ and see for yourselves
that BNW has disappeared without trace.  Kind of wrecks your theory -
does it not?

I think that BNW was plotted by an ambitious AOnik - after all the
kudos of apparently locating Al Marbig and/or removing his appalling
organ from the Net must augur well for promotional hopes within
the pit of the AO.  Put up a scurrilous mag which really gets up the
noses at Haifa etc. (using anonymisers for safety) - scour the Net
looking for yourself, announce you've discovered the dreadful liberal
culprit who is "ex-Bahai from Northern Ireland" and that you have
prevailed upon him to take the mag off the Net.  Oh Joy!  Oh Rapture!
A standing ovation (and votes) at National Convention for the hero of
the hour who smote the dreaded ones. Triple Brandies (or equivalent -
sorry! but I don't know how BIGs celebrate or, indeed, if they do
celebrate) all round!  I could be wrong of course!  It's only a theory
but it's a damned good one, although I say so myself.  Only mistake
was to take BNW down - you can't pin it on me then as I am a well
known mad dog who wouldn't urinate on an AOnik if he was on fire!

Now people - don't bore me anymore.  I have pressing reasons to be
away from this accursed spot and the assorted AOniks and fundie dross.
Unlike most of you I have experience, up close and personal, of the
type of religion that divides - you know the kind that Abdul Baha
abhorred, driven by fundie control freaks and purveyors of hatred.
Your BF can't even unite its own - how the blue bloody blazes are you
going to unite the world?  As for you Mr Mahdi - people like you make
people like me hate people like you, which, in all probability, is
what
you have set out to achieve in the first place - so, take a well
deserved bow!

Go bpléasca an diabhal do dhiosca crua

As ever,

Dermod.



July 13, 2001

Re: Second Judicial District County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, Deborah Buchhorn, for
Herself and for Minority Members of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, Plaintiffs, Vs. No. Cv 2001-01978 Trustees of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, a Non-profit Corporation, and the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the
United States, an Illinois Corporation, Defendants. 
                                   

I

I request the Court to consider my testimony as amicus curiae on July 18, 2001, in the Motion to
Dismiss Deborah Buchhorn's lawsuit against the Bahai Local Spirtual Assembly of Albuquerque
and the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States.

I converted to the Bahai Faith in 1976 and have never withdrawn from it nor been notified
otherwise by the Bahai administration.
                              

II

I, like many Bahais, was and am attracted to the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha by
the progressive and liberal tenor of their writings. Relevant to Deborah Buchhorn's lawsuit are
the almost numberless passages that are well represented by two brief quotations:

          These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be
     respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals,
     improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Abdul-Baha,
     A Traveler's Narrative, 91. 

          When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say,
     when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his
     beliefs--development and growth are inevitable. Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of
     Universal Peace, 197. 

Like many Bahais, the young person I was more than twenty-five years ago trusted these words
indicated how the Bahai Faith itself would conduct its own affairs. Unfortunately, Deborah
Buchhorn's experience, suggested through the details of her lawsuit, demonstrate the lived reality
of everyday Bahai community life for all too many of its members.

                              III
                                

The many other victims of fundamentalists among my fellow Bahais include Indiana University
Professors Linda and John Walbridge, editor of Dialogue magazine Stephen Scholl, its other
editors, the Bahai Encyclopedia editors who resigned in protest over the distortion of many
historical facts, David Langness, Professor Juan Cole of the Department of History of the
University of Michigan, Canadian writer Michael McKenny, Nima Hazini, former Assistant to
the Auxiliary Board Paul Dodenhoff, New Zealander Alison Marshall for writing a critique of
Bahai publishing and censorship, and Australian Olympic champion Cathy Freeman.

I urge the Court seeking to understand the Bahai Faith to consider the experience and views of
the Bahais and ex-Bahais mentioned above. Many of their testimonies may be found on my
website, The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, which I created in May of 1998 as
a means of documenting the pervasive abuse of the liberty and freedom of conscience extolled 
by the Founders of the Bahai Faith. The over 30 megabytes of information that I have collected
can leave little doubt for a fair-minded person that there are indeed very serious reasons for
concern about the wide discrepancy that exists between the written and publicly proclaimed aims
and goals of the Bahai Faith and the actual experience of many such Bahais, like Deborah
Buchhorn, with persistent fraud and character assassination.

Since Bahai fundamentalists have always relied on their ability to operate one way in one
country and another elsewhere, and because the Internet now no longer makes it possible with
impunity, they have mounted for several years a concerted campaign of fraud and libel on such
sites as AOL, the Usenet newsgroups soc.religion.bahai, talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
www.beliefnet.com, many email lists, and elsewhere to discredit and malign independent and
diverse voices. Again, the details of Deborah Buchhorn's allegations merely read like more of
the same old story.
                                                            

                               IV
                                

Far from the Court dismissing Deborah Buchhorn's lawsuit, it is the ardent wish of this Bahai,
and I know of many Bahais and non-Bahais, that justice receive a hearing. While her allegations
may surprise the inexperienced and uniformed about the Bahai Faith, every single detail of Ms.
Buchhorn's lawsuit reads like old news to me, and I'm sure many other Bahais. In my opinion
nothing she alleges hasn't already happened many, many times to other Americans, and Bahais
elsewhere in the world, and has been documented repeatedly. What is unusual in her case is that
she and her attorney Yorgos Marinakis have the stamina, courage, and strength of character to
withstand the ferocious onslaught of fraud and libel so routinely meted out by the most fanatical
and intolerant elements of the Bahai administration.

I appeal to the Court to grant Deborah Buchhorn a just and full hearing.

     
FG

The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/index.htmSubject: NM Lawsuit - Amicus Curiae
Date: 7/27/2001 12:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Glayshf
Message-id: <20010727125547.18827.00000008@mb-mv.aol.com>

FEDXed to the Second Judicial District County of Bernalillo, State of New
Mexico:

July 13, 2001

Re: Second Judicial District County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, Deborah Buchhorn, for
Herself and for Minority Members of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, Plaintiffs, Vs. No. Cv 2001-01978 Trustees of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, a Non-profit Corporation, and the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of
the United States, an Illinois Corporation, Defendants. 
                                   

I

I request the Court to consider my testimony as amicus curiae on July 18, 2001, in the Motion to
Dismiss Deborah Buchhorn's lawsuit against the Bahai Local Spirtual Assembly of Albuquerque
and the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States.

I converted to the Bahai Faith in 1976 and have never withdrawn from it nor been notified
otherwise by the Bahai administration.
                              

II

I, like many Bahais, was and am attracted to the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha by the
progressive and liberal tenor of their writings. Relevant to Deborah Buchhorn's lawsuit are the
almost numberless passages that are well represented by two brief quotations:

These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be 
respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, 
improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Abdul-Baha, A
Traveler's Narrative, 91. 

When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail--that is to say, when
every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs--development
and growth are inevitable. Abdul-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197. 

Like many Bahais, the young person I was more than twenty-five years ago trusted these words
indicated how the Bahai Faith itself would conduct its own affairs. Unfortunately, Deborah
Buchhorn's experience, suggested through the details of her lawsuit, demonstrate the lived reality
of everyday Bahai community life for all too many of its members.

                              III
                                

The many other victims of fundamentalists among my fellow Bahais include Indiana University
Professors Linda and John Walbridge, editor of Dialogue magazine Stephen Scholl, its other
editors, the Bahai Encyclopedia editors who resigned in protest over the distortion of many
historical facts, David Langness, Professor Juan Cole of the Department of History of the
University of Michigan, Canadian writer Michael McKenny, Nima Hazini, former Assistant to
the Auxiliary Board Paul Dodenhoff, New Zealander Alison Marshall for writing a critique of
Bahai publishing and censorship, and Australian Olympic champion Cathy Freeman.

I urge the Court seeking to understand the Bahai Faith to consider the experience and views of
the Bahais and ex-Bahais mentioned above. Many of their testimonies may be found on my
website, The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, which I created in May of 1998 as
a means of documenting the pervasive abuse of the liberty and freedom of conscience extolled 
by the Founders of the Bahai Faith. The over 30 megabytes of information that I have
collected can leave little doubt for a fair-minded person that there are indeed very serious reasons
for concern about the wide discrepancy that exists between the written and publicly proclaimed
aims and goals of the Bahai Faith and the actual experience of many such Bahais, like Deborah
Buchhorn, with persistent fraud and character assassination.

Since Bahai fundamentalists have always relied on their ability to operate one way in one
country and another elsewhere, and because the Internet now no longer makes it possible with
impunity, they have mounted for several years a concerted campaign of fraud and libel on such
sites as AOL, the Usenet newsgroups soc.religion.bahai, talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
www.beliefnet.com, many email lists, and elsewhere to discredit and malign
independent and diverse voices. Again, the details of Deborah Buchhorn's allegations merely
read like more of the same old story.                                                            

                               IV
                                

Far from the Court dismissing Deborah Buchhorn's lawsuit, it is the ardent wish of this Bahai,
and I know of many Bahais and non-Bahais, that justice receive a hearing. While her allegations
may surprise the inexperienced and uniformed about the Bahai Faith, every single detail of Ms.
Buchhorn's lawsuit reads like old news to me, and I'm sure many other Bahais. In my opinion
nothing she alleges hasn't already happened many, many times to other
Americans, and Bahais elsewhere in the world, and has been documented repeatedly. What is
unusual in her case is that she and her attorney Yorgos Marinakis have the stamina, courage, and
strength of character to withstand the ferocious onslaught of fraud and libel so routinely meted
out by the most fanatical and intolerant elements of the Bahai administration.

I appeal to the Court to grant Deborah Buchhorn a just and full hearing.
     
FG
the Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience


Subject: Baha'i Epochs
Date: 1/29/2001 2:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Smaneck
Message-id: <20010129024623.05802.00003149@ng-cg1.aol.com>

Dear friends,

Earlier someone had asked about the various Baha'i Epochs. I was able to locate the following
article on this topic. 

warmest, Susan

Epochs explained

(From Rodney Clarken's education list,
https://www-instruct.nmu.edu/education/rclarken/)

Since the House announced the Fifth Epoch of the Formative Age, I have had
several people ask about what it means and for background on the epochs.
Below is the best description I have come across and refers to references
where the House has explained earlier epochs.

Forwarded by Riaz Khadem via Shahla.

_____________

A number of the friends have inquired into the meaning of the Universal
House of Justice' announcement of the beginning of the Fifth Epoch of the
Formative Age of the Faith. While the full meaning of this announcement
will be revealed with time, it is instructive to read the description of the
previous epochs of the formative age as described by the House of Justice
itself in *Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1963-1986.* 

"Epoch" is a term used by the Beloved Guardian to describe
progressive stages in the evolution of the organic Baha'i community and
signal the maturation of its institutions, allowing the Faith to operate at
new levels and to initiate new functions. Here is a description of the
stages in the evolution of the Faith, using these epochs as demarcations of
maturation:

The Epochs of the Apostolic & The Heroic Age of the Dispensations of the Bab
and Baha'u'llah:

1844-1853: The Epoch of the Bab
1853-1892: The Epoch of Baha'u'llah
1892-1921: The Epoch of Abdul-Baha

The Epochs of the Formative Age of the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah:

1921-1944/6: The First Epoch
Birth and the primary stages in the erection of the framework of the Administrative Order of the
Faith, with the formation of local and national institutions in all five continents. Began with
naming of Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian of the Cause, his careful instruction of the community
in the principles of Baha'i administration, and led to the inception of the First Seven Year Plan
(1937-1944) of the North American Baha'i community, the first
systematic teaching campaign in the history of the Faith, which inaugerated the execution of the
Tablets of the Divine Plan.

1946-1963: The Second Epoch
Under the guidance of Shoghi Effendi, involved the formulation of a succession of national
teaching plans designed to facilitate the development of the Faith beyond the confines of the
Western Hemisphere and the continent of Europe. Marked by the inception of the second Seven
Year Plan in America (1946-1953) and the worldwide Ten Year Crusade (1953-1963), involving
twelve national plans, and achieved the appointment of the Hands of the Cause, the
appointment of Auxiliary Boards, and the establishment of the International Baha'i Council,
concluding in the election of the Universal House of Justice.

1963-1986: The Third Epoch
Led by the Universal House of Justice, witnessed the emergence of the Faith from obscurity, the
initiation of activities designed to foster social and economic development, the creation of the
institution of the Continental Boards of Counsellors and the International Teaching Centre, the
appointment of assistants to Auxiliary Board Members, and the construction and occupation by
the Universal House of Justice of its Seat on Mt. Carmel. Launched three
worldwide plans: the Nine Year Plan (1964-1973) the Five Year Plan (1974-1979) and the Seven
Year Plan (1979-1986).

1986-2001: The Fourth Epoch
Witnessed the formulation of the specific goals for each national community through
consultation of the National Spiritual Assemblies and the Continental Boards of Counsellors.
Began with the Six Year Plan (1986-1992), and continued through the Holy Year (1992-1993) to
the Three Year Plan (1993-1996), the Four Year Plan (1996-2000) and the Twelve Month Plan
(2000-2001).

2001- : The Fifth Epoch
Via internalizing and integrating the lessons and experiences of systematization witnessed an
unparalleled unity of thought in the institution of the Counsellors. Saw the completion of the Arc
on Mt. Carmel, a change in the Baha'i culture due to the emergence of training institutes, and the
synchronization of institutional collaboration with the external processes toward world unity.

**All the Epochs are described in length in *Messages from the Universal House of Justice
1963-1986,* Pgs 710 -716 Para 451.1 - 451.14

As we reflect upon the significance of this Fifth Epoch, we may wish to contemplate what
marvels will mark this period as the Baha'i community extends to its grassroots-at the level of the
Local Spiritual Assemblies and the Auxiliary Board Members and their assistants in a united,
systematic process of growth-the collaboration between the institutions of the rulers and learned
in the training institutes which have contributed to a dramatic change in
the culture of the Baha'i community around the world.

warmest, Susan

https://www.susanmaneck.com


AOL's allowing the fundamentalists among our fellow bahais to 
run 
the messages boards is neither FUN nor ENTERTAINING.... 

Please stop the basic violation, year after year, of our very basic 
constitutional rights, both those of fellow Bahais, such as myself, 
and non-Bahais on AOL.... 

The bahai community leader is harassing me trying to suppress all knowledge 
and discussion about the major lawsuit against the bahai faith recently filed 
in New Mexico. Please ask him to desist. 

FULL TEXT: 
New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL 3/2/2001 
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/NMLawsuit.htm 
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/NMLawsuitResponse.htm 

This volunteer leader regularly abuses his position and uses it to silence 
and attack people with whom he and the more fundamentalist-minded among my 
fellow Bahais disagree. 

Professor Juan Cole, of the University of Michigan, 
discusses related issues in his journal article "The 
Baha'i Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997": 
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm 

It should be noted by the non-bahai observer, especially anyone involved 
with 
AOL, that the "community leader" regularly TOSes or removes links from 
people 
whose views he opposes but allows other fundamentalists to post links to 
fundamentalist sites and events.... 

A clear example of the way AOL is manipulated and freedom of speech and 
conscience are regularly DAMAGED by AOL's indulgence. 

--FG 
www.FG.com 
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience 
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/index.htm 
From: "BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
Subject: bahai - Victim Rollcall
Date: Friday, April 27, 2001 7:14 AM

The latest victim is Deborah Buckhorn. Her story may be read at
New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL 3/2/2001
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/NMLawsuit.htm

The many other victims of bahai fundamentalists include Indiana University
Professors Linda and John Walbridge, editor Stephen Scholl, other editors of
Dialogue magazine, the Bahai Encyclopedia editors who resigned in protest,
David Langness, Professor Juan Cole of the History Department of the
University of Michigan, writer Michael McKenny, Nima Hazini, former
Assistant to the Auxiliary Board Paul Dodenhoff, Alison Marshall for writing
a critique of bahai publishing and censorship, and most recently Australian
Olympic champion Cathy Freeman....

David Horowitz's observations in his book Radical Son apply equally well to
bahai fundamentalism: "I, too, had to face the savage personal attacks by my
former comrades that were designed to warn others to remain within the
fold" (2).

I urge the perceptive reader seeking to understand the bahai faith to
consider the experience and views of the bahais and ex-bahais mentioned
above. Many of their testimonies may be found on my bahai webpage below.

Since bahai fundamentalists have always relied on their ability to operate
one way in one country and another elsewhere and the Internet now no
longer makes it possible, they have mounted a concerted campaign on
Usenet to discredit and malign diverse voices.

Their slandering me for "spamming" won't prevent perceptive people who
even glance at the record from realizing what's really going on in their
desperate attempt to prevent people in Israel, Iran, and elsewhere from
knowing what is actually taking place in bahai cirlces around the world.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/index.htm


From: "Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com>
Subject: An Apology to Fred
Date: Monday, September 17, 2001 12:51 PM

Fred,

After some careful thought I wish to apologize for the harsh language
and tone of my recent posts.  I was speaking from a place of anger and
used words that showed neither tact nor wisdom.

I am sorry.

Cheers,

DaveFrom: "Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Monday, September 17, 2001 10:23 AM

"BIGS - Bahai in *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message news:<9nviii$9oik9$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de>...
> https://www.angelfire.com/mi3/bahai/hate15.htm

Fred,

You do not have my permission to reproduce that post.  You are
violating my copyright and you must remove it from your website or you
will be hearing from my lawyer.

Dave
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Fiorito" <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.bahai
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: something Fred posted on Beliefnet

> Little Better Than the Terrorists     

>  FG 
> 9/14/01 7:51 AM  1 out of 2   
>  
> Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
> articulated in the Writings....

> FG




> -----------------------------------

> To: Fred
> From: the white hot ball of anger in my gut.


> In the past you were just a pain.  I welcomed your voice as proof that
> the First Amendment works.  I never did agree with you but that is the
> way of this world.  I never wanted you to go away.  You are the
> negative to the Baha'i positive.

> Not now.  Not after that comment above.  You are a fucking asshole. 
> You are a egomaniacal sociopathic shit head of the highest order. 
> This is not character assasination because you have no character to
> assassinate.  You are worthless.

> How dare you compare people who are at this moment gathering their
> resources to help rescue their fellow world citizens from the twited
> wreckage left in the wake of that horrifically evil deed.  Baha'is in
> NYC and in New Jersey have gone to Manhatten to volunteer.  Others are
> gathering goods and money for the tough task of recovery.  Baha'is are
> working to heal the wounds.

> All you want to do is inflict more pain.

> You are evil.

> You are a fucking coward.

> You make me sick.

 


From - Mon Apr 07 07:52:57 1997
>From 72110.2126@compuserve.com Mon Mar 31 08:02:54 1997
Received: by dub-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
     id LAA02277; Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:03:08 -0500
Date: 31 Mar 97 11:01:49 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@CompuServe.COM>
To: <FG@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Open Letter: UHJ (Universal House of Justice): talk.religion.bahai
Message-ID: <970331160148_72110.2126_JHR55-1@CompuServe.COM>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0014
Content-Length: 2730

Dear Frederick,

Your letter to the House made me want to write to you and tell you that I
admire your commitment to expressing the truth as you see it.  I, too, have
had a very difficult time remaining a Baha'i in the face of administrative
campaigns to silence and slander me when I attempted to facilitate open
dialogue within a Baha'i context.

I did not hear, perhaps because I've been on vacation, what the final
outcome of the vote for talk.religion.bahai turned out to be.  I'm assuming
from your letter to the House that it was not favorable.  And since I just
returned from a visit with my family to Harper's Ferry, where John Brown's
revolt on behalf of the slaves was met with scant slave support, that
decision resounds with a deep irony for me.  The Baha'is at large have no
idea about the extent to which speech and writing are coerced and censored
within the Faith, so they themselves are able to vote for the status quo
without a clue as to how such tactics have hampered the growth of the Faith.
Sad indeed.

But Brown's revolt, while tactically unsuccessful, helped start a process
of conflict and awareness that culminated in the Civil War and in the
eventual abolishment of slavery.  Hopefully those of us who recognize the
need for change within the culture of the Faith can accomplish something
similiar if we only persevere.  Accordingly, I hope that your letter to 
the House, along with the 200 or so I know they have received recently on
similiar subjects, will help move people in the direction of freedom and
open expression.

I would advise you to be careful about any meetings, calls or correspondence
with Hoda Mahmoudi, who used to be an ABM here in Southern California.  She
is quite conservative, and sees herself -- as do many of the appointed
branch, sadly -- as a staunch defender of the Faith and the faithful, able
and more than willing to marginalize people like you and I to discredit our
ideas.  This cultlike practice of shunning and casting out any dissidents
has unfortunately become the chief tactic of those fundamentalist Baha'is
bent on maintaining the current leadership.  My worry is that the more
progressive Baha'is like Juan Cole and Steve Scholl and yourself will all
leave the Faith and thereby increase the power of the conservatives.

So I hope that your letter to the House doesn't indicate that you are
withdrawing from the Faith, although it seems to hint in that direction.
I hope that you can find a way to stay in and help us progressive types in
our struggle -- but I will certainly understand if the fascists force 
yet another one out.  My best to you in this difficult and troubled time.

Love,

David Langness
From: "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
Subject: Re: Yes but, who are the Fundamentalists anyway?
Date: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:35 AM

<long essay snipped>

--

It looks like I'll have to trot out a version of this post from time to time
as a permanent feature of this NG.

--

The 9 typologies of Fundamentalism (according to the high 'doyens' of
Fundamentalism studies in the Academy, Marty/Appleby):

1) Fundamentalism mounts a protest against the marginalization of religion
in
secularizing societies.

2) Fundamentalism *selectively* reshapes the religious tradition (i.e. it
may represent
itself as a restatement of the essence of the religion, but in fact it picks
and chooses from the tradition) and it accepts some aspects of modernity
while rejecting others.

3) Fundamentalism sees the moral world as divided sharply into good and
evil.

4)  Fundamentalism emphasizes the absolutism and inerrancy of its scriptures
(and thus
rejects Western critical academic scholarship on that corpus).

5) Fundamentalism has a millennialist emphasis.

6) Fundamentalism has an elect, chosen membership.

7) Fundamentalism draws sharp boundaries between the saved and the sinful.

8) Fundamentalism maintains an authoritarian, charismatic leadership
structure.

9)  Fundamentalism has strict behavioral requirements for its people.

In another important work on the fundamentalist phenomena in
Christianity, Judaism and  Islam, i.e. _The Defenders of God: The
Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age_  (Columbia SC: 1995),
Professor Bruce B. Lawrence of Duke University (Religious Studies) points
out that,

Fundamentalism is the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and
absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed
through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates
derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced (p. 27).

Earlier he pointed out,

Fundamentalism is shaped both by its interaction with modernity and its
reaction against modernism. It is a two-way, not a one-way, exchange. It
affects "secular humanists" as well as their fundamentalist opponents. And
it is an exchange that has taken place, and continues to take place, on a
global scale, drawing into its orbit all religious traditions not just Islam
[Judaism or Christianity] (p xiv).

Later on he notes,

...Fundamentalist challenges have arisen in several traditions. One could
locate cadres that are Sikh or Buddhist, _Baha'i_ [he references Denis
Maceoin's "Baha'i Fundamentalism and the Western Academic Study of the Babi
Movement"] or Hindu (p. 6).

On pp. 100-101 Lawrence delineates the common "traits" of fundamentalists:

1. Fundamentalists are advocates of a pure minority viewpoint against a
sullied majority or dominant group. They are the righteous remanant turned
vanguard, and even when the remanant/vanguard seizes political power and
seems to become a majority, as happened in Iran in 1979, they continue to
perceive and project themselves as a minority.

2. Fundamentalists are oppositional. They do not merely disagree with their
enemies, they confront them. While the evil Other is an abstract sense of
anomie or uprootedness, it is located in particular groups who perpetuate
the prevailing "secular" ethos. Fundamentalists confront those secular
people who exercise political or judicial power. Often they also confront
"wayward" religious professionals [or percieved "wayward" scholars or
intellectuals].

3. Fundamentalists are secondary-level male elites. They claim to derive
authority from a direct, unmediated appeal to scripture, yet because
interpretive principles are often vague, they must be carried by charismatic
leaders who are invariably male. Notions of a just social order in Iran, or
a halakhic polity in Israel, or a Christian civilization in America require
continuous, repeated reinterpretation. In each instance what seems to an
outsider to be arbitrary retrieval of only some elements from a common past
is to fundamentalists the necessary restoration of an eternally valid divine
mandate. And it is a mandate mediated through exclusively male interpretors.

4. Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary. Reflecting the
polysemy of language, they use special terms that bind insiders to each
other, just as they prempt interference from outsiders. Halakha for Jews,
shari'a for Muslims, [the "covenant" or "infallibility" for Baha'is], and
"creation" for Christians represent...[four]...terms, each of which would be
open to several interpretations but which fundamentalists invest with
particular meaning that exceptionalizes, even as it appears to validate,
their ideological stance.

5. Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological precursors.
As Marc Bloch warned, one should never confuse ancestry with explanation.
Though the antecedents of fundamentalism are varied and distant - Maccabean
revolt for Jews, the Protestant Reformation for Christians, the Wahhabi
revolt for Sunnis Muslims, the martyrdom of Husayn for Shi'is -
fundamentalism as a religious ideology is very recent. It did not emerge in
Protestant America until the end of the last century. It has only become
apparent in Judaism during the last fifty years, and since it represents a
delayed reaction to the psychological hegemony of European colonial rule, it
could only occur in majoritarian Muslim countries after they had become
independent nation-states, that is, in most instances, after World War II.

So given all this, it is a rather big non sequitor (i.e. fallacy of
reasoning) to assert that fundamentalism is merely a Western boggeyman ploy
or that Armstrong and others who are studying the phenomena are conflating
or misconstruing nationalism and religious identity assertion and lumping
them all under a tenuously common rubric. For the reasons stated above, the
global phenomenon of fundamentalism is a very real one and one only need
look at the the IRI or the Taliban regime as two sore thump examples of its
presence and existence.

The discourse of Liberalism (as opposed to Fundamentalism) makes the
following set of assumptions,

1. Discursive dynamicity (i.e. liberal discourse) is the product of a
continuous process of rational discourse.

2. Rational discourse is possible even among those who do not share the same
culture, religion, belief system nor even the same ideological
consciousness.

3.Rational discourse can produce mutual understanding and
cultural/philosophical consensus, as well as sometimes agreement on
particulars.

4. Consensus permits of stable social arrangements, and is the rational
basis of the choice of coherent strategies.

5. Rational strategic choice is the basis of improving the human condition
possibly through collective action.

6. Liberalism as such can exist only where and when its social and
intellectual prerequisites exist.

What is Baha'i Fundamentalism

The first major ideological characteristic of fundamentalism, is a reaction
against the marginalization of religion in secular societies.  Among Baha'i
fundamentalists, this reaction takes the form of a belief in a future
theocracy, in which they expect Baha'i ecclesiastical institutions to take
over the civil state, and which differentiates them from Baha'i liberals and
moderates.  The belief appears to be rooted primarily in oral traditions
attributed to Shoghi Effendi and letters written on his behalf by
secretaries, since although he does speak of a future Baha'i
commonwealth in his published works, its character remains vague.  Hand of
the Cause John Robarts reported his version of a long conversation with
Shoghi Effendi expatiating on this idea (Robarts 1993).  Some Baha'is
believed that he held that a melding of religion and state would not occur
during the thousand-year dispensation of Baha'u'llah himself, but only
toward the end of the Baha'i "cycle," of some 500,000 years (Hofman 1953).
There are two problems for Baha'i fundamentalists.  The first is that
Baha'u'llah's own writings, and those of `Abdul-Baha are frankly
anti-theocratic.  The second is that in Baha'i law, oral traditions are
supposed to be discounted in favor of written texts. Fundamentalists thus
tend to hew to generalities when explaining their belief, lacking scriptural
support.

The second feature of fundamentalism is selectivity.  Fundamentalists
select and reshape aspects of the tradition, all the while asserting that
they have recaptured its pristine essence.  They are also selective in
their responses to modernity.  They embrace some aspects of it (such as
certain types of technology), while vehemently rejecting others.  Baha'i
fundamentalists engage in all three types of selectivity as well.  They
frequently make a claim to be engaging in traditional practices that are in
fact innovations, and can do so with some success because the history and
texts of the Baha'i faith are relatively little studied and authorities
have often actively suppressed historical sources.  We have already
mentioned the problem that theocratic beliefs are unscriptural. That is, the
scriptural tradition in the Baha'i faith strove for a separation of religion
and state as a way of making room for liberty of conscience for Baha'is in
Shi`ite Iran (McGlinn 1999, Cole 1998c:17-47). In his Treatise on Leadership
of the early 1890s `Abdul-Baha said that religious institutions, including
Baha'i ones, are never to intervene in affairs of state or political matters
unbidden, and that whenever in history they have done so it has resulted
in a huge disaster. (`Abdul-Bahain Cole 1998a).  He clearly envisaged the
state and religious institutions as complementary, "like milk and honey."

Baha'is, including Baha'i fundamentalists, have for the most part embraced
modernity.  They have a vision of building a peaceful global society and for
the most part have a positive view of technological advances.   Still,
the selectivity of Baha'i fundamentalists toward modernity can be witnessed
in the severe misgivings that some of them have expressed about the
Internet" or such issues as democracy and the separation of religion and
politics.

Fundamentalist Baha'is put special emphasis on moral Manichaeanism.  They
see the world as comprised of a small cadre of those "firm in the Covenant."
They....admit a larger number of Baha'is who are "infirm" but
perhaps not dangerously so.  They worry about smaller numbers of "liberal"
or "dissident" Baha'is who [they believe] attempt to "undermine" the
Covenant.

Baha'i fundamentalism puts great emphasis on the absolutism and inerrancy
of scripture.  This belief is quite widespread but not universal.  It is
tested most fiercely with regard to issues such as evolution.  `Abdul-Baha
maintained, in Sufi and Neoplatonic fashion, that human beings have always
been a distinct species and that human beings are not animals, insofar as
they are endowed with a soul.  He also argued that the morphological
similarities between humans and apes might be merely functional (e.g, sharks
and porpoises resemble one another but are not immediately related), and
maintained that "the missing link" would never be found.  These
assertions have foundered against the DNA revolution, which has found that
humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share 98 percent of the same genes and are
clearly closely related.  During a discussion of his statements on
evolution, a typical poster to SRB wrote,  "Dear all, On the topic of
evolution: Clearly we should understand as clearly as possible what
'Abdul-Baha says on this subject. Because we believe His statements on
matters pertaining to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah and all of creation are
infallible, we must be clear about what it is we believe, or are accepting"
(SRB 6 July 1997).

Baha'i fundamentalists emphasize belief in an imminent catastrophe they
refer to as "the Calamity" (Smith 1982).   One contributor to a Baha'i-only
list wrote, "I would like to open a discussion on a subject which many of us
are somewhat unwilling to address - namely, the impending (year 2,000)
calamity which is supposed to create grave upheaval (literally) not only
here in California, but also on the East Coast, and other parts of the
world . . ." (Pers. Comm, March 14, 1994).

Fundamentalist Baha'is have an authoritarian view of how the Baha'i
"administrative order" should function.  There is a great emphasis on
obedience.  The typical logic of Baha'i fundamentalists roots obedience in
the legitimacy of authority, disallowing a rational examination of the
substance of a command or an inquiry into whether the body giving the
command has the "constitutional" prerogative to give it.  In this way,
arbitrary commands by Baha'i bodies are made to be an either-or proposition.
If one accepts Baha'u'llah, one accepts his administrative order, and must
obey whatever it orders one to do, whether one agrees in
conscience or no.  Rejection of the command, ipso facto, represents a
rejection of Baha'u'llah (Semple 1991). Thus, fundamentalist Baha'is
secretly consider liberals and some moderates "not Baha'is" at all because
they do not demonstrate sufficient willingness to immerse their wills in the
authority of the Baha'i administration.

Fundamentalist Baha'is believe that Baha'i institutions such as the local
assembly or the NSA can be divinely guided, and that the Universal House of
Justice is infallible.  The technical terminology in Persian is not
unambiguous, and Baha'i texts make distinctions that this approach
disregards.  Contemporary Baha'i fundamentalists avoid thinking
constitutionally about such issues, asserting the infallibility of the House
of Justice in an undifferentiated manner. [One] American Baha'i and mystery
writer...wrote, "The Guidance and infallibility of the Universal House of
Justice are assured and promised.  We are specifically directed, as  an act
of faith, to offer instant, exact, and complete obedience to Baha'u'llah's
House of Justice. We are warned of the dire
spiritual dangers inherent in ignoring this directive, and we are admonished
to be vigilant, firm, and uncompromising in our loyalty, support, obedience
and love for the this Divinely Ordained Institution."
(Talisman9 Archives, 23 May 2000).

Fundamentalist Baha'is view "the member's time, space and activity" as "a
group resource, not an individual one" (Almond et al. 408).   In some
communities enormous pressure is put on individuals by fundamentalists to
"teach the faith" or proselytize others.  Some more liberal (or just shy)
Baha'is report being extremely uncomfortable with this pressure and cite it
as a reason they became inactive or withdrew from membership.  Constant
appeals are also made for Baha'is to donate money, to "give till it hurts,"
and most of these donations appear to go to monumental building projects at
the Baha'i world center in Haifa or to bureaucratic purposes at the National
Baha'i Center in Wilmette.  The Baha'i administration appears to do almost
no charity work (measured as a percentage of their budget), especially for
non-Baha'is.  Although Baha'is do not have a distinctive form of dress, they
do have special ritual forms of prayer, and they fast in the Muslim way.
They are under surveillance for behavior that might contravene Baha'i law.


The following article appeared in an Israeli paper.

You can also read the article directly from the newspaper at this link:

https://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=69711&contrassID=
2&subContrassID=16&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=69711

Saturday, September 01, 2001 Elul 13, 5761 Israel Time: 03:06 (GMT+3)

Bahai feel bashed by local media
By Charlotte Halle

CONTROVERSIAL: Haifa newspaper claims Bahai center received irregular
tax breaks.

The Bahai movement, which plowed $250 million into re-landscaping the
gardens of its Haifa world headquarters, charges that it has been
unfairly treated by the local media.

Articles have appeared in the local and national press accusing the Bahai
World Center of receiving government tax reimbursements which it is not
entitled to, of having unethical links with the Labor Party, of using
excessive amounts of water to maintain the gardens and, most absurdly, of
worshiping idols and using incense during religious practices.

Officials are particularly furious about an "untrue and unfair" article
that appeared in the Haifa weekly newspaper Zman Haifa earlier this
month, which claimed that the world center had received millions of
shekels in irregular payments from the Israeli government. The Bahais are
particularly distressed because they say the newspaper gave them just one
hour to respond to the allegations before the article went to press.
"It upsets us that people look for an ulterior, negative motive in what
we are doing," says Glen Fullmer, senior information officer at the
center. He attributes the attacks to the Bahai community's dramatic shift
from "obscurity" to "high-profile" target for media coverage following
the opening of the new garden project.

"We were silent citizens," he says, "and sometimes the story we have to
tell - that we are beautifying our holy places with voluntary
contributions from Bahais around the world on a nonprofit basis - just
doesn't seem to add up."

Based on an acceptance of all world religions, the Bahai faith supports
the unification of humanity and the emergence of a global civilization.
Its principles forbid accepting donations from any individual or
institution outside of the faith.

The opening of the gardens surrounding the world-famous golden-domed
Shrine of the Bab - a tranquil haven for visiting pilgrims - is the
result of 15 years of planning and construction, and a $250-million
investment by the Bahai community. The center signed an agreement with
the Israeli government in 1987, entitling it to tax exemptions on the
basis of the fact that it is an international religious, nonprofit
organization. The center stands to receive a tax refund on the order of
$20 million.

The Zman Haifa article was based on questions about tax reimbursement
that were submitted by an independent auditor to the Ministry of Tourism.

Bahai sources claim that all the auditor's queries were satisfactorily
answered, and that it was "defamatory" and unfair of the newspaper to
portray the questions as based in fact. Furthermore, the world center
placed a full-page advertisement in the newspaper a week later, refuting
the paper's claims with quotes from Ministry of Tourism and Ministry of
Finance officials. The Bahai center is still considering taking legal
action against the newspaper for the "malicious and unprofessional"
article.

Zman Haifa editor Sharon Gal told Anglo File that reporters had given the
Bahais about seven hours to repond to the claims. Due to a "technical
error," their response to the allegations had not appeared, but added
that a response was printed in full the following week, the same week the
full-page advertisement was published. He added that many editors would
not have agreed to print the advertisement of the Bahais because it was
so overtly critical of the newspaper.

Murray Smith, deputy secretary-general of the Bahai World Center, says
the gardens have given a "big boost" to the social and economic life of
Haifa, with almost 35,000 Israelis visiting the site every week since
June. This represents a radical rise in the number of day visitors to the
city, at a time when tourism is at an all-time low. He emphasized that
entrance to the gardens is free and that they are open daily.
The opening of the gardens, Smith adds, has forced the Bahais into the
"limelight," although they prefer to keep a low profile, to avoid
"upsetting people in a way that will be of negative consequence to Bahais
in other countries."

Smith dismisses as "completely false and erroneous" the claims in the
media that the Bahais worship idols and use incense. He also outlined the
world center's strict regulations - built into the planning of the
gardens - stipulating avoidance of water-intensive plants, and use of
state-of-the-art irrigation technology. He adds that many "positive"
articles also appeared in the press following the opening of the gardens.

In general, says Smith, the Bahai center has enjoyed good relations with
all Israeli governments, a fact that has not escaped the attention of the
government of Iran. There, Bahai believers are persecuted under the
fundamentalist Islamic regime, which accuses them of being Zionist
collaborators. Baha'u'llah, the founder of the monotheistic Bahai faith -
which broke off from Islam 150 years ago - arrived in the Holy Land from
Iran as a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire in 1868 and died near Acre in
1892. According to Smith, when the Bahais arrived in Palestine,
Baha'u'llah instructed his followers that they must not seek or accept
converts here, a rule which is still strictly observed today.

The elected governing body of the world's Bahai community, the Universal
House of Justice, has its seat in Haifa on Mount Carmel, adjacent to the
Shrine of the Bab and the new gardens. Haifa and Acre together comprise
the international spiritual and administrative center for the five
million followers of the Bahai faith, of whom 800 live in Israel,
volunteering for a time at the Haifa headquarters before returning home.







FULL TEXT:
New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD 2001
https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm
               

See my comments interpersed throughout below.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO 
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DEBORAH BUCHHORN, for herself and for MINORITY

Versus

TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHAIS OF
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and 
THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHAIS OF ALBUQUERQUE,
NEW MEXICO, a non-profit corporation, and the
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHAIS OF THE
UNITED STATES, an Illinois Corporation,

What I don't understand is why isn't the "universal" house of "justice"
also named here? They're the ones pulling the strings of the local
Bahai administration and the bootlickers on talk.religion.bahai and 
alt.religion.bahai, for that matter....

Please notice the bahai fundamentalists are failing to respond to the
details of the lawsuit charges. Yes, the ruse has been to ignore the facts 
and pretend there's no "detailed information" and evidence. While we 
know the very soiled record of bahai institutions on many counts, alas,
there are many wandering into talk.religion.bahai who
might be duped by such duplicity. The details of the
lawsuit are really quite appalling and read like the more
than a decade of oppression committed against many,
many individuals, as we know, and documented on my
and Cole's websites and elsewhere....:

2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
officers.
3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.
4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
with other shareholders.
5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
their corporate by-laws.

THOSE are the charges, being ignored by the lackies who handled
damaged control on talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai

I would think the lawyer representing the plaintiffs might find many
similar stories, during the last decade or so, documented on my
bahai webpages, as well as perhaps many potential witnesses to
the manner in which the bahai administration now operates....

     
FACTS
11. In the particular situation between the Trustees of the Spiritual
Assembly of Bahais of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Defendants Trustees
controlled what member activities Plaintiffs were able to engage in and
what members they were able to talk to. They stopped them from interacting
with friends at member events. They stopped Plaintiffs from serving on
committees and stopped their individual activities for personal reasons.
They made all the decisions relating to Plaintiffs' membership-related
activities. They told named Plaintiff that opinions she may personally
hold were bad and implicitly threatened to curtail her presence at member
functions. They acted as if the abuse were no big deal, that it was
Plaintiff's fault, and denied doing it. They failed to act when one member
was physically threatened and shoved by another member.
12. Although Plaintiffs have consistently complied with Defendant Trustees'
demands, they have also consistently filed complaints against them with the
National and International Bahais authorities. This has enraged the
Defendant Trustees.
13. Defendant Trustees have never made specific accusations or informed
Plaintiffs of wrongdoing, other than vague statements such as "you have
issues with the Spiritual Assembly."
14. Therefore, deep-seated animosities and distrust have arisen between
Plaintiffs and the Trustees, which are incapable of resolution and thereby
present an irreconcilable barrier to the ability of the corporation to
function as is.
15. Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations that they would be able to
participate in the management and activities of their corporation, as
minority shareholders, have been thwarted since at least 1995.
16. Article IV of the LSA by-laws provides that the LSA shall compose
differences and disagreements among members of the community. Article VII,
section 9 of the NSA by-laws provides that any member of a Bah 'ˇ community
may appeal from a decision of his LSA to the NSA.

No surprises here, either. Professor Juan Cole's website and mine
are full of such FACTS....

The New Mexico lawsuit reads:

Failure to Allow Inspection of Books and Records
17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained in an
inaccurate and inequitable manner.
18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000 discrepancy in the
corporate books.
19. In a letter dated September 3, 2000, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
informed the Local Spiritual Assembly that she desired to inspect their
financial books. Defendants refused.
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/NMLawsuit.htm

What I'd like to know is WHICH bahai adminstrator stole the
money and what did he or she do with it? Did he act alone, or
were other officials involved and benefiting from the crime?
Why have only attempts been made to cover it up by the bahai
administration? Were they involved in it in some way?

Of course this isn't the first time large sums have been stolen from
bahai coffers. There was also about $10,000 stolen from the
local spiritual assembly in St Louis and large sums from the lsa
in Los Angeles. And there have been other incidents, such as
employees in Wilmette stealing monthly contributions....

     
Fraudulent Oppression and Prevention of Communications between Shareholders
21. On April 19, 1998, Defendant Trustees ordered named Plaintiff Deborah
Buchhorn to refrain from discussing her "issues" with anyone but Auxiliary
Board member Brent Poirier and the Local Spiritual Assembly. Plaintiff
complied and appealed to Brent Poirier and the National Spiritual Assembly,
who took no action. Defendant LSA has wrapped many of their dealings with
members in the cloak of secrecy in a like manner.

Many people have said, in one way or another, that various cults
operate in this way, i.e., suppress and prevent communication
between members, thereby distorting their perception and
understanding of what is actually taking place, etc....

"VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF CORPORATE MEMBERS" to communicate
with others.... This too is a quite predictable pattern the uhj has used
often to silence and isolate people of conscience. It has been done on AOL,
soc.religion.bahai, and elsewhere on and off line.
          

Electioneering
22. At the Annual Meeting Feast of 1999, Defendant Trustees fraudulently
rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad by calling for applause for him
three times prior to an election of corporate officers. Plaintiff appealed
to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
23. Defendant Trustees or their agents fraudulently rigged the election of
Harry and Sondra Day, by introducing them and calling for applause moments
before an election of corporate officers.
24. Trustees do not ensure secret balloting at the Annual Meeting Feast.
The usual practice is not to use a ballot box, but for members to lay their
ballots on a plate or in a basket in plain sight of the election tellers.
Ms. Buchhorn appealed to Brent Poirier on at least one election. Mr.
Poirier responded by handling the collection basket himself.
25. In the member newsletter and prior to the annual election and during
the Annual Meeting Feast, Trustees have used scriptural quotes to draw
attention to persons serving on certain committees.

Well, that's the way it's done.... I've witnessed it myself at a US national
convention to "elect" the nsa members....

Fraudulent and Oppressive Behavior Relating to the TV Show "Spiritual
Reality"
26. Plaintiffs conceptualized and produced a TV show named "Spiritual
Reality." After 100 showings, during which Defendant Trustees only
complimented Plaintiffs, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent
to oppress, mandated major changes in the show. Plaintiffs complied and
appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no
action.
27. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
Plaintiffs to "temporarily postpone" their television show, "Spiritual
Reality." Plaintiff complied, and Defendants never specifically informed
Plaintiffs what they had done to precipitate the arbitrary and capricious
termination. The effect of this order, namely the termination of the TV
show, violated the right of shareholders to communicate with other
shareholders.
28. Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences stated that the reasons
for termination would be fully discussed at a later meeting, at which
meeting those reasons were never discussed. Defendant Trustee Kambiz
Victory, employee of channel 41, knew or should have known that a
television program cannot be "temporarily postponed." Plaintiffs appealed
to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
29. Defendant Kambiz Victory, a Trustee, fraudulently and with intent to
oppress, told named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn in regards to her television
show that "Your teaching can have no effect because you are not in unity
with the Spiritual Assembly." Defendant knew that Ms. Buchhorn's
television show brought in 15% of the information requests during an
unrelated major regional advertising campaign by Defendants. Plaintiff
appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
30. Defendant Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences set-up
Plaintiffs to a "confession" of their animosity towards Defendant Trustees.
Named Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no
action.

Given the way the fundamentalists among my fellow bahais behave
on alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.bahai, as well as elsewhere in
cyberspace, I find these allegations quite believeable and convincing....
          

Other Oppression
31. As an act of individual initiative, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
organized a Bah 'ˇ parade float for several years for the New Mexico State
Fair Parade. In 2000, Defendant Trustees convened a task force to organize
the parade float for that year. On August 22, 2000, approximately 19 days
before the parade, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to
oppress, instructed Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to terminate her parade
float activities. A false reason for this termination was published in the
membership newsletter by Defendant Trustees, causing Plaintiff
embarrassment. Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff
as to the reason for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National
Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
32. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to receive instruction on the Bah 'ˇ Covenant.
Plaintiff complied and attended that "instruction," which in fact consisted
of three (3) hours of interrogation by Trustee Owen Creightney, and John
and Ok-Sun McHenry. It became apparent at this meeting that Trustee
Creightney had lied to the Trustees in order to oppress named Plaintiff.
Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier,
who took no action.
33. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to resign from the Bah 'ˇ gospel choir.
Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to the reason
for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual
Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
34. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, undermined
named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn's Saturday Night Coffee House and in
effect stopped her Coffee House. Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to
these circumstances. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly
and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
35. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, have
ordered numerous Bah 'ˇs to shun Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn.
36. Defendant Trustee Kambiz Victory told a Plaintiff "I am the voice of
God in this community."

"Fraudulently and with intent to oppress," "interrogation," "lied," all
sounds like what I've witnessed during my more than 20 years as a member of
the bahai faith....

Sound familiar? Anyone ever hear of anything like this having been done to any other bahai?
Any names come to mind?

               
Libel
37. Defendant Trustees knowingly published false and defamatory information
about Plaintiffs in the Albuquerque Bah 'ˇ newsletter, specifically
relating to the parade banner.

No one who's been a bahai for very long, and an honest and mature
adult,  has failed to perceive this type of thing happening....

Unlawful Prevention of Communication between Shareholders
38. Defendant National Spiritual Assembly has the policy that Local
Spiritual Assemblies are responsible for reviewing pamphlets and
newsletters and materials that mention the Faith such as songs, play
scripts, souvenir items, and greeting cards, intended for publication or
distribution within their communities, whereas the National Spiritual
Assembly is responsible for review of those same materials intended for
nationwide publication.

Surely this allegation must be false. There's never been ANY
attempt to prevent communication, as we all know, by the
fundamentalists among my fellow bahais, in cyberspace, such
as on AOL, soc.religion.bahai, talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai,
BeliefNet, etc., etc., etc....
     

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I
40. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly acted and
continue to act fraudulently towards the Plaintiffs.
41. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
          

"REPEATEDLY" appears to me to be one of the key words here,
not to mention "FRAUDULENTLY"....

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count II
43. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly libeled the named
Plaintiff.
44. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Well, it's certainly the way bahai fanatics and fundamentalists
operate online, and I too have seen it used off line to isolate
and discredit people who don't echo the dictates of  the
bahai "administration."

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count III
46. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act in good faith, which failure constitutes
fraud.
47. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

"Repeatedly" and "continue" to not "act in good faith." Having observed
bahai fundamentalists online for pushing six years, I've certainly witnessed
this type of "fraud" many, many times, as have many other bahais and
non-bahais.... Alas, their numerous stories are indeed available on my
website, documenting beyond a shadow of a doubt the "emotional
damages" they have suffered so grieviously from the fundamentalists.

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count IV
49. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act with the care an ordinary prudent person in
like position would exercise under similar circumstances, which failure
constitute fraud.
50. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Without the "care an ordinary prudent person" would
excercise in a like position? My, how lacking in "care" that
must be, or, I suppose, the charge is, how fraudulent....

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count V
52. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act in a manner they reasonably believe to be
in the best interests of the corporation and its members, which failure
constitutes fraud.
53. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby

A lot of emphasis on that word "reasonably." It certainly seems
to me that they are working unreasonably in the WORST interests
of the "corporation and its members."

Count VI
55. The Trustees have repeatedly failed their duty to compose differences
and disagreements with themselves and the members, in violation of their
by-laws, which failure constitutes fraud.
56. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

My, my, my, it certainly sounds like a whole lot a fraud going
on down in the New Mexico bahai "community."

Count VII
58. The National Spiritual Assembly has repeatedly failed their duty to
hear appeals from Plaintiffs, in violation of their by-laws.
59. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Such a failure by the nsa is merely standard practice-- i.e., THE
bahai fundamentalist method for dealing with views other than
their own. Either the person is declared a heretic or tacitly shunned.
Appeals are always sweep under the rug in one way or another....
There exists a very long history of this type of treatment of bahai
liberals....

Count VIII
61. The literature review policies of the National and Local Spiritual
Assemblies violate the rights of corporate members to communicate with
other corporate members.
62. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

     
Count IX
64. The practice of the Local Spiritual Assembly to direct members not to
speak about their dealings with the LSA with other corporate members
violates the rights of corporate members to communicate with other
corporate members.
65. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

An awful lot of suppression of communication and attempts
to control and influence it. This is precisely how the "administration"
operates in my experience.

The appeal to the New Mexico Court for relief says it all:

JUDICIAL RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
1. Declare that the Trustees acted fraudulently towards Plaintiffs;
2. Declare that Trustees libeled Plaintiffs;
3. Declare that the Trustees breached their corporate duties towards
Plaintiffs;
4. Remove the Trustees from their positions and enjoin them from serving in
official Bahai capacities for nineteen (19) years;
5. Remove the LSA Directors who are also Trustees;
6. Declare that the Local Spiritual Assembly violated members' rights to
inspect corporate books and records;
7. Compel Defendant LSA to retain an independent certified public
accountant to audit the books for the last two years;
8. Declare that Defendant LSA violated their corporate by-laws by failing
to compose differences and disagreements among members of the community;
6. Declare that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their duty of
hearing Plaintiffs' appeals;
7. Declare that the literature review policies of the Bahais violate
United States common law as preventing corporate members from communicating
with other corporate members;
8. Enjoin Defendants National Spiritual Assembly and Local Spiritual
Assembly from enforcing their literature review policy;
9. Declare that the secrecy practices of the Local Spiritual Assembly
violate United States common law as preventing corporate members from
communicating with other corporate members;
10. Enjoin Defendant Local Spiritual Assembly from continuing their secrecy
practices;
11. Award compensatory damages from Defendants to Plaintiffs;
12. Award attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiffs;
13. Any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Yorgos D. Marinakis
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 45923
Rio Rancho, NM 87174
505-459-4664
877-430-9550 (fax)
Named Plaintiff's Verification
STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO)
COMES NOW Deborah Buchhorn, and being duly sworn, states as follows:
1. I have read and understood the contents of this Complaint.
2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
3. I attest to and verify their truth and accuracy.
__________________________
DEBORAH BUCHHORN
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this __ day of ______, 2001.
________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:




FULL TEXT:
New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD 2001
https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htmSubject: Re: Bahai Center--Let's Meet!
Date: 6/17/2001 9:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Glayshf
Message-id: <20010617093336.12744.00004089@ng-cg1.aol.com>

More distortions and falsehoods.

This person's ad hominem fails to conceal her intent of discrediting and maligning me here in the eyes of the uninformed.

I request that the TOSGeneral request that the community leader on the bahai message boards do his duty and prevent this type of personal attack and character assassination or resign. Please note too that this person is allowed to post her URL while I or anyone else who is not a fundamentalist would have our posts removed or reported for TOSs.

FG

>Subject: Re: Bahai Center--Let's Meet!
>Date: 6/17/2001 2:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>From: Smaneck
>Message-id: <20010617020846.18659.00009077@ng-mq1.aol.com>
>
>
>>
>>The non-bahai observer might want to note that this claim is a  complete
>>falsehood, regularly used by fundamentalists to smear and discredit me:
>
>Dear Fred, 
>
>You are saying you never told any representative of the Institutions that any
>contact with you would be considered harrassment? It seems to me you once had
>the correspondence posted on your website where you did this. 
>
>Or are you denying that the NSA ever took you off the rolls? 
>warmest, Susan 
>
>https://www.susanmaneck.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>






From: "Mark Elderkin" <elley@intercoast.com.au>
Subject: Re: - bahai - Renewed Harassment
Date: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:02 PM

Let's see.............. by harassment you mean I put your real phone number
and address on ARB/TRB about a year ago. Yes I did that. NO regrets
what-so-ever.  I can only hope you heard from some of the people you
continually spammed and cross-posted to.  Grow up Glaysher.......... Your
wimpy ranting here every other day have almost no merit. When I posted last
year, a few told me that I had broken this and that rule and that it would
put me in court and I would lose my ISP and on and on. Nothing at all
occurred. ISP couldn't have cared......  No anything. And as far as
inspiration I use the posts from other NGs  who post here complaining about
your antics. And if you think I care about my phone or address being posted
here...........
Mark Elderkin 43 Moruya Drive, Port Macquarie, NSW              call
international: 061265842150
I guess it all boils down to the issue of  the morality of your
actions.................. I don't mind taking responsibility for mine.

MEE

Nima,
I would appreciate your forwarding his phone number
and address to me at f_glaysher@hotmail.com
FG

My experience as a member of the Baha'i Faith
By
 Dennis James Rogers

I became a member of the Baha’i Faith in the early seventies while an undergraduate at a small private midwestern university. The initial attraction was to the social teachings of the Faith particularly the tenets about gender and racial equality. I had been raised as a Roman Catholic and had attended parochial and public schools, but was not very well versed in Biblical Christianity. Since the sixties and seventies were a time of social upheaval and turmoil, the Baha’i Faith seemed like a rational alternative to traditional religious dogma.  My connection to the group was minimal during my college years but picked up after I graduated in 1973.  I had "accepted " the Faith based on a conversation with a Baha’i teacher who asked me if I agreed with the basic nine tenets of the Faith, I told him I did and he said I was a Baha'i. This was quite ironic considering that one of the basic tenets is "independent investigation of the truth".  I had not taken the time to investigate nor done a thorough examination of it's history or doctrine, something that I would not do until many years later while pursuing a role as a Baha’i apologetic. 
    In 1974 there was an International Convention held in St. Louis to initiate one of the plans that the Baha’i Administrative Order imposes on the rank and file. The plans originated with Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, they are ten-year plans, five-year plans, four-year plans, and seven-year plans or as little as one year plans.  The plans have goals for teaching (expansion and consolidation) and "pioneers" which are similar to missionaries with the exception that pioneers are not subsidized by the organization, pioneers are expected to finance their own travel expenses, find employment and establish themselves as part of the city, village or community in which they are pioneering. The pioneer is to teach the faith, find new converts, establish a local spiritual assembly, (a local governing body consisting of nine adults) and then move on to a new pioneering post after the task has been completed. The Universal House of Justice, the international governing body for the Bahá’is, generally established what the goal areas were with input from the National Spiritual Assemblies, the national governing bodies. I must comment that many pioneers I met, rarely if ever established Local Spiritual Assemblies and generally left their "posts" to return home. Pioneering is considered a glorious spiritual station and a certain degree of social pressure is put upon the members to become pioneers. The pioneers I met in the United States who came from the Middle East, primarily from Iran, were people of means, educated and wealthy. The early pioneers of the Baha’i Faith (from the West} were also people of means. This can be verified by the early written Baha’i history of the United States and Canada.
        Being a new member of the group, I was not aware of the Baha’i culture, I was first asked to answer telephone calls from people interested in the Faith, there was considerable publicity on television, bill boards and newspapers about the convention with a phone number to call for people interested in finding out more information concerning the Faith. I was to answer questions, secure addresses and phone numbers to send literature for follow up by Baha’i teachers. The older members, not wanting to answer phones, attended the conference, which was presented by the ruling Baha’i elite. The nine members of the Universal House of Justice and the remaining living "Hands of the Cause". The Hands were individuals who had been appointed by Bahá-u-lláh, Abdul Bahá or Shoghi Effendi. The rank and file members, due to their high spiritual station of “servitude”, regarded them as spiritual giants. Their main function was to protect and propagate the Faith. They were to protect the Faith from schism, but were apparently unsuccessful after the death of Shoghi Effendi in 1957, the only appointed Guardian of the Baha’i Faith. There have been, since his death, two main splinter groups, the Orthodox Bahá’is and the Bahá’is Under the Provision of the Covenant (BUPC) that I am aware of. I do not know what the other group's membership numbers are or their exact doctrines since contact with them is forbidden. They are to be shunned as "covenant breakers" and are considered "spiritually diseased" by the Baha’i Administrative Order. To be quite honest, I really was not that interested in them.

I attended a general session where several of the "Hands" spoke. Most of the talks were anecdotal in nature, encouraging the members to bring in more converts and step up the "teaching efforts". Though Bahá’is claim they do not proselytize, semantics, all their efforts are aimed at bringing in more new members to establish the “New World Order”; this is to occur when there are mass conversions or "entry by troops". A term I discovered taken from Sura 110 in the Qu'ran entitled. "Help". (Rodwell’s edition pg.429).  
One of the elements that I found disturbing during the conference was an underlying anti-Christian sentiment, which is what eventually contributed to my leaving the Bahá’is later, it was and is something not so overt as much as an arrogant attitude that many Bahá’is feel. There were Christians offering literature outside of the convention center, which were not allowed in, and heavily criticized by the Baha’i attendee’s.  They consider themselves to be spiritually superior to Christians because Bahá’is believe they have all the answers to humanity’s problems for this day. One of the "Hands” stated that most Christians "were dead from the neck up." I purchased this speech on audiocassette tape and had also heard the comment live. This individual was upset that the Christians had more heart and moral fiber than the Bahá’is.  Christians were getting into Africa, South/Central America and Asia with missionaries before the Baha’i pioneers could “open” those areas. This "Hand" also felt that Americans were really not worth trying to teach the Faith to, since they were so entrenched in the culture and their churches.  They were basically doomed, not worth saving. The Bahá’is should therefore concentrate their efforts on native peoples who did not have so many "veils".  A term frequently used by the membership to denote someone who could not accept the station of Bahá-u-lláh as God's savior for the world. After the conference was over, I was introduced to a Baha’i couple that lived in the municipality where I resided. This introduction and my experience with this couple would have lasting implications for me for the rest of my life. 

Mr. and Mrs. Smith, as I will call them, were a very charismatic and charming couple, they took me into their home and became my "spiritual parents". Though I did not live with them I spent much time there. They were in their mid forties and had an adult daughter, whom I never met. Mr. Smith was about six foot four and had a very intimidating presence if he chose to and Mrs. Smith was about five foot seven and on the full figured side. She was very soft spoken with a mild southern drawl.

The couple immediately took me under their wing, seeing I was a new young and impressionable recruit gave them license to teach me as they saw fit. We began having "firesides", weekly teaching meetings in their home, for "seekers" as they are referred to (potential Bahá’is). We held public meetings at the local library and community center, picnics at parks, anywhere we could attract attention to the Faith to bring in new members or seekers to invite to firesides.  During this time I became a very persuasive teacher under Mr. Smith's tutelage and as a result many young people "declared " their belief in Bahá-u-lláh, including one of my older brothers, his wife and several of my friends. So many people were enrolling in the Baha’i Faith, coming to firesides and meetings that it attracted the attention of the National Spiritual Assembly and they began to send people to investigate our activities. I found out decades later that the more conservative Baha’i administration at that time were alarmed at the number of "long hair hippie types" and African-Americans who were enrolling into the Baha’i Faith. Professor Juan R.I. Cole, a historian and former member of the Bahá’is has gone into this in some detail in a published paper entitled "The Baha’i Faith as Panopticon".  The website address is;
 https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm

For those wishing to read the article.

The Smiths had me under their control and completely indoctrinated into the Baha’i Faith. I was their "spiritual son" and anything Mr. Smith said I took as truth. He began handing out "fez's", hats like the early Middle Eastern Bahá’is wore, to the younger male Bahá’is in the community. A symbol of his discipleship I suppose. This was alarming to the members of the National Spiritual Assembly who really took offense at this action, but did not confront Mr. Smith about it directly. I on the other hand and the other new young believers thought this was normal, wearing the fez, since none of the other older Bahá’is in the area said anything to him or us about it. At this time I was alienated from my family and former non-Baha’i friends. Everything I did was Baha’i, I felt I had all the answers and refused to listen to anyone else outside of the Baha’i Faith. Mr. Smith began to get verbally abusive and authoritarian with me if I disagreed with him on any issue. He never struck me, but he did on one occasion force me to prostrate myself before him and beg for forgiveness because I had disappointed him. I had wanted to get married and start a family and he wanted me to move away to another state with him. I need to add without going into to much detail that Mr. Smith sometimes would slip drugs into glasses of punch that he would give me and others to drink while we were guests in his home. On several occasions after giving me the “punch”, he proceeded to lock me in a small room on the second floor of his house, a prayer closet he called it, and tell me to pray and meditate. Several times I hallucinated while in the "prayer closet" and he would grill me as to what I had experienced. It was some years later that I realized what he had done to me and how sick an individual Mr. Smith really was. To this day I do not know what the nature of the drugs were he had given to me.

The Smiths moved away out of state, as there were enough adult members in the community to form a Local Spiritual Assembly. (LSA). I was elected Chairman of the LSA and had been in that position for less than a year when the Assembly was summoned to a meeting at a local hotel with members of the Baha’i Administration. I must add that when Mr. and Mrs. Smith left the area I was greatly relieved and thought to myself "good riddance".  I did occasionally speak to him on the telephone, when he called to see how I was doing.

What happened next when the LSA met with the Administrative representatives was something that I had kept to myself for over twenty years. We, the Local Spiritual Assembly members, thought we were going to be praised for all the teaching activity that had occurred and tripling the number of new believers. On the contrary, we were seated in a large hotel suite and then I was read a list of charges against me which included  "conspiring" with Mr. Smith to run the Local Spiritual Assembly from out of state and for "claiming a station", whatever that meant. When I protested and attempted to defend myself, I was told to "sit down and shut up, we know all about you and anything you say will be just lies." I said I was leaving and they locked and blocked the door leading out of the room, there were about seven of them and they forced me and the other members of the Local Spiritual Assembly to listen to them for two hours. This is what the Bahá’is call "loving and frank consultation". I was humiliated, demeaned and my character assassinated in this meeting. Two of the members of the Local Spiritual Assembly came to my defense and stated that the charges were not true and that the picture that was being presented of me by them was inaccurate. My accusers never confronted me; I came to find out later that the National Spiritual Assembly and other Administrative bodies had used members of the Local Spiritual Assembly and the community as "informants".  The concept of due process is foreign in the Baha’i Faith.

The result of this "consultation" had me removed from the assembly and ostracized from the community at large. Several of the Local Spiritual Assembly members left the Faith after this incident; as did several people that I had taught the Faith to. I seriously considered it, but decided not to because I was isolated and felt I deserved to be punished because of my association with the Smiths. I was instructed not to ever speak to them or have contact with the Smiths again, but not told why. If they contacted me I was to report it immediately to the Baha’i Administration.

The next step that the Baha’i Administration did was to "reeducate" me in the Baha’i teachings. They arranged for me to attend  "deepening classes" (a Baha’i term used to denote in-depth study) with an older Baha’i teacher who had very little regard for me, almost to the point of open hostility. If I questioned him about certain doctrines that did not make sense to me he would become extremely defensive and caustic in speech. One time he hung up on me during the course of a telephone conversation after calling me an arrogant punk when questioning him about a prophetic statement in the Baha’i writings. He stated there was no such passage and when I read it to him over the phone he became very upset and hung up. I did not study with him much after that. Many of the Bahá’is and the Baha’i Administration considered him one of the best teachers in the United States and would rave about him. I found him to be offensive, sarcastic, demeaning to his students and to be without any formal training as an educator. He published a book through the Baha’i Publishing Trust, which I thought was confusing and incoherent, he was in his mid sixties when I met him. 

Since many of the new Bahá’is we had taught had left the faith, the numbers in the community went down, so I was reinstated to the Local Spiritual Assembly by default. Much of my time was spent planning firesides, public meetings, picnics and fundraising. In the fifteen years that followed there was very little growth in the community in terms of the numbers of new believers, there was a revolving door so to speak, and people would come into the Faith and then either become inactive or just resign. This was particularly true of the African-American Bahá’is coming from a church background. There was very little structure or community life that resembles a church community. Most, if not all of Baha’i activity centers on meetings, teaching activities and fundraising. There was very little time left to develop interpersonal relationships or socialization. 

One last painful episode, which further alienated me from the faith, was the fact that my wife at the time, we are now divorced, developed a close friendship with a "home front pioneer". These are Bahá’is that move to an area for a short time to fulfill some arbitrary local goal of the Baha’i Administration to establish a group or Local Spiritual Assembly. This individual, unbeknownst to me, tried to coerce my wife to divorce me and marry him during his tenure in the community. She told me about the relationship after he left the country to pioneer to South America. She is still on the rolls of the Baha’i Faith to my knowledge.

During the divorce process the community abandoned me, since divorce is frowned upon. An incident that occurred while going through the divorce, (a year of patience is required by Baha’i law), was when I attended a Baha’i Sunday class where I was confronted by several members of the community and chastised in the class for going through the divorce, I did not defend myself, but I must add that a Persian Baha’i man stood up for me and said in my defense that no one knows what goes on between two people and that it was not for anyone to judge. Despite that I did not attend any meetings for the next two years, nor was I contacted by any of the “friends” during that time.  The community has a history of abandoning its members when they no longer can attend the meetings or participate in teaching activities. 

I cannot truly characterize the Baha’i Faith as a "cult", though in my opinion there are strong social controls in place by the Baha’i Administration. Those controls filter down to the individuals who are afraid of openly questioning the decisions of that administration for fear of being labeled a "covenant breaker".  Which is tantamount to being excommunicated from the community. The leadership has used this effectively since the beginnings of the religion to "purge the ranks of the believers". Once a person has been declared a covenant breaker, the Baha’i community shuns that person and contact with such an individual could cause "spiritual contamination" of the "Cause" as it is referred to. There are parallels in the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon groups, as I understand it. The discussion of "unquestioning loyalty and obedience" to the Baha’i covenant and administration is paramount to maintaining order within the community. Though membership in the Baha’i Faith is completely voluntary, individuals such as myself who based their entire lifestyle around the faith find it difficult to separate themselves from family and friends who are Baha’i even if they know there are contradictions within Baha’i doctrine. One risks those relationships and being isolated from the community. It took me three painful years to extricate myself and resign as an enrolled member. Since leaving the Baha’i Faith in the fall of 2000, I have had little or no contact with people I had been friends with for many years, friends whose children grew up with my children. Most of them believe I lost my faith in God.  Those that I have spoken to are surprised that I am doing fine, that I attend church and perform in a gospel band. 

Some of the contradictions that began to surface for me were a result of a radio broadcast I heard by Rev. Robert Pardon of the New England Institute of Religious Research (NEIRR) on a Lutheran radio station in St. Louis. He was giving an overview of the Baha’i Faith and I called  to challenge him and his sources. I felt he was misrepresenting the Faith and had gotten his source material from "covenant breakers" or enemies of the Faith. I thought about what he had said and contacted him through his web site, I was finally beginning to investigate the Baha’i Faith after twenty-seven years. He sent me facsimiles of his source material and I began to meticulously go over it. Checking it against what had been presented to me by the Bahá’is. I also began writing letters and asking questions of Baha’i administrators and academics. I discovered that several contemporary Baha’i historians and academics had been forced out of the Faith because of their research and publications. Baha’i academics have to go through a review process before publishing anything about the Faith. If an author does not pass the review process one is not published. Their work essentially is censored. This is why almost all Baha’i literature and historical works are redundant. All the books and pamphlets are rewritten from the same “approved” source material. As a result of this, most Bahá’is are unaware of the early history of the Faith, the power struggles that ensued from the founders family members and instead are directed to the Baha’i approved materials. Other sources are considered suspect, labeled as unauthorized or from enemies of the faith.

Though the Faith teaches tolerance for other religions, the truth is taught that the Baha'i Faith is the "Ultimate Truth" for this day. All the previous "Manifestations of God" and revealed religions are essentially null and void. Humanity must follow the Baha’i Faith or suffer severe punishment. Jesus Christ, the Messiah and Savior for the entire human race is reduced to the station of a ”Divine Educator”.  His revelation is no longer considered relevant for this day, in fact Christ’s dispensation ended with the coming of Muhammad in the sixth century C.E. The clergy and a misunderstanding of scriptural interpretation have led all Christians astray. Personal salvation is no longer important; the salvation of the human race is the priority now. An intimate personal relationship with God is not possible, " the door leading unto the Ancient of Days is forever closed to man", (paraphrase from the Baha’i Writings). As I began to study the Bible in depth and outside of a Baha’i context, I began to understand the perspective of the Christian objection to the Baha’i Faith. A great deal of the social teachings and all of the spiritual teachings, which the faith presented as new, I discovered in Old and New Testament scripture.  Some of the phrases from the Bible I found transcribed into Baha’i prayers. However the main source of contention for me was the arrogance of many Baha’i who became incensed at Christian authors trying to give accurate accounts regarding the Baha’i Faith and it's history.  Yet they thought nothing of explaining away two thousands years of historical Christianity and exegetical study, while engaging in the worst form of eisegesis. 

On a more personal level, I was concerned about my soul and salvation, I never really felt forgiven or saved as a Baha’i or that Bahá-u-lláh was a personal savior. When reading how Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies and to pray for them in the Gospels, I compared that to how the Baha’i Faith historically condemned and shunned its enemies. (Many who were the disciples, spouses and relatives of the central figures of the Faith, even Shoghi Effendi, the Baha’i Guardian, excommunicated his own parents!). I began to ask God to open my eyes and guide me to the truth.

With the help of Rev. Bob Pardon, (NEIRR) Pastor Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwartz of radio station KFUO in St. Louis, I began the task of “testing the spirits” to determine what was true. I tested the Bahá’is by raising questions at Baha’i meetings about historical and doctrinal contradictions as well as prophetic statements in the Baha’i Faith that had not come to pass. Dates had been given where certain events were to have transpired and did not occur. Many Bahá’is were desperately trying to rationalize these unfulfilled prophecies. This line of questioning was making me very unpopular to say the least, particularly when I began to post those questions on the local Baha’i chat list. I started to receive calls from the local Baha’i authorities as well as from some of the "friends". (A term Bahá’is use to refer to each other). I finally officially withdrew my membership and posted it on the chat list. I received numerous calls and e-mails from the “friends” wanting to counsel me, I then posted and requested that I not be contacted, which of course did not occur, finally I posted my reasons for leaving the Baha’i Faith and that I no longer could follow the doctrines or obey the Administrative Order. An Administrative Representative who wished to meet with me concerning my statements contacted me. His real intent was to declare me a "covenant breaker" and therefore have me shunned so as not to "infect" any other Bahá’is with doubt. I agreed to meet with him. He had books with him and was prepared to contend with me. I chose not to engage him on doctrinal issues, I instead stated that I did not believe that Bahá-u-lláh was the return of Christ and relayed to him the incidents I had suffered at the hands of Bahá’is and the Administration. He repeatedly apologized and stated he would ask the Bahá’is to respect my wishes that I not be contacted and harassed about my decision.

I have since accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and have found a peaceful assurance that I had never experienced as a Baha’i. I bear no malice towards the Baha’i Faith or individual Bahá’is. Some of them are very kind, gentle and loving souls. This testimony is intended to help those members of the Baha’i community, who may have experienced similar situations and come to a personal realization regarding doctrinal contradictions. There is hope, peace and life outside of the Baha’i Faith for those who choose to seek it
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DEBORAH BUCHHORN, for herself )
and for MINORITY )
MEMBERS OF THE SPIRITUAL )
ASSEMBLY OF THE BAH ' 'S OF )
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. CV 2001-01978
)
)
TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL )
ASSEMBLY OF THE BAH '  S OF )
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and )
THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE )
BAH ' 'S OF ALBUQUERQUE, )
NEW MEXICO, a non-profit )
corporation, and the )
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY )
OF THE BAH ' 'S OF THE )
UNITED STATES, )
an Illinois Corporation, )
)
Defendants. )

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, LIBEL, BREACH OF CORPORATE DUTIES, AND
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMES NOW Plaintiffs by and through their attorney of record, Yorgos D.
Marinakis, and for their Complaint states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this shareholder or member derivative suit against:
- the Spiritual Assembly of the Bah 'ˇs of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Local
Spiritual Assembly, or LSA),
- their Trustees, and
- the Spiritual Assembly of the Bah 'ˇs of the United States (National
Spiritual Assembly, or NSA), with whom the Local Spiritual Assembly and its
Trustees have privity.
2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
officers.
3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.
4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
with other shareholders.
5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
their corporate by-laws.

PARTIES

6. Named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn was a shareholder or member of the
Spiritual Assembly of the Bah 'ˇs of Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the time
of the incidents stated in this Complaint, and she continues to be a member.
7. The Spiritual Assembly of the Bah 'ˇs of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Local
Spiritual Assembly) is a New Mexico non-profit corporation.
Shareholder-members may appeal decisions by the Local Spiritual Assembly to
the National Spiritual Assembly.
8. The Trustees of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bah 'ˇs of Albuquerque,
New Mexico (Trustees) individually reside in Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
as a condition of their Trusteeship. Trustees are Kambiz Victory, Ok-Sun
and John McHenry, Manijeh Kavelin, Nelson Sapad, Harry and Sondra Day, Owen
Creightney, and Carol Caldwell. Jenny Beery was a Trustee during the time
of many of these incidents.
9. The Spiritual Assembly of the Bah 'ˇs of the United States (National
Spiritual Assembly) is incorporated in and has its principal place of
business in Illinois.

FACTS

10. The Bah 'ˇ have no clergy. Instead, each community in the Bah 'ˇ Faith
annually elects nine Trustees or a "Local Spiritual Assembly," which acts
as an agent or subsidiary of the National Spiritual Assembly. Each
National Spiritual Assembly answers to the supreme Bah 'ˇ body, The
Universal House of Justice. The Universal House of Justice established the
Continental Board of Counsellors (sic) to assist them, and the Countinental
Board of Counsellors further has the Auxiliary Board to assist them.
11. In the particular situation between the Trustees of the Spiritual
Assembly of Bah 'ˇs of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Defendants Trustees
controlled what member activities Plaintiffs were able to engage in and
what members they were able to talk to. They stopped them from interacting
with friends at member events. They stopped Plaintiffs from serving on
committees and stopped their individual activities for personal reasons.
They made all the decisions relating to Plaintiffs' membership-related
activities. They told named Plaintiff that opinions she may personally
hold were bad and implicitly threatened to curtail her presence at member
functions. They acted as if the abuse were no big deal, that it was
Plaintiff's fault, and denied doing it. They failed to act when one member
was physically threatened and shoved by another member.
12. Although Plaintiffs have consistently complied with Defendant Trustees'
demands, they have also consistently filed complaints against them with the
National and International Bah 'ˇ authorities. This has enraged the
Defendant Trustees.
13. Defendant Trustees have never made specific accusations or informed
Plaintiffs of wrongdoing, other than vague statements such as "you have
issues with the Spiritual Assembly."
14. Therefore, deep-seated animosities and distrust have arisen between
Plaintiffs and the Trustees, which are incapable of resolution and thereby
present an irreconcilable barrier to the ability of the corporation to
function as is.
15. Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations that they would be able to
participate in the management and activities of their corporation, as
minority shareholders, have been thwarted since at least 1995.
16. Article IV of the LSA by-laws provides that the LSA shall compose
differences and disagreements among members of the community. Article VII,
section 9 of the NSA by-laws provides that any member of a Bah 'ˇ community
may appeal from a decision of his LSA to the NSA.

Failure to Allow Inspection of Books and Records

17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained in an
inaccurate and inequitable manner.
18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000 discrepancy in the
corporate books.
19. In a letter dated September 3, 2000, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
informed the Local Spiritual Assembly that she desired to inspect their
financial books. Defendants refused.
20. Following mailing of the demand letter, the LSA offered to allow named
Plaintiff to inspect the books and records, but under conditions that the
Plaintiff deemed in bad faith.

Fraudulent Oppression and Prevention of Communications between Shareholders

21. On April 19, 1998, Defendant Trustees ordered named Plaintiff Deborah
Buchhorn to refrain from discussing her "issues" with anyone but Auxiliary
Board member Brent Poirier and the Local Spiritual Assembly. Plaintiff
complied and appealed to Brent Poirier and the National Spiritual Assembly,
who took no action. Defendant LSA has wrapped many of their dealings with
members in the cloak of secrecy in a like manner.

Electioneering

22. At the Annual Meeting Feast of 1999, Defendant Trustees fraudulently
rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad by calling for applause for him
three times prior to an election of corporate officers. Plaintiff appealed
to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
23. Defendant Trustees or their agents fraudulently rigged the election of
Harry and Sondra Day, by introducing them and calling for applause moments
before an election of corporate officers.
24. Trustees do not ensure secret balloting at the Annual Meeting Feast.
The usual practice is not to use a ballot box, but for members to lay their
ballots on a plate or in a basket in plain sight of the election tellers.
Ms. Buchhorn appealed to Brent Poirier on at least one election. Mr.
Poirier responded by handling the collection basket himself.
25. In the member newsletter and prior to the annual election and during
the Annual Meeting Feast, Trustees have used scriptural quotes to draw
attention to persons serving on certain committees.

Fraudulent and Oppressive Behavior Relating to the TV Show "Spiritual
Reality"

26. Plaintiffs conceptualized and produced a TV show named "Spiritual
Reality." After 100 showings, during which Defendant Trustees only
complimented Plaintiffs, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent
to oppress, mandated major changes in the show. Plaintiffs complied and
appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no
action.
27. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
Plaintiffs to "temporarily postpone" their television show, "Spiritual
Reality." Plaintiff complied, and Defendants never specifically informed
Plaintiffs what they had done to precipitate the arbitrary and capricious
termination. The effect of this order, namely the termination of the TV
show, violated the right of shareholders to communicate with other
shareholders.
28. Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences stated that the reasons
for termination would be fully discussed at a later meeting, at which
meeting those reasons were never discussed. Defendant Trustee Kambiz
Victory, employee of channel 41, knew or should have known that a
television program cannot be "temporarily postponed." Plaintiffs appealed
to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
29. Defendant Kambiz Victory, a Trustee, fraudulently and with intent to
oppress, told named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn in regards to her television
show that "Your teaching can have no effect because you are not in unity
with the Spiritual Assembly." Defendant knew that Ms. Buchhorn's
television show brought in 15% of the information requests during an
unrelated major regional advertising campaign by Defendants. Plaintiff
appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
30. Defendant Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences set-up
Plaintiffs to a "confession" of their animosity towards Defendant Trustees.
Named Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no
action.

Other Oppression

31. As an act of individual initiative, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
organized a Bah 'ˇ parade float for several years for the New Mexico State
Fair Parade. In 2000, Defendant Trustees convened a task force to organize
the parade float for that year. On August 22, 2000, approximately 19 days
before the parade, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to
oppress, instructed Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to terminate her parade
float activities. A false reason for this termination was published in the
membership newsletter by Defendant Trustees, causing Plaintiff
embarrassment. Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff
as to the reason for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National
Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
32. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to receive instruction on the Bah 'ˇ Covenant.
Plaintiff complied and attended that "instruction," which in fact consisted
of three (3) hours of interrogation by Trustee Owen Creightney, and John
and Ok-Sun McHenry. It became apparent at this meeting that Trustee
Creightney had lied to the Trustees in order to oppress named Plaintiff.
Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier,
who took no action.
33. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to resign from the Bah 'ˇ gospel choir.
Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to the reason
for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual
Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
34. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, undermined
named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn's Saturday Night Coffee House and in
effect stopped her Coffee House. Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to
these circumstances. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly
and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
35. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, have
ordered numerous Bah 'ˇs to shun Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn.
36. Defendant Trustee Kambiz Victory told a Plaintiff "I am the voice of
God in this community."

Libel

37. Defendant Trustees knowingly published false and defamatory information
about Plaintiffs in the Albuquerque Bah 'ˇ newsletter, specifically
relating to the parade banner.

Unlawful Prevention of Communication between Shareholders

38. Defendant National Spiritual Assembly has the policy that Local
Spiritual Assemblies are responsible for reviewing pamphlets and
newsletters and materials that mention the Faith such as songs, play
scripts, souvenir items, and greeting cards, intended for publication or
distribution within their communities, whereas the National Spiritual
Assembly is responsible for review of those same materials intended for
nationwide publication.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I
39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
40. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly acted and
continue to act fraudulently towards the Plaintiffs.
41. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count II
42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
43. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly libeled the named
Plaintiff.
44. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count III
45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
46. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act in good faith, which failure constitutes
fraud.
47. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count IV
48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all previous paragraphs.
49. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act with the care an ordinary prudent person in
like position would exercise under similar circumstances, which failure
constitute fraud.
50. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count V
51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
52. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act in a manner they reasonably believe to be
in the best interests of the corporation and its members, which failure
constitutes fraud.
53. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count VI
54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
55. The Trustees have repeatedly failed their duty to compose differences
and disagreements with themselves and the members, in violation of their
by-laws, which failure constitutes fraud.
56. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count VII
57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
58. The National Spiritual Assembly has repeatedly failed their duty to
hear appeals from Plaintiffs, in violation of their by-laws.
59. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count VIII
60. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
61. The literature review policies of the National and Local Spiritual
Assemblies violate the rights of corporate members to communicate with
other corporate members.
62. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count IX
63. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
64. The practice of the Local Spiritual Assembly to direct members not to
speak about their dealings with the LSA with other corporate members
violates the rights of corporate members to communicate with other
corporate members.
65. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

JUDICIAL RELIEF

WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
1. Declare that the Trustees acted fraudulently towards Plaintiffs;
2. Declare that Trustees libeled Plaintiffs;
3. Declare that the Trustees breached their corporate duties towards
Plaintiffs;
4. Remove the Trustees from their positions and enjoin them from serving in
official Bah 'ˇs capacities for nineteen (19) years;
5. Remove the LSA Directors who are also Trustees;
6. Declare that the Local Spiritual Assembly violated members' rights to
inspect corporate books and records;
7. Compel Defendant LSA to retain an independent certified public
accountant to audit the books for the last two years;
8. Declare that Defendant LSA violated their corporate by-laws by failing
to compose differences and disagreements among members of the community;
6. Declare that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their duty of
hearing Plaintiffs' appeals;
7. Declare that the literature review policies of the Bah 'ˇs violate
United States common law as preventing corporate members from communicating
with other corporate members;
8. Enjoin Defendants National Spiritual Assembly and Local Spiritual
Assembly from enforcing their literature review policy;
9. Declare that the secrecy practices of the Local Spiritual Assembly
violate United States common law as preventing corporate members from
communicating with other corporate members;
10. Enjoin Defendant Local Spiritual Assembly from continuing their secrecy
practices;
11. Award compensatory damages from Defendants to Plaintiffs;
12. Award attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiffs;
13. Any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________
Yorgos D. Marinakis
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 45923
Rio Rancho, NM 87174
505-459-4664
877-430-9550 (fax)

Named Plaintiff's Verification

STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO)

COMES NOW Deborah Buchhorn, and being duly sworn, states as follows:
1. I have read and understood the contents of this Complaint.
2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
3. I attest to and verify their truth and accuracy.
__________________________
DEBORAH BUCHHORN
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this __ day of ______, 2001.
________________________
Notary Public

My Commission Expires:
From: "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net>
Subject: Alburqueque - the question!
Date: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:34 PM

Allahu Abha!

Nima Hazini wrote:

> Seems he passed the bar in Mass in February 2000, so it's hardly a scant 6
> months (albeit February 2000 is probably scant 6 months by your ridiculous
> calculations), and besides the guy has a Ph.D of top of the law degree he's
> obtained. Do you know anything about the firm he works for, hmmmm???

Phd in what?

Remember, you said you hears that he was a high-powered lawyer, who successfully
sued and won several corporate lawsuits - this seems unlikely - therefore it
seems taht you are piping in disinformation - and I don't know why you bring
these things in.  _If_ it turns out that his Phd is a JD, I sure you are the one
that brings the info in.

The real question is not the qualifications of the attorney, it's the stuff in
the complaint.  That is why there was speculation that the attorney was a goof.

I asked you about the allegations and your response seemed to be along the vein
of "yeah, all that".  Well, that ain't about SFA!  "All that" made no sense so
it is hard for me to understand if you are being flip, don't understand the
question, don't think I'm interested in the answer, or if it really was the
Kenosha community beamed back down in the late 20th century, complete w/
foot-washings, shareholders and trustees.

If you really want to say the Alburqueque community was hopelessly whacked out,
please do so in _detail_, not generalizations, not cliches, please, _how_
elections were rigged, how the riggers precluded complaints, _how_ etc. _what_
etc. _who_ etc. etc. etc.

Blessings!
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

No probs, I'll do the same for you when someone is referring to you as Randy
Blivitz, "Blivitz" being ten pounds of organic fertilizer in a five pound bag.

Randy Burns wrote:

> Thanks Pat!
>
> I had almost forgotten Rick's nickname!
>
> Cheers, Randy

Ciao!
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net
Allahu Abha!

Randy Burns wrote:

> Hi Pat
>
> Is your statement what we really mean when we say that the Guardian
> interprets the writings?  The idea you present below as an example is a new
> twist to me. Not that I hadn't heard about the saying of the Greatest Name
> but rather that it was a type of interpretation.   I always assumed that the
> Guardian's interpretation was more directed to the meaning of what
> Baha'u'llah said rather than to the timing of the application of it.  Though
> I'm sure his interpretations also apply to application as well.

What I mean when I say "interpret", I mean that that is what something means.
"The opposite of what it says" is the extreme in interpretation, but it is
intepretation.

I think when it comes to consistent (rather than contrary) intepretations, I
think the "72" is a good guide; though some may be better than others, than can
be quite a few valid interpretations.

The Guardian provided _authoritative_ intepretation, one of those 72 which all
could agree was very valuable.

> Is it true
> that the UHJ can't change Shoghi Effendi's interpretation on applicability
> but can only tell us that it's a good idea?

I'm trying not to get in trouble.  Can you give some examples of Shoghi
Effendi's interpretation on applicability?  I don't think we should burn or
brand people for certain crimes until the constitutionally legal routes are
followed to established those as punishments, possibly in a society which might
provide comparable but different punishments for various serious crimes.   Is
that where you wanted me to go?

> What about the Huquq?
>

It is in the Kitabi Aqdas, and here is where common sense ought to enter in.
Suppose Shoghi Effendi intepreted as not appropriate for a given time, maybe the
west in the 1930s.  The circumstances change and if there is no authoritative
interpreter do we lock ourselves in to a depression era mentality?  I don't
think so.  I would discourage anyone from _compelling_ a Baha'i to overlook an
interpretation of the Guardian, but I would not presume that I should not pay
the Right of God, described in the Most Holy Book, because of something said
before I was born.  Furthermore, I would encourage all Baha'is to consider as
applicable to them as much as possible of the revelation of Baha'u'llah.

Peace!
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net
What Rick is referring to is the childish taunting that Nima has been doing.
"Merde" is Spanish for "shit".  Nima refers to Rick as "shit".  If you want to
take on the thankless task of lecturing the contributors on manners, please
please please do!

Rick Schaut wrote:

> <multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ac4ee18.567578@news.aros.net...
> > Such humility!  Really for those that lurk and those of us who have
> > only begun to post it smacks of conceit.
>
> (snip)

> I will only note that my own
> supposed "conceit" doesn't consist of purposefully misstating someone else's
> appropriate name or abusing particular pronounciations of their names.
>
> > But perhaps you are better than most who post here.
>
> Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it.  Frankly, such questions strike me as
> abundantly unimportant.  It's rather like trying to decide whether apple pie
> is better than chocolate cake.  The answer really depends on the cook.
>
> As for whether or not I'm a Baha'i, I think you already know the answer.
> Why did you ask?

Nima,

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmum!

o
Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

"Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net> wrote in message
news:QgKw6.355$cj6.145251@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> The next step

> after these lawsuits will be Loyalty Oaths signed by all Baha'is just
before
> the annual elections.  I expect changes to the LSA bylaws as well in order
> to prevent future lawsuits and

> I would expect an addendum to the Baha'i membership card which new Baha'is
> sign to the effect that the signatory agrees to let all disputes be
handled
> by arbitration rather than by law courts.  This is what big business is
> doing all over the country, why not us?

I'm not sure how that follows.  Wouldn't this rather depend more on the
actual outcome of the lawsuit than it would arise from the filing of a
rather poorly done complaint?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

The next step

after these lawsuits will be Loyalty Oaths signed by all Baha'is just before
the annual elections.  I expect changes to the LSA bylaws as well in order
to prevent future lawsuits and

I would expect an addendum to the Baha'i membership card which new Baha'is
sign to the effect that the signatory agrees to let all disputes be handled
by arbitration rather than by law courts.  This is what big business is
doing all over the country, why not us?

Expect a major reduction in the individual rights of loyal Baha'is.

No doubt as an enhancement to spirituality!!

Randy

--

Rick Schaut <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99vli702u6p@news1.newsguy.com...
>

Dear Pat,

She is not going to be able to persuade a judge that there is something wrong
with applauding someone. A judge would like find it nonsensical that
electioneering was termed "rigging.'  And she says nothing about the Baha'i
teaching that might make this intelligible. 

warmest, Susan

warmest, Susan

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>Nevertheless, shareholders/members typically do
>have a right to see all the corporate documents, 

According to the complaint, she *did* eventually see the documents she
requested. Apparently her LSA just grumbled a lot about it. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>Sure, _IF_ someone said, let's give a big hand for "__" and named just a few
>of the
>friends elegible for election, immediately before an election, I'd be on the
>phone
>myself to the ABM (Prot).  Duh!

I would too. Because in a Baha'i climate such behaviour might well be
unacceptable. But it's not going to seem wrong to a non-Baha'i judge. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Could be a guy from somewhere else who gets thanked for his legal expertise in
helping put together a book on wildlife laws which is available at the U of New
Mexico web site:
https://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/acknow.html

> Hi Pat!
>
> I don't know anything about this guy, but in fact many lawyers take bar
> exams when they move to a new state in order to practice law there.  Some
> lawyers are accredited in several states.  Maybe he is a recent arrival in
> NM, or maybe he is a new lawyer, who knows?
>
> Randy
>
> --
>
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3AC3BE5F.DD90C592@ameritel.net...
> > Allahu Abha!
> >
> > Nima Hazini wrote:
> >
> > > You know I was told there is more than one Yorgos Marinakis. This one
> was
> > > Yorgos D.
> >
> > If the "D" is for Dionysus, then Yorgos D. Marinakis' name might be one of
> the
> > ones on the very bottom of the page https://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm, those
> who
> > passed the test, but have outstanding requirements to meet before
> acceptance to
> > the bar.  But this was some months back so they likely have been admitted
> to
> > the bar.
> >
> > Maybe there is more than one lawyer named Yorgos Dionysus Marinakis in New
> > Mexico?
> >
Seek and ye shall find

multiman@aros.net wrote:

> Such humility!  Really for those that lurk and those of us who have
> only begun to post it smacks of conceit.

Rather than dig into the vices of others, consider whether their is merit to the
claim.  We've read a document variously described as a deposition and a
complaint, both might not be right.  A lawyer who apparently passed the bar last
year has been described as "high powered a corporate attorney . . . successfully
sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
Massachusettes".  Though it is possible that both statements are true, my legal
experience has been that cases take months (at least two) and bigger cases take
years. To win several cases the same year he passed his bar sugests that he took
over cases that others prepared, and in that scenario, it is hard to determine
that he is "high-powered".

I don' think Rick is conceited so much as tired of folks insisting that he
believe every story that they've heard.

> But perhaps you are better
> than most who post here.  Are you a Bahai?

Not a better person, just a bit more discriminating about legal stuff.

>

God bless you,
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net
Apologies if this shows as a double post.  I saw that I was addressing two
NGs; I did not see the scrollbar was down at the bottom.  I inadvertently
posted to NGs where I was OT and cancelled.

Rick Schaut wrote:

> "Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in
message
> news:tc693aqc7rvh33@corp.supernews.com...
> > Please notice the bahai fundamentalists are failing to
respond to the
> > details of the lawsuit charges:
>
> Please note that the "details" quoted don't allege any
actual facts.  They
> simply allege that some vague violations have occured.

Generally I'd agree.  For example, I don't picture the
prohibition on
communicating w/ shareholders.  There were specific and
troubling allegations
of electioneering, that the defendents (Alburquque LSA, LSA
trustees (who ARE
those people?), and the NSA)
"fraudulently rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad
by calling for
applause for him three times prior to an election of
corporate officers.
Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and
Brent Poirier, who
took no action.
23. Defendant Trustees or their agents fraudulently rigged
the election of Harry and Sondra Day, by introducing them
and calling for
applause moments before an election of corporate officers."

Other stuff like "secret voting at feast" looks more like
some of the smoke
and rumour that gets spread around TRB by misinformed
pretenders to idle
claimancy.

By suing the NSA, who failed to take action for their
alleged electioneering,
it leaves the mistaken impression that they are answerable
only to themselves,
which is not the case.  The LSA should be answerable to the
NSA and possibly a
regional assembly.  The NSA is answerable to the UHJ.  _IF_
the NSA rigged the
election of Nelson Sapad, Harry and/or Sondra Day, the UHJ
should have been
apprised.

All in all, it seems to invite a rolling of the eyes and
dismissal - NSA
rigging election and witness appealing to that same NSA and
Brent Poirier - it
just seems too implausible.

- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net


Rick Schaut wrote:

> "Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
> news:tc693aqc7rvh33@corp.supernews.com...
> > Please notice the bahai fundamentalists are failing to respond to the
> > details of the lawsuit charges:
>
> Please note that the "details" quoted don't allege any actual facts.  They
> simply allege that some vague violations have occured.

Generally I'd agree.  For example, I don't picture the prohibition on
communicating w/ shareholders.  There were specific and troubling allegations
of electioneering, that the defendents (Alburquque LSA, LSA trustees (who ARE
those people?), and the NSA)
"fraudulently rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad by calling for
applause for him three times prior to an election of corporate officers.
Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who
took no action.
23. Defendant Trustees or their agents fraudulently rigged
the election of Harry and Sondra Day, by introducing them and calling for
applause moments before an election of corporate officers."

Other stuff like "secret voting at feast" looks more like some of the smoke
and rumour that gets spread around TRB by misinformed pretenders to idle
claimancy.

By suing the NSA, who failed to take action for their alleged electioneering,
it leaves the mistaken impression that they are answerable only to themselves,
which is not the case.  The LSA should be answerable to the NSA and possibly a
regional assembly.  The NSA is answerable to the UHJ.  _IF_ the NSA rigged the
election of Nelson Sapad, Harry and/or Sondra Day, the UHJ should have been
apprised.

All in all, it seems to invite a rolling of the eyes and dismissal - NSA
rigging election and witness appealing to that same NSA and Brent Poirier - it
just seems too implausible.

- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

Michael McKenny wrote:

> Greetings, Rick.
>     Sigh. I'm sure you'll be sad to hear I'm too busy to devote the
> attention to this I'd like to.
>     For the record, as usual there's a lot here about WHO rather than WHAT.
> Everything to do with who is irrelevant ad hominem. Stick to the issues man.
> That's what you're so powerless to do, since your whole position is at odds
> with rational discourse -- you hold that WHO is all that counts. Doug and
> his buddies, because of who they are, can define ethics and the good. So,
> you carry this over into all discourse, you comment about who, rather
> than what.
>     Formal logic, in complete agreement with the principles of Baha'i
> consultation, holds that who said it is of no consequence; what is said
> is the whole point. The issue is what counts.
>     I look forward to you addressing issues, but I don't hold my breath.
>                                     To the Essential Baha'i Principles,
>                                                     Michael

So, then this would be irrelevant, "The attorney in question is a high powered
corporate attorney in New Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state.
He
has successfully sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New
Mexico and Massachusettes"

Whereas the details of why someone would think the deposition, or complaint is a
mishmash, would be relevant.

I think Rick knew that.
Allahu Abha!

Nima Hazini wrote:

> You know I was told there is more than one Yorgos Marinakis. This one was
> Yorgos D.

If the "D" is for Dionysus, then Yorgos D. Marinakis' name might be one of the
ones on the very bottom of the page https://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm, those who
passed the test, but have outstanding requirements to meet before acceptance to
the bar.  But this was some months back so they likely have been admitted to
the bar.

Maybe there is more than one lawyer named Yorgos Dionysus Marinakis in New
Mexico?
Since I don't know any of the facts in the case, I cannot comment on them.
However, number 4 below, that literature review prevents access to shareholders
seems frivilous and slightly incorrect.  I own/started from scratch both a
for-profit corp and a 501 c 3 corp, and will say first that personnel issues in
either one can be "private."  Nevertheless, shareholders/members typically do
have a right to see all the corporate documents, so that if the Plantiff was
indeed a shareholder/member, then he/she can see them, and it doesn't
necessarily involve literature review.  The Plaintiff would easily WIN that case
and we will certainly hear about that outcome on trb.
    by definition, there is no such thing as a shareholder in a non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation.  They are called "members."  and they are members merely
because they filed the incorporation papers and/or were elected at the annual
meeting.  They are NOT members simply because they might serve on either an LSA
or NSA.  Make sense?  So there is something incorrect with the way this
complaint was filed.... against shareholders?  There is no such creature, even
if he/she might look like a bear.  :)
   Therefore, someone who is a Baha'i in a community is NOT a member of the
corporation, unless they also happen to be a "member" of the 501(c)(3).
   If the Plaintiff is going to carry this into court, he/she/them should
carefully define who and what they are suing.
regards,
chas

Patrick Henry wrote:

> Please notice the bahai fundamentalists are failing to respond to the
> details of the lawsuit charges:
>
> 2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
> officers.
> 3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
> duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.
> 4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
> Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
> privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
> with other shareholders.
> 5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
> their corporate by-laws.
>
> THOSE are the charges, being ignored by the lackies who handled
> damaged control on talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai

<snip>
Aha!

Thanks for pointing this out that you lived there.

Did you see some of the blatant electioneering which the suite alleges?

Is there any of that other stuff which you might explain, like how the
defendents prevent communication with share-holders, why shouldn't the LSA take
responsibility for the parade float, what is the TV show "Spiritual Reality" and
what was going on on the show that it would be cancelled, or that the LSA has
some say in it, were shareholders prevented from watching the TV show (if so,
how?)?

Maybe there were problems in that community, but the allegations look more like
hole than doughnut.

Blessings!
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

Nima Hazini wrote:

> That's not the only complaint in the brief. However, having lived in that
> community in the early 90s myself, I can corroborate all of what it states
> based on my own experience. In fact, it was thanks to that community and its
> loonier than looney LSA that my eyes opened about the cult-like reality of
> the Baha'i community and its administration.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
They definitely are NOT shareholders.  They are "members" of the corporation, and
NOT necessarily members of the religion.  Shareholders is NOT the correct term.
--chas
for-profit corporations in the US have shareholders
non-profit corporations in the US have members.

Michael McKenny wrote:

>     I'll overlook your slip about not being shareholders, but believers.
> That's an ad hominem. Share holders expect the corporate directors to
> manage the company appropriately. Believers in Baha'i expect the LSA
> etc. members to manage the spiritual community appropriately. Under
> Baha'i and other jurisdiction, the argument may certainly be made that
> direction the corporation/spiritual community as a fundamentalist
> exclusivist cult discriminating against women and other activities
> at variance to the definition of Baha'i is mismanagement.
>                                               To the Future,
>                                                   M
>
Sure, _IF_ someone said, let's give a big hand for "__" and named just a few of the
friends elegible for election, immediately before an election, I'd be on the phone
myself to the ABM (Prot).  Duh!

If it happened, steps should be taken.  I don't think these are the steps and I
suspect that it did not happen.  I know if the AO asked me about electioneering in
my community, I'd say what I knew. this is why I tend to be suspicious of this
single source account.

multiman@aros.net wrote:

> If your By-Laws forbid campaigning in any manner, I think the judge
> might justg buy the argument.  I think Abdul-Baha would have.
>
> On 28 Mar 2001 14:52:58 GMT, smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
>
> >Sorry, Nima. I'd like to see someone trying to persuade a judge that applauding
> >constitutes fixing an election. ;-}
> >
> >"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
> >left to start again . . "
> >Don McLean's American Pie
> >https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> >
Gee, Pat, how does it feel to be kissing Schaut's behind like that??

cheers,
Nima

"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC50C15.5A41AD8A@ameritel.net...
Seek and ye shall find

multiman@aros.net wrote:

> Such humility!  Really for those that lurk and those of us who have
> only begun to post it smacks of conceit.

Rather than dig into the vices of others, consider whether their is merit to
the
claim.  We've read a document variously described as a deposition and a
complaint, both might not be right.  A lawyer who apparently passed the bar
last
year has been described as "high powered a corporate attorney . . .
successfully
sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
Massachusettes".  Though it is possible that both statements are true, my
legal
experience has been that cases take months (at least two) and bigger cases
take
years. To win several cases the same year he passed his bar sugests that he
took
over cases that others prepared, and in that scenario, it is hard to
determine
that he is "high-powered".

I don' think Rick is conceited so much as tired of folks insisting that he
believe every story that they've heard.

> But perhaps you are better
> than most who post here.  Are you a Bahai?

Not a better person, just a bit more discriminating about legal stuff.

>

God bless you,
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

Yep. All of it.

cheers,
Nima

"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC3BC8E.DC47BBD3@ameritel.net...
Aha!

Thanks for pointing this out that you lived there.

Did you see some of the blatant electioneering which the suite alleges?

Is there any of that other stuff which you might explain, like how the
defendents prevent communication with share-holders, why shouldn't the LSA
take
responsibility for the parade float, what is the TV show "Spiritual Reality"
and
what was going on on the show that it would be cancelled, or that the LSA
has
some say in it, were shareholders prevented from watching the TV show (if
so,
how?)?

Maybe there were problems in that community, but the allegations look more
like
hole than doughnut.

Blessings!
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

Nima Hazini wrote:

> That's not the only complaint in the brief. However, having lived in that
> community in the early 90s myself, I can corroborate all of what it states
> based on my own experience. In fact, it was thanks to that community and
its
> loonier than looney LSA that my eyes opened about the cult-like reality of
> the Baha'i community and its administration.
>
> cheers,
> Nima

I have seen many suits being an assitant to a para legal, and it is no
worse than most, and if the facts are true, it should prove very
interesting.

Plus as I wrote on another site, this can be expected when as Shoghi
Effendi stated the administration has been "multilated."

On 28 Mar 2001 05:06:35 GMT, smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:

>>Yorgos D. Marinakis
>>Attorney for Plaintiffs
>>P.O. Box 45923
>>Rio Rancho, NM 87174
>
>An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense! 
>
>"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
>left to start again . . "
>Don McLean's American Pie
>https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
Perhaps some sort of legal defense fund should be created for
vicitms of the fundamentalists. Often people have excellent
cases but not the where-with-all to pursue justice, the best
beloved of all things in His sight....

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99sgtg$74p$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> The clincher here - which shows how smart this attorney is - is that he's
> pursuing the matter based on laws of incorporation and members rights
> therein. While Baha'i fundamentalists lately have been hiding behind the
red
> herring of "the Baha'i faith is a voluntary organization" argument, they
> would be hard pressed to argue this one to a judge where the law as
spelled
> out in this specific case is concerned. If a judge found that a board of
> trustees violated their own bylaws and rules in treating incorporated
> members, she could rule very decisively against the board of trustees, and
I
> suspect that should this attorney have enough testimony and evidence to
that
> effect, it could very well happen.
>
> It seems that Shoghi Effendi's insistance in having the Baha'i faith
> incorporated as an organization is finally coming back to haunt, at least,
> this generation of Baha'i leadership. One could say that the AO has
finally
> been put on notice. Of course, I say this is all for the good of the
Baha'is
> themselves, part of the process of helping the maturation of their
> administrative order and all. May there be more lawsuits - and there
will -
> to help expedite this process along.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
>
> <multiman@aros.net> wrote in message
news:3ac1a554.30228214@news.aros.net...
>
> I have seen many suits being an assitant to a para legal, and it is no
> worse than most, and if the facts are true, it should prove very
> interesting.
>
> Plus as I wrote on another site, this can be expected when as Shoghi
> Effendi stated the administration has been "multilated."
>
>
>
> On 28 Mar 2001 05:06:35 GMT, smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
>
> >>Yorgos D. Marinakis
> >>Attorney for Plaintiffs
> >>P.O. Box 45923
> >>Rio Rancho, NM 87174
> >
> >An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense!
> >
> >"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
> time
> >left to start again . . "
> >Don McLean's American Pie
> >https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> >
>
>
>

>
>If your By-Laws forbid campaigning in any manner, I think the judge
>might justg buy the argument.  I think Abdul-Baha would have.

If the by-laws state that the plantiff failed ot mention it. . It is not at all
clear what connection applauding is supposed to have with electioneering or
electioneerring with "rigging." 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>Uhm, how could there be applauding? When did it happen? Was this when
>the names of candidates were read?

Dear Michael,

I believe the complaint indicates they applause came when they were introduced
at a meeting. 

warmest, Susan

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010331012353.28097.00002934@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> >I can corroborate all of what it states
> >based on my own experience.
>
> I've read the complaint and still can't figure out *what* it states except
that
> some people clapped their hands and one person thought he was god. And oh
yeah,
> the NSA is really, really slow to answer its mail. Now, that's one
complaint
> even *I* can collaborate.
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>

>Well, I guess if the directors of a corporation do not respond to the
>mail of the members of the corporation, that is a legitimate complaint

Oh, they respond. It just takes forever. >  I assume you mean corroborate, or
have you really participated in the
>slowness of Baha'i authorities to respond?

Only by giving them a lot to respond to. :-) 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>It's a deposition. Do you know what a deposition is?

Yes, Nima jan. I've even had a few. ;-} A deposition  is  an interview made
under oath. That's not what this 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
When the going gets tough, His Holiness Ayatollah Schaut appears from out of
the woodwork:

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...

>Dr. Danesh case where people repeatedly cite one
>newspaper article but fail to point out that the facts actually did go to a
>trial and that Dr. Danesh was found to have not acted improperly in any
way.

So why would he cut a deal never to practice psychiatry ever again? I
suppose you also believe OJ Simpson is innocent because he was acquitted on
a technicality *grin*.

cheers,
Nima

Ayatollah Schaut speculated:

>First of all, the deal covered Canada, not the world.

If you'd care to pay any attention that is what I said in my earlier post.

>  Quitting clinical practice in order to
>pursue academic interests isn't unheard of.

Ahh, but why did the good Doktor quit his career in psychiatry and promise
never to practice in Canada where the accusations where made?

>None of that changes the fact that the allegations were the subject of a
>civil lawsuit, and the allegations were found to be without merit during
>that lawsuit.

So what? You still haven't addressed why he will never practice psychiatry
in Canada ever again.

>If memory serves, the civil lawsuit against Simpson was successful.

But the criminal trial wasn't.

cheers,
Nima


"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99vl0d02tid@news1.newsguy.com...

>Egads.  The facts were adjudicated in a court of law, and your response is,
>"So what?"!  At that point, your question is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to you because you do not have an answer. But seems to have
been quite relevant to the Canadian board of psychiatry who cut the deal
with him.

> No number of speculative questions will
>change those facts.

Like the fact that he will never practice psychiatry in Canada ever again.

<spin doctoring snipped>

cheers,
Nima

>
>So why would he cut a deal never to practice psychiatry ever again? 

The "deal" had nothing to do with the civil case which was dismissed with
extreme prejudice. 
But he gave up his license to practive medicine before this came to court
because he had already retired and was on his way to Europe at the time. He
thought doing this would quiet things down without bringing  any embarassment
on the Faith. Obviously he was wrong, and my understanding that  the NSA and
the House were none too pleased that he handled things as he did. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a577c$5l6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>     The point I think being made is that the people running Baha'i,
> including the current lot on the UHJ, are corrupt because this former
> leading Canadian NSA member was doing hanky panky and his buddies took
> care of him by placing him in a position of trust. Lovers of the ad
> hominem leap to defend him and people can debate whether he was really
> at fault (they didn't lock him up) or innocent (but, he agreed not to
> practise his profession in British Columbia, or is it Canada, or is it
> anywhere any more).
>     To me this is ad hominem and beside the significant issue.

That people are reporting only part of the facts for the purpose of casting
aspersions and destroying the reputations of other people is "beside the
significant issue"!?  Gosh, let's not allow ourselves to be bothered with a
little matter of the truth, shall we?

Leaping to someone's defense in the face of the kind of reporting that's
been done here doesn't make one a lover of the ad hominem, Michael.  It
makes one a lover of truth and honesty.

Truth matters, Michael, because discussing the issues gets seriously bogged
down when people phrase the "issues" within a factual context that's filled
with half-truths and outright lies.  When people assume facts not in
evidence, as you have done, then their conclusions are faulty.

>     I've said before that Hooper and his buddies can have as many
> mistresses as they please (though I'd advise them to have consentual sex)
> and that doesn't bother me at all. It's a non-issue.

Of course, that doesn't stop you from referring to the Universal House of
Justice as "Hooper and his buddies."  Is it OK to be insulting and
disrespectful so long as you contiinue to pay lip-service to the notion that
your disrespect and insults are non-issues?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Greetings, Susan.
    The Latin words mean "To the Person". Many today think only negative
comments to the person are what is meant. No. It means speaking anything
about the person, instead of the issue. 
                                                         M                    

   
>>Lovers of the ad
>>hominem leap to defend him

> Michael I believe you have just turned the meaning of ad hominem on its head. 

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010331004111.28097.00002920@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> >
> >So why would he cut a deal never to practice psychiatry ever again?
>
> The "deal" had nothing to do with the civil case which was dismissed with
> extreme prejudice.
> But he gave up his license to practive medicine before this came to court
> because he had already retired and was on his way to Europe at the time.
He
> thought doing this would quiet things down without bringing  any
embarassment
> on the Faith. Obviously he was wrong, and my understanding that  the NSA
and
> the House were none too pleased that he handled things as he did.

Oh dear! Oh dear! How things get twisted!

The story as reported in the Toronto Star was: -

"The College of Physicians and Surgeons withdrew charges of sexual
impropriety yesterday against a psychiatrist who is past secretary general
of the Baha'i faith in Canada.
Charges were withdrawn against Dr. Hossain Banadaki Danesh in exchange for
Danesh's immediate resignation and his "written undertaking not to reapply
for another licence to practice medicine in Ontario or to apply to practice
medicine anywhere else, at any time."

He has also agreed to post $10,000 security toward costs incurred by the
college in paying for therapy for the complainants.

Charges were laid by three former patients.

Danesh, 56, has not admitted to any sexual impropriety with any of his
patients."

Another Bahai martyr who paid towards treatment of those who complained of
their treatment by him but he did nothing at all, absolutely nothing!

Sounds to me that he was "acquitted" and left the country without any other
stain on his charecter.

As ever,

Dermod.






Greetings, Dermod.
    Well, I read the story in Ottawa in THE OTTAWA CITIZEN and I'm
pretty sure British Columbia was mentioned. But, were I in court I'd
have to admit that it happened years ago and my memory is not infallible.
The whole issue concerns personality which I consider largely irrelevant,
so I'm not going to dig up an old copy of THE OTTAWA CITIZEN, when the
basic issue of the personality that he agreed not to practise again and
the charges were not pursued is agreed by all parties.
                                                      Thrive,
                                                          M

"Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:

> The story as reported in the Toronto Star was: -

> "The College of Physicians and Surgeons withdrew charges of sexual
> impropriety yesterday against a psychiatrist who is past secretary general
> of the Baha'i faith in Canada.
> Charges were withdrawn against Dr. Hossain Banadaki Danesh in exchange for
> Danesh's immediate resignation and his "written undertaking not to reapply
> for another licence to practice medicine in Ontario or to apply to practice
> medicine anywhere else, at any time."

> He has also agreed to post $10,000 security toward costs incurred by the
> college in paying for therapy for the complainants.

> Charges were laid by three former patients.

> Danesh, 56, has not admitted to any sexual impropriety with any of his
> patients."

> Another Bahai martyr who paid towards treatment of those who complained of
> their treatment by him but he did nothing at all, absolutely nothing!

> Sounds to me that he was "acquitted" and left the country without any other
> stain on his charecter.

> As ever,

> Dermod.









--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99u0rv$kom$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...
> >The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
> >appear to be very competent.

> The attorney in question is a high powered corporate attorney in New
> Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state. He has successfully
> sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
> Massachusettes, or so I hear.

That's quite a list of accomplisments for someone who only managed to pass
the New Mexico bar exam a mere six months ago
(https://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm).  Looks more like this is his first case,
and they gave him a throw-away on which to cut his teeth.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a2pqk$enp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Greetings, Rick.
>     Sigh. I'm sure you'll be sad to hear I'm too busy to devote the
> attention to this I'd like to.
>     For the record, as usual there's a lot here about WHO rather than
WHAT.

Yes.  And, of course, it all began when I made a side comment about the
apparent competence of the attorney.  That particular comment wasn't
intended to be probative of anything.  Rather, it was based on the rather
obvious lack of any substance in the complaint that's been posted here.

It was your friend, Mr. Hazini who, rather than address the point I had
raised (i.e. the idea that the complaint is long on allegations but short on
alleging any actual facts), chose to single out my side comment and present
the rather unfounded thesis that the attorney is supposedly some
high-powered chap who has won several cases.  If you wish to take anyone to
task for not addressing the issues, Mr. McKenny, I suggest you point your
Solar Guard's weapon in Mr. Hazini's direction, and not mine.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a547q$1d6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Greetings, Rick.
>     Uhm, I assume you mean that it's short on facts.

No.  The only thing a complaint does is state allegations.  The facts get
brought out at trial, should the case ever get that far.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcea1c75bcdse2@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a5ai50n7a@news1.newsguy.com...
> > "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:9a547q$1d6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > Greetings, Rick.
> > >     Uhm, I assume you mean that it's short on facts.

> > No.  The only thing a complaint does is state allegations.  The facts
get
> > brought out at trial, should the case ever get that far.

> And no doubt you are praying fervently that it doesn't!

Actually, I'm praying fervently that it does.  I'd take quite a bit of
pleasure in watching you and Mr. Hazini dine on ample dishes of crow.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcfjihc2ilf0e4@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a81g10ia6@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Actually, I'm praying fervently that it does.  I'd take quite a bit of
> > pleasure in watching you and Mr. Hazini dine on ample dishes of crow.

> But what happens if the lady wins her case?  Do you promise us a similar
> pleasure?

Absolutely!

So, Dermod, are you up for it?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

<multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ac4ee18.567578@news.aros.net...
> Such humility!  Really for those that lurk and those of us who have
> only begun to post it smacks of conceit.

I don't quite see how it would smack of conceit any more than constantly
referring to the Universal House of Justice as the 'universal house of
injustice', with the inherent stance of placing oneself above that
particular institution, smacks of conceit.  I will only note that my own
supposed "conceit" doesn't consist of purposefully misstating someone else's
appropriate name or abusing particular pronounciations of their names.

> But perhaps you are better than most who post here.

Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it.  Frankly, such questions strike me as
abundantly unimportant.  It's rather like trying to decide whether apple pie
is better than chocolate cake.  The answer really depends on the cook.

As for whether or not I'm a Baha'i, I think you already know the answer.
Why did you ask?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

<snip>.

>As for whether or not I'm a Baha'i, I think you already know the answer.

The answer is no. Rick Schaut is a Nazi, not a Baha'i.

cheers,
Nima

I must admit I may have been a little blunt, but it seems to be the
way people are on this site.  I do there fore apologize for the
question of Faith, I myself am not a Bahai and while investigating it
have not found so far that which would appeal to me.  Perhaps I will
but I am observing the flow and have not found the argument for the
hands and UHJ (I will for your sensiblities in this post not use the
other appelative which I have so far found more appropriate) as the
successors being very compelling.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:10:40 -0800, "Rick Schaut"
<RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote:

>
><multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ac4ee18.567578@news.aros.net...
>> Such humility!  Really for those that lurk and those of us who have
>> only begun to post it smacks of conceit.
>
>I don't quite see how it would smack of conceit any more than constantly
>referring to the Universal House of Justice as the 'universal house of
>injustice', with the inherent stance of placing oneself above that
>particular institution, smacks of conceit.  I will only note that my own
>supposed "conceit" doesn't consist of purposefully misstating someone else's
>appropriate name or abusing particular pronounciations of their names.
>
>> But perhaps you are better than most who post here.
>
>Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it.  Frankly, such questions strike me as
>abundantly unimportant.  It's rather like trying to decide whether apple pie
>is better than chocolate cake.  The answer really depends on the cook.
>
>As for whether or not I'm a Baha'i, I think you already know the answer.
>Why did you ask?
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
>
Greetings, Rick.
    As expected this post deals with irrelevant ad hominem. Where's the
substance? 
                                                  M

> I don't quite see how it would smack of conceit any more than constantly
> referring to the Universal House of Justice as the 'universal house of
> injustice', with the inherent stance of placing oneself above that
> particular institution, smacks of conceit.  I will only note that my own
> supposed "conceit" doesn't consist of purposefully misstating someone else's
> appropriate name or abusing particular pronounciations of their names.


> Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it.  Frankly, such questions strike me as
> abundantly unimportant.  It's rather like trying to decide whether apple pie
> is better than chocolate cake.  The answer really depends on the cook.

> As for whether or not I'm a Baha'i, I think you already know the answer.
> Why did you ask?


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut



--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

You're the one who crawled out of his hole the moment the message
"New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD"
https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm   was posted
and started slinging mud and aspersions against me and others.

Your playing the innocent little lamb isn't going to fool anyone
who is even remotely familiar with the despicable things you, and
people like you, have done to fellow bahais for years in the name
of perverted "truth," on and off line....

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm


"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a27up015oa@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
> news:9a215o$3bd04$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
> > Please note how desperate bahai fanatics and fundamentalists
> > are to deny and discredit the FRAUD alleged in the New Mexico
> > lawsuit against the local and US national bahai institutions.
>
> Please note that, in Mr. Glaysher's dictionary, pointing out the absence
of
> fact contitutes a "denial".  I think this is the same dictionary under
which
> SPAM is considered a legitimate activity.
>
> > The person I am responding to here, on soc.culture.israel, is widely
> > regarded as a notorious fanatic fundamentalist.
>
> Perceptive readers will see this as the ad-hominem that it is.
>
> In the mean time, we still haven't seen any _facts_, and not amount of
> Glaysher-made smoke-screen will manage to obscure this.  I just wonder if
> Mr. Glaysher will demonstrate a similar dedication to truth when this case
> gets dismissed.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
>

>Gee, Fred, what happened to that Baha'i love you keep talking about?

Pot calling the kettle black? How amusing. Certainly Baha'i love does not
even remotely emanate from your maladorous direction, Herr Schaut. You
wouldn't know what "Baha'i" or "love" was if it bit you.

>Ah, yes.  I've done such "despicable" things as call people on their faux
>pas.

You've called no ones faux paus, other than the one in your own psychotic
imagination.

 > I've had the temerity to point out that a complaint is not a
>deposition and to question the supposed track record of an attorney who
only
>passed his bar exam a scant six months ago.

Seems he passed the bar in Mass in February 2000, so it's hardly a scant 6
months (albeit February 2000 is probably scant 6 months by your ridiculous
calculations), and besides the guy has a Ph.D of top of the law degree he's
obtained. Do you know anything about the firm he works for, hmmmm???

> Nasty, bad, horrible old me.

I can think of a dozen more colorful adjectives.

>Methinks that the real complaint is that I don't just roll over and play
>dead

Please do the world a favor and go sailing away into the sunset on your
little boat.

>that doesn't actually allege any facts that would constitute a violation of
>the law.

Ooh, and you're a New Mexico state judge and would know *grin*. LOL :))

Polly wanna cracker??

cheers,
Nima

"Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:tc9jpgde2vqf45@corp.supernews.com...
> You're the one who crawled out of his hole the moment the message
> "New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD"
> https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm   was posted
> and started slinging mud and aspersions against me and others.

Gee, Fred, what happened to that Baha'i love you keep talking about?

> Your playing the innocent little lamb isn't going to fool anyone
> who is even remotely familiar with the despicable things you, and
> people like you, have done to fellow bahais for years in the name
> of perverted "truth," on and off line....

Ah, yes.  I've done such "despicable" things as call people on their faux
pas.  I've had the temerity to point out that a complaint is not a
deposition and to question the supposed track record of an attorney who only
passed his bar exam a scant six months ago.  Nasty, bad, horrible old me.

Methinks that the real complaint is that I don't just roll over and play
dead when someone posts the supposedly damaging "evidence" of a complaint
that doesn't actually allege any facts that would constitute a violation of
the law.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Greetings, Rick.
    Again, as expected, you are not dealing with issues, but irrelevant
personalities. Who is logically irrelevant; what is the issue.
                                                       M

"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:

> [Snort.]  I dare say we wouldn't be in this little thread, sport, had you
> actually gone and looked up the information on this attorney rather than
> repeating what you'd been told by someone else.  Now _there's_ a cracker for
> you.


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Rick.
    Only ad hominems here, except an allegation without further detail
that the complaint is flawed. How is it flawed.
    If you really were concerned with truth and with issues, you'd admit
women are equal to men, that the Baha'i vision is inclusive, tolerant,
open-minded, universalist, world-embracing, harmonizing. The issues
transcend personalities. Mismanagement has divided the religion. Political
attitudes and fundamentalism have mutilated it from the vision of its
founder. The issue is to live the life: that is, to demonstrate the
essential principles in action. 
    Show us you can do more than speak about personalities. Admit here
your belief in what makes Baha'i worthwhile, instead of standing as a
political backer supporting the faction in power and the individuals
heading it. Forget who and say what. The truth is that any true backer
of current leadership would clearly uphold the principles leaders need
to elevate as standards for those guided. Well, your move. Can you speak
any language, but ad hominem?
                                                         M

"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9a54kp$1sr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>     Again, as expected, you are not dealing with issues, but irrelevant
>> personalities. Who is logically irrelevant; what is the issue.

> Again, as expected, you take me to task for engaging in a discussion of
> personalities when you're absolutely silent when it comes to Mr. Hazini's
> attacks on people in this forum.  Try using a more even hand about this.

> And, by the way, I have not argued that the complaint is flawed because the
> attorney is incompetent.  That, of course, would actually be an ad-hominem
> argument.  Rather, I have argued that the attorney appears to be incompetent
> because the complaint is seriously flawed.  So, the only real question is
> how you've managed to fail to notice that Nima has yet to address the
> _issue_ of the rather obvious flaws in the complaint?


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a80ag0ea6@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9a5i85$krn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >     Only ad hominems here, except an allegation without further detail
> > that the complaint is flawed. How is it flawed.
>
> Michael, not only have you managed to turn the definition of "ad-hominem"
on
> its head (for what purposes one can only guess), but you've also not been
> paying attention.
>
> Don't you have a gook to write, or something?

"Gook" - an offensive term used in the US to describe a foreigner,
especially a coloured person from Asia.

Now Rickster, are you a racist or do you just churn out this rubbish and
never bother to turn on your Spell Check or otherwise check it?

Guess you're gonna have to eat some humble pie ... or is that "crow"?

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a3j6q01qoi@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>
> Actually, according to the web site to which I posted a link earlier, he
> passed the written portion of the bar exam in September, 2000.
>
> And, note that I didn't just pull that out of my backside.

Unlike the rest of the information you post here and elsewhere?  Well!
There's a first time for everything and this is obviously the first time!

You now know that the picture of your normal information retrieval
methodology will haunt me for the rest of my natural!  Can I sue for Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder?





"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a81m60iu8@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tcea1dcl1u4ae3@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:9a3j6q01qoi@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > Actually, according to the web site to which I posted a link earlier,
he
> > > passed the written portion of the bar exam in September, 2000.
>
> > > And, note that I didn't just pull that out of my backside.
>
> > Unlike the rest of the information you post here and elsewhere?
>
> Ah, yes.  Again we hear from the "my mind is already made up, so don't
> confuse me with the facts" peanut gallery.

Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!

>
> > Can I sue for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
>
> If you can find a solicitor to take the case (which usually entails
finding
> a solicitor who's content with whatever money can be eked out of the
> client), you can file a suit for whatever you'd like.  Please do.  This
> could be quite fun.

No problem finding a solicitor.  Since I'd have to file suit in Seattle and
since your lawyers are accustomed to work under contingency, it wouldn't
cost me anything to file.  Mind you such a lawyer would need to be satisfied
there's a pretty good case before he'd take it on.

You can sleep easy - I'm not going to sue, made of sterner stuff and seen
much worse in my life than your retrieving information via the methodology
discussed.  But if we ever do cross swords in Court, it won't be fun - been
to Court on quite a few occasions, haven't lost one yet and have no
intention of ever doing so.

>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a8u96022j4@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!
>
> Even if that were true, it would be preferable to the constant state of
> chaos that accurately describes how well your mind is made up.

My!  we are full of opinions but short on fact.  Have you any facts with
which to back up this assertion?  Your assertion seems to not state any
facts.

>
> > > > Can I sue for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
> <SNIP>
> >  But if we ever do cross swords in Court, it won't be fun - been
> > to Court on quite a few occasions, haven't lost one yet and have no
> > intention of ever doing so.
>
> Oh, it might not be fun for _you_.  Me.  I think I'd have a grand old time
> watching you attempt to prove "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder".

I have PTSD at the moment - no problem in getting medical certification to
that.  I have the medication and other assorted symptoms - if you care to
calcculate the GMT equivalent of my messages, you'll see a pattern of
insomnia.  Now who would you recommend in Seattle to act as attorney for me?

The Prim Sleep(less)er

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9aa8tr08ou@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > > > Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!
>
> > > Even if that were true, it would be preferable to the constant state
of
> > > chaos that accurately describes how well your mind is made up.
>
> > My!  we are full of opinions but short on fact.  Have you any facts with
> > which to back up this assertion?
>
> I believe you've already supplied all the evidence I need:

Such as - you're long on opinion but short on fact!

>
> > I have PTSD at the moment - no problem in getting medical certification
to
> > that.
>
> Thank you.

Silly boy!  What makes you think you're the cause?  On that account don't
flatter yourself !



"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9aasms0u08@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tchpuql1a161c9@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > Silly boy!  What makes you think you're the cause?  On that account
don't
> > flatter yourself !
>
> Boy, did you miss the point.  But, thanks for the chuckle.

Oh! I didn't miss it! Chose to ignore it! Big difference!

Dear Michael

I don't think you fully understand the Baha'i concept of maturity.  As it
has been explained to me "maturity" means "obedience!"  Leave it to the
Hitler youth to be the most mature group on the planet!  I guess the Nazi's
were just ahead of their time.

Cheers, Randy

--

Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a9oe1$3m5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Hi, Dermod.
>     You wrote:
> "Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:
> > Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!
>
> Actually, this is very important. Baha'i principle is that humanity is
> arriving at the state of maturity. One aspect of this maturity is that
> individuals are no longer, according to Baha'i, to follow whatever is
> dictated by fundamentalist leadership, but each individual has the
> responsibility to see with his/her own eyes and hear with his/her own
> ears. Letting others make up one's own mind is contrary to Baha'i.
> Demanding others comply with what is contrary to Baha'i principle is
> mismanagement in a Baha'i view.
>                              To Baha'i Administrators Doing Their Job,
>                                                   M
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
>        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>

Hi, Rick.
    What Rick said or what Dermod said is not validated because of who
said it. The issue is that in Baha'i freedom of thought and expression is
an essential principle, as is the independent investigation of truth and
the abhorrence of fundamentalist dictatorship. It is the principles that
are the issue, not which individuals order them to be disregarded, nor
which individuals disregard them.
                                                      To Baha'i,
                                                          M.

"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9a9oe1$3m5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:
>> > Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!

>> Actually, this is very important. Baha'i principle is that humanity is
>> arriving at the state of maturity.

> Michael.  What were you saying about "to the person" some posts ago?


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Hi, Rick.
    Then challenge him to a duel if you wish.
    My point is that what you say is not validated by who you are. And,
it is not only my point. It is a principle of formal logic and it is a
principle of Baha'i consultation. Talking about persons, pretty much
all I see from you, is irrelevant to issues.
    The main issue is that Baha'i is open-minded, tolerant, favouring
the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and
expression, the realization that the jewel of spiritual truth is
perceived in a rainbow of varying perceptions, according to the
divinely endowed diversity of humanity, the equality of women and
men, the harmony of faith and reason.
    It's a great game to focus discussion on who you are and your
character, etc., but that is irrelevant to the issue.
                                                       Thrive,
                                                         M.

"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9aak0a$dk9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>     What Rick said or what Dermod said is not validated because of who
>> said it.

> Except when Mr. Ryder makes a remark that's intended to disparage my
> character.  In which case you reply by saying that this is an important
> issue.  The double standard strikes again.

>> It is the principles that
>> are the issue, not which individuals order them to be disregarded, nor
>> which individuals disregard them.

> Then kindly explain why you happen to notice when some individuals
> supposedly disregard those principles and fail to notice when other
> individuals blatantly disregard them.


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Hi, Rick.
    Why not try the Michael McKenny approach. I delight in flames and
ad hominems. I respond these indicate that the flamer obviously considers
my position, my thoughts, my points irrefutable. Rick, rather than
thinking, in error, that I've the time to read everything posted here and 
take everyone to task for ad hominems, why not yourself respond to those
maligning your character by saying, well I see my points are irrefutable as
Nima, etc. you are not addressing these issues I've been making.
    Only problem with that seems to be that I'm still able to ask you
what are your points, other than personalities?
    Let's see you demonstrate that Baha'i is independent investigation
of truth, freedom of thought and expression, harmony of faith and reason,
acceptance of the valid variety of personal opinions, the equality of
women and men, individual responsibility for ethical action, the abhorrence 
of dictatorial, closed-minded, intolerant, exclusivist fundamentalism. Then,
address every comment about you or other individuals by saying such remarks
are invalid logically and according to the principles of Baha'i consultation
and merely demonstrate the irrefutability of these Baha'i principles.
     Well, now that you're doing that, I can get back to my other duties.
I'll check in from time to time to see how you're doing.
                                                           Good Luck,
                                                               M.
 

"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9acbk9$5hp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>     My point is that what you say is not validated by who you are.

> Which still fails to answer the question as to why you notice when some
> people do this in relatively subtle ways (if at all), but fail to notice
> when people do it so blatantly as to astound the senses.

> You're exhibiting prejuice, Michael.  Your efforts to make this point have
> been carried out in an arbitrary and capricious manner.


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

>If you can find a solicitor to take the case (which usually entails finding
>a solicitor who's content with whatever money can be eked out of the
>client), you can file a suit for whatever you'd like.  Please do.  This
>could be quite fun.

I don't think Wendy Momen would be amused.

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

>Aw, Susan! You never let me have any fun!

Gee, and all this time we all thought you were getting off on all this.

cheers,
Nima

Greetings, Patrick.
    Many thanks again for all you've done here. The existence of this
newsgroup is a bright ray of light upon what some people had wanted kept
in the dark. Baha'i principle is for the freedom of thought and
expression, for the independent investigation of truth, not blindly
imitating what fundamentalist leadership has dictated. You were the
major factor in the initiation of this newsgroup. To you goes the credit
that censorship (the opposite of Baha'i principle) is not as pervasive
as previously. Censors cannot prevent posts here, and every move they make,
contrary to Baha'i principle, to punish people after they post should be
fully documented and available for all to read. Abdu'l Baha said that an
ugly man could call himself handsome and that those failing to live the
Baha'i life could call themselves Baha'i, but they fooled no one.
    The Baha'i life is freedom of thought and expression, independent
investigation of truth, the absence of fundamentalist fetters, the
equality of women and men, the balance of faith and reason, openness,
inclusion, etc. Thanks for advancing this.
               To Baha'i Administrators Living the Baha'i Life,
                                   M.

"Patrick Henry" (patrick_henry@liberty.com) writes:

> It is my hope that the distortions of the uhj will begin to be purged, it
> will gradually reform itself, acknowledging the broad and liberal
> Teachings of Baha'u'llah that it has suppressed now for so long.....

> --
> FG
> www.FG.com
> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Pot calling the kettle black again, eh Susan?

cheers,
Nima

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010402223359.27249.00003375@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>After over four years of observing the tactics of
>bahai fundamentalists, I've learnt a few things about
>the way they operate:
>
>1. Always smear and attack the individual.

Hey, did you hear that guys? Nima and Dermod are both fundamentalists!

>4. Change or ignore the subject.

You mean like when Dermod inserted Danesh into the discussion.

>
>5. Shift to the past and argue over who said what, when, where,
>    how, etc....

Are you referring to Nima's last post on Steve Scholl and the Dialogue
issue?
Must be.

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

Merde Man says:

">Their prejudice is rather obvious.

Excuse me - but BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You people have the art of pots calling
kettles black down to an art form and you're accusing us of prejudice?
ROTFLMAO

cheers,
Nima

Versus

TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL )
ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í S OF )
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and )
THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE )
BAHÁ'Í'S OF ALBUQUERQUE, )
NEW MEXICO, a non-profit )
corporation, and the )
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY )
OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF THE )
UNITED STATES, )
an Illinois Corporation, )

What I don't understand is why isn't the "universal" house of "justice"
also named here? They're the ones pulling the strings of these puppets,
and the bootlickers on talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai, for that
matter....

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

I would assume they're already aware of these newsgroups
and perhaps my website or someone else will inform them.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

<multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ac3ad5d.4412531@news.aros.net...
>
>
> Perhaps as a friendly jesture you could get hold of her lawyer and
> offer yourself and others as possible witnesses in developing this
> pattern she is talking about?
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 07:03:15 -0600, "Patrick Henry"
> <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote:
>
> >Please notice the bahai fundamentalists are failing to respond to the
> >details of the lawsuit charges:
> >
> >2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
> >officers.
> >3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
> >duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.
> >4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
> >Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
> >privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
> >with other shareholders.
> >5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
> >their corporate by-laws.
> >
> >THOSE are the charges, being ignored by the lackies who handled
> >damaged control on talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai
> >
> >I would think the lawyer representing the plaintiffs might find many
> >similar stories, during the last decade or so, documented on my
> >bahai webpages, as well as perhaps many potential witnesses to
> >the manner in which the bahai administration now operates....
> >
> >FULL TEXT:
> >New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD 2001
> >https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm
> >
> >--
> >FG
> >www.FG.com
> >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> >https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm
> >
> >
> >"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:99tuhg$k1b$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> >> I think it says somewhere it was filed on the 22nd of March.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Nima
> >>
> >> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> news:99talu$6f9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >> Greetings, Nima.
> >>     Good to see you here again.
> >>     What's the date of this? Is this going to go to trial and when?
> >>     By the way, if you replied to my post a while back about my
receiving
> >> your test message I didn't get your reply. That post mentioned my
review
> >> of ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE DREAMTIME, that's Australian. That review was
posted
> >> to a pagan newsgroup, as just now has my review of A GUIDE TO EARLY
IRISH
> >
> >> LAW. Hooper and his buddies would have loved that. Women had little
legal
> >> standing and rulers were very difficult to take to task. I'm currently
> >> working on the 1899 anthropological classic THE NATIVE TRIBES OF
CENTRAL
> >> AUSTRALIA.
> >>     As always, here's hoping you're doing very well.
> >>                                                        Thrive,
> >>                                                        Michael
> >>
> >> "Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
> >> > It's a deposition. Do you know what a deposition is?
> >> >
> >> > cheers,
> >> > Nima
> >> >
> >> > "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:20010328000635.13283.00002188@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >> >>Yorgos D. Marinakis
> >> >>Attorney for Plaintiffs
> >> >>P.O. Box 45923
> >> >>Rio Rancho, NM 87174
> >> >
> >> > An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense!
> >> >
> >> > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with
no
> >> time
> >> > left to start again . . "
> >> > Don McLean's American Pie
> >> > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
> >>        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Rick Schaut wrote in message <9a2fbm01h75@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
><multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ac3ad5d.4412531@news.aros.net...
>> Perhaps as a friendly jesture you could get hold of her lawyer and
>> offer yourself and others as possible witnesses in developing this
>> pattern she is talking about?
>
>Well, he could.  But, then, the courts tend to not allow hearsay testimony
>as evidence.  Most of the folks around here seem to not grasp the
>distinction.
>

It's not hearsay testimony if he was a witness to the alleged events!

Though, as I understand it, Nima was in the Albuquerque community
about ten years ago, so it seems things didn't improve around there
after he left.  Allegedly.

Paul

<snipped non-bahai newsgroups>

Rick Schaut wrote in message <9a2p5k021nl@news2.newsguy.com>...
>
>"Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:3ac4d742@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
>> Rick Schaut wrote in message <9a2fbm01h75@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> ><multiman@aros.net> wrote in message
>news:3ac3ad5d.4412531@news.aros.net...
>> >> Perhaps as a friendly jesture you could get hold of her lawyer and
>> >> offer yourself and others as possible witnesses in developing this
>> >> pattern she is talking about?
>
>> >Well, he could.  But, then, the courts tend to not allow hearsay
>testimony
>> >as evidence.
>
>> It's not hearsay testimony if he was a witness to the alleged events!
>
>The "you" being addressed above wasn't Nima.  It was Fred.
>
>

Oops!  I don't see his posts, so it's sometimes difficult to follow
the attributions.

Paul

>2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
>officers.

Too vaque an accusation to be meaningful.

>3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
>duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.

Plantiff does not state how long she waited for an appeal.

>4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
>Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
>privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
>with other shareholders.

This is not a for-profit corporation and we are not shareholders. We are
believers. 

>5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
>their corporate by-laws.

Too vaque.

warmest, Susan 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>  I'll overlook your slip about not being shareholders, but believers.
>That's an ad hominem.

Dear Micheal,

I think you need to look up the word ad hominen. You are making some rather
amazinging definitions of it lately: 

Ad hominen, for your information, is to attack an opponents character rather
than answering his arguments. It can also refer to the practice of appealing to
the audiences prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to their
intellects or reason. For instance your referring to Baha'is in good standing
as "fundies" or the Baha'i Faith as a "cult" both constitute  good examples of
ad hominen. As for my argument neither character issues or appeals to sentiment
have anything to do with the point I am making which involves the validity,
from a legal standpoint of the complaint in question.  Whether or not American
Baha'is can be considered "shareholders" of  the NSA is a purely legal matter
and speaks directly to the issue of the validity of this lawsuit.

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Thanks, Nima.
    I'll try to read through this thread on the weakend, though I'm very
busy now. 
                                                           Thrive,
                                                           Michael  

"Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
> I think it says somewhere it was filed on the 22nd of March.

> cheers,
> Nima

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

>
>The person I am responding to here, on soc.culture.israel, is widely
>regarded as a notorious fanatic fundamentalist. It should be evindent
>to perceptive readers that the fundamentalists are attempting to
>prevent knowledge of this lawsuit from reaching public officials in Israel,
>and elsewhere, whom they regularly lie to about the nature of bahai
>institutions.

I'm sure soc.culture.israel would just as soon your not inform them as well.
;-}

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

If this is true, I hope they find for her in every particular.  This
administration has been going downhill for over 40 years, its what you
get when the system has been according to Shoghi Effendi "mutilated".





On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 10:04:37 +1000, "Nima Hazini"
<lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote:

>How sweet it is :)
>
>cheers,
>Nima
>
>
>
>
>"Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
>news:tc11cr1ip1od57@corp.supernews.com...
>SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
>COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
>STATE OF NEW MEXICO
>
>DEBORAH BUCHHORN, for herself )
>and for MINORITY )
>MEMBERS OF THE SPIRITUAL )
>ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF )
>ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, )
>)
>Plaintiffs, )
>)
>vs. ) No. CV 2001-01978
>)
>)
>TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL )
>ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í S OF )
>ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and )
>THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE )
>BAHÁ'Í'S OF ALBUQUERQUE, )
>NEW MEXICO, a non-profit )
>corporation, and the )
>NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY )
>OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF THE )
>UNITED STATES, )
>an Illinois Corporation, )
>)
>Defendants. )
>
>
>
>VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, LIBEL, BREACH
>OF CORPORATE DUTIES, AND DECLARATORY AND
>INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
>
>COMES NOW Plaintiffs by and through their attorney of record, Yorgos D.
>Marinakis, and for their Complaint states as follows:
>
>INTRODUCTION
>
>1. Plaintiffs file this shareholder or member derivative suit against:
>- the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Local
>Spiritual Assembly, or LSA),
>- their Trustees, and
>- the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (National
>Spiritual Assembly, or NSA), with whom the Local Spiritual Assembly and
>itsTrustees have privity.
>2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
>officers.
>3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
>duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.
>4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
>Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
>privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
>with other shareholders.
>5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
>their corporate by-laws.
>
>PARTIES
>
>6. Named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn was a shareholder or member of the
>Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the time
>of the incidents stated in this Complaint, and she continues to be a member.
>7. The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Local
>Spiritual Assembly) is a New Mexico non-profit corporation.
>Shareholder-members may appeal decisions by the Local Spiritual Assembly to
>the National Spiritual Assembly.
>8. The Trustees of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque,
>New Mexico (Trustees) individually reside in Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
>as a condition of their Trusteeship. Trustees are Kambiz Victory, Ok-Sun
>and John McHenry, Manijeh Kavelin, Nelson Sapad, Harry and Sondra Day, Owen
>Creightney, and Carol Caldwell. Jenny Beery was a Trustee during the time
>of many of these incidents.
>9. The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (National
>Spiritual Assembly) is incorporated in and has its principal place of
>business in Illinois.
>
>FACTS
>
>10. The Bahá'í have no clergy. Instead, each community in the Bahá'í Faith
>annually elects nine Trustees or a "Local Spiritual Assembly," which acts
>as an agent or subsidiary of the National Spiritual Assembly. Each
>National Spiritual Assembly answers to the supreme Bahá'í body, The
>Universal House of Justice. The Universal House of Justice established the
>Continental Board of Counsellors (sic) to assist them, and the Countinental
>Board of Counsellors further has the Auxiliary Board to assist them.
>11. In the particular situation between the Trustees of the Spiritual
>Assembly of Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Defendants Trustees
>controlled what member activities Plaintiffs were able to engage in and
>what members they were able to talk to. They stopped them from interacting
>with friends at member events. They stopped Plaintiffs from serving on
>committees and stopped their individual activities for personal reasons.
>They made all the decisions relating to Plaintiffs' membership-related
>activities. They told named Plaintiff that opinions she may personally
>hold were bad and implicitly threatened to curtail her presence at member
>functions. They acted as if the abuse were no big deal, that it was
>Plaintiff's fault, and denied doing it. They failed to act when one member
>was physically threatened and shoved by another member.
>12. Although Plaintiffs have consistently complied with Defendant Trustees'
>demands, they have also consistently filed complaints against them with the
>National and International Bahá'í authorities. This has enraged the
>Defendant Trustees.
>13. Defendant Trustees have never made specific accusations or informed
>Plaintiffs of wrongdoing, other than vague statements such as "you have
>issues with the Spiritual Assembly."
>14. Therefore, deep-seated animosities and distrust have arisen between
>Plaintiffs and the Trustees, which are incapable of resolution and thereby
>present an irreconcilable barrier to the ability of the corporation to
>function as is.
>15. Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations that they would be able to
>participate in the management and activities of their corporation, as
>minority shareholders, have been thwarted since at least 1995.
>16. Article IV of the LSA by-laws provides that the LSA shall compose
>differences and disagreements among members of the community. Article VII,
>section 9 of the NSA by-laws provides that any member of a Bahá'í community
>may appeal from a decision of his LSA to the NSA.
>
>Failure to Allow Inspection of Books and Records
>
>17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained in an
>inaccurate and inequitable manner.
>18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000 discrepancy in the
>corporate books.
>19. In a letter dated September 3, 2000, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
>informed the Local Spiritual Assembly that she desired to inspect their
>financial books. Defendants refused.
>20. Following mailing of the demand letter, the LSA offered to allow named
>Plaintiff to inspect the books and records, but under conditions that the
>Plaintiff deemed in bad faith.
>
>Fraudulent Oppression and Prevention of Communications between Shareholders
>
>21. On April 19, 1998, Defendant Trustees ordered named Plaintiff Deborah
>Buchhorn to refrain from discussing her "issues" with anyone but Auxiliary
>Board member Brent Poirier and the Local Spiritual Assembly. Plaintiff
>complied and appealed to Brent Poirier and the National Spiritual Assembly,
>who took no action. Defendant LSA has wrapped many of their dealings with
>members in the cloak of secrecy in a like manner.
>
>Electioneering
>
>22. At the Annual Meeting Feast of 1999, Defendant Trustees fraudulently
>rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad by calling for applause for him
>three times prior to an election of corporate officers. Plaintiff appealed
>to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
>23. Defendant Trustees or their agents fraudulently rigged the election of
>Harry and Sondra Day, by introducing them and calling for applause moments
>before an election of corporate officers.
>24. Trustees do not ensure secret balloting at the Annual Meeting Feast.
>The usual practice is not to use a ballot box, but for members to lay their
>ballots on a plate or in a basket in plain sight of the election tellers.
>Ms. Buchhorn appealed to Brent Poirier on at least one election. Mr.
>Poirier responded by handling the collection basket himself.
>25. In the member newsletter and prior to the annual election and during
>the Annual Meeting Feast, Trustees have used scriptural quotes to draw
>attention to persons serving on certain committees.
>
>Fraudulent and Oppressive Behavior Relating to the TV Show "Spiritual
>Reality"
>
>26. Plaintiffs conceptualized and produced a TV show named "Spiritual
>Reality." After 100 showings, during which Defendant Trustees only
>complimented Plaintiffs, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent
>to oppress, mandated major changes in the show. Plaintiffs complied and
>appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no
>action.
>27. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
>Plaintiffs to "temporarily postpone" their television show, "Spiritual
>Reality." Plaintiff complied, and Defendants never specifically informed
>Plaintiffs what they had done to precipitate the arbitrary and capricious
>termination. The effect of this order, namely the termination of the TV
>show, violated the right of shareholders to communicate with other
>shareholders.
>28. Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences stated that the reasons
>for termination would be fully discussed at a later meeting, at which
>meeting those reasons were never discussed. Defendant Trustee Kambiz
>Victory, employee of channel 41, knew or should have known that a
>television program cannot be "temporarily postponed." Plaintiffs appealed
>to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
>29. Defendant Kambiz Victory, a Trustee, fraudulently and with intent to
>oppress, told named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn in regards to her television
>show that "Your teaching can have no effect because you are not in unity
>with the Spiritual Assembly." Defendant knew that Ms. Buchhorn's
>television show brought in 15% of the information requests during an
>unrelated major regional advertising campaign by Defendants. Plaintiff
>appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
>30. Defendant Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences set-up
>Plaintiffs to a "confession" of their animosity towards Defendant Trustees.
>Named Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no
>action.
>
>Other Oppression
>
>31. As an act of individual initiative, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
>organized a Bahá'í parade float for several years for the New Mexico State
>Fair Parade. In 2000, Defendant Trustees convened a task force to organize
>the parade float for that year. On August 22, 2000, approximately 19 days
>before the parade, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to
>oppress, instructed Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to terminate her parade
>float activities. A false reason for this termination was published in the
>membership newsletter by Defendant Trustees, causing Plaintiff
>embarrassment. Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff
>as to the reason for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National
>Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
>32. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
>Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to receive instruction on the Bahá'í Covenant.
>Plaintiff complied and attended that "instruction," which in fact consisted
>of three (3) hours of interrogation by Trustee Owen Creightney, and John
>and Ok-Sun McHenry. It became apparent at this meeting that Trustee
>Creightney had lied to the Trustees in order to oppress named Plaintiff.
>Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier,
>who took no action.
>33. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
>named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to resign from the Bahá'í gospel choir.
>Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to the reason
>for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual
>Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
>34. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, undermined
>named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn's Saturday Night Coffee House and in
>effect stopped her Coffee House. Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to
>these circumstances. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly
>and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
>35. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, have
>ordered numerous Bahá'ís to shun Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn.
>36. Defendant Trustee Kambiz Victory told a Plaintiff "I am the voice of
>God in this community."
>
>Libel
>
>37. Defendant Trustees knowingly published false and defamatory information
>about Plaintiffs in the Albuquerque Bahá'í newsletter, specifically
>relating to the parade banner.
>
>Unlawful Prevention of Communication between Shareholders
>
>38. Defendant National Spiritual Assembly has the policy that Local
>Spiritual Assemblies are responsible for reviewing pamphlets and
>newsletters and materials that mention the Faith such as songs, play
>scripts, souvenir items, and greeting cards, intended for publication or
>distribution within their communities, whereas the National Spiritual
>Assembly is responsible for review of those same materials intended for
>nationwide publication.
>
>CAUSES OF ACTION
>
>Count I
>39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>40. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly acted and
>continue to act fraudulently towards the Plaintiffs.
>41. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count II
>42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>43. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly libeled the named
>Plaintiff.
>44. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count III
>45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>46. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
>act and continue to fail to act in good faith, which failure constitutes
>fraud.
>47. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count IV
>48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all previous paragraphs.
>49. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
>act and continue to fail to act with the care an ordinary prudent person in
>like position would exercise under similar circumstances, which failure
>constitute fraud.50. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count V
>51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>52. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
>act and continue to fail to act in a manner they reasonably believe to be
>in the best interests of the corporation and its members, which failure
>constitutes fraud.
>53. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count VI
>54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>55. The Trustees have repeatedly failed their duty to compose differences
>and disagreements with themselves and the members, in violation of their
>by-laws, which failure constitutes fraud.
>56. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count VII
>57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>58. The National Spiritual Assembly has repeatedly failed their duty to
>hear appeals from Plaintiffs, in violation of their by-laws.
>59. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count VIII
>60. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>61. The literature review policies of the National and Local Spiritual
>Assemblies violate the rights of corporate members to communicate with
>other corporate members.
>62. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>Count IX
>63. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
>64. The practice of the Local Spiritual Assembly to direct members not to
>speak about their dealings with the LSA with other corporate members
>violates the rights of corporate members to communicate with other
>corporate members.
>65. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.
>
>JUDICIAL RELIEF
>
>WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
>1. Declare that the Trustees acted fraudulently towards Plaintiffs;
>2. Declare that Trustees libeled Plaintiffs;
>3. Declare that the Trustees breached their corporate duties
>towardsPlaintiffs;
>4. Remove the Trustees from their positions and enjoin them from serving in
>official Bahá'ís capacities for nineteen (19) years;
>5. Remove the LSA Directors who are also Trustees;
>6. Declare that the Local Spiritual Assembly violated members' rights to
>inspect corporate books and records;
>7. Compel Defendant LSA to retain an independent certified public
>accountant to audit the books for the last two years;
>8. Declare that Defendant LSA violated their corporate by-laws by failing
>to compose differences and disagreements among members of the community;
>6. Declare that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their duty of
>hearing Plaintiffs' appeals;
>7. Declare that the literature review policies of the Bahá'ís violate
>United States common law as preventing corporate members from communicating
>with other corporate members;
>8. Enjoin Defendants National Spiritual Assembly and Local Spiritual
>Assembly from enforcing their literature review policy;
>9. Declare that the secrecy practices of the Local Spiritual Assembly
>violate United States common law as preventing corporate members from
>communicating with other corporate members;
>10. Enjoin Defendant Local Spiritual Assembly from continuing their secrecy
>practices;
>11. Award compensatory damages from Defendants to Plaintiffs;
>12. Award attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiffs;
>13. Any other relief this Court deems appropriate.
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>
>___________________________
>Yorgos D. Marinakis
>Attorney for Plaintiffs
>P.O. Box 45923
>Rio Rancho, NM 87174
>505-459-4664
>877-430-9550 (fax)
>
>Named Plaintiff's Verification
>
>STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
>) ss.
>COUNTY OF BERNALILLO)
>
>COMES NOW Deborah Buchhorn, and being duly sworn, states as follows:
>1. I have read and understood the contents of this Complaint.
>2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
>3. I attest to and verify their truth and
>accuracy.__________________________
>DEBORAH BUCHHORN
>SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this __ day of ______, 2001.
>________________________
>Notary Public
>
>My Commission Expires:
>
>
>
>
>
> The Latin means "To the Person". I am using it strictly to mean that;
>saying point A is good or bad because of who said it,

Dear Michael,

I'm well aware of that. What you seem unaware of is that none of my arguments
had anything to do with the question of "who said it" as far as person is
concerned. Now what that person might be as a legal entity (shareholder, etc.)
is entirely a different matter and speaks directly to the validity of the case
in question. It is not ad hominen to say that someone cannot tried as a
juvenile because they happen to be an adult, for instance. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Greetings, Susan.
    The Latin means "To the Person". I am using it strictly to mean that;
saying point A is good or bad because of who said it, rather than
assessing A on the worth of A itself is irrelevant ad hominem. The point
is not who said something, but what was said. Here formal logic agrees
with the principles of Baha'i administration that one considers what, not
who.
                                                              M 

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>  I'll overlook your slip about not being shareholders, but believers.
>>That's an ad hominem.

> Dear Micheal, 

> I think you need to look up the word ad hominen. You are making some rather
> amazinging definitions of it lately: 

> Ad hominen, for your information, is to attack an opponents 

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Susan.
    Unlike what I've read of Rick, you are addressing what rather than
who. You are on topic. Your point is quite valid, though I assume any
hearing will have details to substantiate the charge, or it will with
justification be tossed out. One cannot be dragged before a judge on
the charge of theft without further details -- on such and such a day
at such and such a placed witnesses observed one making off with the
following items not belonging to one; one's fingerprints were found on
the item, etc.
    So what are these people accused of doing specifically.
    I'll overlook your slip about not being shareholders, but believers.
That's an ad hominem. Share holders expect the corporate directors to
manage the company appropriately. Believers in Baha'i expect the LSA
etc. members to manage the spiritual community appropriately. Under
Baha'i and other jurisdiction, the argument may certainly be made that
direction the corporation/spiritual community as a fundamentalist
exclusivist cult discriminating against women and other activities
at variance to the definition of Baha'i is mismanagement.
                                              To the Future,
                                                  M

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
>>officers.

> Too vaque an accusation to be meaningful. 

>>3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
>>duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.

> Plantiff does not state how long she waited for an appeal. 

>>4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
>>Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
>>privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
>>with other shareholders.

> This is not a for-profit corporation and we are not shareholders. We are
> believers. 

>>5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
>>their corporate by-laws.

> Too vaque. 

> warmest, Susan 



> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a2fbm01h75@news2.newsguy.com...

>  Most of the folks around here seem to not grasp the
>distinction.

Really?? Would that be anything like the distinction you once alleged about
Steven Scholl and the Dialogue editors?? Remember when you claimed they had
circulated a Modest Proposal to all the National Convention delegates and
that Scholl and had admitted to doing so in his Crisis of Faith latter?? LOL
:))

Next time when you accuse others of not doing their research first pull your
head out of your own butt, Herr Ayatollah Schaut.

Polly wanna cracker again??

cheers,
Nima


"Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:3ac4d742@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
> Rick Schaut wrote in message <9a2fbm01h75@news2.newsguy.com>...
> ><multiman@aros.net> wrote in message
news:3ac3ad5d.4412531@news.aros.net...
> >> Perhaps as a friendly jesture you could get hold of her lawyer and
> >> offer yourself and others as possible witnesses in developing this
> >> pattern she is talking about?

> >Well, he could.  But, then, the courts tend to not allow hearsay
testimony
> >as evidence.

> It's not hearsay testimony if he was a witness to the alleged events!

The "you" being addressed above wasn't Nima.  It was Fred.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

<multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ac3ad5d.4412531@news.aros.net...
> Perhaps as a friendly jesture you could get hold of her lawyer and
> offer yourself and others as possible witnesses in developing this
> pattern she is talking about?

Well, he could.  But, then, the courts tend to not allow hearsay testimony
as evidence.  Most of the folks around here seem to not grasp the
distinction.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

>
>What I don't understand is why isn't the "universal" house of "justice"
>also named here? 

You can't sue the House of Justice in a US court.

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>Gee, Fred, what happened to that Baha'i love you keep talking about?
>

Fred, considers Baha'i love part of the 'technique" remember?

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010402223359.27249.00003375@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >4.  Change or ignore the subject.

> You mean like when Dermod inserted Danesh into the discussion.

Actually, I believe I was the first to bring it up, as I see a similarity
between the posting of this complaint and Dr. Cole's retention of the
newspaper article without so much as a hint of any the other evidence we
know to exist.

However, I'm still quite amazed at the way some folks will continue to
speculate on Dr. Danesh's motives in settling the OCPS case based on nothing
more than a newspaper article.  That these same individuals also assert that
they refrain from speculating in instances of paultry facts is an abundantly
specious claim.  Their prejudice is rather obvious.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

>After over four years of observing the tactics of
>bahai fundamentalists, I've learnt a few things about
>the way they operate:
>
>1. Always smear and attack the individual.

Hey, did you hear that guys? Nima and Dermod are both fundamentalists!

>4. Change or ignore the subject.

You mean like when Dermod inserted Danesh into the discussion.

>
>5. Shift to the past and argue over who said what, when, where,
>    how, etc....

Are you referring to Nima's last post on Steve Scholl and the Dialogue issue?
Must be. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
After over four years of observing the tactics of
bahai fundamentalists, I've learnt a few things about
the way they operate:

1. Always smear and attack the individual.

2. Lure into supposed discussion then cut the jugular.

3. Work together to create the perception for non-bahais
     that the individual is unbalanced, aberrant, etc....

4. Change or ignore the subject.

5. Shift to the past and argue over who said what, when, where,
    how, etc....

As long as the uhj uses "review" to suppress all free thought and
discussion and encourages such unseemly tactics, attempting to
disucss anything with them is simple a waste of time and energy.

I have many interests in life. Documenting bahai fundamentalism
is only one of them. Many people other than myself have noted
"The Baha'i Technique":
https://members.nbci.com/FG/technique.htm

Nobody has to read my reposts who has done so already. My
Message Rules are full of fundamentalists. Others may use the same
technology to filter out my reposts.They're intended for the
uninformed.... And they will be staying on the newsgroups I choose
as long as bahai censorship and deceit continue. It should be evident
to informed people that fundamentalists desire to suppress all knowledge
of their suppression and coercion of bahais and non-bahais over the
last decade or more now.

I am only interested in preserving the record of what bahai
fundamentalists have done. Others may read it and decide
for themselves.

Anyone interested in my views may read them in my archives or
glean them from my reposts, which, in my view, preserve the
historical record of how low bahai fanatics have been willing to go....

I can only hope by serving humbly, as the self-appointed
archivist/historian for talk.religion.bahai and for all the many victims
of the "universal" house of "justice," that someday someone will come
along who will dig deep enough into the record that the truth will
begin to surface.

Impartial nonbahai observers might wish to compare and
decide for themselves whether the picture fundamentalists
labor so hard to paint of me is accurate or not:

https://fglaysher.com/bio.htm

And then ask yourself why would they go to such extremes?
What is it they don't want you to know? I submit the answers
may be found on my bahai webpages....

It is my hope that the distortions of the uhj will begin to be purged, it
will gradually reform itself, acknowledging the broad and liberal
Teachings of Baha'u'llah that it has suppressed now for so long.....

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a3j6q01qoi@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9a3d3t$asq$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> > >Gee, Fred, what happened to that Baha'i love you keep talking about?
>
> > Pot calling the kettle black?
>
> Really?  Isn't Fred the one who makes it an issue to point out everyone
> else's lack of "Baha'i Love"?
>
> > >Ah, yes.  I've done such "despicable" things as call people on their
faux
> > >pas.
>
> > You've called no ones faux paus
>
> Get back to me on this when you an accurately state the difference between
a
> deposition and a complaint.
>
> > Seems he passed the bar in Mass in February 2000, so it's hardly a scant
6
> > months (albeit February 2000 is probably scant 6 months by your
ridiculous
> > calculations), and besides the guy has a Ph.D of top of the law degree
> he's
> > obtained.
>
> Actually, according to the web site to which I posted a link earlier, he
> passed the written portion of the bar exam in September, 2000.
>
> And, note that I didn't just pull that out of my backside.  I did
something
> unique and novel: I looked it up!  You might try that for yourself some
> time.
>
> > Do you know anything about the firm he works for, hmmmm???
>
> Frankly, no.  Is there something I'm supposed to know?  Tell you what, why
> don't you go find a web site that shows which firm he works for, and then
> I'll go find information about that firm.  I've grown a little skeptical
> about your unsupported statements about someone's supposed qualifications
> (particularly when this someone writes a complaint that looks like it came
> from a first-year law student).
>
> > >  Nasty, bad, horrible old me.
>
> > I can think of a dozen more colorful adjectives.
>
> I'm sure you can.  I'm also sure that they're about as accurate as your
> description of this attorney's accomplisments.
>
> > >Methinks that the real complaint is that I don't just roll over and
play
> > >dead
>
> > Please do the world a favor and go sailing away into the sunset on your
> > little boat.
>
> Do you know the difference between a "boat" and a "yacht"? (Old sailor's
> joke.  The quick-witted will be able to guess the punch line.)
>
> > >that doesn't actually allege any facts that would constitute a
violation
> of
> > >the law.
>
> > Ooh, and you're a New Mexico state judge and would know *grin*.
>
> I don't recall claiming to be a New Mexico state judge, but, then, one
> doesn't need to be any kind of judge in order to have sufficient knowledge
> to point out the flaws in a basic complaint.  This is a relatively simple
> tort.  Most folks whove taken one course in business law can figure out
that
> this complaint is pretty pathetic.
>
> > Polly wanna cracker??
>
> [Snort.]  I dare say we wouldn't be in this little thread, sport, had you
> actually gone and looked up the information on this attorney rather than
> repeating what you'd been told by someone else.  Now _there's_ a cracker
for
> you.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010402222849.27249.00003372@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >If you can find a solicitor to take the case (which usually entails
finding
> >a solicitor who's content with whatever money can be eked out of the
> >client), you can file a suit for whatever you'd like.  Please do.  This
> >could be quite fun.

> I don't think Wendy Momen would be amused.

Aw, Susan!  You never let me have any fun!

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9af6c7$hsk$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Hi, Rick.
>     Why not try the Michael McKenny approach. I delight in flames and
> ad hominems. I respond these indicate that the flamer obviously considers
> my position, my thoughts, my points irrefutable.

I'm afraid you've failed to notice that this is precisely what I've been
doing in my recent responses to your messages.  You see, rather than
focussing on discussing the issues I've raised, you've focussed on my
behavior.  By your own definition, that's ad-hominem.  And, by your own
argument, you now understand the implications of your repeated, and very
one-sided, attempts at discussing my behavior.

Thank you, Michael.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9acbk9$5hp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>     My point is that what you say is not validated by who you are.

Which still fails to answer the question as to why you notice when some
people do this in relatively subtle ways (if at all), but fail to notice
when people do it so blatantly as to astound the senses.

You're exhibiting prejuice, Michael.  Your efforts to make this point have
been carried out in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9aak0a$dk9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>     What Rick said or what Dermod said is not validated because of who
> said it.

Except when Mr. Ryder makes a remark that's intended to disparage my
character.  In which case you reply by saying that this is an important
issue.  The double standard strikes again.

> It is the principles that
> are the issue, not which individuals order them to be disregarded, nor
> which individuals disregard them.

Then kindly explain why you happen to notice when some individuals
supposedly disregard those principles and fail to notice when other
individuals blatantly disregard them.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a9oe1$3m5$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes:
> > Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!

> Actually, this is very important. Baha'i principle is that humanity is
> arriving at the state of maturity.

Michael.  What were you saying about "to the person" some posts ago?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Hi, Dermod.
    You wrote:
"Dermod Ryder" (grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk) writes: 
> Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!

Actually, this is very important. Baha'i principle is that humanity is
arriving at the state of maturity. One aspect of this maturity is that
individuals are no longer, according to Baha'i, to follow whatever is
dictated by fundamentalist leadership, but each individual has the
responsibility to see with his/her own eyes and hear with his/her own
ears. Letting others make up one's own mind is contrary to Baha'i.
Demanding others comply with what is contrary to Baha'i principle is
mismanagement in a Baha'i view.
                             To Baha'i Administrators Doing Their Job,
                                                  M
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tchpuql1a161c9@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> Silly boy!  What makes you think you're the cause?  On that account don't
> flatter yourself !

Boy, did you miss the point.  But, thanks for the chuckle.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcgoagen9osad9@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a8u96022j4@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!

> > Even if that were true, it would be preferable to the constant state of
> > chaos that accurately describes how well your mind is made up.

> My!  we are full of opinions but short on fact.  Have you any facts with
> which to back up this assertion?

I believe you've already supplied all the evidence I need:

> I have PTSD at the moment - no problem in getting medical certification to
> that.

Thank you.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcfjigbc9jmue3@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a81m60iu8@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Ah, yes.  Again we hear from the "my mind is already made up, so don't
> > confuse me with the facts" peanut gallery.

> Your mind isn't made up - it's made up for you!

Even if that were true, it would be preferable to the constant state of
chaos that accurately describes how well your mind is made up.

> > > Can I sue for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

> > If you can find a solicitor to take the case (which usually entails
> > finding a solicitor who's content with whatever money can be
> > eked out of the client), you can file a suit for whatever you'd like.
> > Please do.  This could be quite fun.

> No problem finding a solicitor.  Since I'd have to file suit in Seattle
and
> since your lawyers are accustomed to work under contingency, it wouldn't
> cost me anything to file.

Now _that's_ funny.  Yes, my attorney's are quite accustomed to working on
contingency, meaning, of course, they get paid from the damages that have
been recovered.

>  But if we ever do cross swords in Court, it won't be fun - been
> to Court on quite a few occasions, haven't lost one yet and have no
> intention of ever doing so.

Oh, it might not be fun for _you_.  Me.  I think I'd have a grand old time
watching you attempt to prove "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder".

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcea1dcl1u4ae3@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a3j6q01qoi@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Actually, according to the web site to which I posted a link earlier, he
> > passed the written portion of the bar exam in September, 2000.

> > And, note that I didn't just pull that out of my backside.

> Unlike the rest of the information you post here and elsewhere?

Ah, yes.  Again we hear from the "my mind is already made up, so don't
confuse me with the facts" peanut gallery.

> Can I sue for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

If you can find a solicitor to take the case (which usually entails finding
a solicitor who's content with whatever money can be eked out of the
client), you can file a suit for whatever you'd like.  Please do.  This
could be quite fun.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcfjifb2dcdue2@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> Now Rickster, are you a racist or do you just churn out this rubbish and
> never bother to turn on your Spell Check or otherwise check it?

> Guess you're gonna have to eat some humble pie ... or is that "crow"?

My apologies to anyone who might have been offended.

Of course, if you bother to check your server about now, you'll likely find
that said message no longer exists.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a5i85$krn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>     Only ad hominems here, except an allegation without further detail
> that the complaint is flawed. How is it flawed.

Michael, not only have you managed to turn the definition of "ad-hominem" on
its head (for what purposes one can only guess), but you've also not been
paying attention.

Don't you have a gook to write, or something?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a54kp$1sr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>     Again, as expected, you are not dealing with issues, but irrelevant
> personalities. Who is logically irrelevant; what is the issue.

Again, as expected, you take me to task for engaging in a discussion of
personalities when you're absolutely silent when it comes to Mr. Hazini's
attacks on people in this forum.  Try using a more even hand about this.

And, by the way, I have not argued that the complaint is flawed because the
attorney is incompetent.  That, of course, would actually be an ad-hominem
argument.  Rather, I have argued that the attorney appears to be incompetent
because the complaint is seriously flawed.  So, the only real question is
how you've managed to fail to notice that Nima has yet to address the
_issue_ of the rather obvious flaws in the complaint?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:9a3d3t$asq$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> >Gee, Fred, what happened to that Baha'i love you keep talking about?

> Pot calling the kettle black?

Really?  Isn't Fred the one who makes it an issue to point out everyone
else's lack of "Baha'i Love"?

> >Ah, yes.  I've done such "despicable" things as call people on their faux
> >pas.

> You've called no ones faux paus

Get back to me on this when you an accurately state the difference between a
deposition and a complaint.

> Seems he passed the bar in Mass in February 2000, so it's hardly a scant 6
> months (albeit February 2000 is probably scant 6 months by your ridiculous
> calculations), and besides the guy has a Ph.D of top of the law degree
he's
> obtained.

Actually, according to the web site to which I posted a link earlier, he
passed the written portion of the bar exam in September, 2000.

And, note that I didn't just pull that out of my backside.  I did something
unique and novel: I looked it up!  You might try that for yourself some
time.

> Do you know anything about the firm he works for, hmmmm???

Frankly, no.  Is there something I'm supposed to know?  Tell you what, why
don't you go find a web site that shows which firm he works for, and then
I'll go find information about that firm.  I've grown a little skeptical
about your unsupported statements about someone's supposed qualifications
(particularly when this someone writes a complaint that looks like it came
from a first-year law student).

> > Nasty, bad, horrible old me.

> I can think of a dozen more colorful adjectives.

I'm sure you can.  I'm also sure that they're about as accurate as your
description of this attorney's accomplisments.

> >Methinks that the real complaint is that I don't just roll over and play
> >dead

> Please do the world a favor and go sailing away into the sunset on your
> little boat.

Do you know the difference between a "boat" and a "yacht"? (Old sailor's
joke.  The quick-witted will be able to guess the punch line.)

> >that doesn't actually allege any facts that would constitute a violation
of
> >the law.

> Ooh, and you're a New Mexico state judge and would know *grin*.

I don't recall claiming to be a New Mexico state judge, but, then, one
doesn't need to be any kind of judge in order to have sufficient knowledge
to point out the flaws in a basic complaint.  This is a relatively simple
tort.  Most folks whove taken one course in business law can figure out that
this complaint is pretty pathetic.

> Polly wanna cracker??

[Snort.]  I dare say we wouldn't be in this little thread, sport, had you
actually gone and looked up the information on this attorney rather than
repeating what you'd been told by someone else.  Now _there's_ a cracker for
you.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Here's some info for your contorted melon to ponder, Merde Man. The guy
spent years in Massachusettes. Randy has probably nailed it.

cheers,
Nima

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99u5090j4m@news1.newsguy.com...

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99u0rv$kom$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...
> >The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
> >appear to be very competent.

> The attorney in question is a high powered corporate attorney in New
> Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state. He has successfully
> sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
> Massachusettes, or so I hear.

That's quite a list of accomplisments for someone who only managed to pass
the New Mexico bar exam a mere six months ago
(https://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm).  Looks more like this is his first case,
and they gave him a throw-away on which to cut his teeth.

Regards,
Rick Schaut


"Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:tc693aqc7rvh33@corp.supernews.com...
> Please notice the bahai fundamentalists are failing to respond to the
> details of the lawsuit charges:

Please note that the "details" quoted don't allege any actual facts.  They
simply allege that some vague violations have occured.

Note the pattern: make vague allegations, then complain about people not
responding directly to the vague allegations.  I suppose we're supposed to
ignore the fact that no attempt has yet been made to prove any of the
allegations.  Such is the "Glaysher Technique".

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Rick Schaut <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99vli702u6p@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> Yes, it's difficult to know what the facts are when the complaint doesn't
> allege all that many.
> (a bit snipped)
>
> > About the only allegations that could possibly have any standing under
civil
> law would be the allegations of libel and fraud, but the complaint doesn't
> allege any facts that would constitute libel and/or fraud under the law.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>

Rick,

what advice would you give to Debra/the lawyer to help them present their
case?

Perhaps, a more pertinent question is would you help Debra in this case if
you could or would you, because it has a bahai institution as a 'defendant',
not do so?  So far you appear to be assuming a 'defender of the faith role'
(i.e. these people on trb holding up this complaint as something to be heard
should be fought against).

It's worth a think about.  I've been thinking about it and so far have
concluded that its important to be neutral (unless one has material
information).  Statisically, there must be some dodgey LSA's eh?

John

"Charles" <lmno@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3AC34C32.F43B936A@mindspring.com...
> Since I don't know any of the facts in the case, I cannot comment on them.

Yes, it's difficult to know what the facts are when the complaint doesn't
allege all that many.

>  Nevertheless, shareholders/members typically do
> have a right to see all the corporate documents, so that if the Plantiff
was
> indeed a shareholder/member, then he/she can see them, and it doesn't
> necessarily involve literature review.  The Plaintiff would easily WIN
that case
> and we will certainly hear about that outcome on trb.

When the 501(c)3 corporation in question also happens to be a religious
organization, this is not all that clear under the law.  Even if the by laws
mention the issue, the courts are going to be very reluctant to step in.

About the only allegations that could possibly have any standing under civil
law would be the allegations of libel and fraud, but the complaint doesn't
allege any facts that would constitute libel and/or fraud under the law.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Please notice the bahai fundamentalists are failing to respond to the
details of the lawsuit charges:

2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
officers.
3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.
4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
with other shareholders.
5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
their corporate by-laws.

THOSE are the charges, being ignored by the lackies who handled
damaged control on talk.religion.bahai and alt.religion.bahai

I would think the lawyer representing the plaintiffs might find many
similar stories, during the last decade or so, documented on my
bahai webpages, as well as perhaps many potential witnesses to
the manner in which the bahai administration now operates....

FULL TEXT:
New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD 2001
https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99tuhg$k1b$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> I think it says somewhere it was filed on the 22nd of March.
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:99talu$6f9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Greetings, Nima.
>     Good to see you here again.
>     What's the date of this? Is this going to go to trial and when?
>     By the way, if you replied to my post a while back about my receiving
> your test message I didn't get your reply. That post mentioned my review
> of ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE DREAMTIME, that's Australian. That review was posted
> to a pagan newsgroup, as just now has my review of A GUIDE TO EARLY IRISH

> LAW. Hooper and his buddies would have loved that. Women had little legal
> standing and rulers were very difficult to take to task. I'm currently
> working on the 1899 anthropological classic THE NATIVE TRIBES OF CENTRAL
> AUSTRALIA.
>     As always, here's hoping you're doing very well.
>                                                        Thrive,
>                                                        Michael
>
> "Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
> > It's a deposition. Do you know what a deposition is?
> >
> > cheers,
> > Nima
> >
> > "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010328000635.13283.00002188@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >>Yorgos D. Marinakis
> >>Attorney for Plaintiffs
> >>P.O. Box 45923
> >>Rio Rancho, NM 87174
> >
> > An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense!
> >
> > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
> time
> > left to start again . . "
> > Don McLean's American Pie
> > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
>        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>
>
>

How about you tell that to your Baha'i brothers also, or is it a Baha'i
practice to only point fingers where your own isn't concerned?

cheers,
Nima

"Arfarf5215" <arfarf5215@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010329234903.25665.00001788@ng-cs1.aol.com...
Sorry Nima but Yorgos D. Marinakis passed his Mass bar exam in February
2000..... I'm sure he's a wonderful person and even kind to animals...in
fact
I'm sure you are as well. How about lightening up on the acrimony and having
a
more civil discourse...

>Greetings, Rick.
>    As expected this post deals with irrelevant ad hominem.

Dear Michael,

I believe Rick was responding to irrelevant ad hominem.

warmest, Susan

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Casual passerby my foot.

I don't have a hat you can throw your coin into, but you're most welcome to
kiss my **** ;-)

cheers,
Nima

"Roy Hilbinger" <arhil@aiconnect.com> wrote in message
news:3292156.DOWXDQJI@news.aiconnect.com...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:36:55 +1000 "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
wrote:

> Are you one of the Merde Man Schaut's brown nosers I haven't met yet??

Nope, just a casual passerby who happened to stick his head in the door just
in time to catch your contortionist act. Thanks for the show! You got a hat
I can throw my quarter into?

Cheers back,
Roy
--
***************************************************************
"Behold a candle, how it gives its light. It weeps its life away
drop by drop in order to give forth its flame of light."
 ~ 'Abdul-Baha
***************************************************************

Visit my website:
https://www.aiconnect.com/~arhil/Welcome/
"You'll be glad you did!"

ICQ# 92215158

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
https://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Such humility!  Really for those that lurk and those of us who have
only begun to post it smacks of conceit.  But perhaps you are better
than most who post here.  Are you a Bahai?

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:59:03 -0800, "Rick Schaut"
<rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:24:49 +1000 "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
>wrote:
> > You know I was told there is more than one Yorgos Marinakis. This one was
>> Yorgos D.
>
>Yes.  One wonders what else you've been told that you've swallowed without
>investigating for yourself.
>
>> Btw, for someone who doesn't have a JD or ever studied LAW, you sure have
>> some pretensions to being a legal expert.
>
>Well, I actually have studied law, but I still wouldn't call myself a "legal
>expert".  One doesn't need to have a JD to know more about law than the bulk
>of the folks who post here.
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
Hey Roy,

Are you one of the Merde Man Schaut's brown nosers I haven't met yet??

cheers,
Nima

"Roy Hilbinger" <arhil@aiconnect.com> wrote in message
news:3291441.XYPAARRR@news.aiconnect.com...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:24:49 +1000 "Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au>
wrote:

> You know I was told there is more than one Yorgos Marinakis. This one >
was Yorgos D.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor. My good, that much laughing
HURTS!!!!

Mr. Hazini, you've just won the Academy Award for comic contortionism! I
haven't seen such a hilarious twisting to get out of a self-dug grave since
Houdini did the trick with the locked steamer trunk on the bottom of the
frozen East River. It's a good trick if you can pull it off - AND convince
the audience!

Cheers back atcha!
Roy
--
***************************************************************
"Behold a candle, how it gives its light. It weeps its life away
drop by drop in order to give forth its flame of light."
 ~ 'Abdul-Baha
***************************************************************

Visit my website:
https://www.aiconnect.com/~arhil/Welcome/
"You'll be glad you did!"

ICQ# 92215158

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
https://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a81g10ia6@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tcea1c75bcdse2@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:9a5ai50n7a@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > > news:9a547q$1d6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > > > Greetings, Rick.
> > > >     Uhm, I assume you mean that it's short on facts.
>
> > > No.  The only thing a complaint does is state allegations.  The facts
> get
> > > brought out at trial, should the case ever get that far.
>
> > And no doubt you are praying fervently that it doesn't!
>
> Actually, I'm praying fervently that it does.  I'd take quite a bit of
> pleasure in watching you and Mr. Hazini dine on ample dishes of crow.

But what happens if the lady wins her case?  Do you promise us a similar
pleasure?

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a5ai50n7a@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9a547q$1d6$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > Greetings, Rick.
> >     Uhm, I assume you mean that it's short on facts.
>
> No.  The only thing a complaint does is state allegations.  The facts get
> brought out at trial, should the case ever get that far.

And no doubt you are praying fervently that it doesn't!

The Prim Sleeper

>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>

Greetings, Rick.
    Uhm, I assume you mean that it's short on facts.
                                              To Ethics,
                                                 M  

"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> It was your friend, Mr. Hazini who, rather than address the point I had
> raised (i.e. the idea that the complaint is long on allegations but short on
> alleging any actual facts), 

> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Rick.
    Sigh. I'm sure you'll be sad to hear I'm too busy to devote the
attention to this I'd like to. 
    For the record, as usual there's a lot here about WHO rather than WHAT.
Everything to do with who is irrelevant ad hominem. Stick to the issues man.
That's what you're so powerless to do, since your whole position is at odds
with rational discourse -- you hold that WHO is all that counts. Doug and
his buddies, because of who they are, can define ethics and the good. So,
you carry this over into all discourse, you comment about who, rather
than what.
    Formal logic, in complete agreement with the principles of Baha'i
consultation, holds that who said it is of no consequence; what is said
is the whole point. The issue is what counts.
    I look forward to you addressing issues, but I don't hold my breath.
                                    To the Essential Baha'i Principles,       
                                                    Michael

"Rick Schaut" (rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3AC40611.995016AD@ameritel.net...
>> Could be a guy from somewhere else who gets thanked for his legal
> expertise in
>> helping put together a book on wildlife laws which is available at the U
> of New
>> Mexico web site:
>> https://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/acknow.html

> Not necessarily _legal_ expertise.  One "Yorgos D. Marinakis" is also the
> author of a couple of papers on biochemistry and the environment.


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Hi Pat!

I don't know anything about this guy, but in fact many lawyers take bar
exams when they move to a new state in order to practice law there.  Some
lawyers are accredited in several states.  Maybe he is a recent arrival in
NM, or maybe he is a new lawyer, who knows?

Randy

--

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC3BE5F.DD90C592@ameritel.net...
> Allahu Abha!
>
> Nima Hazini wrote:
>
> > You know I was told there is more than one Yorgos Marinakis. This one
was
> > Yorgos D.
>
> If the "D" is for Dionysus, then Yorgos D. Marinakis' name might be one of
the
> ones on the very bottom of the page https://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm, those
who
> passed the test, but have outstanding requirements to meet before
acceptance to
> the bar.  But this was some months back so they likely have been admitted
to
> the bar.
>
> Maybe there is more than one lawyer named Yorgos Dionysus Marinakis in New
> Mexico?
>

You know I was told there is more than one Yorgos Marinakis. This one was
Yorgos D.

Btw, for someone who doesn't have a JD or ever studied LAW, you sure have
some pretensions to being a legal expert.

cheers,
Nima

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99ud3g$ocs$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
I didn't see his name on the people who passed the bar exam in "the past 6
months." Pulling rabbits out of your hat again, ay Rick?

cheers,
Nima

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99u5090j4m@news1.newsguy.com...

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99u0rv$kom$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...
> >The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
> >appear to be very competent.

> The attorney in question is a high powered corporate attorney in New
> Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state. He has successfully
> sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
> Massachusettes, or so I hear.

That's quite a list of accomplisments for someone who only managed to pass
the New Mexico bar exam a mere six months ago
(https://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm).  Looks more like this is his first case,
and they gave him a throw-away on which to cut his teeth.

Regards,
Rick Schaut



I didn't see his name on the people who passed the bar exam in "the past 6
months." Pulling rabbits out of your hat again, ay Rick?

cheers,
Nima

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99u5090j4m@news1.newsguy.com...

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99u0rv$kom$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...
> >The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
> >appear to be very competent.

> The attorney in question is a high powered corporate attorney in New
> Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state. He has successfully
> sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
> Massachusettes, or so I hear.

That's quite a list of accomplisments for someone who only managed to pass
the New Mexico bar exam a mere six months ago
(https://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm).  Looks more like this is his first case,
and they gave him a throw-away on which to cut his teeth.

Regards,
Rick Schaut


"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...

">The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
>appear to be very competent.

LOL :)) The attorney in question is a high powered corporate attorney in New
Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state. He has successfully
sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
Massachusettes, or so I hear. Once this comes to trial - if it does - you'll
find out how incompetent he really is. ROTFL :)))

cheers,
Nima

>
>The story as reported in the Toronto Star was: -
>

Yes, Dermod. But if you were interested in fairness you would also be posting
the court case which followed which found the good doctor to be innocent of all
these accusations. None of the three patience who supposedly made accusations
had any of more substance to say in court than the fact he sometimes made them
feel uncomfortable, by doing things such as removing his shoes.  

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Greetings, Susan.
    No. I was quoting the positions of those irrelevantly speaking about
Hossayn Danesh. I was not expressing any opinion on that individual's
innocence or guilt. The newspaper report as I recall it specified British
Columbia as the area of jurisdiction, though, my whole point is that he
is largely irrelevant, because he is a person, and while personality is
pretty well all most fundamentalists speak about, issues are all that are
valid.
    The Baha'i vision is one that is broad-minded, tolerant, inclusive,
accepting of the equality of women and men, the harmony of faith and
reason, the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought
and expression. This is what is relevant. Personalities are not.
                                                             M 

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:

> For someone who is ignorant of the details of the case you are certainly quick
> to pass judgments regarding his guilt. He taught at McGill University which is
> in Montreal. And as I already stated before these allegations arose after he
> had already announced his retirement and was planning to leave for Europe. 

> warmest, Susan 

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

> This is ad hominem.

Dear Michael,

The only thing that is ad hominem is bringing  this guy into the discussion
period. 

>  The point I think being made is that the people running Baha'i,
>including the current lot on the UHJ, are corrupt because this former
>leading Canadian NSA member was doing hanky panky and his buddies took
>care of him by placing him  in a position of trust.

Except that point is false, for the following reasons:

1) A court of law established there was no evidence of such hanky panky.

2) The House of Justice had nothing to do with the position in question, it was
the Swiss NSA that hired him.  

3) He had already accepted this position before any allegations of hanky-panky
were made. So his appointment was quite irrelevant to this case, except that it
gave him no incentive to fight for the right to continue practicing medicine. 

>Lovers of the ad
>hominem leap to defend him

Michael I believe you have just turned the meaning of ad hominem on its head.

 and people can debate whether he was really
>at fault (they didn't lock him up)

The court case was a civil not a criminal case. There was no question of
locking him up, only whether he would have to pay this woman damages. The court
could not find sufficient evidence to establish even the preponderance of
evidence necessary to win a civil case. 

>(but, he agreed not to
>practise his profession in British Columbia, or is it Canada, or is it
>anywhere any more).

For someone who is ignorant of the details of the case you are certainly quick
to pass judgments regarding his guilt. He taught at McGill University which is
in Montreal. And as I already stated before these allegations arose after he
had already announced his retirement and was planning to leave for Europe. 

warmest, Susan

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Greetings, Susan, Nima and all.
    This is ad hominem. 
    The point I think being made is that the people running Baha'i,
including the current lot on the UHJ, are corrupt because this former
leading Canadian NSA member was doing hanky panky and his buddies took
care of him by placing him in a position of trust. Lovers of the ad
hominem leap to defend him and people can debate whether he was really
at fault (they didn't lock him up) or innocent (but, he agreed not to
practise his profession in British Columbia, or is it Canada, or is it
anywhere any more).
    To me this is ad hominem and beside the significant issue.
    I've said before that Hooper and his buddies can have as many
mistresses as they please (though I'd advise them to have consentual sex)
and that doesn't bother me at all. It's a non-issue.
    The issue is that the founder of the Baha'i Faith envisaged an open
minded, universalist movement, administered according to certain essential
principles and the guys running the show have mutilated that vision by
operating according to traditional divisive partisan politics & religious
fundamentalism (abhorrent to Baha'u'llah) and they expect to be followed
unthinkingly no matter how extensively they mutilate the Baha'i vision.
    It is not which individuals are dividing the believers, declaring
people not to be Baha'is, discriminating against women, opposing the
freedom of thought and expression, etc., etc. It is the platform of
fundamentalism, the abuse of authority to mutilate Baha'u'llah's position
on the freedom of thought and expression and his views on the equality of
women, etc. which is the issue.
    The issue is that Baha'i is a universalist movement that promotes
the diversity of human understandings, that firmly accepts the equality
of sexes, that is inclusive, liberal (in the beneficial meaning of the
word), etc. When the issues are discussed, instead of whether Hossayn
Danesh did or did not grope his female patients, then it becomes a bit
clearer what's involved here. At some point Baha'i authority is going to
return to Baha'u'llah's abhorrence of fundamentalism, partisan politics,
disunity and start living the life he envisaged, guiding according to
his principles, rather that the old hat of outworn dictatorial domination,
imposed dogmas, etc. etc.
     Let's realize what the issue really is and not play the personality
game.
                                                              M     

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>
>>So why would he cut a deal never to practice psychiatry ever again? 

> The "deal" had nothing to do with the civil case which was dismissed with
> extreme prejudice. 
> But he gave up his license to practive medicine before this came to court
> because he had already retired and was on his way to Europe at the time. He
> thought doing this would quiet things down without bringing  any embarassment
> on the Faith. Obviously he was wrong, and my understanding that  the NSA and
> the House were none too pleased that he handled things as he did. 

> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

>
>> I
>> suppose you also believe OJ Simpson is innocent because he was acquitted
>on
>> a technicality *grin*.
>
>If memory serves, the civil lawsuit against Simpson was successful.

That's quite correct. One only has to prove preponderance of evidence, not
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil case. The case against Danesh was
dismissed because the only real evidence against him was that he supposedly
made this woman uncomfortable. His DNA was on nothing. :-) 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99u7il$mmt$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> >None of that changes the fact that the allegations were the subject of a
> >civil lawsuit, and the allegations were found to be without merit during
> >that lawsuit.

> So what? You still haven't addressed why he will never practice psychiatry
> in Canada ever again.

Egads.  The facts were adjudicated in a court of law, and your response is,
"So what?"!  At that point, your question is irrelevant.  The facts are that
the man didn't do anything wrong.  No number of speculative questions will
change those facts.

As for OJ Simpson's criminal case, that, too, is irrelevant.  The case
against Dr. Danesh was brought under civil law.  Civil law requires a far
lower burden of proof than does crimiinal law.  Indeed, civil cases require
the lowest possible burden of proof.  If a "preponderance of the evidence"
was insufficient for the plaintiff to prevail, then there's no way that
proof "beyond a resonable doubt" can possibly exist.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99tum7$k1m$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...
> >Dr. Danesh case where people repeatedly cite one
> >newspaper article but fail to point out that the facts actually did go to
a
> >trial and that Dr. Danesh was found to have not acted improperly in any
> way.

> So why would he cut a deal never to practice psychiatry ever again?

First of all, the deal covered Canada, not the world.  Secondly, people
change professions quite often.  Quitting clinical practice in order to
pursue academic interests isn't unheard of.

None of that changes the fact that the allegations were the subject of a
civil lawsuit, and the allegations were found to be without merit during
that lawsuit.

> I
> suppose you also believe OJ Simpson is innocent because he was acquitted
on
> a technicality *grin*.

If memory serves, the civil lawsuit against Simpson was successful.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99s8hg$4n0$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> It's a deposition. Do you know what a deposition is?

No, Nima, it's a complaint, the first of what will likely be several
pleadings in the case.  A complaint is the standard way one files a lawsuit.
The complaint itself doesn't constitute evidence.  It merely contains the
allegations for which the plaintiff seeks relief and outlines the kind of
relief sought.

Depositions won't even exist until, indeed even if, the case gets to the
discovery phase, and, even then, there's little chance you or I will ever
see all of what's in them.

I'll make a little prediction, though.  This case will get dismissed before
it gets to trial.  Indeed, I'd be surprised if it even goes into the
discovery phase.  While the complaint spends a lot of time alleging libel
and fraud, it fails to allege any _facts_ that would constitute either libel
or fraud under the law.  The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
appear to be very competent.

And, as usual, we get to see the allegations but not one scintilla of the
actual evidence--sensationalistic, and quite yellow, journalism, if one can
call this "journalism" at all.  Somehow, I get the feeling that this is
going to turn out like the Dr. Danesh case where people repeatedly cite one
newspaper article but fail to point out that the facts actually did go to a
trial and that Dr. Danesh was found to have not acted improperly in any way.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

It's a deposition. Do you know what a deposition is?

cheers,
Nima

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010328000635.13283.00002188@ng-fi1.aol.com...
>Yorgos D. Marinakis
>Attorney for Plaintiffs
>P.O. Box 45923
>Rio Rancho, NM 87174

An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense!

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

Hi, Susan.
    Well, I guess if the directors of a corporation do not respond to the
mail of the members of the corporation, that is a legitimate complaint. It
is even a legitimate complaint that someone told, "Soon", by someone who
died in 1921, something would be as clear as the sun at noon, is expected
to have been informed about something not yet clear.  
    I assume you mean corroborate, or have you really participated in the
slowness of Baha'i authorities to respond?
                                                         M

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:

> I've read the complaint and still can't figure out *what* it states except that
> some people clapped their hands and one person thought he was god. And oh yeah,
> the NSA is really, really slow to answer its mail. Now, that's one complaint
> even *I* can collaborate. 

> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

>I can corroborate all of what it states
>based on my own experience.

I've read the complaint and still can't figure out *what* it states except that
some people clapped their hands and one person thought he was god. And oh yeah,
the NSA is really, really slow to answer its mail. Now, that's one complaint
even *I* can collaborate. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
That's not the only complaint in the brief. However, having lived in that
community in the early 90s myself, I can corroborate all of what it states
based on my own experience. In fact, it was thanks to that community and its
loonier than looney LSA that my eyes opened about the cult-like reality of
the Baha'i community and its administration.

cheers,
Nima

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010328095258.22616.00001825@ng-md1.aol.com...
Sorry, Nima. I'd like to see someone trying to persuade a judge that
applauding
constitutes fixing an election. ;-}

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

Greetings, Susan.
    Many thanks for the detail. If this is correct, then there still is
the context: was this at the election? had the one getting the applause
primed the audience? Did the applause go on for several minutes? was he
being introduced as he was about to give a campaign speech? Anyway, the
issue is that applause MAY be an evidence of electioneering, and, the
complaint seems to be that the directors of the corporation were failing
to fulfill their obligations as directors of the corporation; electioneering
would be a failure of Baha'i leadership responsibility, as currently
understood, although electioneering is not contrary to Western democratic
practise.  
                                                            M

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>Uhm, how could there be applauding? When did it happen? Was this when
>>the names of candidates were read?

> Dear Michael, 

> I believe the complaint indicates they applause came when they were introduced
> at a meeting. 

> warmest, Susan 

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Susan.
    Thanks again for commenting on issues.
    Uhm, how could there be applauding? When did it happen? Was this when
the names of candidates were read? Did it come during or following a
speech? Applauding has the suggestion that perhaps electioneering was
taking place. Let's have some details here. Maybe it was after the results
of the election were announced, maybe it was accompanying a political
speech. Let's get the facts.
                                                        M
 

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:
>>
>>If your By-Laws forbid campaigning in any manner, I think the judge
>>might justg buy the argument.  I think Abdul-Baha would have.

> If the by-laws state that the plantiff failed ot mention it. . It is not at all
> clear what connection applauding is supposed to have with electioneering or
> electioneerring with "rigging." 

> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Sorry, Nima. I'd like to see someone trying to persuade a judge that applauding
constitutes fixing an election. ;-} 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

If your By-Laws forbid campaigning in any manner, I think the judge
might justg buy the argument.  I think Abdul-Baha would have.


On 28 Mar 2001 14:52:58 GMT, smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:

>Sorry, Nima. I'd like to see someone trying to persuade a judge that applauding
>constitutes fixing an election. ;-} 
>
>"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
>left to start again . . "
>Don McLean's American Pie
>https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
I am surprised that the Universal House of Injustice has allowed it to
get this far without announcing she has at least lost her voting
rigthts, or is a covenant breaker, maybe in their micheavellian minds
silence is now the now the best policy.  Naaa!

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:03:45 -0600, "Patrick Henry"
<patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote:

>Perhaps some sort of legal defense fund should be created for
>vicitms of the fundamentalists. Often people have excellent
>cases but not the where-with-all to pursue justice, the best
>beloved of all things in His sight....
>
>--
>FG
>www.FG.com
>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
>https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm
>
>
>"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
>news:99sgtg$74p$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
>> The clincher here - which shows how smart this attorney is - is that he's
>> pursuing the matter based on laws of incorporation and members rights
>> therein. While Baha'i fundamentalists lately have been hiding behind the
>red
>> herring of "the Baha'i faith is a voluntary organization" argument, they
>> would be hard pressed to argue this one to a judge where the law as
>spelled
>> out in this specific case is concerned. If a judge found that a board of
>> trustees violated their own bylaws and rules in treating incorporated
>> members, she could rule very decisively against the board of trustees, and
>I
>> suspect that should this attorney have enough testimony and evidence to
>that
>> effect, it could very well happen.
>>
>> It seems that Shoghi Effendi's insistance in having the Baha'i faith
>> incorporated as an organization is finally coming back to haunt, at least,
>> this generation of Baha'i leadership. One could say that the AO has
>finally
>> been put on notice. Of course, I say this is all for the good of the
>Baha'is
>> themselves, part of the process of helping the maturation of their
>> administrative order and all. May there be more lawsuits - and there
>will -
>> to help expedite this process along.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Nima
>>
>>
>> <multiman@aros.net> wrote in message
>news:3ac1a554.30228214@news.aros.net...
>>
>> I have seen many suits being an assitant to a para legal, and it is no
>> worse than most, and if the facts are true, it should prove very
>> interesting.
>>
>> Plus as I wrote on another site, this can be expected when as Shoghi
>> Effendi stated the administration has been "multilated."
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Mar 2001 05:06:35 GMT, smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:
>>
>> >>Yorgos D. Marinakis
>> >>Attorney for Plaintiffs
>> >>P.O. Box 45923
>> >>Rio Rancho, NM 87174
>> >
>> >An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense!
>> >
>> >"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
>> time
>> >left to start again . . "
>> >Don McLean's American Pie
>> >https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
The clincher here - which shows how smart this attorney is - is that he's
pursuing the matter based on laws of incorporation and members rights
therein. While Baha'i fundamentalists lately have been hiding behind the red
herring of "the Baha'i faith is a voluntary organization" argument, they
would be hard pressed to argue this one to a judge where the law as spelled
out in this specific case is concerned. If a judge found that a board of
trustees violated their own bylaws and rules in treating incorporated
members, she could rule very decisively against the board of trustees, and I
suspect that should this attorney have enough testimony and evidence to that
effect, it could very well happen.

It seems that Shoghi Effendi's insistance in having the Baha'i faith
incorporated as an organization is finally coming back to haunt, at least,
this generation of Baha'i leadership. One could say that the AO has finally
been put on notice. Of course, I say this is all for the good of the Baha'is
themselves, part of the process of helping the maturation of their
administrative order and all. May there be more lawsuits - and there will -
to help expedite this process along.

cheers,
Nima

<multiman@aros.net> wrote in message news:3ac1a554.30228214@news.aros.net...

I have seen many suits being an assitant to a para legal, and it is no
worse than most, and if the facts are true, it should prove very
interesting.

Plus as I wrote on another site, this can be expected when as Shoghi
Effendi stated the administration has been "multilated."

On 28 Mar 2001 05:06:35 GMT, smaneck@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote:

>>Yorgos D. Marinakis
>>Attorney for Plaintiffs
>>P.O. Box 45923
>>Rio Rancho, NM 87174
>
>An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense!
>
>"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
time
>left to start again . . "
>Don McLean's American Pie
>https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>

>Yorgos D. Marinakis
>Attorney for Plaintiffs
>P.O. Box 45923
>Rio Rancho, NM 87174

An actual lawyer wrote this mishmash? It doesn't even make any sense!

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
How sweet it is :)

cheers,
Nima


"Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:tc11cr1ip1od57@corp.supernews.com...
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DEBORAH BUCHHORN, for herself )
and for MINORITY )
MEMBERS OF THE SPIRITUAL )
ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF )
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. CV 2001-01978
)
)
TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL )
ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í S OF )
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and )
THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE )
BAHÁ'Í'S OF ALBUQUERQUE, )
NEW MEXICO, a non-profit )
corporation, and the )
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY )
OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF THE )
UNITED STATES, )
an Illinois Corporation, )
)
Defendants. )

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, LIBEL, BREACH
OF CORPORATE DUTIES, AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

COMES NOW Plaintiffs by and through their attorney of record, Yorgos D.
Marinakis, and for their Complaint states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs file this shareholder or member derivative suit against:
- the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Local
Spiritual Assembly, or LSA),
- their Trustees, and
- the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (National
Spiritual Assembly, or NSA), with whom the Local Spiritual Assembly and
itsTrustees have privity.
2. Plaintiffs allege that Trustees breached their duties as corporate
officers.
3. Plaintiffs allege that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their
duty of deciding appeals owed to Plaintiffs.
4. Plaintiffs allege that the literature review policies of the Local
Spiritual Assembly and the National Spiritual Assembly, which lie in
privity, unlawfully prevent shareholders from their right to communicate
with other shareholders.
5. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to execute their duties under
their corporate by-laws.

PARTIES

6. Named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn was a shareholder or member of the
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the time
of the incidents stated in this Complaint, and she continues to be a member.
7. The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico (Local
Spiritual Assembly) is a New Mexico non-profit corporation.
Shareholder-members may appeal decisions by the Local Spiritual Assembly to
the National Spiritual Assembly.
8. The Trustees of the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque,
New Mexico (Trustees) individually reside in Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
as a condition of their Trusteeship. Trustees are Kambiz Victory, Ok-Sun
and John McHenry, Manijeh Kavelin, Nelson Sapad, Harry and Sondra Day, Owen
Creightney, and Carol Caldwell. Jenny Beery was a Trustee during the time
of many of these incidents.
9. The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (National
Spiritual Assembly) is incorporated in and has its principal place of
business in Illinois.

FACTS

10. The Bahá'í have no clergy. Instead, each community in the Bahá'í Faith
annually elects nine Trustees or a "Local Spiritual Assembly," which acts
as an agent or subsidiary of the National Spiritual Assembly. Each
National Spiritual Assembly answers to the supreme Bahá'í body, The
Universal House of Justice. The Universal House of Justice established the
Continental Board of Counsellors (sic) to assist them, and the Countinental
Board of Counsellors further has the Auxiliary Board to assist them.
11. In the particular situation between the Trustees of the Spiritual
Assembly of Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Defendants Trustees
controlled what member activities Plaintiffs were able to engage in and
what members they were able to talk to. They stopped them from interacting
with friends at member events. They stopped Plaintiffs from serving on
committees and stopped their individual activities for personal reasons.
They made all the decisions relating to Plaintiffs' membership-related
activities. They told named Plaintiff that opinions she may personally
hold were bad and implicitly threatened to curtail her presence at member
functions. They acted as if the abuse were no big deal, that it was
Plaintiff's fault, and denied doing it. They failed to act when one member
was physically threatened and shoved by another member.
12. Although Plaintiffs have consistently complied with Defendant Trustees'
demands, they have also consistently filed complaints against them with the
National and International Bahá'í authorities. This has enraged the
Defendant Trustees.
13. Defendant Trustees have never made specific accusations or informed
Plaintiffs of wrongdoing, other than vague statements such as "you have
issues with the Spiritual Assembly."
14. Therefore, deep-seated animosities and distrust have arisen between
Plaintiffs and the Trustees, which are incapable of resolution and thereby
present an irreconcilable barrier to the ability of the corporation to
function as is.
15. Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations that they would be able to
participate in the management and activities of their corporation, as
minority shareholders, have been thwarted since at least 1995.
16. Article IV of the LSA by-laws provides that the LSA shall compose
differences and disagreements among members of the community. Article VII,
section 9 of the NSA by-laws provides that any member of a Bahá'í community
may appeal from a decision of his LSA to the NSA.

Failure to Allow Inspection of Books and Records

17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained in an
inaccurate and inequitable manner.
18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000 discrepancy in the
corporate books.
19. In a letter dated September 3, 2000, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
informed the Local Spiritual Assembly that she desired to inspect their
financial books. Defendants refused.
20. Following mailing of the demand letter, the LSA offered to allow named
Plaintiff to inspect the books and records, but under conditions that the
Plaintiff deemed in bad faith.

Fraudulent Oppression and Prevention of Communications between Shareholders

21. On April 19, 1998, Defendant Trustees ordered named Plaintiff Deborah
Buchhorn to refrain from discussing her "issues" with anyone but Auxiliary
Board member Brent Poirier and the Local Spiritual Assembly. Plaintiff
complied and appealed to Brent Poirier and the National Spiritual Assembly,
who took no action. Defendant LSA has wrapped many of their dealings with
members in the cloak of secrecy in a like manner.

Electioneering

22. At the Annual Meeting Feast of 1999, Defendant Trustees fraudulently
rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad by calling for applause for him
three times prior to an election of corporate officers. Plaintiff appealed
to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
23. Defendant Trustees or their agents fraudulently rigged the election of
Harry and Sondra Day, by introducing them and calling for applause moments
before an election of corporate officers.
24. Trustees do not ensure secret balloting at the Annual Meeting Feast.
The usual practice is not to use a ballot box, but for members to lay their
ballots on a plate or in a basket in plain sight of the election tellers.
Ms. Buchhorn appealed to Brent Poirier on at least one election. Mr.
Poirier responded by handling the collection basket himself.
25. In the member newsletter and prior to the annual election and during
the Annual Meeting Feast, Trustees have used scriptural quotes to draw
attention to persons serving on certain committees.

Fraudulent and Oppressive Behavior Relating to the TV Show "Spiritual
Reality"

26. Plaintiffs conceptualized and produced a TV show named "Spiritual
Reality." After 100 showings, during which Defendant Trustees only
complimented Plaintiffs, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent
to oppress, mandated major changes in the show. Plaintiffs complied and
appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no
action.
27. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
Plaintiffs to "temporarily postpone" their television show, "Spiritual
Reality." Plaintiff complied, and Defendants never specifically informed
Plaintiffs what they had done to precipitate the arbitrary and capricious
termination. The effect of this order, namely the termination of the TV
show, violated the right of shareholders to communicate with other
shareholders.
28. Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences stated that the reasons
for termination would be fully discussed at a later meeting, at which
meeting those reasons were never discussed. Defendant Trustee Kambiz
Victory, employee of channel 41, knew or should have known that a
television program cannot be "temporarily postponed." Plaintiffs appealed
to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
29. Defendant Kambiz Victory, a Trustee, fraudulently and with intent to
oppress, told named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn in regards to her television
show that "Your teaching can have no effect because you are not in unity
with the Spiritual Assembly." Defendant knew that Ms. Buchhorn's
television show brought in 15% of the information requests during an
unrelated major regional advertising campaign by Defendants. Plaintiff
appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no action.
30. Defendant Trustees fraudulently and under false pretences set-up
Plaintiffs to a "confession" of their animosity towards Defendant Trustees.
Named Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly, who took no
action.

Other Oppression

31. As an act of individual initiative, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
organized a Bahá'í parade float for several years for the New Mexico State
Fair Parade. In 2000, Defendant Trustees convened a task force to organize
the parade float for that year. On August 22, 2000, approximately 19 days
before the parade, Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to
oppress, instructed Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to terminate her parade
float activities. A false reason for this termination was published in the
membership newsletter by Defendant Trustees, causing Plaintiff
embarrassment. Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff
as to the reason for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National
Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
32. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to receive instruction on the Bahá'í Covenant.
Plaintiff complied and attended that "instruction," which in fact consisted
of three (3) hours of interrogation by Trustee Owen Creightney, and John
and Ok-Sun McHenry. It became apparent at this meeting that Trustee
Creightney had lied to the Trustees in order to oppress named Plaintiff.
Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier,
who took no action.
33. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, ordered
named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn to resign from the Bahá'í gospel choir.
Plaintiff complied, and Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to the reason
for that termination. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual
Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
34. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, undermined
named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn's Saturday Night Coffee House and in
effect stopped her Coffee House. Defendant never informed Plaintiff as to
these circumstances. Plaintiff appealed to the National Spiritual Assembly
and Brent Poirier, who took no action.
35. Defendant Trustees, fraudulently and with intent to oppress, have
ordered numerous Bahá'ís to shun Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn.
36. Defendant Trustee Kambiz Victory told a Plaintiff "I am the voice of
God in this community."

Libel

37. Defendant Trustees knowingly published false and defamatory information
about Plaintiffs in the Albuquerque Bahá'í newsletter, specifically
relating to the parade banner.

Unlawful Prevention of Communication between Shareholders

38. Defendant National Spiritual Assembly has the policy that Local
Spiritual Assemblies are responsible for reviewing pamphlets and
newsletters and materials that mention the Faith such as songs, play
scripts, souvenir items, and greeting cards, intended for publication or
distribution within their communities, whereas the National Spiritual
Assembly is responsible for review of those same materials intended for
nationwide publication.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I
39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
40. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly acted and
continue to act fraudulently towards the Plaintiffs.
41. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count II
42. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
43. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly libeled the named
Plaintiff.
44. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count III
45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
46. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act in good faith, which failure constitutes
fraud.
47. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count IV
48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all previous paragraphs.
49. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act with the care an ordinary prudent person in
like position would exercise under similar circumstances, which failure
constitute fraud.50. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count V
51. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
52. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act in a manner they reasonably believe to be
in the best interests of the corporation and its members, which failure
constitutes fraud.
53. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count VI
54. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
55. The Trustees have repeatedly failed their duty to compose differences
and disagreements with themselves and the members, in violation of their
by-laws, which failure constitutes fraud.
56. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count VII
57. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
58. The National Spiritual Assembly has repeatedly failed their duty to
hear appeals from Plaintiffs, in violation of their by-laws.
59. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count VIII
60. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
61. The literature review policies of the National and Local Spiritual
Assemblies violate the rights of corporate members to communicate with
other corporate members.
62. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

Count IX
63. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate all previous paragraphs.
64. The practice of the Local Spiritual Assembly to direct members not to
speak about their dealings with the LSA with other corporate members
violates the rights of corporate members to communicate with other
corporate members.
65. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional damages thereby.

JUDICIAL RELIEF

WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court:
1. Declare that the Trustees acted fraudulently towards Plaintiffs;
2. Declare that Trustees libeled Plaintiffs;
3. Declare that the Trustees breached their corporate duties
towardsPlaintiffs;
4. Remove the Trustees from their positions and enjoin them from serving in
official Bahá'ís capacities for nineteen (19) years;
5. Remove the LSA Directors who are also Trustees;
6. Declare that the Local Spiritual Assembly violated members' rights to
inspect corporate books and records;
7. Compel Defendant LSA to retain an independent certified public
accountant to audit the books for the last two years;
8. Declare that Defendant LSA violated their corporate by-laws by failing
to compose differences and disagreements among members of the community;
6. Declare that the National Spiritual Assembly breached their duty of
hearing Plaintiffs' appeals;
7. Declare that the literature review policies of the Bahá'ís violate
United States common law as preventing corporate members from communicating
with other corporate members;
8. Enjoin Defendants National Spiritual Assembly and Local Spiritual
Assembly from enforcing their literature review policy;
9. Declare that the secrecy practices of the Local Spiritual Assembly
violate United States common law as preventing corporate members from
communicating with other corporate members;
10. Enjoin Defendant Local Spiritual Assembly from continuing their secrecy
practices;
11. Award compensatory damages from Defendants to Plaintiffs;
12. Award attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiffs;
13. Any other relief this Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________
Yorgos D. Marinakis
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 45923
Rio Rancho, NM 87174
505-459-4664
877-430-9550 (fax)

Named Plaintiff's Verification

STATE OF NEW MEXICO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO)

COMES NOW Deborah Buchhorn, and being duly sworn, states as follows:
1. I have read and understood the contents of this Complaint.
2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
3. I attest to and verify their truth and
accuracy.__________________________
DEBORAH BUCHHORN
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this __ day of ______, 2001.
________________________
Notary Public

My Commission Expires:


Nima,

You never know, your doing the leg work and finding in the talisman
archives might just be of use to Mr. Marinakis. If you can find the
time and files concerned, please post them here.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9a5dh3$ear$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Hi, Nima.
>     Could you or someone kindly post this here.
>                                          Thrive,
>                                            M
>
> "Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
> > snip snip snip snip - Whatever!
> >
> >
> >>If you really want to say the Alburqueque community was hopelessly
whacked
> > out,
> >>please do so in _detail_, not generalizations, not cliches, please,
_how_
> >>elections were rigged, how the riggers precluded complaints, _how_ etc.
> > _what_
> >>etc. _who_ etc. etc. etc.
> >
> > Go to the talisman9 archives and you'll find my detailed memoirs of the
> > Albuquerque Scientology (sorry, Baha'i) community.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Nima
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
>        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>

Hi, Nima.
    Could you or someone kindly post this here.
                                         Thrive,
                                           M

"Nima Hazini" (lotusapt@wxc.com.au) writes:
> snip snip snip snip - Whatever!


>>If you really want to say the Alburqueque community was hopelessly whacked
> out,
>>please do so in _detail_, not generalizations, not cliches, please, _how_
>>elections were rigged, how the riggers precluded complaints, _how_ etc.
> _what_
>>etc. _who_ etc. etc. etc.

> Go to the talisman9 archives and you'll find my detailed memoirs of the
> Albuquerque Scientology (sorry, Baha'i) community.

> cheers,
> Nima


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

snip snip snip snip - Whatever!

>If you really want to say the Alburqueque community was hopelessly whacked
out,
>please do so in _detail_, not generalizations, not cliches, please, _how_
>elections were rigged, how the riggers precluded complaints, _how_ etc.
_what_
>etc. _who_ etc. etc. etc.

Go to the talisman9 archives and you'll find my detailed memoirs of the
Albuquerque Scientology (sorry, Baha'i) community.

cheers,
Nima

Thanks Pat!

I had almost forgotten Rick's nickname!

Cheers, Randy

--

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC54391.68F4FA65@ameritel.net...
> What Rick is referring to is the childish taunting that Nima has been
doing.
> "Merde" is Spanish for "shit".  Nima refers to Rick as "shit".  If you
want to
> take on the thankless task of lecturing the contributors on manners,
please
> please please do!
>
> Rick Schaut wrote:
>
> > <multiman@aros.net> wrote in message
news:3ac4ee18.567578@news.aros.net...
> > > Such humility!  Really for those that lurk and those of us who have
> > > only begun to post it smacks of conceit.
> >
> > (snip)
>
> > I will only note that my own
> > supposed "conceit" doesn't consist of purposefully misstating someone
else's
> > appropriate name or abusing particular pronounciations of their names.
> >
> > > But perhaps you are better than most who post here.
> >
> > Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it.  Frankly, such questions strike me as
> > abundantly unimportant.  It's rather like trying to decide whether apple
pie
> > is better than chocolate cake.  The answer really depends on the cook.
> >
> > As for whether or not I'm a Baha'i, I think you already know the answer.
> > Why did you ask?
>
> Nima,
>
> Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmum!
>
> o
> Pat
> kohli@ameritel.net
>

Vegamite!

Nima Hazini wrote:

> Mmmmmmmm, what??
>
> cheers,
> Nima
>
> -
> Nima,
>
> Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmum!
>
> o
> Pat
> kohli@ameritel.net
Mmmmmmmm, what??

cheers,
Nima

-
Nima,

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmum!

o
Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC54391.68F4FA65@ameritel.net...
> What Rick is referring to is the childish taunting that Nima has been
doing.
> "Merde" is Spanish for "shit".

Actually, I believe the language is French.  But, then, when speaking
French, I have a tendency to use articles the way one would in Spanish, and
I speak Spanish with a French accent, so what do I know?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Hi Pat

Is your statement what we really mean when we say that the Guardian
interprets the writings?  The idea you present below as an example is a new
twist to me. Not that I hadn't heard about the saying of the Greatest Name
but rather that it was a type of interpretation.   I always assumed that the
Guardian's interpretation was more directed to the meaning of what
Baha'u'llah said rather than to the timing of the application of it.  Though
I'm sure his interpretations also apply to application as well.  Is it true
that the UHJ can't change Shoghi Effendi's interpretation on applicability
but can only tell us that it's a good idea?  What about the Huquq?

Cheers, Randy
--
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC5F48E.262CD9CD@ameritel.net...>
>
>SNIP>
> For example, the Baha'i most holy book might say that Baha'is should
recite the
> greatest name a number of times a day in a certain way.  One of the
prerogatives
> of the Guardian was interpretation.  The Guardian could say that the verse
does
> not apply to most of the Baha'is in the world at a given time; a
subsequent
> Guardian would say it does apply.  There really was a verse in the Kitabi
Aqdas
> to that effect and Shoghi Effendi did really say it was not applicable to
Baha'is
> in the west.  Decades later the UHJ can inform Bahai's of what the
Guardian
> decided decades ago, and/or encourage Baha'is in that day to do it anyway,
but
> they really can't interpret the verse as being inapplicable now, or as
applicable
> now; only the Guardian can do that, and the indidual believer can decid
for
> themself.
>
> SNIP

multiman@aros.net wrote:

> I must admit I may have been a little blunt, but it seems to be the
> way people are on this site.  I do there fore apologize for the
> question of Faith, I myself am not a Bahai and while investigating it
> have not found so far that which would appeal to me.

Well you are a bigger guy than some of us.  The pase is a bit more deliberate
(i.e. more tactful, less blunt) at soc.religion.bahai.  That group is moderated
so don't look for your messages right away - they'll show up the next day.

> Perhaps I will
> but I am observing the flow and have not found the argument for the
> hands and UHJ (I will for your sensiblities in this post not use the
> other appelative which I have so far found more appropriate) as the
> successors being very compelling.

I'd like to encourage you to think outside the Remey paradigm - there really was
no successor to Shoghi Effendi.  Yes, there is a 'highest authority' w/in the
faith, but that is about the extent of succession.  A successor Guardian would
have the same prerogatives as the previous Gaurdian; the UHJ does not have the
same prerogatives.

For example, the Baha'i most holy book might say that Baha'is should recite the
greatest name a number of times a day in a certain way.  One of the prerogatives
of the Guardian was interpretation.  The Guardian could say that the verse does
not apply to most of the Baha'is in the world at a given time; a subsequent
Guardian would say it does apply.  There really was a verse in the Kitabi Aqdas
to that effect and Shoghi Effendi did really say it was not applicable to Baha'is
in the west.  Decades later the UHJ can inform Bahai's of what the Guardian
decided decades ago, and/or encourage Baha'is in that day to do it anyway, but
they really can't interpret the verse as being inapplicable now, or as applicable
now; only the Guardian can do that, and the indidual believer can decid for
themself.

I say there is no successor because Shoghi Effendi appointed no one in accordance
w/ the terms of the Will and Testament. The Will requires him to have a group of
the Hands assent to his nominee.  That did not happen.  Rather, the Hands (to
include Mason Remey) assented that there was no successor. So, _if_ Mason Remey
really had been the infallible interpreter and his interpretation was that there
was no succeesor, as it was in late 1957, then, again, for sure, even if we
assumed Mason were right, we can conclude that there is no successor, because
Mason said so, and the hands who would have assented to the nominee also said
so.  If someone tells you that "assent" was not necessary, remember that 'Abdu'l
Baha said it was.

Blessings!
- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net

https://www.safnet.com/bahai/writings/will.test.abd/

    The Hands of the Cause of God must elect from their own number
    nine persons that shall at all times be occupied in the important services
    in the work of the Guardian of the Cause of God. The election of these
    nine must be carried either unanimously or by majority from the
    company of the Hands of the Cause of God and these, whether
    unanimously or by a majority vote, must give their assent to the choice
    of the one whom the Guardian of the Cause of God hath chosen as his
    successor. This assent must be given in such wise as the assenting and
    dissenting voices may not be distinguished (i.e., secret ballot).
    https://www.safnet.com/bahai/writings/will.test.abd/WT-1.html
Allahu Abha!

This is a good point.  If someone did engage in bold electioneering and if the
AO ignored complaints about it, how would someone make their case?  Some of the
stuff in the complaint (or whatever it is) don't make much sense to me(plaintiff
not allowed to communicate w/ defendents?), but I'll focus on the electioneering
because I could imagine it.

For one thing, I would think the case would belong at the NSA or the UHJ.  Even
so, I assume that others present would corroborate that electioneering had been
done, so that an election would be voided and redone. That might not be the
case; suppose some witnesses, for whatever reason, would not complain about
electioneering.  How would one witness make a case?

The first step, in my mind, would be to create some probable cause to seriously
investigate the matter.  My initial reaction was that it was so outrageous, if
it had happened everyone would complain about it, or something.  If there were
only one complaint, I'd suspect that someone completely misrecalled or
misinterpreted something (or was deluded, or lied).

Suppose they consented to and took a polygraph.  If the results showed that they
were not lying, then maybe they really did misrecall, maybe they were deluded,
or maybe it really did happen.  So, I'd encourage the plaintiff to take a
polygraph.

If the results excluded the plaintiff lying, or contra-indicated lying as
unlikely, I'd question all witnesses to the event and get their perceptions,
even encouraging them to take the polygraph.  Then I'd try to sort through the
statements of all witnesses and any other polygraph results to assess what might
have happened.

W/ all this investigating going on, if I worked for the AO, maybe as another ABM
(Prot), can you imagine the fuss going on here over my inquisition?

John Woodlock wrote:

>
> Rick,
>
> what advice would you give to Debra/the lawyer to help them present their
> case?
>
> Perhaps, a more pertinent question is would you help Debra in this case if
> you could or would you, because it has a bahai institution as a 'defendant',
> not do so?  So far you appear to be assuming a 'defender of the faith role'
> (i.e. these people on trb holding up this complaint as something to be heard
> should be fought against).
>
> It's worth a think about.  I've been thinking about it and so far have
> concluded that its important to be neutral (unless one has material
> information).  Statisically, there must be some dodgey LSA's eh?
>

May your days as 'good cop' be long and sunny like December.

- Pat
kohli@ameritel.net
From: "Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
Subject: ^^ bahai ^^ - New Mexico LAWSUIT for Fraud  & Libel (sound familiar?) - FULL TEXT - against bahai institutions
Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 9:32 AM

Read for yourself the full text of the filed complaint:

New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL
https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

Welcome to usenet, TRB and ARB, Stuart,

Stuart Palin wrote:

> Patrick Henry <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
> news:tcbn1st8b3eo2a@corp.supernews.com...
> > Read for yourself the full text of the filed complaint:
> >
> > New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL
> > https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm
> >
> A dead link, like all of your members.nbci.com links.

HTML seems to be something that Fred either does not understand, or he is bound
by nbci.com to ignore, posting only URLs which inbclude their add frame panes.
You may have better luck w/ this URL,
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/NMLawsuit.htm though you may find the
charges to be more puzzling than anything else.

> Perhaps Mr Glaysher,
> if you backed up your venom with facts, rather than grandiose and
> unsubstantiated claims I would consider your opinions worthwhile. As it is,
> from a purely objective point of view, you seem to spend most of your time
> pouring out tired posts attacking this religion. You reiterate the same
> points over and over again under new header and avoid any form of
> intelligent debate. Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism fit you
> like a glove.
>
> I only joined this newsgroup today in the hope of some intelligent
> discussion, instead I find tired arguements being trotted out for a
> peanut-gallery crowd. Such a waste of time, both mine and yours. I hope you
> all enjoy Mr. Glaysher's spectacle, I certainly won't be staying for another
> encore.

If you don't enjoy every word of Mr. Glaysher's spam you can sue your ISP for a
refund, or killfile him, as he recommends all newcomers killfile those 'bahai
fanatics'.

You are posting using Outlook Express; I use Netscape so I'll rely on Fred's
directions.  Fred says,
     "Assuming you use IE5, click on Tools, then Message Rules,
     followed by News. Add for talk.religion.bahai and for
     alt.religion.bahai the email addresses or names of the
     bahai fundamentalists and fanatics of your choice:"

See, Fred _can_ have useful input. I was mistaken.

at your service,
kohliCUT@ameritel.net
patk9018@my-deja.com

I may be reached at kohli@ameritel.net, the others are spamblocks.
NBCi.com will hang up or freeze sometimes on its ads
for some reason. I feel I owe them a little advertisement
for their kind hosting of my site.

The link below has NO ADS & usually always works
without hanging up:
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/index.htm

The alternative is just to hit your Refresh button.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm


"Stuart Palin" <kweezil@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mfnx6.6304$u93.889049@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Patrick Henry <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
> news:tcbn1st8b3eo2a@corp.supernews.com...
> > Read for yourself the full text of the filed complaint:
> >
> > New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL
> > https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm
> >
> A dead link, like all of your members.nbci.com links. Perhaps Mr Glaysher,
> if you backed up your venom with facts, rather than grandiose and
> unsubstantiated claims I would consider your opinions worthwhile. As it
is,
> from a purely objective point of view, you seem to spend most of your time
> pouring out tired posts attacking this religion. You reiterate the same
> points over and over again under new header and avoid any form of
> intelligent debate. Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism fit you
> like a glove.
>
> I only joined this newsgroup today in the hope of some intelligent
> discussion, instead I find tired arguements being trotted out for a
> peanut-gallery crowd. Such a waste of time, both mine and yours. I hope
you
> all enjoy Mr. Glaysher's spectacle, I certainly won't be staying for
another
> encore.
>
> -Stuart Palin
>
>

Patrick Henry <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:tcbn1st8b3eo2a@corp.supernews.com...
> Read for yourself the full text of the filed complaint:
>
> New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL
> https://members.nbci.com/FG/NMLawsuit.htm
>
A dead link, like all of your members.nbci.com links. Perhaps Mr Glaysher,
if you backed up your venom with facts, rather than grandiose and
unsubstantiated claims I would consider your opinions worthwhile. As it is,
from a purely objective point of view, you seem to spend most of your time
pouring out tired posts attacking this religion. You reiterate the same
points over and over again under new header and avoid any form of
intelligent debate. Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism fit you
like a glove.

I only joined this newsgroup today in the hope of some intelligent
discussion, instead I find tired arguements being trotted out for a
peanut-gallery crowd. Such a waste of time, both mine and yours. I hope you
all enjoy Mr. Glaysher's spectacle, I certainly won't be staying for another
encore.

-Stuart Palin

> Do you really think that any lawyer in his right mind, is going to
>paste the
> detail of his case on the Internet? 

Dear Dermod,

The lawyer didn't post this complaint to the internet. Somebody else posted it
here. 

>Do you really think that any
>lawyer is
> going to put more detail than he need to on the Writ posted in Court
>to
> initiate proceedings

He has posted a great deal less than is necessary to get it to go anywhere. My
guess is that it won't make it past first base. 

warmest, Susan 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>Somebody made it available for posting.  I wonder who that was.

Probably the plantiff who realizes she will get more mileage out of it on the
internet than she ever will in court. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcfjijtogu17e5@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010401171857.28041.00003369@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> > >
> > >Somebody made it available for posting.  I wonder who that was.

> > Probably the plantiff who realizes she will get more mileage out of it
on
> > the internet than she ever will in court.

> I thought it was a public document that anybody could access and post
> wherever.

Not off the web.  Nor is one generally able to find that complaint by doing
a general keyword search.  It's difficult to even find any mention of the
case unless one knows what one is looking for, and where to look.  While it
might well be possible for someone to get their hands on a copy of the
complaint without having heard of the case from either the plaintiff or
someone close to it, it's highly unlikely that someone has.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a805e0dpn@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> >  Do you really think that any lawyer in his right mind, is going to
> > paste the detail of his case on the Internet?
>
> No, but, then, we're not talking about something an attorney simply posted
> to the internet.  We're talking about the actual complaint that he filed
in
> court.  The means by which that complaint managed to get posted to the
> internet, indeed the very fact that it was posted, is rather irrelevant.

Indeed yes but very annoying to all of you BIGs.  You and others were called
back off furlough to combat the enemy here on TRB and do your best to
rubbish the fact that a BIGS is taking the sanctimonious AO to Court.

>
> >  Do you really think
> > that any lawyer is going to put more detail than he need to on the
> > Writ posted in Court to initiate proceedings knowing it to be a
> > document that will be posted on the Internet?
>
> As noted above, whether or not the complaiing has been posted to the
> internet is irrelevant.  I do, however, expect a competent attorney to put
> sufficient detail into a complaint filed in court to at least provide the
> court with probable cause to believe that the plaintiff has, indeed, been
> harmed in some way and that the harm is one that's addressable under civil
> law.

Well I really think that that is a matter for the Court to decide and not
some partisan BIGS whose only interest is in rubbishing the Complaint in
toto prior to its reaching Court.  Need one remind you that the same tactic
was attempted with Sohrab (the roles were reversed in that the AO initiated
proceedings) both prior to and after the case which the AO, incidentally,
lost.

> Do _you_ really think a judge is going to accept any vague claim of fraud
or
> libel without a single allegation of fact that would constitute fraud or
> libel under the law?  If so, then you must believe that the courts look
> kindly on lawsuits that are filed for the purposes of conducting a fishing
> expedition.

That's why there are things called Hearings in Court where both sides have
the opportunity to present their own evidence and challenge that presented
by the other.  Now I know from past experience with you that you find this
kind of thing to be rather tedious and not at all necessary, when an
Assembly could do a much better "snow" job but this is the show in town this
week.  No amount of drivel from yuou and your associates can negate the fact
that this Complaint will ultimately only show its evidentiary worth if or
when it gets to a hearing.

The Defendants do of course under US law have the opportunity to file for a
motion of dismissal.  Does anybody know if they have done this - in the
light of the opinios herein expressed, I should have expected a hasty filing
and granting of such?

Your current rubbishing of it just displays your partisanship founded and
steeped in arrogance, ignorance, prejudice and bigotry of the first order.

>
> > Do you really
> > think witness statements and/or other evidence is going to be
> > disclosed for your erudition?
>
> As a matter of fact, no.  One doesn't have to prove the allegations of
fact
> in a complaint.  However, one does have to at least allege facts that
would
> constitute an addressable issue under the law.  This complaint fails to do
> so.

Well again we'll leave that up to a Judge and a Court to decide.  Granted
there is no evidence produced as yet to back up the allegations, there is
nonetheless, IMO, a sufficient case stated to warrant a full hearing.  That
is all that is necessary at this stage.  One need not preclude the
possibility that the parties could resolve their differences outside of and
pror to any Court hearing.  This seems to me a better option for the AO to
explore than to trot you people out with your tired and worthless opinions
but, of course, one has to note that the AO has had this complaint for some
unspecified time yet has failed to address it.

>
> >  As usual, Rickster, you made the ad hominem and are now trying to
> > weasel your way out by casting the blame on somebody else.
>
> Ah, had I argued that the complaint is flawed _because_ the attorney is
> incompetent, then it would have been an ad-hominem argument.  In fact, I
> argued precisely the opposite: that the attorney appears to be incompetent
> because the complaint is so obviously flawed.

As you've already been told, the guy with a Ph.D. has obviously done more
with his head than grow hair.  Surely it is up to the Court to determine
whether the Complaint is flawed or not.  What you did was a sneaky look
around the Internet or wherever to get the "dirt" on the guy!  That's ad
hominem no matter how you try to disguise it!  Dirt ball tactics by a dirt
ball for a dirt ball organisation - that's not ad hominem - that's
justifiable.

>
> As usual, you and Mr. McKinney are finding ad-hominems where there are
none,
> and are failing to speak out about it when someone actually does engage in
> an ad-hominem argument.  Of course, that would require you to chastise
> yourself as much as you've chastised anyone else, but I guess a little
> hypocrisy is allowed when one's agenda is at stake.

Except that with you, the "running dogs" BIGS bigots, and your joint
agenda - it's a great deal of hypocrisy.

>
> > As usual Mr
> > Schaut, you delight in spreading the news that he has only recently,
> > apparently, passed the Bar exam in New Mexico and perhaps suggest
> > thereby that he's not that good and the case therefore is a mere
> bagatelle,
> > something for the boy to cut his teeth on.
>
> As usual, Mr. Ryder, you have your facts somewhat confused.  I had
suggested
> that the attorney didn't seem particularly competent based on a reading of
> the complaint he filed.  Mr. Hazini responded by pulling some facts out of
> his backside, and, while I admit to having a small amount of pleasure in
> subsequently proving that Mr. Hazini must have pulled those facts out of
his
> backside, I have never argued that the attorney in question is incompetent
> merely because he only passed the New Mexico bar exam some six months ago.

No Rickster you're too shrewd to argue that the guy is incompetent -
although you did suggest a throwaway case for his first.  For once you
didn't pull the facts out of your backside - you went looking for them and
you suggested the guy wasn't competent based on your assessment of the
Complaint which counts for doodly squat.  Nima doesn't trawl the Internet
looking for the dirt on the guy the way you did.

You play a cannier game Rickster, "to damn with civil praise, assent with
civil leer and without sneering cause the rest to sneer."

BTW what is it with this anal pre-occupation you have, rather disturbingly
IMO, displayed in recent posts?

>
> > You know nothing about this lawyer;
>
> Well, actually, I do know that he only passed the written portion of the
New
> Mexico bar exam some six months ago.  That's a little more than "nothing."

But not enough - is it? (Rhetorical)  So you bring this up hoping the world
will draw the conclusion you want it to.
>
> >  but has it
> > occurred to you that a man with a PH. D has used his brain for more than
> > keeping his ears apart (a practice in which you are adept, perhaps).
>
> I don't recall ever saying that I thought the man to be a complete idiot.
> At the same time, having a Ph.D. in biochemistry doesn't necessarily
qualify
> one to be an attorney.  Now, were I to be awed by this chap's skill as an
> attorney merely because he holds a Ph.D. in some unrelated field, then one
> might suggest that I've used my brain for little more than keeping my ears
> apart.

We have in earlier correspondence already determined all questions relating
to your brain.  I personally think that the only thing keeping your ears
apart is sheer force of habit.

>
> > You
> > know nothing about the detail of the case and, in spite of that, are
> > endeavouring to make little of it.
>
> Except that you forget the reason why I know so little about this case:
the
> complaint doesn't allege any facts that would constitute addressable
issues
> under civil law.  And, while you and Mr. McKinney have been engaging in
your
> own form of ad-hominem argument by hypocritically taking me to task for an
> ad-hominem argument I haven't made, neither of you have attempted to
address
> the issue of whether or not the complaint alleges sufficient facts for a
> court to find probable cause that a justiciable issue exists.

DUH!  It is not the function of a Complaint to prove facts - its function is
to state a case that the Complainant intends to address to the Court.  Now
from the Complant it appears that the Complainant intends to ask the Court
to rule on matters which are clearly within the Competence of the Court -
the allegations of fraud, libel and that this Assembly failed/refused to
carry out its business in accordance with its own rules. The Court will
determine this issue on the merits of the EVIDENCE not the allegations
contained in the Complaint.

>
> > Fact is - win or lose - it is a disgraceful indictment of your
> > religious organisation that one of your fellow believers has to take a
> > complaint to an attorney at law to endeavour to get it dealt with in a
> > satisfactory manner.
>
> It's amazing, or perhaps amusing, that I should have to point that you've
> prefaced a statement of opinion with the words, "Fact is."  And, while
> you're certainly entitled to hold whatever opinion suits your fancy, I
> generally prefer to have sufficient facts in hand before forming an
opinion.
> In this instance, I'd rather prefer to allow the lawsuit to play itself
out
> before I decide who, if anyone, has acted disgracefully.

No! I stand by it.  FACT is that it is a disgraceful indictment that your
much lauded AO cannot deal with a comparatively simple matter (as per the
Complaint) which it has had under its purview for some unspecified, but I
suspect unreasonably long, period and drives a Bahai to go to Court.

>
> But I will state an opinion on an issue where I do have sufficient facts,
> and that issue is the extent to which some people are willing to reach
> conclusions based on such collections of "facts" as the accounts one reads
> in newspapers or a poorly written complaint that's been filed in a court
of
> law in a case for which the defendants haven't even had enough time to
file
> a competent response to that complaint.  Now _that's_ a disagrace.

Au contraire, Rickster!!  The defendants had this case within their purview
for some time and did nothing about it.  Read the Complaint before you
pontificate.  And with the speed at which lawyers normally work, I would
hazard a guess the defendants have had this case under their purview for
some considerable time.  As the Dear Lady observed the NSA moves like
molasses in January - well some people reckon that that could be the reason
this Complaint has been filed.  Nothing like a Court case to light a fire
under the ass and put some urgency into a matter!

I refrain from comment on the other allegations - I await the evidence that
presumably will be filed in Court by way of substantiation.  Unlike you
Rickster, I haven't made up my mind about the merits of this case or the
decision that will be rendered.  It would be disingenuous of me to do other
than state that I hope the Plaintiff wins it and that by that victory
positive change will be brought about in the BF.  It is a terrible shame
that a religion that was designed to bring the Light of God into the world
has degenerated into the erection of marble and the spread of an unwanted
Theocratic pretension.

>
> Worse yet, some of these people seem to have inoculated themselves against
> revising their opinions when further facts have been brought to light.
> Rather than revise their opinions, they engage in a most vile form of
> personal attack against the individuals who have had the temerity to bring
> those further facts to light.  That's not a disagrace.  That's downright
> despicable.

What further FACTS have come to light - that YOU consider this case flawed,
that the lawyer passed his NM Bar exams 6 months ago?  What have you
become - the arbiter of public opinion and public decency?

You don't seem to realise that it is Court that will ultimately determine
this matter - as to whose behaviour has been despicable vis a vis Plaintiff
and Defendant.  Public opinion shall determine whose behaviour on this forum
(and/or others) has been despicable.

The Grim Reaper.

Hey all!

What are you really talking about? This is in the US. A country where you 
can sue - and win! - for not being warned not to dry your cat in a 
microwave oven. The country which defines superfluous lawsuits, and whose 
citizens have a supreme sense of rights, but little wish to understand 
responsibility. Mix in personalities and ... hey presto! Another lawsuit. 

Leave it to the lawyers - truth will never, ever come out of it, neither 
will justice. Remember OJ. In this case, all sides lose.

Brian

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tch3usl9varja0@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> TRB has exploded after a quiet March into an orgy of so called fact
finding
> and ill founded opinions about this case.

With much of the "explosion" coming in the wake of someone posting outright
lies.

> I suspect that the Complaint has been filed in Court as a last resort in
an
> effort to get the NSA to deal with a complaint that has been resting in
its
> office for a very long time.

If that's the case, then why does the complaint fail to mention any effort
to bring these issues to the attention of the Universal House of Justice?
Wouldn't it be equally reasonable to suspect that the complaint was filed in
a New Mexico court because the plaintiff doesn't recognize the authority of
the Universal House of Justice to settle matters which have caused
differences among the members of the Baha'i Faith?

> It can of course opt for an open Court case but that would be to court
> further adverse publicity.

Or, it might be an opportunity to practice a wide range of Baha'i principles
relating to truthfulness, honesty and justice regardless of whether
adherence to those principles would court adverse publicity or not.

> In as much as I and others have long anticipated
> (and warned of) such a case developing due to the AO's aversion to dealing
> with dissent by such sensible means as reconciliation, conflict resolution
> and/or negotiation, it has brought this situation on itself.

Well, adherence to principles and authoritative texts can, and often does,
give rise to unavoidable conflicts with certain individuals.  We've seen a
number of instances where individuals have demanded that a Baha'i
institution take an action that is clearly outside that institution's sphere
of legitimate authority.  It's difficult to see how such issues would be
negotiable.

To be the constant source of conflict with an institution, to behave, as an
individual, in a manner that's inconsistent with a professed belief in
Baha'u'llah, and then blame that institution for failing to resolve the
conflict would epitomize hypocrisy.

> The behaviour of its apologists on this list has been less than helpful -

One could say the same thing about the behavior of others in this forum.
The posting of outright lies, getting distracted over inconsequentional
statements while failing to adequately address the points that had been
raised, promoting a double-standard of conduct with regard to comments
relating to character, all of these have contributed nothing to the
advancement of truth or the level-headed consideration of facts and issues.

But, more importantly, I think Mr. Ryder greatly exaggerates the importance
of whatever happens in this little corner of the Internet.  What happens
here has about as much impact on the rest of the world as a New York street
squabble has on passers-by.  A few folks might stop and watch, but they all
go on about their business.

> It may be this hope of reform which motivates the Plaintiff rather than
the
> "egomania" which is normally attributed to "opponents" of the AO.

The case will play itself out.  As for "egomania", that's not a bad word
describe the attitude under which one attempts to pass one's opinions off as
established fact.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

> to have sworn testimony in Court that the matters
>alleged in the Complaint are well founded, that a member of the corporation
>declared himself to be the voice of God etc.  Evidence like that is a heaven
>sent story for the press 

Dermod,

You can't be serious? Do you really think that either the courts or the press
cares that a member of an obscure religion claims to be the voice of God?. Just
turn on the television. They do it every morning at 11:00 am and what does John
Q. Public do? Turn the station, of course. This is neither news, nor an legal
matter. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010402214218.27249.00003359@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> > to have sworn testimony in Court that the matters
> >alleged in the Complaint are well founded, that a member of the
corporation
> >declared himself to be the voice of God etc.  Evidence like that is a
heaven
> >sent story for the press
>
> Dermod,
>
> You can't be serious? Do you really think that either the courts or the
press
> cares that a member of an obscure religion claims to be the voice of God?.
Just
> turn on the television. They do it every morning at 11:00 am and what does
John
> Q. Public do? Turn the station, of course. This is neither news, nor an
legal
> matter.

Not just that but all of the other bits as well - my journalist friends are
very interested and just awaiting the right moment to print an article -
Voice of God makes a good header for the story.  This will invoke the Wrath
of Khan who has been spouting about the way bad BIGS bring the AO into
disrepute ... sorry, attract adverse press comment.  he is constantly
invoking Divine Assistance to counteract this but he thinks the lucj won't
hold out forever.

Pip Pip,

Dermod.

Merde Man pontificates:

<snip>

>> You were warned by the Guardian that your Faith could fail. It has!

>Which begs the question, why are you here?

Actually, the more approproate question is who puts you up to your
offiociocratic rantings on the net! We know Maneck has her patron in
Ghadirian, who is yours Rickster? Rumour has it that it's Henderson.

>You're wasting your time.  Get a
>life, indeed!

Again, Rickster, please do the world a favor and go sailing into the sunset
on your little paddle boat (yacht, whatever!). The world can do well enough
without American Baha'i hezbollahis such as yourself.

> When it comes to Mr. Hazini, I have a great deal of justification in not
>trusting what he attempts to pass off as fact.

Same here. Where Merde Man is concerned there is even greater justification
in knowing that his rantings are nothing more than an orchestrated apology
of his patrons.

Get a life yourself, Rickster. After all you're the cultist and cult
apologist, not us. Which brings me to the question: where you perchance
potty trained at gun point??

cheers,
Nima

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcj82vb2amqjd7@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9abdp901k9p@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Perhaps additional evidence as to how the Auxiliary Board Member
> > and the National Spiritual Assembly were dealing with the issues
> > might cast this whole case in completely different light.

> It would, except that they weren't!

That's a speculative conclusion.  All we do know, assuming she's telling the
truth, is that the plaintiff in the lawsuit didn't know what was being done
about the situation.

> > > And who for this day has interpreted those authoritative texts such
> > > that a believer like Alison can be kicked out on her ear without a
> > > chance to justify her position.

> > That appears to depend on whom you ask.  Some folks have alleged that
the
> > issue is free speech, in which case her expulsion would have come about
> > because she justified her position all too well.

> Was this before or after the fact?

I'm merely noting the logical inconsistencies in the two positions.  One
holds that the Universal House of Justice wanted to silence her, and the
other holds that she has had no opportunity to speak her mind.  These
positions cannot both be true.

As for "superior intellect" (I'm reminded of another character who had an
inflated sense of his intelligence), I'm not sure one can rightly categorize
an intellect that fails to grasp the meaning of the phrase "not subject to
present or future speculation" as a "superior" intellect.

> > But, the fact remains that she can still address her concerns to the
> > Universal House of Justice.

> There is no appeal against the supreme body unless, of course, there is
> "repentance" and that's a whole different ball game.  In not consulting
with
> her beforehand the supreme body indicated that it had determined the
matter
> absolutely.

The Universal House of Justice has an established policy that anyone can
bring any issue directly to them, yet, despite that policy, you choose to
interpret, in the absence of any direct statement on the matter, what
they've done as indicating that this particular issue is closed.  Looks more
like an excuse not to engage in dialogue than any well-reasoned conclusion
about what's going on in the minds of the members of the Universal House of
Justice.

If she wants to know why they instructed the AZ National Spiritual Assembly
to return her membership card, then why doesn't she just ask them?  Why
concoct these lame excuses for not engaging in any dialogue?

> I wouldn't speculate about the attitude or remit of the Privacy
Commission.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that she has a dispute with the Universal
House of Justice but has done nothing by way of addressing that dispute with
them.  Frankly, it looks like she has no real interest in resolving the
dispute, and is only looking for someone, somewhere, who will say, "Oh you
bad Universal House of Justice!  Who do you think you are for enforcing
standards of Baha'i membership?"

> Bloodsports!  I enjoy the kill - the smell of cordite and the whiff of
> napalm in the morning ... Ooops! Getting carried away there! Sorry!

Dang.  For a moment, there, I thought you might simply explode.  Course,
that would make such an awful mess.

> > When it comes to Mr. Hazini, I have a great deal of justification in not
> > trusting what he attempts to pass off as fact.

> So why have you formulated an opinion?

Now, that's news to me.  Have I stated an opinion on the merits of this
case?  If so, please quote it for me.

> > But you seem to forget.  I haven't, at all, discussed the validity of
the
> > factual claims in the complaint.

> You can speculate on the "facts" all you want - doesn't affect the "fact"
> that a Complaint has been filed and that if it is not satisfactorily
> resolved it could wind up in Court and the AO could win or it could lose.

Yo, Dermod.  It's _already_ in court.  Plaintiff chose to take it there.  An
d there's not a thing I can do to change that fact.  I don't know why you
keep exhorting me to endeavor to change that which is beyond my power to
change.

> > At which point did I claim that she is, indeed, the source of the
> > conflict?

> Try this bit - cited above: -

Well, we've all had a chance to read it a couple of times, now.  And, for
that matter, I at least recall precisely what I wrote.  The fact remains,
however, that I haven't stated that the principle specifically applies in
this case.  I've merely stated a principle that _could_ apply in this case,
depending, of course, on what further facts, if any, come to light.

> You shouldn't even try to apportion blame for the start of this conflict -
> you have no evidence on which to do that.

Well, then I guess it's a very good thing that I haven't tried to apportion
any blame, isn't it?

> To "articulate a principle", as
> above, in the context in which you did is to leave all aware of your
> predetermined judgement that the Plaintiff is to blame for the contention.

No.  To articulate a principle, as I did and in the context in which I did
so, is to outline what facts might be relevant to any conclusion that one
might draw in this case.  The purpose is two-fold: 1) to point out that some
speculation fails to consider relevant facts that are not in evidence; and
2) to suggest specific avenues for further inquiry should the opportunity
for further inquiry arise.

Of course, you fail to notice this.  You're more interested in constructing
straw creaturs that can be burnt with a dab of napalm than you're interested
in a well-reasoned discussion of the issues.

> Within a Bahai context I would agree with you but in other matters it lies
> within the purview of the Courts if either party makes an appeal thereto
for
> resolution.

Well, there are, in fact, some very legitimate reasons for the courts to not
get themselves embroiled in the details of an internal dispute within any
religion.  There are several reasons why the framers of the U.S.
Constitution chose to include two clauses concerning this issue in the very
First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  You might want to spend some time
reading the Federalist Papers in order to familiarize yourself with these
issues.

> At what point does delay in responding to an appeal cross the divide
between
> inactivity and rejection?  If an appellant hears nothing pertaining to the
> Appeal for a period of time what is he/she do about that?  In other words
> what is a reasonable time to leave an appeal in the hands of the NSA
before
> taking further action?  A week, two weeks, a month, two months, three
months

Frankly, the answer would depend on the issues involved.  Some appeals
require immediate attention.  Others not so immediate.

It would also depend on the manner in which the appeal has been made.  The
fallacy of communication is the assumption that it has taken place.  It's
not too difficult to imagine a bombastic letter of denial and dispute as
being someone's excuse for an appeal.  Indeed, it would be precisely the
kind of "appeal" letter I'd expect to get from one Dermod Ryder.

However, it's not entirely clear that a bombastic letter of dispute
indicates any desire to review the issues from any point of view but that of
the supposed appellant.  Try sending a similar writ of certiorari to a U.S.
Appeals Court, and see how far it gets you.

> They may indeed have no obligation to keep her
> informed - but is that efficiency, is that courtesy, is that the Bahai
way?

And, again, that depends on the nature of the issues involved.  To take
something from this case, consider the whole issue involving the applause:

"22. At the Annual Meeting Feast of 1999, Defendant Trustees fraudulently
rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad by calling for applause for him
three times prior to an election of corporate officers. Plaintiff appealed
to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action."

First of all, the immediately appropriate action is to investigate the
matter.  Secondly, there are a number of things that the National Spiritual
Assembly might do depending on the results of that investigation.  On this
particular issue, however, since it doesn't involve a specific adverse
decision by an instititon involving administrative santions against her, the
National Spiritual Assembly has no obligation to keep her informed.  Indeed,
the principle of confidentiality precludes them from telling her everything
they've done.

In addition, the National Spiritual Assembly is looking to find patterns of
behavior, and not necessarily isolated instances of misconduct.  The issue
isn't so much whether or not someone is stradling Baha'i law and procedures.
Rather, the issue is really about a person's intent.  There are known cases
where the Universal House of Justice has instructed a National Spiritual
Assembly to restore an individual's voting rights because the case involved
a single violation of Baha'i law, and about which the individual was
striving to correct his or her behavior.

The point is that the process of applying Baha'i law is a rather lengthy
process.  It doesn't simply consist of applying sanctions the moment the
Assembly has determined that someone has violated Baha'i law.  Efforts are
made to ascertain the individual's attitude regarding his or her behavior,
the individual's knowledge of the relvant principles involved, and the
extent to which that individual would be amenable to consultation on thie
issues.

Now, given that the most strident sanction a National Spiritual Assembly can
possibly apply is the prohibition on giving to the fund and attending Feast,
it's difficult to imagine any issue that would require a timely response due
to any hardship arising from any sanction that's been imposed.  I suppose
one might argue some aspect of "emotional" damages (as are alleged in this
complaint), but I just have difficulty finding any sympathy for that notion.
Yes, the courts do recognize "emotional" damages under certain
circumstances, but more often than not, "emotional" damages have served as
nothing more than an excuse for someone to extort money from deep pockets.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tckvdilpte0a88@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9ad1nh06jf@news2.newsguy.com...
> > "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tcj82vb2amqjd7@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > > "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > > news:9abdp901k9p@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > > Perhaps additional evidence as to how the Auxiliary Board Member
> > > > and the National Spiritual Assembly were dealing with the issues
> > > > might cast this whole case in completely different light.

> > > It would, except that they weren't!

> > That's a speculative conclusion.

> It's not speculation - I know how long the NSA sat on the complaint and
did
> sweet doodly squat about it.

You appear to be claiming access to evidence to which I'm not privy.  If you
have it, then post it.

> You can phone your friends at Wilmette to ask
> them if they want me to note this on the Internet for public appraisal or
if
> they would prefer that I not divulge the information.

But, excuse me for being amused at the suggestion that you're witholding
this evidence for the sake of saving the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly
embarrassment.  Is there anything you'd like to see more than public
embarassment of Baha'i institutions?  That seems to be your sole purpose for
even being here.

> > I'm merely noting the logical inconsistencies in the two positions.

> Really! My what a display of logic!  Of course everybody but you can
clearly
> the fallacy in this.

Well, you did fail to notice that the complaint in the NM case alleges two
facts that cannot simultaneously be true.

> > If she wants to know why they instructed the AZ National Spiritual
> Assembly
> > to return her membership card, then why doesn't she just ask them?  Why
> > concoct these lame excuses for not engaging in any dialogue?

> And how do you know she didn't and if she did, what reply was received?
> Answer - you don't!  I, on the other hand may do, but whether I do or not
> I'm not going to acquaint you with the information.

[Snort.] Um. You owe me a new keyboard.

If you do, indeed, have such documents in your posession, the only
reasonable conclusion witholding them from public disclosure is that you
would find their contents more embarrassing than would any institution of
the Baha'i Faith.

> > > Bloodsports!  I enjoy the kill - the smell of cordite and the whiff of
> > > napalm in the morning ... Ooops! Getting carried away there! Sorry!

> > Dang.  For a moment, there, I thought you might simply explode.  Course,
> > that would make such an awful mess.

> But a lot less mess than if you got a dab of semtex where the sun don't
> shine

Not necessarily. My eyes are blue. What color are yours?

> - just saying that to placate your anal fixation.

You seem way more fixated about it than I do.

> > Now, that's news to me.  Have I stated an opinion on the merits of this
> > case?  If so, please quote it for me.

> Well let's see - you've rubbished me,

With quite a bit of due, on that score.

> the attorney,

Yes.  I said that he doesn't seem to be all that competent based on the
complaint.  Of course, that's only one complaint, and I'm sure the fellow
has a wonderful career _ahead_ of him (note that in contrast to Mr. Hazini's
manufacturing of a past career for this particular attorney).

> the Complaint,

With legitimate cause. The complaint stinks from a legal standpoint.

> the Plaintiff,

Only if one accepts the straw creatures you've constructed through
unwarranted inferences based on my remarks.

> anybody who doesn't agree with you (apart from your pal Bart
> Simpson) ... anybody here not know what Rick's opinion of this case is?

So long as we're talking about the legal issues, yes.  I would suspect that
everyone who is following this thread knows exactly what my opinions are.
Where the facts are concerned, however, I have yet to state any particular
opinion as to their merits.

> > Yo, Dermod. It's _already_ in court. Plaintiff chose to take it there.

> It's not IN Court - it's awaiting the day that it does go into Court with
> the attorneys, Plaintiff, witnesses etc. and the Judge.

I see.  You expect me, and other members of the Baha'i Faith, to be doing
hand-stands, back-flips and maybe even an arabesque or two, whatever it
takes to keep this case from going to trial (just so long as it's not on a
legal "technicality" like the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution--nasty little technicality there), regardless of what's
actually true or which would be the most just course of action.  But, then,
I don't quite share your vehement distate for all things related to Baha'i
Institutions.

> >The fact remains,
> > however, that I haven't stated that the principle specifically applies
in
> > this case.  I've merely stated a principle that _could_ apply in this
> case,
> > depending, of course, on what further facts, if any, come to light.

> Well now why didn't you say that to begin with that you were merely citing
> general principles which might or might not be applicable?

Because I had, apparently mistakenly, beleived that people could see that I
was doing nothing more than stating a principle without my having to point
it out to them.

>  Indeed why bring
> it up at all for in the context in which you used it, you invited BIGS to
> agree with you that this is a BAD Bahai who dares take the AO to a nasty
> Civil Court.

You mean the context in which I had specifcly disavowed any effort to reach
a conclusion on the merits of this case?

> > Well, then I guess it's a very good thing that I haven't tried to
> > apportion any blame, isn't it?

> Really?  Let's ask the folks out there for their opinion on that
> proposition!

Yes, lets.  Tell you what, why don't we simply suspend this discussion for a
few days, and see if anyone chimes in?

> > > At what point does delay in responding to an appeal cross the divide
> > between
> > > inactivity and rejection?

> > Frankly, the answer would depend on the issues involved.  Some appeals
> > require immediate attention.  Others not so immediate.

> Put a time on it - a specific time.  After what period of elapsed time
would
> you expect

Nope.  My answer remains the same.  Moreover, where this case is concerned,
the answer would be rather irrelevant.  She has another recourse other than
the courts.  Did she avail herself of that recourse?

> > It would also depend on the manner in which the appeal has been made.
The
> > fallacy of communication is the assumption that it has taken place.
It's
> > not too difficult to imagine a bombastic letter of denial and dispute as
> > being someone's excuse for an appeal.  Indeed, it would be precisely the
> > kind of "appeal" letter I'd expect to get from one Dermod Ryder.

> Now is this another of these "general principles" or quite specific
> innuendo?

Well, there's no innuendo whatsoever in the last sentence.  As to whether or
not it applies in the present case, well, I believe you already know the
answer, but you'll make whatever inferences suits your bloodthirst despite
anything I might say.

> You keep telling us the the AO system is flexible. Has it therefore the
> inherent ability and flexibility to deal with such a "bombastic"
complaint?

Sure.  Indeed, one legitimate means would be to instruct the National
Spiritual Assembly involved to remove the author of the complaint from the
membership roles, depending, of course, upon the specific circumstances.

> Complaints have to be dealt with - if a Microsoft customer lambasted you

But, then, we're not talking about a business with customers.  Where one's
relationship with the Baha'i Institutions are concerned, there are attitudes
that are clearly spelled out in authoritative Baha'i Texts (c.f. "Baha'i
Administration" and numerous letters from `Abdul-Baha).  Moreover, however,
there is the explicit statement within these Writings, that Spiritual Assemb
lies do not answer to their constituents.  They answer to their conscience.
You may not like this, but you cannot deny that it is an aspect of Baha'i
Administration.

So, yes, complaints have to be dealt with, but one that is sufficiently
bombastic may well reveal more about the complainant than the issues that
the complaint actually reveals.

[Snip]

> All of the above is arrant dog-muck as the NSA sat on its corporate fat
arse
> and did absolutely nothing.

Which is Mr. Ryder's way of saying that he has no counter to my remarks
that's based on a thorough review of Baha'i principles.

And, I suppose one might notice how "dog-muck" and "fat arse" could indicate
an anal fixation, but I don't think it would be necessary to point out any
of Mr. Ryder's fixations.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Greetings, Rick.
    You poorly expressed your thought.
    You wrote: 

"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes: 
> I'm merely noting the logical inconsistencies in the two positions.  One
> holds that the Universal House of Justice wanted to silence her, and the
> other holds that she has had no opportunity to speak her mind.  These
> positions cannot both be true.

This is perfectly consistent if the UHJ was successful; I assume your
words do not fully correspond with what you're attempting to communicate.
                                                             M.
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Rick.
    Uhm, well, what's stopping the Universal House of Justice from
stepping in and resolving differences here? I suppose considering the
past performance of the guys currently in power when it comes to doing
this, we might be grateful they've not intervened in the case.
    However, at some time there could come actions by the UHJ that are
in accordance with the title and job description, including resolving
differences -- really resolving them that is. This is antipodal from
seeking to impose one authoritarian dogma and declaring the rainbow of
valid personal opinions to be invalid, except for the opinion of the
faction in power, and everyone else to have the freedom to remain silent
or to have their say outside the entity Hooper, Doug and their buddies
control.
    So, if there are differences, and, if their job is to resolve such
differences, what are they waiting for? Do they need an invitation from
the disagreeing parties? Every dawn brings a new day during which those
in charge of Baha'i have another opportunity to be true Baha'i guides
for a species quite some distance from harmony. 
    Here's to the day the UHJ begins functioning as what it was meant
to be, and what humanity can benefit from.
                                                       M. 
                                         

"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:

> If that's the case, then why does the complaint fail to mention any effort
> to bring these issues to the attention of the Universal House of Justice?
> Wouldn't it be equally reasonable to suspect that the complaint was filed in
> a New Mexico court because the plaintiff doesn't recognize the authority of
> the Universal House of Justice to settle matters which have caused
> differences among the members of the Baha'i Faith?

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9ad2v808a7@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9acf8s$aem$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >     Uhm, well, what's stopping the Universal House of Justice from
> > stepping in and resolving differences here?
>
> Now there's a fascinating image.  The Universal House of Justice coming
over
> the ridge like the cavalry saying, "Judge Scott, you may set this case
> aside.  We're handling the matter, now."  The only thing missing is the
deep
> voice singing, "Here I come to save the day!"
>

Looks like Randolph Scott (hallowed be his name and memory) has been
co-opted onto the House of Horrors to hold office with John Wayne and Tom
Mix.

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcgoalg0l6v2da@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a8t430210k@news2.newsguy.com...
> > It has everything to do with the pattern of behavior under which certain
> > individuals latch on to whatever might cast someone else in a bad light
> > regardless of the actual substance behind it.

> Not "someone" Rick - actually it is two corporate bodies

And what does this have to do with the issue of substance, or lack thereof?

> > All I did was express an opinion.  Is there some reason you have to
> > flatulate like this every time someone expresses an opinion?

> There's that anal fixation again!

And I'm still wondering why that bothers you.

> I can only repeat the obvious when it is apparent that the obvious hasn't
> sunk in.

I rather strongly suspect that the reason is entirely different.

Regarding my "sneaky" peek around the internet:

> Why the interest in the person?

Well, good old Mr. Hazini asserted that the attorney was some high-powered
corporate lawyer who has won several cases.  I sought to check it out for
myself, and came up with facts relevant to Mr. Hazini's claim.  If you want
to know why the interest in this attorney's record, then ask Mr. Hazini.
While you're at it, please explain why you haven't taken Mr. Hazini to task
for trying to sell us a bill of goods.  Or is it OK to post outright lies if
the lies happen to be flattering?

> > Oh, and I'll remember your comments on "dirt" the next time you bring up
> > Dr. Danesh.

> And I 'll bring it (and/or similar) up again the next time you and/or
other
> AO apologists start slinging dirt and ad hominems.

Proving, once again, that you really don't care about the truth when there's
an opportunity for flaming members of the Baha'i Faith.

> There is no need in a Complaint to state other than the broad grounds upon
> which one is proceeding against the defendants.  The "facts" are spelled
out
> in Court.

No.  The facts are _proved_, or not as the case may be, in court.  They
should be spelled out in the complaint.  If one doesn't spell out the facts
in the complaint, then one is, rather obviously, using the court as a
vehicle for a fishing expedition.  Courts don't take all too kindly to that.

> > Now, exactly which of those constitutes a justiciable issue under the
law?
> > Under which system of law does any of those alleged facts constitute
> > either fraud or libel that would render the claim justiciable?

> Re applause - was it called for or was it spontaneous? Did it thereby
> constitute "electioneering"?

Two salient facts.  1) We're talking about a religious organization; and 2)
The U.S. Constitution has an amendment that prohibits the government from
infringing upon the practice of a religion and or effecting the
establishment of a religion.  Any issue that would hinge upon the rules of
the religious organization would, therefore, be non-justiciable matters in a
US court of law.

And no fraud or libel, here.

> 17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained in an
> inaccurate and inequitable manner.

> An allegation which shall be substantiated or not dependent on independent
> audit.

This might be negligence, but in order for the plaintiff to show damages,
one needs to go through the mental gymnastics of turning members of a
religion into shareholders of a corporation.  Not justiciable on the grounds
that plaintiff has no standing on the issue.

And, again, no fraud or libel here.  Indeed, the very next alleged fact
would obviate any claim of either fraud or libel in this regard:

> 18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000 discrepancy in the
> corporate books.

> See above but this is obviously an alleged fact - another one indeed.

Yes, it's an alleged fact.  But, is the fact justiciable?  No.  For the same
reason that #17 fails to allege a fact that would be justiciable under the
law.  All this fact establishes is that any claim of fraud or libel is
specious.

> 19. In a letter dated September 3, 2000, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
> informed the Local Spiritual Assembly that she desired to inspect their
> financial books. Defendants refused.

> A matter of fact or not - dependent on the evidence.

That didn't parse.  Are you saying that this could be an opinion based on
the evidence?  If so, then I'm afraid you're still woefully confused as to
the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

And, while this is an allegation of fact, the question still remains whether
it alleges a fact that's justiciable under the law.  The very next
allegation of fact would negate any justiciable issue regarding a refusal to
allow the books to be inspected.

And, _again_, no fraud or libel.

> 20. Following mailing of the demand letter, the LSA offered to allow named
> Plaintiff to inspect the books and records, but under conditions that the
> Plaintiff deemed in bad faith.

> A matter of fact or not - dependent on the evidence.

But, where's the law that would require the Local Spiritual Assembly to
allow the plaintiff to inspect the books on the plaintiff's terms and
conditions?  That the plaintiff deems the terms and conditions to reflect
bad faith is meaningless.  Why aren't those terms and conditions spelled out
in the complaint?  This is simply too vague to present an issue that would
be justiciable.

And, above all, there's _still_ no allegatin of fact that would constitute
either fraud or libel.

> Now are not all of the above facts, or alleged facts, actionable in a
Court
> of law, which alone shall determine the merits and render due verdict
> thereon?

Yes, they're alleged facts.  None of them appears to be a fact that would
present a justiciable issue.

You seem to think than anyone can take any issue to a court of law and ask
that court to render an opinion on it.  If so, where did you get such a
notion?

And, again, I'll note that no one has made even the remotest attempt to
claim that any of these alleged facts constitutes either libel or fraud.
Yet, the complaint itself is virtually littered with the words "fraud" and
"libel".  It's as if the attorney knows that the complaint is thin on
justiciable facts, and needs to come up with some kind of smoke screen that
would obscure just how thin those facts are.

> Ditto for your own propositions on this case.

But, then, I'm not demanding that other people take my opinion to be
established fact.

> This complaint has been sat on for
> a much longer period than that without any indication that it was even
being
> looked at.  Is this not actionable at law?

If it is, then please cite the law that would make it actionable.

> > What I had in mind is Dr. Cole's despicable practice of retaining the
> > newspaper article about Dr. Danesh without so much as a hint of the fact
> > that the entire matter was decided, by dismissal of a civil lawsuit, in
a
> > court of law.

> Nothing whatsoever to do with the NM case.

It has everything to do with the practice, in this forum, of presenting only
part of the facts in order to cast aspersions on Baha'i institutions.  The
behavior regarding Dr. Danesh's case is remarkably similar to the posting of
a complaint within days of that complaint being filed in court, as if the
complaint constitutes established fact in and of itself.  Is there _any_
reason that people couldn't wait until this case had run its course before
people began discussing it here?  Why post the complaint _before_ a court
has had any opportunity to address the issues it raises?

>  In the light of what you state
> about a subsequent civil action (on which I have yet to see any reported
> facts)

Where have you been?  Dr. Maneck has reported several facts in this regard.
Are you claiming that she's lying?

> the fact still remains that Danesh negotiated to have charges against
> him withdrawn.

The fact is that Dr. Danesh didn't fight to keep a license to practice
clinical psychiatry at a time when he had already decided to quit clinical
practice to pursue academic interests.

But, then, we've pretty much established that you wish to not be confused by
such details, so I suppose I should appologise for pointing them out to you.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tchput7vrvcvca@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9aa8l108e7@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Any issue that would hinge upon the rules of
> > the religious organization would, therefore, be non-justiciable
> > matters in a US court of law.

> Anything about the content of the rules of a religious organisation is
> covered by the Constitution.  But where that religious organisation
> incorporates itself its behaviour as governed by corporate law comes
> within the jurisdiction of the Court.

You're suggesting that, merely by the act of incorporation, a religious
organization forgoes any protection that might be accorded to it by the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution--namely the right to conduct its
affairs (i.e. how the organizations chooses to uphold its own by-laws) as
the organization itself sees fit.  That's a novel theory, but I'd certainly
like to see that stated in some court decision before I accept it as
anything other than your own creation.

I know of no court case that directly addresses this issue.  One that comes
close, however, is Combs v. Methodist Church (USCA 5th Circuit, Case No.
98-10193).  Combs, a female Methodis Minister, sued the Methodist Church for
sexual discrimination, but the case was dismissed under the First Amendment
establishment of religion clause.  Defendant church was a non-profit
corporation as well.

This would lead one to believe that no court will even consider any form of
injunction or relief based on a claim having to do with whether or not a
religious organization is adhering to its own by-laws.

> Furthermore it must abide by civil law as the
> Guardian pointed. The Constitutional safeguard is for matters of
> conscience not a license to break every other law in the book.

The complaint doesn't allege that any law has been violated.  Were we
talking about violations of law, then this would be a criminal case not a
civil case.

However, you are quite incorrect in limiting the First Amendment to merely
matters of conscience.  There are two clauses involved, only one of which
has to do with conscience (i.e. the free exercise of one's religious
beliefes).  The other clause is the so-called "establishment" clause.  It's
doubtful whether the freedom of exercise is an issue at all, but there is
little doubt as to whether or not the establishment clause would provide
grounds for dismissal under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6).  See the above-referenced case.

> The US Constitution provisions did not prevent the
> conviction of the Revd Moon on charges of Tax evasion.

How is that relevant to this case?

> > > 17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained
> > > in an inaccurate and inequitable manner.

> > Not justiciable on the grounds
> > that plaintiff has no standing on the issue.

> They are members of the corporation and she is a member of the
corporation.

Which explains paragraph 6 of the complaint:

"6. Named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn was a shareholder or member of the
Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the time of
the incidents stated in this Complaint, and she continues to be a member."

You might want to try to grasp the implications of what the complaint
_doesn't_ say.

As I mentioned, this might be cause for a negligence tort, but the claim
never even mentions negligence.  Indeed, the claim doesn't demand specific
monetary damages based on funds that may have been misplaced or even
misapropriated.  All damages listed in the complaint are based on so-called
"emotional" damages.

They only possible way to wrangle some kind of justiciable issue out of this
would be to find some kind of fiduciary relationship between the defendants
and the Plantiffs, but that relationship doesn't exist between the members
of a private organization and the officers of that organization.  At least I
haven't been able to find any case law that holds this--if you can find
some, by all means, post the details.

There is a financial fiduciary relationship between the officers of a
corporation and the shareholders of that corporation, but that's not the
relationship here.  As you have so deftly noted, we're talking about
_members_, not _shareholders_.  Yet, the claim goes through this mential
gymnastics, quoted above, of equating "member" with "shareholder".

> > > 18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000
> > > discrepancy in the corporate books.

> A discrepancy of a material sum of money whether it arise from fraud,
> incompetence or negligence is actionable at law.

But only by the party that's actually harmed by the discrepancy.  If you're
a shareholder, then, yes, you have an actionable claim.  If you're simply a
member, then no (hence the mental gymnastics in paragraph 6 of the
complaint).

If anything, the Albuquerque LSA would have an actionable claim against the
person or persons responsible for handling those funds, but general members
of the community don't have any standing that would obligate the Albuquerque
LSA to act on that claim in any particular manner despite whatever
"emotional" impact this might have on said member of the community.

> Deborah says that she asked to see the books, which, as a member of the
> corporation she has a right to do and the other members wouldn't let her
so
> she is going to ask the Judge to make them let her see the books.

Deborah also says that they did make an offer to allow her to see the books,
but she didn't like the color of the walls in the room, so she decided to
sue the LSA.

Did you fail to notice that the complaint alleges two facts which cannot
simultaneously be true?

> If it's contrary to Corporation law it's actionable!

Repetition with an exclamation point, even.  That still won't render the
assertion valid.  See the above-referenced case.

> > But, where's the law that would require the Local Spiritual Assembly to
> > allow the plaintiff to inspect the books on the plaintiff's terms and
> > conditions?

> It's Corporation law again time and she's a member.

Frankly, I think you've cooked up this "corporation law" argument without so
much as a single whiff of any case history that would establish it as being
anything other than the product of your own imagination.  Try dealing with
the _actual_ law, and not the law in some fantasy world.

> If the defendants try
> to limit what she sees in the books it could be contrary to law.

You mean like not allowing her to see who contributed how much?  As I said,
this allegation is too vague.

> > You seem to think than anyone can take any issue to a court of law and
ask
> > that court to render an opinion on it.  If so, where did you get such a
> > notion?

> No, not any issue.

Good.  Now, describe, those particular elements that render a particular
issue justiciable.  Why don't you go to www.findlaw.com, click on the legal
dictionary (toward the bottom of the page), and look up the terms
"justiciable", "standing" "cause of action" and "jurisdiction".

> > Is there _any_
> > reason that people couldn't wait until this case had run its course
before
> > people began discussing it here?  Why post the complaint _before_ a
court
> > has had any opportunity to address the issues it raises?

> The Complaint was posted for information as it is a public document.

That doesn't render it's posting any less an act of sensationalistic
journalism than the retention of the newspaper article on Dr. Danesh.
Fred's home address is currently a matter of public record.  It's even
easier to find his home address on the web than it is to find a copy of this
compaint.  Yet quite a few people got their noses bent out of shape because
someone decided to post that information here.

The mere fact that certain information is publicly available doesn't render
the disseminatin of that information a morally or conscionably acceptable
act.

> It has
> not excited any great controversey on Talisman for example

Probably because no one there has enough knowledge to discuss the legal
issues intelligently.

> When I joined this thread it had been
> ongoing for sometime and being argued on grounds that posters seemed not
to
> comprehend.

And you continue to argue it on grounds that you seem not to comprehend.
What's your point?

> You were advancing information on the competence of the
> attorney

In response to someone else's claims about the attorney's record.

> and rubbishing the Complaint without apparently understanding its
> nature or its place in the scheme of things.

That's not entirely clear.  You haven't cited any case law that would
indicate my understanding of the legal issues is flawed in any way.

> You seemed to want to rubbish
> it to death, at least to members of this forum and certainly to your own
> satisfaction.

Actually, I rather enjoy discussing legal issues.  I find them fascinating.
This complaint affords an opportunity to do so, despite the fact that there
seems to be no one else here who understands these issues enough to discuss
them intelligently.

> Your
> ramblings contribute naught but ignorance and prejudice to an already
> difficult situation for both parties.

And your ramblings manage to contribute anything else?  If you don't like
the fact that this discussion is taking place, then, by all means, stop
participating in it.

> > The fact is that Dr. Danesh didn't fight to keep a license to practice
> > clinical psychiatry at a time when he had already decided to quit
clinical
> > practice to pursue academic interests.

> So why did he pay $10,000?  Seems an expensive way to retire from
medicine.

Substantially less expensive than the legal costs of fighting to keep the
license to practice when one has already made plans to render the license
irrelevant.

> If Danesh won the civil case and proved
> his innocence thereby why did he give the undertaking he did and pay the
> cash he did?

First of all, the license issue arose before the civil case.

Secondly, the effort to defend himself in the civil matter didn't negate the
expense that would have been required to fight the issue before the OCPS.

> As I said, at the very least, his judgement has to be called
> into question.

Why question the judgement of someone who would choose not to expend the
money and effort to keep a license he doesn't wish to use?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcj830hgcs1fd8@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> I am so glad that you have proved to your own satisfaction that the Courts
> have no jurisdiction in matters religious.

It seems I've demonstrated this to your satisfaction as well, or, at least,
to a level at which you no longer have a well-reasoned response.

Does that mean we can talk about the competence of this attorney, again?

> > Why question the judgement of someone who would choose not to expend the
> > money and effort to keep a license he doesn't wish to use?

> Why question the judgement of a man who paid $10,000 to give up that he
did
> not want to keep?

Your comprehension is slipping again.  Methinks you're in need of some
sleep.  I'll try smaller words:

He didn't care to keep the license.  He could either post a $10,000
(Canadian) security and give up the license, or spend as much as 10 times
that amount to fight to keep the license that he had no intention of ever
using again.  There was, however, no option for him that didn't entail
either posting the security or paying attorneys to contest the matter.

And you, with your "superior intelligence" wonder why I don't question the
man's judgement.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tckvdkpt87na8a@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9ad2bo07fq@news2.newsguy.com...
> > "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tcj830hgcs1fd8@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > It seems I've demonstrated this to your satisfaction as well, or, at
> least,
> > to a level at which you no longer have a well-reasoned response.

> I don't think so!

No, I was correct.  You didn't have, and still haven't made, a well-reasoned
response on the legal issues.  Keep trying, thoough.  I suggest you do a
citation analysis on LEMON v. KURTZMAN, and see where it leads you.

> Go ahead! I'm all agog!

Oh, please!  Close your mouth.  We can smell the odor all the way over here
in Seattle.

> > He didn't care to keep the license.  He could either post a $10,000
> > (Canadian) security and give up the license, or spend as much as 10
times
> > that amount to fight to keep the license that he had no intention of
ever
> > using again.  There was, however, no option for him that didn't entail
> > either posting the security or paying attorneys to contest the matter.

> Alternatively, a "competent" attorney might have advised him to have the
> hearing before his Professional body adjourned, pending resolution of the
> Civil Court case in which case he needn't have paid anything and would
have
> recovered his legal costs.  Post the Civil case there would have been no
> charges of professional misconduct to answer [...]

Your point is based the assumption that the civil lawsuit had been filed
before the claims against the OCPS had been resolved.  However, that
wouldn't be a particularly reasonable assumption to make.  You see, for the
folks who had filed the civil lawsuit, the matter before the OCPS costs them
absolutely nothing.  However, if they can get a favorable ruling from the
OCPS on the matter, then they practically have an open and shut case for a
civil lawsuit (the burden of proof in Administrative Law cases is higher
than that for cases under common law).  So, when there is an active
complaint against a doctor with the relevant licensing agency, people who
have a civil interest tend to not file a civil suit against the doctor until
after the relevant licensing agency has made its decision.

Moreover, were there, indeed, a civil lawsuit pending on the very issues
that were the substance of the complaint before the OCPS, then there's every
reason to believe that the OCPS, itself, would have suspended any hearing on
the matter pending the outcome of the civil lawsuit.  You see, as an
administrative agency, they would have to conduct a hearing into the facts
of the case.  Yet, if there is already a record of the facts stemming from a
civil lawsuit, the agency's expenses of conducting the hearing are greatly
reduced (indeed, they might not have to conduct a hearing at all).

So, there are a number of reasons, completely independant of the competence
of the doctor's attorney, to believe that the civil suit wasn't filed until
after the settlement of the issue before the OCPS.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9af5gi$gn0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Hi, Rick.
>       This post is ad hominem.

And your post is both redundant and selective.  And, you still haven't
answered either my question or those posts where I've addressed directly the
issues you've raised.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
news:tcmvv3ir35ri91@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9af5gi$gn0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >       This post is ad hominem.

> That's all His Holy Eminence knows how to write.... Notice
> he's ignoring my request to tell us who his boss is.

LOL!  Fred.  You owe me a new keyboard.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tckncai1ipv214@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9ab9f501epv@news2.newsguy.com...
> > You're suggesting that, merely by the act of incorporation, a
> > religious organization forgoes any protection that might be
> > accorded to it by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
> > [...]

> > I know of no court case that directly addresses this issue.  One
> > that comes close, however, is Combs v. Methodist Church [...]

> > Combs, a female Methodis Minister, sued the Methodist Church
> > for sexual discrimination

> Very interesting proposition and an extremely interesting case which cites
> certain relevant principles that Rickster doesn't point out because they
> don't suit his POV.

Actually, I was only attempting to address the rather narrow question of
whether or not the First Amendment becomes subservient to corporate law when
a religion incorporates itself as a non-profit organization.  I'll address
the broader issue of the manner in which the establishment clause would
apply to this case in a moment.  First:

>  The Constitution does provide for separation; the
> general rule that State shall not interfere with Church.  There are
> exceptions however. In MORMON CHURCH v. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1 (1890)
the
> state dissolved the corporation under which the Mormon Church operated and
> seized its property [...]

Interesting that Mr. Ryder would cite a case that fails to address any
specific issue related to either the establishment of religion or the free
exercise there of.  One can search the entire decision for the words
"Amendment", "establishment" or "religion" and you won't find a single
instance of them in reference to the First Amendment establishment clause.

Nor can one readily find the case cited in any other case involving First
Amendment establishment issues.  I guess one might applaud Mr. Ryder for his
creative search of U.S. Supreme Court cases, but it would seem that he might
want to refrain from making even the hint of a claim that I've been
disingenuous.

> It is when we come to consider the case that Rickster cited that we find
> rather curious dicta -

Well, it happens to be obiter dicta.  Care to share with us what the meaning
of the term "obiter dicta" is?

> "The Supreme Court determined that Oregon's prohibition on all peyote use
> did not violate the First Amendment:

That said, the NM case doesn't involve any allegations that any specific
individual has violated the law.  I'm beginning to question whether Mr.
Ryder even grasps the fundamental issues involved.  The Oregon case involved
a conflict between a law prohibiting a specific action and an individual's
assertion that the prohibited action was a religious ritual.  No such
similar claim has been made in the NM case.

> "Protecting the authority of a church to select its own ministers free of
> government interference does not empower a member of that church, by
virtue
> of his beliefs, to become a law unto himself."  not to mention -

Again, this is dicta, and, again, this case doesn't allege any circumstances
where an individual member of the Local Spiritual Assembly has become a law
unto himself.  There is, of course, the quote under which one individual
asserted that he was, "the voice of God" in that community, but, even
without considering the possible factual circumstances, such a declaration
remains a sectarian issue, not one for the courts.

> "In a passage now quoted by Reverend Combs, the Court stated, "When the
> exercise of religion [...]

Except that this quote refers to the _exercise_ clause.  Regarding the
present case, the central issue is the _establishment_ clause.

> There is in the NM case no interference with the internal management of
the
> Church, no attempt to have Government, or the law,  influence or otherwise
> determine matters theological; just an application to have the Court rule
> that the religious body in question conduct its affairs in accordance with
> generally applicable corporate law AND in accordance with its own rules
> which the Court is not being asked to amend in any way.

It's rather curious that Mr. Ryder keeps raising this issue of "generally
applicable corporate law", as it's not mentioned in any case that he's
cited.  Indeed, it's rather difficult to find any case that involves any
aspect of what is generally referred to as "corporate law" and also involves
either the establishment clause or the exercise clause of the First
Amendment.

The courts do get involved in property disputes between churches within a
religion, and these form the bulk of the cases that determine the manner in
which the Court has applied the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

> There is no burden
> in this other than would be borne by citizens in an entirely secular
area -

The above statement clearly indicates that Mr. Ryder is arguing along the
freedom of exercise clause.  As we will see in a moment, however, the key
clause is, indeed, the establishment clause.

> "for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
> `establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
> active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." (cited in
> CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)

One of the cases cited in LDS v. AMOS is LEMON v. KURTZMAN (403 US 602).  In
the latter case, we find what is generally referred to as the "three-pronged
Lemon test" for whether or not a specific piece of legislation is in accord
with the establishment clause of the First Amendment.  The three elements of
the test are that the law must serve a "secular legislative purpose", that
it cannot have a "principle primary effect" that either advances or inhibits
religion, and it cannot involve "excessive entanglement" in the affairs of a
religion.

While LEMON involved declaring a law unconstitutional, successive Supreme
Court decisions have applied that test to other government activities,  e.g.
WIDMAR v. VINCENT applied the Lemon test to the policies of a State-run
University.

The key prong of the Lemon test in the present case is "escessive
entanglement", and here there are cases that predate Lemon yet clearly point
to the applicability of this test to the ability of a court to address
issues involving a dispute between a member of a religion and that
religion's administration.

Perhaps the one that's most controlling here is SERBIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE v.
MILIVOJEVICH (426 US 696).  In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court had set
aside the defrocking of a Serbian Orthodox bishop because the Illinois
Supreme Court found that the church had failed to follow church rules
regarding the the procedure by which the bishop was defrocked.

The key in this case was a possible exception that came from Justice
Brandeis in GONZALEZ v. ARCHBISHOP (280 US 1):

"In the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, the decisions of the
proper church  tribunals on matters purely ecclesiastical, although
affecting civil rights, are accepted in litigation before the secular courts
as conclusive, because the parties in interest made them so by contract or
otherwise."

In SERBIAN ORTHODOX, the court, while noting that Justice Brandeis'
statement above constitutes dicta, stated that they couldn't find an
"arbitrariness" exception within the context of the application of that
religion's rules and procedures:

'We have concluded that whether or not there is room for "marginal civil
court review" under the narrow rubrics of "fraud" or "collusion" when church
tribunals act in bad faith for secular purposes, no "arbitrariness"
exception - in the sense of an inquiry whether the decisions of the highest
ecclesiastical tribunal of a hierarchical church complied with church laws
and regulations - is consistent with the constitutional mandate that civil
courts are bound to accept the decisions of the highest judicatories of a
religious organization of hierarchical polity on matters of discipline,
faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law.'

Mr. Ryder might be quick to point out that SERBIAN ORTHODOX declines to rule
on whether or not "fraud" constitutes an exception that might allow
"marginal civil court review" of a dispute between a member of a religion
and that religion's administration, it would seem doubtful that one can
construct a claim of "fraud" that's based solely on the organization's
failure to adhere to their own by-laws, rules and procedures any more than
one could invoke the rubrik of "arbitrariness" by an examination of the
organization's failure to adhere to their own by-laws, rules and procdures.

The controlling concept, then, would seem to be the extent to which a court
would have to get embroiled in the internal rules of the organization in
order to resolve an issue, and this strikes me as being very square with the
"excessive involvement" prong of the Lemon test.

At this point, I will note that I have only applied this to the allegation
regarding applause at an annual meeting.  However, since almost all of this
case involves a dispute between a member of the Baha'i Faith and the Local
Spiritual Assembly regarding the management of the affairs of the community,
there does seem to be room for tossing out nearly all of the complaint as
requiring "excessive involvement" of the court in matters that are strictly
internal to the Baha'i Faith.

> > The complaint doesn't allege that any law has been violated.  Were we
> > talking about violations of law, then this would be a criminal case not
a
> > civil case.

> There can be a violation of civil as well as criminal law.

At this point, I really have no idea what Mr. Ryder means by his use of the
term "civil law".  If he means to use it in the same way that Shoghi Effendi
used the term "civil law" then there's no distinction between "civil law"
and "criminal law" in this context.  As Shoghi Effendi used the term "civil"
he was using it to distinguish between the laws of a country and the laws of
the Baha'i Faith (i.e. "civil" vs. "ecclesiastical" law).

However, if Mr. Ryder is referring to the general rubrik of _common_ law
that covers _civil_ lawsuits, then to speak of a "violation of civil law" is
meaningless.  In general, common law involves some kind of breach of duty
for which one might be liable to recompense someone who was harmed by that
breach of duty, but no one ever speaks of such a breach of duty as a
"violation of civil law".

> The Complaint clearly alleges breaches of corporation law as in: -

Again, we have this ill-defined notion of "corporation law".  I suppose one
can hide one's ignorance behind a veil of ambiguity, but that really doesn't
help the discussion.

> 15. Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations that they would be able to
> participate in the management and activities of their corporation, as
> minority shareholders, have been thwarted since at least 1995.

> 52. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
> act and continue to fail to act in a manner they reasonably believe to be
> in the best interests of the corporation and its members, which failure
> constitutes fraud.

Any manner of resolving either of these claims would entail the courts in a
process of attempting to ascertain what, under Baha'i Law and principle,
constitutes someone's "reasonable expectation that they would be able to
participate" and what would be actions that one might "reasonably believe to
be in the best interests" of the Baha'i Faith.  I don't see how either of
these could possibly pass the "excessive entanglement" prong of the Lemon
test.

> > > > > 17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained
> > > > > in an inaccurate and inequitable manner.

> > > > Not justiciable on the grounds
> > > > that plaintiff has no standing on the issue.

> As a member of a Corporation she has an interest!!!!!

Repetition with _five_ exclamation points.  I'm impressed.  Try citing case
law, for a change, and please, this time, find a case in which the Court
actually addressed the issues we're discussing.

> <SNIP>
> > You might want to try to grasp the implications of what the complaint
> > _doesn't_ say.

> Argumentative irrelevant speculation!

"But yer honer! He neeeded killin!"

Don't get too attached to that smell of napalm.  Your bloodthirst is getting
in the way of your ability to think clearly.

> > There is a financial fiduciary relationship between the officers of a
> > corporation and the shareholders of that corporation, but that's not the
> > relationship here.  As you have so deftly noted, we're talking about
> > _members_, not _shareholders_.  Yet, the claim goes through this mential
> > gymnastics, quoted above, of equating "member" with "shareholder".

> Go learn the basics about "members" of a Corporation and "shareholders" -
in
> the UK the terms are synonomous.  In the US I expect "shareholders" to
> belong to a for-profit corporation and "members" to a non -profit one.

With the precisely significant difference being the fact that shareholders
have a monetary stake in the corporation, and can, therefore, clearly
demonstrate specific damages as the result of mismanagement.  In a
non-profit, particularly religious, organization, the prospect of damages
don't go outside the realm of "emotional" damages, and it's really difficult
to find a real or proximate cause.  What, is she damaged because it pissed
her off?  I rather doubt any court would find that to constitute legitimate
"emotional" damages.

[Re the extent, or lack, of any controversy on Talisman:]

> > Probably because no one there has enough knowledge to discuss the legal
> > issues intelligently.

> There's at least one lawyer there

Who, quite obiously, doesn't have anyone with whom he is able to discuss
these issues intelligently or otherwise.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcm77ogjfki71d@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> My word but you are a clod hopper of the first degree.

Why, thank you. Maybe now, Fred will put me at the top of his list.

> You've been suckered
> into a long, boring irrelevant discussion of legal issues surrounding the
NM
> case to demonstrate, yet again, your predisposition towards maintaining
the
> status quo of the AO rather than addressing disputations or differences
that
> arise, within a Bahai context.

This is almost as good as Mr. Hazini's attempt to resurrect his claim about
the attorney's track record.  The only thing, about me at least, that's been
demonstrated by this discussion is that I have an interest in legal issues,
particularly issues involving U.S. Constitutional Law.  It's an interest
that I've had for more almost two decades, and I can pretty well document
that fact if you'd like.

> You 've persisted in this despite getting
> clear pointers that the legal situation from the POV of Bahais is of
little
> real concern.

I see.  Because other Baha'is don't seem interested in the legal issues
involved, I'm supposed to not pursue my own interest in those issues.  Oh,
well.

> Quite frankly I have more interest in UK law than US - it's
> the jurisdiction under which I live.

Well, so don't discuss the legal issues.  I see no reason, however, for you
to disparage (rubbish?) me for no reason other than the fact that I've
discussed some issues that interest me.

> You haven't grasped a prime point, which Susan has, that essentially, IMO,
> this case will proceed, if at all, under the legislative rules surrounding
> corporations as legal entities and the way in which they conduct their
> affairs.  The ecclesiastical aspects of the BF don't enter in to it - no
> matters of faith are involved.

If I haven't "grasped" this point, it's because no one has offered a counter
argument based on the relevant case law as decided by the U.S. Supreme
Court.

> You have also missed the broader long term picture.

No, sport.  I haven't missed the broader, long-term picture.  I just haven't
discussed it with you.  The fact that I haven't seems to bother you, but I
don't quite understand why.

And, yes, I'm well aware that Fred's web site gets quite a few hits.  That's
why I will, from time to time, point out Fred's propensity for selecting
only part of the facts in his discussion (indeed, even from the sources
available on his own web site).

> To smugly and blithely claim that no part
> of the AO is amenable to law, which is essentially what you are saying,

No.  That's not even a hint of what I've claimed.  I've only argued that the
complaint, in the present case, fails to state a claim for which relief can
be granted.  I've argued that point according to U.S. Supreme Court case
law.  What you state above is pure fiction, though I think it's a fiction
you've constructed for the sake of having something to roast.  It's that
bloodthirst of yours getting in the way, again.

> proffers no comfort to the niche market in which you hope(?) to gain new
> adherents.

Sorry, but I have no interest in turning my religion into the next Amway.
I'm perfectly willing to let people go their own way, as was Baha'u'llah:
"Whosoever desireth, let him turn aside from this counsel and whosoever
desireth let him choose the path to his Lord."

What I'm not all to amenable to is the notion that my religion should modify
itself, despite what's said in clear, and authoritative texts, in order to
be more palatable to the so-called "niche market".  That kind of compromise
is pure, unmitigated hypocrisy.

Nor, for that matter, would it be particularly fruitful to sit around
getting all worked up about what might happen as a result of this case.
Your advice regarding "damage limitation" wreaks of cowardice and
disingenuity, and, frankly, I have little doubt that you would criticize me
for precisely that if I were to engage in any kind of "damage control"
discussion now.

> Now I am aware of the "martyrdom" syndrome and the old adherence to
> principles which you have cited.  Is there anything stated in the
Complaint,
> which if proven, and were it to be rectified that is contrary to Bahai
> principles?

I don't think the basic question is whether or not they are "rectified".
The basic issue is how one goes about attempting to "rectify" problems of
community functioning.  There are guidelines on this.  Is there some reason
we should toss those guidelines out in favor of a judge presiding in a New
Mexico district court?

> Those are the real issues not your supercilious rambling about US law - on
> which you have, and should have, more knowledge than me.  Knowledge
however
> has obscured wisdom.

No, Dermod, the real issue is the maturation of Baha'i institutions.  It's a
process, and that's probably the only intelligent way to view this lawsuit.

Have I not stated, outright, that Spiritual Assemblies mess up, and,
sometimes, mess up big?  The facts I could recount for you, were I inclined
to, would make your head spin.  You keep suggesting that I'm operating under
some kind of delusion that everything is copacetic.

> The best general on the Allied side in WW2 was Adolf Hitler.  The best
> advocate for the liberals is yourself, something you haven't yet realised.

Perhaps, but as Michael points out, this is ad-hominem.  Most people are
bright enough to figure out the implications of an ad-hominem argument when
they see one.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Mr. Shout,

Just want to thank you too....

You've helped me out so much over the years....

I know I can always count on you.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcm77ogjfki71d@xo.supernews.co.uk...
>
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9aee3b01quv@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> My word but you are a clod hopper of the first degree.  You've been
suckered
> into a long, boring irrelevant discussion of legal issues surrounding the
NM
> case to demonstrate, yet again, your predisposition towards maintaining
the
> status quo of the AO rather than addressing disputations or differences
that
> arise, within a Bahai context.  You 've persisted in this despite getting
> clear pointers that the legal situation from the POV of Bahais is of
little
> real concern.  Quite frankly I have more interest in UK law than US - it's
> the jurisdiction under which I live.
>
> You haven't grasped a prime point, which Susan has, that essentially, IMO,
> this case will proceed, if at all, under the legislative rules surrounding
> corporations as legal entities and the way in which they conduct their
> affairs.  The ecclesiastical aspects of the BF don't enter in to it - no
> matters of faith are involved.
>
> But in any case it's irrelevant.  The Court will determine whether or not
it
> has jurisdiction and the right to intervene therefore.  No amount of
> rambling by you will alter that - I would suggest that you take your
> thoughts on the subject to your bosses at Wilmette and leave the lawyers
to
> hassle over it. (My thoughts on the subject are even more irrelevant as I
> live outside the jurisdiction of your Courts).
>
> You have also missed the broader long term picture.  The Complaint is
> already up on Fred's site and I would think that he will assiduously post
> any other pertinent information that comes into the public domain.  If it
> gets to trial you can rest assured that every witness statement and other
> evidence will be posted.
>
> You have only to look at the Search engines to realise that Fred gets a
lot
> of hits - in and of itself, that does your AO a lot of damage in terms of
> bad press, as Peter would put it.  Now he is very concerned about that and
> rightly so.  A religion that is supposed to be in an active missionary
phase
> should be concerned about bad publicity.  For the average enquirer the
> picture the BIGS give him of a united body, with "perfect" means of
amicably
> settling disputes, is contradicted by what Fred has posted and, mein Gott,
> there's a lot of it.  NM simply adds to that picture as does your recent
> series of diatribes on the issue.  To smugly and blithely claim that no
part
> of the AO is amenable to law, which is essentially what you are saying,
> proffers no comfort to the niche market in which you hope(?) to gain new
> adherents. (Your niche market, BTW, is thinking liberally minded people
who
> reject current authoritarian sects/religions).
>
> New people (including BIGS) are coming on the Internet every day.  I know
of
> 2 BIGS here who have come on within the last few months who are frankly
> appalled at what they have found (and others who have just started to
> look) - who feel as a consequence that they have been lied to by those who
> mentored them into a liberal Faith system where freedom of speech and
> thought and investigation of issues pertaining to Truth were paramount.
If
> they leave, then the local community becomes depleted and consequential
> damage flows - they are unlikely to recommend adherence to this sect, just
> as I warn persons against even contemplating entry. (FYI I have
recommended
> the Bahai Teachings to many with the caveat that they avoid contact with
or
> entry into the AF itself and I have a 100% record there).  The local
> community is shrinking and due more to its own than my efforts.
>
> Win or lose if the NM case goes to trial, it will inflict further damage
on
> the carefully crafted image the AO likes to present.  Dissidence has a
habit
> of spreading because the authorities spawn it by refusal to deal with the
> issues and excommunication of the dissident.  That's how Protestantism
> divided Christianity.  That's how and why the AF has been plagued with
> schisms since its inception - White, Sohrab, Remey etc.  Its preferred
> method of dealing is to excommunicate the dissidents and proclaim that
unity
> has been maintained, because these people are NOT Bahais.  The ultimate
> contradiction of that is that little actually divides dissident from
> mainstream - a lesson that Christianity has learned and is endeavouring to
> apply.
>
> What Ms Buchhorn has demonstrated is that a Bahai can file a Complaint in
> Court and that example could be catching in other dysfunctional
communities.
> This could be the start of a nightmarish flood of similar cases.  It has
the
> potential for extreme longer term damage than you see - especially if the
> response is only a "finger in the dyke" strategy.
>
> The obvious and best strategy for the AO is damage limitation - better to
> get this thing settled before it goes to Court and more damaging
revelations
> flow - even better would be to review its procedures and initiate all
> necessary amendments to ensure this doesn't happen again.  I think indeed
> that the Plaintiff can now sit back and await overtures from the AO -
> assuming that it has the intelligence to realise this, a rather unsafe
> assumption based on prior experience.
>
> Now I am aware of the "martyrdom" syndrome and the old adherence to
> principles which you have cited.  Is there anything stated in the
Complaint,
> which if proven, and were it to be rectified that is contrary to Bahai
> principles?  Is any member of the community entitled to proclaim himself
as
> the Voice of God?  Ought not elections to be conducted in a proper
fashion?
> Are individuals not to be permitted to undertake teaching initiatives?
> Should there not be proper accountability in and amongst the members in
> relation to the financial management?  Should restrictive conditions be
> placed on a member seeing the books of account?  Ought not
> complaints/appeals to the NSA be dealt with in a proper, courteous,
> efficient and expeditious manner and not left to gather dust for months on
> end?
>
> Those are the real issues not your supercilious rambling about US law - on
> which you have, and should have, more knowledge than me.  Knowledge
however
> has obscured wisdom.
>
> NM is but a battle in a long war for the heart and soul of the BF.  You
> might win the battle (although I doubt it) but you've already lost the
war!
> In terms of that war whether NM is won or lost doesn't matter!  The
fallout
> reinforces the Liberal wing for the longer struggle ahead because it
> reinforces the broad Liberal position and further compromises
marketability
> of the AF in the niche in which lie the best prospects - the middle class
> liberal.
>
> The best general on the Allied side in WW2 was Adolf Hitler.  The best
> advocate for the liberals is yourself, something you haven't yet realised.
> Every time you miss, deliberately obfuscate, avoid or otherwise ignore the
> central issue by concentration on maintaining the current AO incumbents
and
> their methods of remaining where they are, you strike a chord of
> disaffection into enquirers or unindoctrinated new members; you alienate
and
> encourage withdrawals or lapses.  Most people want a Faith they can be
> comfortable with - they are not going to be comfortable with a Faith that
> defends the indefensible, maintains or ignores corruption in its midst and
> demands that they spy and report on their neighbour's life in the cause of
a
> false respectability.
>
> Keep on truckin'!  You're doing a grand job!
>
> <ALL EXTRANEOUS MATTER SNIPPED>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010401000536.27129.00003216@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >No doubt, when it comes to a hearing,
> >evidence will be adduced to show that "electioneering" is forbidden
>
>
> Proving it is forbidden is one thing. Proving electioneering constitutes
> "rigging" is still another. Proving that applause constitutes
electioneering is
> another thing again.

Within the AO electioneering is forbidden - there are ample quotes on that
as you well know.  If it is forbidden yet happens that constitutes a form of
election rigging as anybody possessed of common sense would know.  Any form
of pressure, no matter how subtle, in an electoral system which forbids it,
is an attempt to garner votes for a particular candidate or candidates and
that constitutes an attempt to rig the election.

If applause is reckoned to bring attention to a candidate in an effort to
secure votes for him, in my book that constitutes an attempt to engineer the
election.  We shall await the outcome in particular shall we await a hearing
to see whether any other evidence is brought to bear.

> >no lawyer goes to Court
> >without having a better than fifty per cent chance of winning.
>
> First off, he isn't going to court yet. He has only filed a complaint.
Second,
> any lawyer will go to court if you pay him enough. I expect his one isn't
> working on contingency.

I have yet to meet a lawyer who advocated my going to Court without having a
case which had a reasonable prospect of success.  Most of the ones I know
have a sense of professionalism and decency not to involve a client in costs
save that he has a worthy case.

> As far as the NSA goes, everyone who has ever dealt with them knows they
are
> always as slow as molasses in January.

Well maybe they ought to get their act together and warm the molasses!  I
wonder how long they have been sitting on this case.  Of course in any half
decent organisation, those who are as slow as molasses would have their
asses warmed by being booted off for gross inefficiency.

>
> >Your comments to date have been
> >naught but ill-informed speculation -
>
> And yours are better informed?

Actually yes, but I won't bore you with the details!
>
> >Are your puppet masters so
> >worried that they have got to try to proffer some defence on this forum
>
> If I had puppet masters wouldn't they be feeding me the inside scoop?

Have they got one?  Have they warmed the molasses yet - at least enough to
generate some movement?

> >Are you endeavouring to set up the faithful to view
> >this as another bit of martyrdom inflicted by yet more of these internal
> >enemies of the Faith?
>
> Have I talked about martyrdom or internal enemies of the Faith? I think
this is
> what we call projection of your own dualism.

My "dualism" - aw! shucks! now why would attribute schizophrenia to all of
my other faults? (Still you never want for a friend with schizophrenia!)
Actually it was just my appreciation of what I thought your aims and
objectives were - damage limitation ansd stuff like that.  To have left the
warm, loving atmosphere of Bridges to again come to this hellhole must have
been motivated by some perceived powerful need ... or orders!

>
> >note that Nima who has lived in this community has been unable
> >to
> >offer any information contrary
>
> Do you think he would if he had information to the contrary? You guys
don't
> exactly have much of a reputation for fairly presenting all sides.

I think that he has posted to the effect that this behaviour was similar to
that he had seen and experienced in this community and that it had been a
factor in his sensible decision to haul ass out of there.  So he has no
information to the contrary.  I realise you don't regard that as "fair" ...
but that's the way the wafer crumbles!

> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
time
> left to start again . . "

" Of that there is no possible doubt, no possible doubt, no possible doubt
whatever!"
W.S.Gilbert - "The Gondoliers"

Pip, Pip!

> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>

>
>Within the AO electioneering is forbidden - there are ample quotes on that
>as you well know. 

Dear Dermod,

General quotes from the Writings won't help. The courts  would have to find
this stipulation written in the incorporation papers. The civil courts are not
going to take it upon themselves to enforce Baha'i principles. 

 >If it is forbidden yet happens that constitutes a form of
>election rigging 

 I don't think the courts  would be willing to label behaviour which is
perfectly acceptable within the American political system as "rigging." If our
religion forbids it, it is up to our religion to enforce it, not the courts. . 

>Any form
>of pressure, no matter how subtle, in an electoral system which forbids it,
>is an attempt to garner votes for a particular candidate or candidates and
>that constitutes an attempt to rig the election.

Sorry, you are trying to apply Baha'i standards here. The courts are going to
only be willing to apply secular standards. It is not their business to tell us
how to practice our religion. 

>If applause is reckoned to bring attention to a candidate in an effort to
>secure votes for him, in my book that constitutes an attempt to engineer the
>election. 

Your "book" is irrelevant here. Once things are taken to secular courts, Baha'i
principles are irrelevant as well. The only thing that matters is whether an
activity is proper under US and state laws. Now if one could *prove* that the
purpose of said applause was to secure votes on someone's behalf one *might* be
able to argue within a Baha'i context (i.e. before Baha'i administrative
bodies) that the election in question was "engineered." But in the constext of
US law even such egineering would not constitute "rigging."

 >
>I have yet to meet a lawyer who advocated my going to Court without having a
>case which had a reasonable prospect of success.  

We don't know this lawer advocated her going to court. All we knew is that he
agreed to draw up a complaint on her behalf. 

> Most of the ones I know
>have a sense of professionalism 

I don't see any evidence of professionalism in the wording of that complaint.

>My "dualism" - aw! shucks! now why would attribute schizophrenia to all of
>my other faults? (Still you never want for a friend with schizophrenia!)

I know. I've got Nima around. :-)

>To have left the
>warm, loving atmosphere of Bridges to again come to this hellhole must have
>been motivated by some perceived powerful need ... or orders!

Actually, one of the folks on your side brought this to my attention and asked
me what I knew about it. So when it got posted here I decided to check out the
thread. 

>I think that he has posted to the effect that this behaviour was similar to
>that he had seen and experienced in this community 

Except niether he nor the complaint is very clear as to exactly what that
behaviour is. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
 Dermod, 

Let's presume for arguments sake that our articles of incorportation are
similiar to the UK. I'm not sure, but I'm too lazy to go check. 

 >"in order to preserve the spiritual
>charecter and purpose of Bahai elections, the practice of nominations or any
>other electoral method detrimental to a silent and prayerful election shall
>not prevail

Applauding someone at an annual meeting constitutes neither a nomination or any
other type of "electorial method." 

>In Anglo Saxon law the Courts will also
>force a body corporate to apply its own rules properly where the Court is
>satisfied that it has not done so.

 A US court could  conceivably enforce whatever is in the articles of
incorporation, but not the general principles of the religion itself. As for
conducting its affairs " in accordance with the instructions and enactments of
the Universal House of
Justice" they would likely only accept a complaint from the House of Justice
itself on that score. 

>
>If the rules of the corporation provide that elections are to be carried out
>in accordance with Bahai principles the Court will enforce those rules and
>those principles.

Only if they are spelled out in the incorporation papers themselves. The courts
are not going to take it upon themselves to determine for us the meaning of our
religious principles. 

>
>I would imagine that it lies within the professional duties of a lawyer to
>advise a client as to whether or not, on the basis of the facts disclosed,
>he/she has an actionable cause and one that merits being taken to Court or
>not.  

No doubt. That doesn't mean he can't take her money if she insists on filing
anyhow. >In that
>he has filed the papers in Court he is the attorney of record and it would
>therefore not be unsafe to assume that he will advance any pleadings before
>the Court.
>

The vast majority of complaints never make it to court and were never intended
to. 

>Is Nima scizophrenic too?

He's a dualist. You are the one who associated that with schizophrenia.

>
>But you didn't have to get involved - did you?  You could have had a wee
>peek 

I never take wee peeks, Dermod, you must have figured that out by now.

 who was it
>brought it to your attention?

Won't get that out of me. ;-}



"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Greetings, Susan.
    Thanks for this.
    So, it was applause at the election. Now, was it applause after the
election or before the election? And, how extensive was it, if before, and
was it set up before hand to draw attention to the candidate, etc.
                                                           M.

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes:

> Applauding someone at an annual meeting constitutes neither a nomination or any
> other type of "electorial method." 

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Susan.
    You wrote:

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: 
> General quotes from the Writings won't help. The courts  would have to find
> this stipulation written in the incorporation papers. The civil courts are not
> going to take it upon themselves to enforce Baha'i principles. 

    Right on. You've underlined the issue. The issue is the following of
Baha'i principle. It is not anything to do with personality or even the
calling upon civil courts in frustration when those most responsible for
following Baha'i principle are not doing so. Baha'i administrators have
issued the invalid argument that they may ignore Baha'i principle because
of irrelevant personality. They may do anything at all, because they are
Baha'i administrators. No, they are to administrate Baha'i principle, not
toss it aside.
    Baha'i principle is equality of women and men, the independent
investigation of truth, the harmony of reason and faith, the freedom of
thought and expression, universality, broad mindedness, etc.
                            To Baha'i Administrators Doing Their Job,
                                            M.

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Dermod.
    You wrote: 
> If applause is reckoned to bring attention to a candidate in an effort to
> secure votes for him, in my book that constitutes an attempt to engineer the
> election.  We shall await the outcome in particular shall we await a hearing
> to see whether any other evidence is brought to bear.

   This is a valid argument. The context becomes important, for example,
did this happen at the electoral meeting, or was the cadidate also giving
an election speech, did the candidate or a campaign manager arrange for
more than usual applause in order to promote the candidate? The point is
that applause MAY be electioneering.
                                                Thrive,
                                                   M. 

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

Greetings, Susan.
    You claim:

Susan Maneck (smaneck@aol.com) writes: 
> As far as the NSA goes, everyone who has ever dealt with them knows 
> they are always as slow as molasses in January. 

    They are obviously not functioning well, then.
                                            To the Future,
                                                 M 

--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

>Baha'i administrators have
>issued the invalid argument that they may ignore Baha'i principle because
>of irrelevant personality. 

Where'd they issue that?

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010402221242.27249.00003366@ng-ch1.aol.com...

>
> Let's presume for arguments sake that our articles of incorportation are
> similiar to the UK. I'm not sure, but I'm too lazy to go check.

They should be - the US Declaration of Trust was the one imposed throughout
the world except for minor amendments as required by local circumstances.
>
>  >"in order to preserve the spiritual
> >charecter and purpose of Bahai elections, the practice of nominations or
any
> >other electoral method detrimental to a silent and prayerful election
shall
> >not prevail
>
> Applauding someone at an annual meeting constitutes neither a nomination
or any
> other type of "electorial method."

It may depending on the context.  I grant you that electoral rigging is hard
to prove - even here, where the dead vote.  Much will depend on the weight
of evidence and, I venture, whether witnesses were to testify that they felt
obligated or persuaded to vote for the person for whom the applause was
called (assuming it preceded the election).
>
> >In Anglo Saxon law the Courts will also
> >force a body corporate to apply its own rules properly where the Court is
> >satisfied that it has not done so.
>
>  A US court could  conceivably enforce whatever is in the articles of
> incorporation, but not the general principles of the religion itself. As
for
> conducting its affairs " in accordance with the instructions and
enactments of
> the Universal House of
> Justice" they would likely only accept a complaint from the House of
Justice
> itself on that score.

I agree.  the purpose of the Court in the US (from what I have seen) is to
neither favour nor disfavour any religion but to ensure equal and neutral
treatment.  As the Mormon case I cited in another post indicates the law
will enforce on any religion law which is deemed to be in the overal public
good.  It will not create new rules for the religious body - it will simply
enforce those that are there.

Vis a vis  "instructions and enactments of the Universal House of Justice" -
if that proviso is in the rules, there exist relevant instructions which
have been avoided and there is a complaint from a member of the corporation
(as in this case) I think the Court will enforce them.  It routinely
enforces statute law without complaint being made to it by the legislature.
>
> >
> >If the rules of the corporation provide that elections are to be carried
out
> >in accordance with Bahai principles the Court will enforce those rules
and
> >those principles.
>
> Only if they are spelled out in the incorporation papers themselves. The
courts
> are not going to take it upon themselves to determine for us the meaning
of our
> religious principles.

Certainly they will enforce the rules in the incorporation documents.  Take
for example the electoral business.  If the rules are stated similar to
those of the UK the Court might look further into Bahai Writings to
determine and/or better understand some points.  It will tread a fine line
between interpretation of those rules and adding to them - IMO it is
perfectly entitled to interpret them in a Bahai context but NOT to add to
them.

> >
> >I would imagine that it lies within the professional duties of a lawyer
to
> >advise a client as to whether or not, on the basis of the facts
disclosed,
> >he/she has an actionable cause and one that merits being taken to Court
or
> >not.
>
> No doubt. That doesn't mean he can't take her money if she insists on
filing
> anyhow.

Certainly but in so doing she would have no chance of a negligence suit
against the attorney in the event of losing the case.

>>In that
> >he has filed the papers in Court he is the attorney of record and it
would
> >therefore not be unsafe to assume that he will advance any pleadings
before
> >the Court.
> >
>
> The vast majority of complaints never make it to court and were never
intended
> to.

In my experience with the Courts, which has been fairly extensive, I never
took a case to Court that I wasn't prepared to take to hearing.  OTOH I was
always prepared to settle before going in front of the judge providing the
sums were right.  I never lost one of those cases and persisted in shoving
one right to the Court door (much to the annoyance of the Barrister who
wanted to slope away for an early liquid lunch) before getting the
settlement I wanted.

>
> >Is Nima scizophrenic too?
>
> He's a dualist. You are the one who associated that with schizophrenia.

Gotta get the laughs somewhere!
>
> >
> >But you didn't have to get involved - did you?  You could have had a wee
> >peek
>
> I never take wee peeks, Dermod, you must have figured that out by now.

Mais oui - certainement! (That's as far as it goes!)
>
>  who was it
> >brought it to your attention?
>
> Won't get that out of me. ;-}

Not even under torture!

> He's a dualist. .

Actually, people who articulate things in terms of "inside the pale and
outside the pale" are even bigger dualists.

cheers,
Nima

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010401170758.28041.00003366@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> >
> >Within the AO electioneering is forbidden - there are ample quotes on
that
> >as you well know.

>
> General quotes from the Writings won't help. The courts  would have to
find
> this stipulation written in the incorporation papers. The civil courts are
not
> going to take it upon themselves to enforce Baha'i principles.

Are you telling us that the incorporation papers do not stipulate that a
Bahai corporation is run in accord with the principles and rules of the AF
as well as the requirements of civil law?

The Articles of Association of the UK NSA provide that it shall "adopt for
the conduct of the affairs entrusted to it ... rules of procedure ... in
accordance with the instructions and enactments of the Universal House of
Justice."  They further provide that "in order to preserve the spiritual
charecter and purpose of Bahai elections, the practice of nominations or any
other electoral method detrimental to a silent and prayerful election shall
not prevail, so that an elector may vote for none but those whom prayer and
reflection have inspired him or her to uphold."  has the US so departed from
the directives laid down by the Guardian as to remove these provisions from
the incorporation papers?  Does the UHJ know?  I think they should be told!

>
>  >If it is forbidden yet happens that constitutes a form of
> >election rigging
>
>  I don't think the courts  would be willing to label behaviour which is
> perfectly acceptable within the American political system as "rigging." If
our
> religion forbids it, it is up to our religion to enforce it, not the
courts. .

See above and below!
>
> >Any form
> >of pressure, no matter how subtle, in an electoral system which forbids
it,
> >is an attempt to garner votes for a particular candidate or candidates
and
> >that constitutes an attempt to rig the election.
>
> Sorry, you are trying to apply Baha'i standards here. The courts are going
to
> only be willing to apply secular standards. It is not their business to
tell us
> how to practice our religion.

God forbid that I would ever apply Bahai standards - I aspire to higher.
The Courts will enforce adherence to secular law where any person or body
corporate at law transgresses them.  In Anglo Saxon law the Courts will also
force a body corporate to apply its own rules properly where the Court is
satisfied that it has not done so.
>
> >If applause is reckoned to bring attention to a candidate in an effort to
> >secure votes for him, in my book that constitutes an attempt to engineer
the
> >election.
>
> Your "book" is irrelevant here. Once things are taken to secular courts,
Baha'i
> principles are irrelevant as well. The only thing that matters is whether
an
> activity is proper under US and state laws. Now if one could *prove* that
the
> purpose of said applause was to secure votes on someone's behalf one
*might* be
> able to argue within a Baha'i context (i.e. before Baha'i administrative
> bodies) that the election in question was "engineered." But in the
constext of
> US law even such egineering would not constitute "rigging."

If the rules of the corporation provide that elections are to be carried out
in accordance with Bahai principles the Court will enforce those rules and
those principles.

>  >
> >I have yet to meet a lawyer who advocated my going to Court without
having a
> >case which had a reasonable prospect of success.
>
> We don't know this lawer advocated her going to court. All we knew is that
he
> agreed to draw up a complaint on her behalf.

I would imagine that it lies within the professional duties of a lawyer to
advise a client as to whether or not, on the basis of the facts disclosed,
he/she has an actionable cause and one that merits being taken to Court or
not.  In a litigious society I would have thought that every lawyer would
have been more than aware of this and would have acted accordingly.  In that
he has filed the papers in Court he is the attorney of record and it would
therefore not be unsafe to assume that he will advance any pleadings before
the Court.
>
> > Most of the ones I know
> >have a sense of professionalism
>
> I don't see any evidence of professionalism in the wording of that
complaint.

Rick and you together - what an inspiring vision before I take myself to the
pit for a folding of the arms in slumber.

>
> >My "dualism" - aw! shucks! now why would attribute schizophrenia to all
of
> >my other faults? (Still you never want for a friend with schizophrenia!)
>
> I know. I've got Nima around. :-)

Is Nima scizophrenic too?  That makes six of us, or should that be twelve or
twenty four or forty eight ... !

>
> >To have left the
> >warm, loving atmosphere of Bridges to again come to this hellhole must
have
> >been motivated by some perceived powerful need ... or orders!
>
> Actually, one of the folks on your side brought this to my attention and
asked
> me what I knew about it. So when it got posted here I decided to check out
the
> thread.

But you didn't have to get involved - did you?  You could have had a wee
peek and then gone away again!  Now why did you get involved and who was it
brought it to your attention?

>
> >I think that he has posted to the effect that this behaviour was similar
to
> >that he had seen and experienced in this community
>
> Except niether he nor the complaint is very clear as to exactly what that
> behaviour is.

Well now - supposing he was going to be called as a witness, do you think he
would be very specific as to what he would say here?

It's been a long but most interesting day.  As my friend of yore so
appropriately put it - "And so to bed!"

Dermod Ryder wrote:
> If applause is reckoned to bring attention to a candidate in an effort to
> secure votes for him, in my book that constitutes an attempt to engineer
the
> election.  We shall await the outcome in particular shall we await a
hearing
> to see whether any other evidence is brought to bear.

This is regularly done at regional and national bahai elections and should
really be the focus of another lawsuit against the NSA for participating in
it.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tce419kqhnf2f9@xo.supernews.co.uk...
>
> "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010401000536.27129.00003216@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> > >No doubt, when it comes to a hearing,
> > >evidence will be adduced to show that "electioneering" is forbidden
> >
> >
> > Proving it is forbidden is one thing. Proving electioneering constitutes
> > "rigging" is still another. Proving that applause constitutes
> electioneering is
> > another thing again.
>
> Within the AO electioneering is forbidden - there are ample quotes on that
> as you well know.  If it is forbidden yet happens that constitutes a form
of
> election rigging as anybody possessed of common sense would know.  Any
form
> of pressure, no matter how subtle, in an electoral system which forbids
it,
> is an attempt to garner votes for a particular candidate or candidates and
> that constitutes an attempt to rig the election.
>
> If applause is reckoned to bring attention to a candidate in an effort to
> secure votes for him, in my book that constitutes an attempt to engineer
the
> election.  We shall await the outcome in particular shall we await a
hearing
> to see whether any other evidence is brought to bear.
>
> > >no lawyer goes to Court
> > >without having a better than fifty per cent chance of winning.
> >
> > First off, he isn't going to court yet. He has only filed a complaint.
> Second,
> > any lawyer will go to court if you pay him enough. I expect his one
isn't
> > working on contingency.
>
> I have yet to meet a lawyer who advocated my going to Court without having
a
> case which had a reasonable prospect of success.  Most of the ones I know
> have a sense of professionalism and decency not to involve a client in
costs
> save that he has a worthy case.
>
> > As far as the NSA goes, everyone who has ever dealt with them knows they
> are
> > always as slow as molasses in January.
>
> Well maybe they ought to get their act together and warm the molasses!  I
> wonder how long they have been sitting on this case.  Of course in any
half
> decent organisation, those who are as slow as molasses would have their
> asses warmed by being booted off for gross inefficiency.
>
> >
> > >Your comments to date have been
> > >naught but ill-informed speculation -
> >
> > And yours are better informed?
>
> Actually yes, but I won't bore you with the details!
> >
> > >Are your puppet masters so
> > >worried that they have got to try to proffer some defence on this forum
> >
> > If I had puppet masters wouldn't they be feeding me the inside scoop?
>
> Have they got one?  Have they warmed the molasses yet - at least enough to
> generate some movement?
>
> > >Are you endeavouring to set up the faithful to view
> > >this as another bit of martyrdom inflicted by yet more of these
internal
> > >enemies of the Faith?
> >
> > Have I talked about martyrdom or internal enemies of the Faith? I think
> this is
> > what we call projection of your own dualism.
>
> My "dualism" - aw! shucks! now why would attribute schizophrenia to all of
> my other faults? (Still you never want for a friend with schizophrenia!)
> Actually it was just my appreciation of what I thought your aims and
> objectives were - damage limitation ansd stuff like that.  To have left
the
> warm, loving atmosphere of Bridges to again come to this hellhole must
have
> been motivated by some perceived powerful need ... or orders!
>
> >
> > >note that Nima who has lived in this community has been unable
> > >to
> > >offer any information contrary
> >
> > Do you think he would if he had information to the contrary? You guys
> don't
> > exactly have much of a reputation for fairly presenting all sides.
>
> I think that he has posted to the effect that this behaviour was similar
to
> that he had seen and experienced in this community and that it had been a
> factor in his sensible decision to haul ass out of there.  So he has no
> information to the contrary.  I realise you don't regard that as "fair"
...
> but that's the way the wafer crumbles!
>
> > "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
> time
> > left to start again . . "
>
> " Of that there is no possible doubt, no possible doubt, no possible doubt
> whatever!"
> W.S.Gilbert - "The Gondoliers"
>
> Pip, Pip!
>
>
> > Don McLean's American Pie
> > https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> >
>
>

>No doubt, when it comes to a hearing,
>evidence will be adduced to show that "electioneering" is forbidden 

Dear Dermod,

Proving it is forbidden is one thing. Proving electioneering constitutes
"rigging" is still another. Proving that applause constitutes electioneering is
another thing again.

>no lawyer goes to Court
>without having a better than fifty per cent chance of winning.

First off, he isn't going to court yet. He has only filed a complaint. Second,
any lawyer will go to court if you pay him enough. I expect his one isn't
working on contingency. 

As far as the NSA goes, everyone who has ever dealt with them knows they are
always as slow as molasses in January. 

>Your comments to date have been
>naught but ill-informed speculation -

And yours are better informed?

>Are your puppet masters so
>worried that they have got to try to proffer some defence on this forum

If I had puppet masters wouldn't they be feeding me the inside scoop?

>Are you endeavouring to set up the faithful to view
>this as another bit of martyrdom inflicted by yet more of these internal
>enemies of the Faith?

Have I talked about martyrdom or internal enemies of the Faith? I think this is
what we call projection of your own dualism. 

>note that Nima who has lived in this community has been unable
>to
>offer any information contrary 

Do you think he would if he had information to the contrary? You guys don't
exactly have much of a reputation for fairly presenting all sides. 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9afmhr0ain@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tcm77ogjfki71d@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > My word but you are a clod hopper of the first degree.
>
> Why, thank you.  Maybe now, Fred will put me at the top of his list.

Yeah ! I think he should! Come on Fred! Give ole Rick the position he
deserves right at the top of the looney fundie association. Hold on! Fred
just told me that you're already there!

> > You've been suckered
> > into a long, boring irrelevant discussion of legal issues surrounding
the
> NM
> > case to demonstrate, yet again, your predisposition towards maintaining
> the
> > status quo of the AO rather than addressing disputations or differences
> that
> > arise, within a Bahai context.
>
> This is almost as good as Mr. Hazini's attempt to resurrect his claim
about
> the attorney's track record.  The only thing, about me at least, that's
been
> demonstrated by this discussion is that I have an interest in legal
issues,
> particularly issues involving U.S. Constitutional Law.  It's an interest
> that I've had for more almost two decades, and I can pretty well document
> that fact if you'd like.

Not as good as Mr Hazini's attempt - I'll just have to try harder. I think
everybody should have an interest even though they're not very good at it.
>
> > You 've persisted in this despite getting
> > clear pointers that the legal situation from the POV of Bahais is of
> little
> > real concern.
>
> I see.  Because other Baha'is don't seem interested in the legal issues
> involved, I'm supposed to not pursue my own interest in those issues.  Oh,
> well.
>
> > Quite frankly I have more interest in UK law than US - it's
> > the jurisdiction under which I live.
>
> Well, so don't discuss the legal issues.  I see no reason, however, for
you
> to disparage (rubbish?) me for no reason other than the fact that I've
> discussed some issues that interest me.
>
> > You haven't grasped a prime point, which Susan has, that essentially,
IMO,
> > this case will proceed, if at all, under the legislative rules
surrounding
> > corporations as legal entities and the way in which they conduct their
> > affairs.  The ecclesiastical aspects of the BF don't enter in to it - no
> > matters of faith are involved.
>
> If I haven't "grasped" this point, it's because no one has offered a
counter
> argument based on the relevant case law as decided by the U.S. Supreme
> Court.

The area of Corporation law (like most others) is governed primarily by
legislation. Courts only interpret legislation in the light of the
circumstances of each case. Legislation, not Court decisions, is the primary
and therefire most important source of law.

> > You have also missed the broader long term picture.
>
> No, sport.  I haven't missed the broader, long-term picture.  I just
haven't
> discussed it with you.  The fact that I haven't seems to bother you, but I
> don't quite understand why.

And you never will! That's the ultimate proof!
>
> And, yes, I'm well aware that Fred's web site gets quite a few hits.
That's
> why I will, from time to time, point out Fred's propensity for selecting
> only part of the facts in his discussion (indeed, even from the sources
> available on his own web site).

Must have missed that! Any chance of a few examples?
>
> > To smugly and blithely claim that no part
> > of the AO is amenable to law, which is essentially what you are saying,
>
> No.  That's not even a hint of what I've claimed.  I've only argued that
the
> complaint, in the present case, fails to state a claim for which relief
can
> be granted.  I've argued that point according to U.S. Supreme Court case
> law.  What you state above is pure fiction, though I think it's a fiction
> you've constructed for the sake of having something to roast.  It's that
> bloodthirst of yours getting in the way, again.

Well far be it from me to disabuse you but if I were you I'd look to the
legislation first. Of course we all have our own ways of going about
things - only thing I can say is that in the UK when a matter arises
concerning the management of a Corporation I always look at the legislation
first.

> > proffers no comfort to the niche market in which you hope(?) to gain new
> > adherents.
>
> Sorry, but I have no interest in turning my religion into the next Amway.
> I'm perfectly willing to let people go their own way, as was Baha'u'llah:
> "Whosoever desireth, let him turn aside from this counsel and whosoever
> desireth let him choose the path to his Lord."

That's a lovely quote - Bahaism isn't the only way to God. There are others
and chances are those other ways will remain open. Now why can't you attract
those people into your system and keep them? Could the answer be that you
lead them into a liberal, tolerant faith only to tell them afterwards that
it isn't. Is that why they leave rather than the reasons Peter offers?
>
> What I'm not all to amenable to is the notion that my religion should
modify
> itself, despite what's said in clear, and authoritative texts, in order to
> be more palatable to the so-called "niche market".  That kind of
compromise
> is pure, unmitigated hypocrisy.

No need to modify your religion - just the emphasis where it belongs on the
love of God and His creation not the deification of an AO which is
non-essential if there are other ways to God.
>
> Nor, for that matter, would it be particularly fruitful to sit around
> getting all worked up about what might happen as a result of this case.
> Your advice regarding "damage limitation" wreaks of cowardice and
> disingenuity, and, frankly, I have little doubt that you would criticize
me
> for precisely that if I were to engage in any kind of "damage control"
> discussion now.

You're in full damage control mode at the moment - problem is you're digging
yourself deeper into a morass of innuendo which anybody can see through.
>
> > Now I am aware of the "martyrdom" syndrome and the old adherence to
> > principles which you have cited.  Is there anything stated in the
> Complaint,
> > which if proven, and were it to be rectified that is contrary to Bahai
> > principles?
>
> I don't think the basic question is whether or not they are "rectified".
> The basic issue is how one goes about attempting to "rectify" problems of
> community functioning.  There are guidelines on this.  Is there some
reason
> we should toss those guidelines out in favor of a judge presiding in a New
> Mexico district court?

If there are guidelines why were they not followed after the complaint was
made to the NSA? Why has it done nothing and thereby allowed this situation
to fester. If you see a fire you throw a bucket of water onto it to
extinguish it - you don't stand around as in the AO whistling Dixie and
hoping it will go out of its own accord. You people are so used to seeing
complainants as trouble makers that it never, for one moment, dawns on you
that they might care enough about problems to actually go out and do
something about getting them rectified whilst the AO stands pleading
"embryonic".
>
> > Those are the real issues not your supercilious rambling about US law -
on
> > which you have, and should have, more knowledge than me.  Knowledge
> however
> > has obscured wisdom.
>
> No, Dermod, the real issue is the maturation of Baha'i institutions.  It's
a
> process, and that's probably the only intelligent way to view this
lawsuit.

Well the rest of the world has matured and left the Bahais on the starting
line. Maybe it's about time they stopped producing these idiotic excuses and
did some work on the maturation process like dealing with complaints when
they come in and not leave them hanging around for six months.
>
> Have I not stated, outright, that Spiritual Assemblies mess up, and,
> sometimes, mess up big?  The facts I could recount for you, were I
inclined
> to, would make your head spin.  You keep suggesting that I'm operating
under
> some kind of delusion that everything is copacetic.

Stating that assemblies mess up is not good enough - to be able to say that
assemblies that mess up are sorted out by administrative action is what is
needed.
>
> > The best general on the Allied side in WW2 was Adolf Hitler.  The best
> > advocate for the liberals is yourself, something you haven't yet
realised.
>
> Perhaps, but as Michael points out, this is ad-hominem.  Most people are
> bright enough to figure out the implications of an ad-hominem argument
when
> they see one.

No ad hominem - assessment of your contribution to the liberal cause based
on the content of your messages and your methodology of innuendo and
obfuscation.


"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9aee3b01quv@news2.newsguy.com...

My word but you are a clod hopper of the first degree.  You've been suckered
into a long, boring irrelevant discussion of legal issues surrounding the NM
case to demonstrate, yet again, your predisposition towards maintaining the
status quo of the AO rather than addressing disputations or differences that
arise, within a Bahai context.  You 've persisted in this despite getting
clear pointers that the legal situation from the POV of Bahais is of little
real concern.  Quite frankly I have more interest in UK law than US - it's
the jurisdiction under which I live.

You haven't grasped a prime point, which Susan has, that essentially, IMO,
this case will proceed, if at all, under the legislative rules surrounding
corporations as legal entities and the way in which they conduct their
affairs.  The ecclesiastical aspects of the BF don't enter in to it - no
matters of faith are involved.

But in any case it's irrelevant.  The Court will determine whether or not it
has jurisdiction and the right to intervene therefore.  No amount of
rambling by you will alter that - I would suggest that you take your
thoughts on the subject to your bosses at Wilmette and leave the lawyers to
hassle over it. (My thoughts on the subject are even more irrelevant as I
live outside the jurisdiction of your Courts).

You have also missed the broader long term picture.  The Complaint is
already up on Fred's site and I would think that he will assiduously post
any other pertinent information that comes into the public domain.  If it
gets to trial you can rest assured that every witness statement and other
evidence will be posted.

You have only to look at the Search engines to realise that Fred gets a lot
of hits - in and of itself, that does your AO a lot of damage in terms of
bad press, as Peter would put it.  Now he is very concerned about that and
rightly so.  A religion that is supposed to be in an active missionary phase
should be concerned about bad publicity.  For the average enquirer the
picture the BIGS give him of a united body, with "perfect" means of amicably
settling disputes, is contradicted by what Fred has posted and, mein Gott,
there's a lot of it.  NM simply adds to that picture as does your recent
series of diatribes on the issue.  To smugly and blithely claim that no part
of the AO is amenable to law, which is essentially what you are saying,
proffers no comfort to the niche market in which you hope(?) to gain new
adherents. (Your niche market, BTW, is thinking liberally minded people who
reject current authoritarian sects/religions).

New people (including BIGS) are coming on the Internet every day.  I know of
2 BIGS here who have come on within the last few months who are frankly
appalled at what they have found (and others who have just started to
look) - who feel as a consequence that they have been lied to by those who
mentored them into a liberal Faith system where freedom of speech and
thought and investigation of issues pertaining to Truth were paramount.  If
they leave, then the local community becomes depleted and consequential
damage flows - they are unlikely to recommend adherence to this sect, just
as I warn persons against even contemplating entry. (FYI I have recommended
the Bahai Teachings to many with the caveat that they avoid contact with or
entry into the AF itself and I have a 100% record there).  The local
community is shrinking and due more to its own than my efforts.

Win or lose if the NM case goes to trial, it will inflict further damage on
the carefully crafted image the AO likes to present.  Dissidence has a habit
of spreading because the authorities spawn it by refusal to deal with the
issues and excommunication of the dissident.  That's how Protestantism
divided Christianity.  That's how and why the AF has been plagued with
schisms since its inception - White, Sohrab, Remey etc.  Its preferred
method of dealing is to excommunicate the dissidents and proclaim that unity
has been maintained, because these people are NOT Bahais.  The ultimate
contradiction of that is that little actually divides dissident from
mainstream - a lesson that Christianity has learned and is endeavouring to
apply.

What Ms Buchhorn has demonstrated is that a Bahai can file a Complaint in
Court and that example could be catching in other dysfunctional communities.
This could be the start of a nightmarish flood of similar cases.  It has the
potential for extreme longer term damage than you see - especially if the
response is only a "finger in the dyke" strategy.

The obvious and best strategy for the AO is damage limitation - better to
get this thing settled before it goes to Court and more damaging revelations
flow - even better would be to review its procedures and initiate all
necessary amendments to ensure this doesn't happen again.  I think indeed
that the Plaintiff can now sit back and await overtures from the AO -
assuming that it has the intelligence to realise this, a rather unsafe
assumption based on prior experience.

Now I am aware of the "martyrdom" syndrome and the old adherence to
principles which you have cited.  Is there anything stated in the Complaint,
which if proven, and were it to be rectified that is contrary to Bahai
principles?  Is any member of the community entitled to proclaim himself as
the Voice of God?  Ought not elections to be conducted in a proper fashion?
Are individuals not to be permitted to undertake teaching initiatives?
Should there not be proper accountability in and amongst the members in
relation to the financial management?  Should restrictive conditions be
placed on a member seeing the books of account?  Ought not
complaints/appeals to the NSA be dealt with in a proper, courteous,
efficient and expeditious manner and not left to gather dust for months on
end?

Those are the real issues not your supercilious rambling about US law - on
which you have, and should have, more knowledge than me.  Knowledge however
has obscured wisdom.

NM is but a battle in a long war for the heart and soul of the BF.  You
might win the battle (although I doubt it) but you've already lost the war!
In terms of that war whether NM is won or lost doesn't matter!  The fallout
reinforces the Liberal wing for the longer struggle ahead because it
reinforces the broad Liberal position and further compromises marketability
of the AF in the niche in which lie the best prospects - the middle class
liberal.

The best general on the Allied side in WW2 was Adolf Hitler.  The best
advocate for the liberals is yourself, something you haven't yet realised.
Every time you miss, deliberately obfuscate, avoid or otherwise ignore the
central issue by concentration on maintaining the current AO incumbents and
their methods of remaining where they are, you strike a chord of
disaffection into enquirers or unindoctrinated new members; you alienate and
encourage withdrawals or lapses.  Most people want a Faith they can be
comfortable with - they are not going to be comfortable with a Faith that
defends the indefensible, maintains or ignores corruption in its midst and
demands that they spy and report on their neighbour's life in the cause of a
false respectability.

Keep on truckin'! You're doing a grand job!

<ALL EXTRANEOUS MATTER SNIPPED>






"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9ab9f501epv@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > Any issue that would hinge upon the rules of
> > > the religious organization would, therefore, be non-justiciable
> > > matters in a US court of law.
>
> > Anything about the content of the rules of a religious organisation is
> > covered by the Constitution.  But where that religious organisation
> > incorporates itself its behaviour as governed by corporate law comes
> > within the jurisdiction of the Court.
>
> You're suggesting that, merely by the act of incorporation, a religious
> organization forgoes any protection that might be accorded to it by the
> First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution--namely the right to conduct its
> affairs (i.e. how the organizations chooses to uphold its own by-laws) as
> the organization itself sees fit.  That's a novel theory, but I'd
certainly
> like to see that stated in some court decision before I accept it as
> anything other than your own creation.
>
> I know of no court case that directly addresses this issue.  One that
comes
> close, however, is Combs v. Methodist Church (USCA 5th Circuit, Case No.
> 98-10193).  Combs, a female Methodis Minister, sued the Methodist Church
for
> sexual discrimination, but the case was dismissed under the First
Amendment
> establishment of religion clause.  Defendant church was a non-profit
> corporation as well.
>
> This would lead one to believe that no court will even consider any form
of
> injunction or relief based on a claim having to do with whether or not a
> religious organization is adhering to its own by-laws.

Very interesting proposition and an extremely interesting case which cites
certain relevant principles that Rickster doesn't point out because they
don't suit his POV.  The Constitution does provide for separation; the
general rule that State shall not interfere with Church.  There are
exceptions however. In MORMON CHURCH v. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1 (1890) the
state dissolved the corporation under which the Mormon Church operated and
seized its property - "The property is in the custody of the law, awaiting
the judgment of the court as to its final disposition, in view of the
illegal uses to which it is subject in the hands of the Church of Latter-Day
Saints, whether incorporated or unincorporated."  This was because the
Mormons continued polygamy in defiance of law prohibiting it.

It is when we come to consider the case that Rickster cited that we find
rather curious dicta -

"The Supreme Court determined that Oregon's prohibition on all peyote use
did not violate the First Amendment: "the right of free exercise does not
relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral
law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or
prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)." Id. at
879, 110 S. Ct. at 1600 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)."
and this as well -

"Protecting the authority of a church to select its own ministers free of
government interference does not empower a member of that church, by virtue
of his beliefs, to become a law unto himself."  not to mention -

"In a passage now quoted by Reverend Combs, the Court stated, "When the
exercise of religion has been burdened in an incidental way by a law of
general application, it does not follow that the persons affected have been
burdened more than other citizens, let alone burdened because of their
religious beliefs."

I confess to being more acquainted with UK law than US law.  As a generally
applicable principle I find it illogical to assume that any (especially
secular) state would give carte blance to any religion to run its affairs as
it chose free of any constraint.  I now find that whilst affording religion
freedom to internally manage its own affairs - such management is generally
subject to some retraint of law  - "Protecting the authority of a church to
select its own ministers free of government interference does not empower a
member of that church, by virtue of his beliefs, to become a law unto
himself."

Rickster has no doubt based his argument on this :-
"In short, we cannot conceive how the federal judiciary could determine
whether an employment decision concerning a minister was based on legitimate
or illegitimate grounds without inserting ourselves into a realm where the
Constitution forbids us to tread, the internal management of a church."   He
omits to tell us that the case arose over the dismissal of a Minister and
her contention that it was on grounds of sex and that the Church could not
therefore avail itself of exemptions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The
Court in that sense quite rightly decided against Ms Combs.  But as noted
above there are instances of general applicability of law where Church
exemptions do not hold.

There is in the NM case no interference with the internal management of the
Church, no attempt to have Government, or the law,  influence or otherwise
determine matters theological; just an application to have the Court rule
that the religious body in question conduct its affairs in accordance with
generally applicable corporate law AND in accordance with its own rules
which the Court is not being asked to amend in any way.  There is no burden
in this other than would be borne by citizens in an entirely secular area -
"for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the
`establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and
active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." (cited in
CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP v. AMOS, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)

> > Furthermore it must abide by civil law as the
> > Guardian pointed. The Constitutional safeguard is for matters of
> > conscience not a license to break every other law in the book.
>
> The complaint doesn't allege that any law has been violated.  Were we
> talking about violations of law, then this would be a criminal case not a
> civil case.

There can be a violation of civil as well as criminal law.

The Complaint clearly alleges breaches of corporation law as in: -

15. Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations that they would be able to
participate in the management and activities of their corporation, as
minority shareholders, have been thwarted since at least 1995.

52. The Trustees of the Local Spiritual Assembly have repeatedly failed to
act and continue to fail to act in a manner they reasonably believe to be
in the best interests of the corporation and its members, which failure
constitutes fraud.

<LARGE BORING SNIP>

> > > > 17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained
> > > > in an inaccurate and inequitable manner.
>
> > > Not justiciable on the grounds
> > > that plaintiff has no standing on the issue.

As a member of a Corporation she has an interest!!!!!
<SNIP>
> You might want to try to grasp the implications of what the complaint
> _doesn't_ say.

Argumentative irrelevant speculation!

<SNIP>
> They only possible way to wrangle some kind of justiciable issue out of
this
> would be to find some kind of fiduciary relationship between the
defendants
> and the Plantiffs, but that relationship doesn't exist between the members
> of a private organization and the officers of that organization.  At least
I
> haven't been able to find any case law that holds this--if you can find
> some, by all means, post the details.
>
> There is a financial fiduciary relationship between the officers of a
> corporation and the shareholders of that corporation, but that's not the
> relationship here.  As you have so deftly noted, we're talking about
> _members_, not _shareholders_.  Yet, the claim goes through this mential
> gymnastics, quoted above, of equating "member" with "shareholder".

Go learn the basics about "members" of a Corporation and "shareholders" - in
the UK the terms are synonomous.  In the US I expect "shareholders" to
belong to a for-profit corporation and "members" to a non -profit one.

> > > > 18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000
> > > > discrepancy in the corporate books.
>
> > A discrepancy of a material sum of money whether it arise from fraud,
> > incompetence or negligence is actionable at law.
>
> But only by the party that's actually harmed by the discrepancy.  If
you're
> a shareholder, then, yes, you have an actionable claim.  If you're simply
a
> member, then no (hence the mental gymnastics in paragraph 6 of the
> complaint).

As a member of the Company she has an interest.

<REST OF INTERMINABLE BORING IRRELEVANT GARBAGE TRASHED AS NOT WORTH
RECYCLING AS IT EMANATES FROM ONE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LAW OF HIS OWN
JURISDICTION>

> > It has
> > not excited any great controversey on Talisman for example
>
> Probably because no one there has enough knowledge to discuss the legal
> issues intelligently.

There's at least one lawyer there, which is one more than you are and what's
more he's American and hasn't come out and said that the Plaitiff in this
case hasn't got a pup's chance.

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9af5gi$gn0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Hi, Rick.
>       This post is ad hominem.
>                                     M.

That's all His Holy Eminence knows how to write.... Notice
he's ignoring my request to tell us who his boss is.

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm

>
>
> "Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> > "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tcj830hgcs1fd8@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> >> I am so glad that you have proved to your own satisfaction that the
Courts
> >> have no jurisdiction in matters religious.
> >
> > It seems I've demonstrated this to your satisfaction as well, or, at
least,
> > to a level at which you no longer have a well-reasoned response.
> >
> > Does that mean we can talk about the competence of this attorney, again?
> >
> >> > Why question the judgement of someone who would choose not to expend
the
> >> > money and effort to keep a license he doesn't wish to use?
> >
> >> Why question the judgement of a man who paid $10,000 to give up that he
> > did
> >> not want to keep?
> >
> > Your comprehension is slipping again.  Methinks you're in need of some
> > sleep.  I'll try smaller words:
> >
> > He didn't care to keep the license.  He could either post a $10,000
> > (Canadian) security and give up the license, or spend as much as 10
times
> > that amount to fight to keep the license that he had no intention of
ever
> > using again.  There was, however, no option for him that didn't entail
> > either posting the security or paying attorneys to contest the matter.
> >
> > And you, with your "superior intelligence" wonder why I don't question
the
> > man's judgement.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rick Schaut
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
>        (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
>

Hi, Rick.
      This post is ad hominem.
                                    M.

"Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tcj830hgcs1fd8@xo.supernews.co.uk...
>> I am so glad that you have proved to your own satisfaction that the Courts
>> have no jurisdiction in matters religious.

> It seems I've demonstrated this to your satisfaction as well, or, at least,
> to a level at which you no longer have a well-reasoned response.

> Does that mean we can talk about the competence of this attorney, again?

>> > Why question the judgement of someone who would choose not to expend the
>> > money and effort to keep a license he doesn't wish to use?

>> Why question the judgement of a man who paid $10,000 to give up that he
> did
>> not want to keep?

> Your comprehension is slipping again.  Methinks you're in need of some
> sleep.  I'll try smaller words:

> He didn't care to keep the license.  He could either post a $10,000
> (Canadian) security and give up the license, or spend as much as 10 times
> that amount to fight to keep the license that he had no intention of ever
> using again.  There was, however, no option for him that didn't entail
> either posting the security or paying attorneys to contest the matter.

> And you, with your "superior intelligence" wonder why I don't question the
> man's judgement.


> Regards,
> Rick Schaut


--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
       (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
 

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9ad2bo07fq@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tcj830hgcs1fd8@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > I am so glad that you have proved to your own satisfaction that the
Courts
> > have no jurisdiction in matters religious.
>
> It seems I've demonstrated this to your satisfaction as well, or, at
least,
> to a level at which you no longer have a well-reasoned response.

I don't think so!
>
> Does that mean we can talk about the competence of this attorney, again?

Go ahead!  I'm all agog!
>
> > > Why question the judgement of someone who would choose not to expend
the
> > > money and effort to keep a license he doesn't wish to use?
>
> > Why question the judgement of a man who paid $10,000 to give up that he
> did
> > not want to keep?
>
> Your comprehension is slipping again.  Methinks you're in need of some
> sleep.  I'll try smaller words:
>
> He didn't care to keep the license.  He could either post a $10,000
> (Canadian) security and give up the license, or spend as much as 10 times
> that amount to fight to keep the license that he had no intention of ever
> using again.  There was, however, no option for him that didn't entail
> either posting the security or paying attorneys to contest the matter.

Alternatively, a "competent" attorney might have advised him to have the
hearing before his Professional body adjourned, pending resolution of the
Civil Court case in which case he needn't have paid anything and would have
recovered his legal costs.  Post the Civil case there would have been no
charges of professional misconduct to answer - he could have returned
honourably, licence intact and a further $10,000 invested in the Pension
Fund or in the ARC.

On this hypothesis of yours, methinks there's a lot more stink around this
one than meets the eye.  Guess I'll have to make some further investigation
to acquire a fuller knowledge of the facts - must contact the family in
Canada to do a little sleuthing work for me on the QT.

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9ab9f501epv@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> <VERY LARGE SNIP, HUGE,ENORMOUS>
> Actually, I rather enjoy discussing legal issues.  I find them
fascinating.
> This complaint affords an opportunity to do so, despite the fact that
there
> seems to be no one else here who understands these issues enough to
discuss
> them intelligently.

I am so glad that you have proved to your own satisfaction that the Courts
have no jurisdiction in matters religious.  Hopefully other fundie bodies
will act on this and whup three shades of **** out of the BIGS when I shall
be happy to know that the Courts will afford them no protection whatsoever
as they cannot intervene in matters religious.

> <ANOTHER GIGANTIC SNIP>
> Why question the judgement of someone who would choose not to expend the
> money and effort to keep a license he doesn't wish to use?

Why question the judgement of a man who paid $10,000 to give up that he did
not want to keep?


"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9aa8l108e7@news2.newsguy.com...

> > > It has everything to do with the pattern of behavior under which
certain
> > > individuals latch on to whatever might cast someone else in a bad
light
> > > regardless of the actual substance behind it.
>
> > Not "someone" Rick - actually it is two corporate bodies
>
> And what does this have to do with the issue of substance, or lack
thereof?

Quite a lot in connection with this case but you'll have to work that out
for yourself.

> > > All I did was express an opinion.  Is there some reason you have to
> > > flatulate like this every time someone expresses an opinion?
>
> > There's that anal fixation again!
>
> And I'm still wondering why that bothers you.

Just curious!  There's another BIGS around who seems to have the same
problem and I was merely speculating as to whether it was contagious or just
one of those AO things.

> > I can only repeat the obvious when it is apparent that the obvious
hasn't
> > sunk in.
>
> I rather strongly suspect that the reason is entirely different.

Have you worked it out yet? There are plenty of clues.

> <LARGE SNIP>
> > There is no need in a Complaint to state other than the broad grounds
upon
> > which one is proceeding against the defendants.  The "facts" are spelled
> out
> > in Court.
>
> No.  The facts are _proved_, or not as the case may be, in court.  They
> should be spelled out in the complaint.  If one doesn't spell out the
facts
> in the complaint, then one is, rather obviously, using the court as a
> vehicle for a fishing expedition.  Courts don't take all too kindly to
that.

I suggest you take a long hard read at the Complaint and note, inter alia,
citations as to corporate rules alleged to have been broken.

> > > Now, exactly which of those constitutes a justiciable issue under the
> law?
> > > Under which system of law does any of those alleged facts constitute
> > > either fraud or libel that would render the claim justiciable?
>
> > Re applause - was it called for or was it spontaneous? Did it thereby
> > constitute "electioneering"?
>
> Two salient facts.  1) We're talking about a religious organization; and
2)
> The U.S. Constitution has an amendment that prohibits the government from
> infringing upon the practice of a religion and or effecting the
> establishment of a religion.  Any issue that would hinge upon the rules of
> the religious organization would, therefore, be non-justiciable matters in
a
> US court of law.

Anything about the content of the rules of a religious organisation is
covered by the Constitution.  But where that religious organisation
incorporates itself its behaviour as governed by corporate law comes within
the jurisdiction of the Court. Furthermore it must abide by civil law as the
Guardian pointed. The Constitutional safeguard is for matters of conscience
not a license to break every other law in the book.

We are talking about a corporation of which it is alleged that the members
have failed to properly and legally abide by its rules.  Religion has naught
to do with it.  The US Constitution provisions did not prevent the
conviction of the Revd Moon on charges of Tax evasion.  What a shame you
weren't on his defence team.

> > 17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained in an
> > inaccurate and inequitable manner.
>
> > An allegation which shall be substantiated or not dependent on
independent
> > audit.
>
> This might be negligence, but in order for the plaintiff to show damages,
> one needs to go through the mental gymnastics of turning members of a
> religion into shareholders of a corporation.  Not justiciable on the
grounds
> that plaintiff has no standing on the issue.

They are members of the corporation and she is a member of the corporation.
Read the Complaint again, amadan!

> And, again, no fraud or libel here.  Indeed, the very next alleged fact
> would obviate any claim of either fraud or libel in this regard:
>
> > 18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000 discrepancy in
the
> > corporate books.
>
> > See above but this is obviously an alleged fact - another one indeed.
>
> Yes, it's an alleged fact.  But, is the fact justiciable?  No.  For the
same
> reason that #17 fails to allege a fact that would be justiciable under the
> law.  All this fact establishes is that any claim of fraud or libel is
> specious.

A discrepancy of a material sum of money whether it arise from fraud,
incompetence or negligence is actionable at law.  Remember Mr Moon who
possibly also had religious corporations.  Remember the TV evangelists who
went down the swanee over financial fraud and mismanagement.

> > 19. In a letter dated September 3, 2000, named Plaintiff Deborah
Buchhorn
> > informed the Local Spiritual Assembly that she desired to inspect their
> > financial books. Defendants refused.
>
> > A matter of fact or not - dependent on the evidence.
>
> That didn't parse.  Are you saying that this could be an opinion based on
> the evidence?  If so, then I'm afraid you're still woefully confused as to
> the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

Let me put this in first grade language (seems to be all you can take).
Deborah says that she asked to see the books, which, as a member of the
corporation she has a right to do and the other members wouldn't let her so
she is going to ask the Judge to make them let her see the books.

> And, while this is an allegation of fact, the question still remains
whether
> it alleges a fact that's justiciable under the law.  The very next
> allegation of fact would negate any justiciable issue regarding a refusal
to
> allow the books to be inspected.

If it's contrary to Corporation law it's actionable!

> > 20. Following mailing of the demand letter, the LSA offered to allow
named
> > Plaintiff to inspect the books and records, but under conditions that
the
> > Plaintiff deemed in bad faith.
>
> > A matter of fact or not - dependent on the evidence.
>
> But, where's the law that would require the Local Spiritual Assembly to
> allow the plaintiff to inspect the books on the plaintiff's terms and
> conditions?  That the plaintiff deems the terms and conditions to reflect
> bad faith is meaningless.  Why aren't those terms and conditions spelled
out
> in the complaint?  This is simply too vague to present an issue that would
> be justiciable.

It's Corporation law again time and she's a member.  If the defendants try
to limit what she sees in the books it could be contrary to law.

> And, above all, there's _still_ no allegatin of fact that would constitute
> either fraud or libel.

Go and read the complaint again before stringing out garbage like this.

> > Now are not all of the above facts, or alleged facts, actionable in a
> Court
> > of law, which alone shall determine the merits and render due verdict
> > thereon?
>
> Yes, they're alleged facts.  None of them appears to be a fact that would
> present a justiciable issue.

Think again!

> You seem to think than anyone can take any issue to a court of law and ask
> that court to render an opinion on it.  If so, where did you get such a
> notion?

No, not any issue. Anal fixation is not actionable at law for example!

> And, again, I'll note that no one has made even the remotest attempt to
> claim that any of these alleged facts constitutes either libel or fraud.
> Yet, the complaint itself is virtually littered with the words "fraud" and
> "libel".  It's as if the attorney knows that the complaint is thin on
> justiciable facts, and needs to come up with some kind of smoke screen
that
> would obscure just how thin those facts are.

His smokescreen is, to say the least, a lot better than yours.  It seems he
actually knows some law and what is/is not actionable. This could be
expected - thanks to your sterling work we know he passed the Bar exams and
you didn't - small wonder!

> > Ditto for your own propositions on this case.
>
> But, then, I'm not demanding that other people take my opinion to be
> established fact.

That is comforting to know - in as much as your opinions are formed by half
baked misconceptions of law and misreading of the Complaint, it's good to
know they are not to be confused with fact.  Indeed it's good to know that
you know that too.

> > This complaint has been sat on for
> > a much longer period than that without any indication that it was even
> being
> > looked at.  Is this not actionable at law?
>
> If it is, then please cite the law that would make it actionable.

Go and read the LSA/NSA Declaration of Trust which is incorporated into the
corporate documents of every assembly which has been incorporated according
to civil law.

> > > What I had in mind is Dr. Cole's despicable practice of retaining the
> > > newspaper article about Dr. Danesh without so much as a hint of the
fact
> > > that the entire matter was decided, by dismissal of a civil lawsuit,
in
> a
> > > court of law.
>
> > Nothing whatsoever to do with the NM case.
>
> It has everything to do with the practice, in this forum, of presenting
only
> part of the facts in order to cast aspersions on Baha'i institutions.  The
> behavior regarding Dr. Danesh's case is remarkably similar to the posting
of
> a complaint within days of that complaint being filed in court, as if the
> complaint constitutes established fact in and of itself.  Is there _any_
> reason that people couldn't wait until this case had run its course before
> people began discussing it here?  Why post the complaint _before_ a court
> has had any opportunity to address the issues it raises?

The Complaint was posted for information as it is a public document.  It has
not excited any great controversey on Talisman for example - probably
because most posters there appreciate its significance and the fact that it
is but the first step on a road.  When I joined this thread it had been
ongoing for sometime and being argued on grounds that posters seemed not to
comprehend.  You were advancing information on the competence of the
attorney and rubbishing the Complaint without apparently understanding its
nature or its place in the scheme of things.  You seemed to want to rubbish
it to death, at least to members of this forum and certainly to your own
satisfaction.  This matter will be dealt with between the parties.  Your
ramblings contribute naught but ignorance and prejudice to an already
difficult situation for both parties.  Indeed you are exacerbating those
difficulties through your refusal or inability to comprehend that the matter
is actionable despite what you think.

Whether you like it or not the lady has cause for action at law - she has a
qualified attorney who has drawn up the Complaint and filed it in Court on
her behalf.  You have contributed nothing to this discussion but appalling
ignorance of the law in your own country.  If I were you (which fortunately
I'm not) I'd follow the good advice of that chap who posted today and
suggested that all of you good BIGS take yourselves off to some haven free
from the proto covenant breakers who lurk here.  You can then indulge in an
orgy of self praise.

> >  In the light of what you state
> > about a subsequent civil action (on which I have yet to see any reported
> > facts)
>
> Where have you been?  Dr. Maneck has reported several facts in this
regard.
> Are you claiming that she's lying?

Certainly not - as an historian she would understand why I would wish to see
the original documents or press reports.  She would also be the first to
admit that she has not posted all of the facts.

> > the fact still remains that Danesh negotiated to have charges against
> > him withdrawn.
>
> The fact is that Dr. Danesh didn't fight to keep a license to practice
> clinical psychiatry at a time when he had already decided to quit clinical
> practice to pursue academic interests.

So why did he pay $10,000? Seems an expensive way to retire from medicine.

> But, then, we've pretty much established that you wish to not be confused
by
> such details, so I suppose I should appologise for pointing them out to
you.

A priest here was recently put on trial for alleged sexual assaults on a
minor - he denied the charges and was acquitted at his trial.  Seems the
witnesses changed their evidence once too often for a jury to be convinced
that they were telling the truth.  If Danesh won the civil case and proved
his innocence thereby why did he give the undertaking he did and pay the
cash he did?  These are not the actions of a man determined to prove his
innocence.  As I said, at the very least, his judgement has to be called
into question.

Grimmer Reaper

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9a8t430210k@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> That I find it annoying has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Baha'i.
> It has everything to do with the pattern of behavior under which certain
> individuals latch on to whatever might cast someone else in a bad light
> regardless of the actual substance behind it.

Not "someone" Rick - actually it is two corporate bodies that are being sued
and as you are aware a corporation is, in law, an entity with a distinctive
persona, which can be sued in its own right and is quite distinct from the
persons who comprise its members.

>
> I don't recall ever saying that I should be regarded as the arbiter of
this
> case.  All I did was express an opinion.  Is there some reason you have to
> flatulate like this every time someone expresses an opinion?

There's that anal fixation again!

> You haven't actually answered the question.  You have an amazing
> prediliction for repeatedly stating the obvious.  I can only conclude that
> the not-so-obvious has a tendency to elude your grasp.

I can only repeat the obvious when it is apparent that the obvious hasn't
sunk in.

> > The Defendants do of course under US law have the opportunity to file
for
> a
> > motion of dismissal.
>
> Yes, they do.  They likely will.  It will likely succeed unless plaintiff
> files an amended complaint.

Again I'll leave that up to the Court and venture no opinion on the merits
or demerits of a motion to dismiss.  When one works in a relative vacuum,
i.e. not privy to the substance of the case and proof to be presented by
either side, one ought to be circumspect about venturing opinion as to the
eventual outcome.  Especially is this so when one predicates action by the
Plaintiff which could nullify a motion to dismiss. Has anybody heard whether
or not the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or are going to do so?

> > Your current rubbishing of it just displays your partisanship founded
and
> > steeped in arrogance, ignorance, prejudice and bigotry of the first
order.
>
> It should be really easy to demonstrate this.  Go through the complaint
and
> show us where it alleges any fact that constitutes a justiciable matter
> under the law.  If you're as bright a lad as you seem to think you are,
then
> this should be a rather simple task.

See below.
<SNIP>
>
> > What you did was a sneaky look
> > around the Internet or wherever to get the "dirt" on the guy!
>
> A "sneaky look around the internet"?  I entered the guy's name in one of
the
> standard search engines.  What, on earth, is so bloody "sneaky" about
that?
> And, what, on earth, does the date of the guy's having passed the written
> portion of his bar exam have to do with "dirt"?

Why the interest in the person?  What should concern you is the issues
raised in the Complaint not the competence of the attorney who filed it in
Court or his client or any other person. You flay me and Michael for ad
hominem when you're doinfg the same thing - and as we are not Bahais we need
not abide by the prohibition on backbiting.

>
> I'm not sure what amazes me the most.  The fact that you find the act of
> gathering facts despicable, or the fact that you chastise me for actually
> finding the facts while simultaneously claiming that someone else supplies
> me with my opinions (both of which, by the way, really are ad-hominem
> arguments).

The only "facts" you gathered, of no relevance to the substantive issues,
were that the attorney passed his NM bar exams 6 months prior to filing the
Complaint.

> Oh, and I'll remember your comments on "dirt" the next time you bring up
Dr.
> Danesh.

And I 'll bring it (and/or similar) up again the next time you and/or other
AO apologists start slinging dirt and ad hominems.  When the dear lady was
asked about Leland Jensen she couldn't resist reprinting a triumphalist
account of the reaction of one of his victims to his death; she could have
simply stated that he was dead.  As you know the dead cannot defend
themselves - de mortuis nihil nisi bonum.

>
> > It is not the function of a Complaint to prove facts - its function is
> > to state a case that the Complainant intends to address to the Court.
>
> Very good, Mr. Ryder.  Now, care to expand on the meaning of the phrase
> "state a case"?

See below.

>
> > Now
> > from the Complant it appears that the Complainant intends to ask the
Court
> > to rule on matters which are clearly within the Competence of the
Court -
> > the allegations of fraud, libel and that this Assembly failed/refused to
> > carry out its business in accordance with its own rules.
>
> Yes, the complaint manages to use the words "fraud" and "libel" rather
> liberally, as if doing so constitutes an effective means of stating the
case
> one intends to prove.  If one actually takes the time to read past all the
> gratuitous splatterings of the words "fraud" and "libel", then one finds
> that there are paultry few facts upon which to even base a claim.

There is no need in a Complaint to state other than the broad grounds upon
which one is proceeding against the defendants.  The "facts" are spelled out
in Court.

> Let's see.  Some  people applauded some individuals before an annual
> election.  Plaintiff was asked by the LSA to stop airing a program on the
> Baha'i Faith.  Plaintiff complained to her Auxiliary Board member and to
the
> U.S. National Spiritual Assembly, but seems to have not been satisfied
with
> the response.
>
> Now, exactly which of those constitutes a justiciable issue under the law?
> Under which system of law does any of those alleged facts constitute
either
> fraud or libel that would render the claim justiciable?

Re applause - was it called for or was it spontaneous? Did it thereby
constitute "electioneering"?  Are there provisions in the rules of the
corporation that prohibit electioneering?  If so did the applause break
those rules?  Should any election therefore be declared null and void? Did
the plaintiff actually receive an answer to her Complaint?  Was the
Complaint investigated in accordance with the rules of the body to which it
was addressed? Did the defendants have a right, under the rules of the
corporation, to ask the Plaintiff to cease and desist from broadcasting on
television? These are examples of the questions that I feel will be put to
the Court and questions that I would think the Court would feel bounden to
rule upon. Certainly in the UK they are well within the ambit of the Court
and I would assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that US
Courts would take a similar line. After all the NSA posed similar questions
to the Courts vis a vis alleged breaches in the Sohrab and New Mexico cases.

The first 5 points in the Complaint are allegations. Let's examine a small
bit of this Complaint in detail: -

17. The books and records of the corporation have been maintained in an
inaccurate and inequitable manner.

An allegation which shall be substantiated or not dependent on independent
audit.

18. The year 2000 annual meeting showed a 10%, $10,000 discrepancy in the
corporate books.

See above but this is obviously an alleged fact - another one indeed.

19. In a letter dated September 3, 2000, named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn
informed the Local Spiritual Assembly that she desired to inspect their
financial books. Defendants refused.

A matter of fact or not - dependent on the evidence.

20. Following mailing of the demand letter, the LSA offered to allow named
Plaintiff to inspect the books and records, but under conditions that the
Plaintiff deemed in bad faith.

A matter of fact or not - dependent on the evidence.

Now are not all of the above facts, or alleged facts, actionable in a Court
of law, which alone shall determine the merits and render due verdict
thereon?

> > No! I stand by it.  FACT is that it is a disgraceful indictment that
your
>
> You can repeat that opinion as many times as you'd like.  It won't
magically
> become a fact through the mere act of repetition.

Ditto for your own propositions on this case.

<SNIP>

> > Au contraire, Rickster!!  The defendants had this case within their
> purview
> > for some time and did nothing about it.
>
> Thank you, dear sir, for making my point for me.  It's so very kind of you
> to do so.

I know how long the NSA sat on this complaint and it was an unreasonable
time (IMO), considering that on several occasions in the past I have known
the NSA of the UK deal expeditiously with correspondence and not sit on it.
In dealing with Government here one has a right to expect acknowledgement of
receipt of a complaint within three days and a substantive response within a
month.  On occasions the substantive response may take longer than a month,
in which case, the government department must communicate that fact to the
complainant.  Currently I am awaiting decision on a matter I have raised
with Goverment.  When I lodged it, I was told that a decision would come
within 15 weeks due to various reasons.  This complaint has been sat on for
a much longer period than that without any indication that it was even being
looked at.  Is this not actionable at law?

>
> > What further FACTS have come to light - that YOU consider this case
> flawed,
> > that the lawyer passed his NM Bar exams 6 months ago?
>
> What I had in mind is Dr. Cole's despicable practice of retaining the
> newspaper article about Dr. Danesh without so much as a hint of the fact
> that the entire matter was decided, by dismissal of a civil lawsuit, in a
> court of law.  Also, your dear friend, Mr. Hazini, made a point of wanting
> to know why the Dr. chose not to defend the issue when it came to a
license
> he no longer wanted to use despite the fact that a civil lawsuit has
cleared
> the Dr. of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the NM case.  In the light of what you state
about a subsequent civil action (on which I have yet to see any reported
facts) the fact still remains that Danesh negotiated to have charges against
 him withdrawn.  It is not behaviour consistent with total innocence - if as
you state, the civil case against him failed, then the "plea bargain" must
call his judgment into question.

> So, Mr. Ryder, when can I expect you to chastice Dr. Cole and Mr. Hazini
for
> their behavior?

What behaviour - besides which neither my legs nor arms are long enough to
reach them to give them a damned good thrashing, as you seem to suggest!
>
> >  What have you
> > become - the arbiter of public opinion and public decency?
>
> Hardly.  I have an opinion, and I've stated it.  Unlike others, however, I
> haven't put up any pretense that my opinion should be regarded as fact, so
> I'm not quite sure whence comes this notion of being the arbiter of public
> opinion and public decency.

I leave that to the Court of public opinion.

Chin Chin! What Ho! Pip Pip! Cheeriho!

Big D.


"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9acf8s$aem$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>     Uhm, well, what's stopping the Universal House of Justice from
> stepping in and resolving differences here?

Now there's a fascinating image.  The Universal House of Justice coming over
the ridge like the cavalry saying, "Judge Scott, you may set this case
aside.  We're handling the matter, now."  The only thing missing is the deep
voice singing, "Here I come to save the day!"

The Universal House of Justice might address, indeed it's possible they
already have addressed, some of the issues that have come to light here, but
I wouldn't expect to get wind of it a scant two weeks after the complaint
has been filed.  I rather suspect that they'd be in the process of gathering
facts--a process that seems to be foreign to some of the folks who post here
on a regular basis.  Perhaps we can allow for some time before we start
deciding what, if anything, Baha'i institutions ought to be doing about
this?  Just a hope.

>     So, if there are differences, and, if their job is to resolve such
> differences, what are they waiting for? Do they need an invitation from
> the disagreeing parties?

Well, they generally have to _know_ that something's amiss before they can
act on it.  How are they to come to know about it unless one of the parties
takes the matter to them?  Or are you advancing the rather novel notion that
the Universal House of Justice is omniscient?

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9af5e9$glr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Rick Schaut" (RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> > I'm merely noting the logical inconsistencies in the two positions.  One
> > holds that the Universal House of Justice wanted to silence her, and the
> > other holds that she has had no opportunity to speak her mind.  These
> > positions cannot both be true.

> This is perfectly consistent if the UHJ was successful; I assume your
> words do not fully correspond with what you're attempting to communicate.

Successful at what?  Baha'is are as able now to read and her her ideas as
they were when she was a Baha'i.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9af5bo02b5h@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > > > Perhaps additional evidence as to how the Auxiliary Board Member
> > > > > and the National Spiritual Assembly were dealing with the issues
> > > > > might cast this whole case in completely different light.
>
> > > > It would, except that they weren't!
>
> > > That's a speculative conclusion.
>
> > It's not speculation - I know how long the NSA sat on the complaint and
> did
> > sweet doodly squat about it.
>
> You appear to be claiming access to evidence to which I'm not privy.  If
you
> have it, then post it.

Are you telling us that your mate at Wilmette didn't tell you - that he sent
you forth to this hell hole without the necessary information with which to
counter the rabid ones?  Did you telephone and ask him? You better clear it
with him that he doesn't mind my posting the fact that they sat on this
complaint for six months.

> > You can phone your friends at Wilmette to ask
> > them if they want me to note this on the Internet for public appraisal
or
> if
> > they would prefer that I not divulge the information.
>
> But, excuse me for being amused at the suggestion that you're witholding
> this evidence for the sake of saving the U.S. National Spiritual Assembly
> embarrassment.  Is there anything you'd like to see more than public
> embarassment of Baha'i institutions?  That seems to be your sole purpose
for
> even being here.

There are plenty of things I'd rather see - the Kyoto Treaty adopted, a
reduction of gaseous emissions in the US (I'm avoiding the obvious here -
being good - for a change), Ian Paisley shaking hands with the Pope, the
abolition of the Monarchy and Sharon Stone with clothes on. I'd also love to
see a picture of Milissa which she promised me a long time ago! So if you're
out there Milissa ...
>
> > > I'm merely noting the logical inconsistencies in the two positions.
>
> > Really! My what a display of logic!  Of course everybody but you can
> clearly
> > the fallacy in this.
>
> Well, you did fail to notice that the complaint in the NM case alleges two
> facts that cannot simultaneously be true.
>
> > > If she wants to know why they instructed the AZ National Spiritual
> > Assembly
> > > to return her membership card, then why doesn't she just ask them?
Why
> > > concoct these lame excuses for not engaging in any dialogue?
>
> > And how do you know she didn't and if she did, what reply was received?
> > Answer - you don't!  I, on the other hand may do, but whether I do or
not
> > I'm not going to acquaint you with the information.
>
> [Snort.]  Um.  You owe me a new keyboard.
>
> If you do, indeed, have such documents in your posession, the only
> reasonable conclusion witholding them from public disclosure is that you
> would find their contents more embarrassing than would any institution of
> the Baha'i Faith.
>
> > > > Bloodsports!  I enjoy the kill - the smell of cordite and the whiff
of
> > > > napalm in the morning ... Ooops! Getting carried away there! Sorry!
>
> > > Dang.  For a moment, there, I thought you might simply explode.
Course,
> > > that would make such an awful mess.
>
> > But a lot less mess than if you got a dab of semtex where the sun don't
> > shine
>
> Not necessarily.  My eyes are blue.  What color are yours?

Your eyes are in your ass?  Geez I never thought they could be so close to
your brain!
>
> > - just saying that to placate your anal fixation.
>
> You seem way more fixated about it than I do.

More worried about it than fixated! But in light of the above and the
problems with your keyboard I now understand.  Mind you I'm still trying to
figure out how you can see the keyboard whilst you're typing!

> <SNIP>
> I see.  You expect me, and other members of the Baha'i Faith, to be doing
> hand-stands, back-flips and maybe even an arabesque or two, whatever it
> takes to keep this case from going to trial (just so long as it's not on a
> legal "technicality" like the First Amendment to the U.S.
> Constitution--nasty little technicality there), regardless of what's
> actually true or which would be the most just course of action.  But,
then,
> I don't quite share your vehement distate for all things related to Baha'i
> Institutions.

I don't care what you do - it doesn't matter whether or not it goes to a
hearing before a Judge. At the end of the day it's between the parties with
or without active court intervention to sort it out. It doesn't matter
whether the Complaint is competently framed or not; it is of no consequence
what the First Amendment is or states. If the attorney is incompetent it is
of no consequence.

What is relevant is the fact that this is a dysfunctional community - so
dysfunctional that a member of the Asssembly has gone to a Court for
redress. Your AO has failed to spot and nip this problem in the bud for
which, in light of the time it had the complaint there can be no excuse. It
isn't that it rendered a bad decision on the complaint made to it - it is
that it took absolutely no action at all and, as we all know, a bad decision
is better than no decision.
>
> > >The fact remains,
> > > however, that I haven't stated that the principle specifically applies
> in
> > > this case.  I've merely stated a principle that _could_ apply in this
> > case,
> > > depending, of course, on what further facts, if any, come to light.
>
> > Well now why didn't you say that to begin with that you were merely
citing
> > general principles which might or might not be applicable?
>
> Because I had, apparently mistakenly, beleived that people could see that
I
> was doing nothing more than stating a principle without my having to point
> it out to them.

And hardly the first time you have been mistaken, apparently. You are a
master in the use of innuendo to make a point which you can afterwards deny
that you ever made. Still that's the whole point of innuendo.

><SNIP>
> > > Well, then I guess it's a very good thing that I haven't tried to
> > > apportion any blame, isn't it?

Apart from the usual innuendo.
>
> > Really?  Let's ask the folks out there for their opinion on that
> > proposition!
>
> Yes, lets.  Tell you what, why don't we simply suspend this discussion for
a
> few days, and see if anyone chimes in?

Nobody will - they've all seen through you!
>
> > > > At what point does delay in responding to an appeal cross the divide
> > > between
> > > > inactivity and rejection?
>
> > > Frankly, the answer would depend on the issues involved.  Some appeals
> > > require immediate attention.  Others not so immediate.
>
> > Put a time on it - a specific time.  After what period of elapsed time
> would
> > you expect
>
> Nope.  My answer remains the same.  Moreover, where this case is
concerned,
> the answer would be rather irrelevant.  She has another recourse other
than
> the courts.  Did she avail herself of that recourse?

Well maybe she felt that if the NSA was going to stonewall her, the House of
Horrors would do the same.  Fact is I don't know and care even less - after
all *** months is a hell of a long time to await an answer to the first
complaint.

>
> > > It would also depend on the manner in which the appeal has been made.
> The
> > > fallacy of communication is the assumption that it has taken place.
> It's
> > > not too difficult to imagine a bombastic letter of denial and dispute
as
> > > being someone's excuse for an appeal.  Indeed, it would be precisely
the
> > > kind of "appeal" letter I'd expect to get from one Dermod Ryder.
>
> > Now is this another of these "general principles" or quite specific
> > innuendo?
>
> Well, there's no innuendo whatsoever in the last sentence.  As to whether
or
> not it applies in the present case, well, I believe you already know the
> answer, but you'll make whatever inferences suits your bloodthirst despite
> anything I might say.

You've said that there is no innuendo in the last sentence.  Is there
innuendo in any of the preceding sentences?  You're saying that I know the
answer as to whether the appeal to the NSA was "bombastic" or not.  On what
grounds are you saying that?
>
> > You keep telling us the the AO system is flexible. Has it therefore the
> > inherent ability and flexibility to deal with such a "bombastic"
> complaint?
>
> Sure.  Indeed, one legitimate means would be to instruct the National
> Spiritual Assembly involved to remove the author of the complaint from the
> membership roles, depending, of course, upon the specific circumstances.

What an excellent solution?  Pray tell us why it wasn't done in this case.
Could it be that the appeal wasn't bombastic and did not give grounds
therefore for the Roman solution? >
> > Complaints have to be dealt with - if a Microsoft customer lambasted you
>
> But, then, we're not talking about a business with customers.  Where one's
> relationship with the Baha'i Institutions are concerned, there are
attitudes
> that are clearly spelled out in authoritative Baha'i Texts (c.f. "Baha'i
> Administration" and numerous letters from `Abdul-Baha).  Moreover,
however,
> there is the explicit statement within these Writings, that Spiritual
Assemb
> lies do not answer to their constituents.  They answer to their
conscience.
> You may not like this, but you cannot deny that it is an aspect of Baha'i
> Administration.

Well we have quite safely eliminated the suggestion that the appeal was
bombastic - had it been so Deborah would now "sleep with the fishes." So in
light of that why was the appeal not dealt with?

The key to lodging appeals is - if you're "bombastic" you get a visit from
Luca Brasi - if you have the right attitude - you get ignored. And that is
the conscience of the AO!

> So, yes, complaints have to be dealt with, but one that is sufficiently
> bombastic may well reveal more about the complainant than the issues that
> the complaint actually reveals.

So the complaint/appeal can be safely disposed off because the attitude of
the complainant/appellant isn't right!  Glad you confirmed that for us - we
would never have known otherwise.

> > All of the above is arrant dog-muck as the NSA sat on its corporate fat
> arse
> > and did absolutely nothing.
>
> Which is Mr. Ryder's way of saying that he has no counter to my remarks
> that's based on a thorough review of Baha'i principles.

On the contrary - it's a favourable judgement of Bahai principles as
corrupted by the AO.
>
> And, I suppose one might notice how "dog-muck" and "fat arse" could
indicate
> an anal fixation,

Well you have exhibited an "anal fixation" and I have adjudged the AO as
having an "an anal fixation" so with its "anal fixation" and your "anal
fixation" - what can I say except that you deserve each other and I hope you
will be very happy together ...

>but I don't think it would be necessary to point out any
> of Mr. Ryder's fixations.

In other words you don't know what they are.



"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9ad1nh06jf@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:tcj82vb2amqjd7@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> > "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:9abdp901k9p@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > Perhaps additional evidence as to how the Auxiliary Board Member
> > > and the National Spiritual Assembly were dealing with the issues
> > > might cast this whole case in completely different light.
>
> > It would, except that they weren't!
>
> That's a speculative conclusion.  All we do know, assuming she's telling
the
> truth, is that the plaintiff in the lawsuit didn't know what was being
done
> about the situation.

It's not speculation - I know how long the NSA sat on the complaint and did
sweet doodly squat about it.  You can phone your friends at Wilmette to ask
them if they want me to note this on the Internet for public appraisal or if
they would prefer that I not divulge the information.

>
> <SNIP>
> I'm merely noting the logical inconsistencies in the two positions.  One
> holds that the Universal House of Justice wanted to silence her, and the
> other holds that she has had no opportunity to speak her mind.  These
> positions cannot both be true.

Really! My what a display of logic!  Of course everybody but you can clearly
the fallacy in this.  Speculating again the House of Horrors wanted to
silence her and did so arbitrarily without giving her the chance to speak on
any charges of misconduct.  As no specific charges of misconduct have been
notified to her pre or post the fact of her expulsion there seems to be no
basis for any appeal to the House of Horrors.
<SNIP>

>
> The Universal House of Justice has an established policy that anyone can
> bring any issue directly to them, yet, despite that policy, you choose to
> interpret, in the absence of any direct statement on the matter, what
> they've done as indicating that this particular issue is closed.  Looks
more
> like an excuse not to engage in dialogue than any well-reasoned conclusion
> about what's going on in the minds of the members of the Universal House
of
> Justice.
>
> If she wants to know why they instructed the AZ National Spiritual
Assembly
> to return her membership card, then why doesn't she just ask them?  Why
> concoct these lame excuses for not engaging in any dialogue?

And how do you know she didn't and if she did, what reply was received?
Answer - you don't!  I, on the other hand may do, but whether I do or not
I'm not going to acquaint you with the information.
>
> > I wouldn't speculate about the attitude or remit of the Privacy
> Commission.
>
> Perhaps, but the fact remains that she has a dispute with the Universal
> House of Justice but has done nothing by way of addressing that dispute
with
> them.  Frankly, it looks like she has no real interest in resolving the
> dispute, and is only looking for someone, somewhere, who will say, "Oh you
> bad Universal House of Justice!  Who do you think you are for enforcing
> standards of Baha'i membership?"

The House of Horrors expelled her without prior notice or warning - it knows
what it did.  Let it in the name of Justice approach her and not vice
versa!!

>
> > Bloodsports!  I enjoy the kill - the smell of cordite and the whiff of
> > napalm in the morning ... Ooops! Getting carried away there! Sorry!
>
> Dang.  For a moment, there, I thought you might simply explode.  Course,
> that would make such an awful mess.

But a lot less mess than if you got a dab of semtex where the sun don't
shine - just saying that to placate your anal fixation.

>
> > > When it comes to Mr. Hazini, I have a great deal of justification in
not
> > > trusting what he attempts to pass off as fact.
>
> > So why have you formulated an opinion?
>
> Now, that's news to me.  Have I stated an opinion on the merits of this
> case?  If so, please quote it for me.

Well let's see - you've rubbished me, the attorney, the Complaint, the
Plaintiff, anybody who doesn't agree with you (apart from your pal Bart
Simpson) ... anybody here not know what Rick's opinion of this case is?

<SNIP>>
> Yo, Dermod.  It's _already_ in court.  Plaintiff chose to take it there.
An
> d there's not a thing I can do to change that fact.  I don't know why you
> keep exhorting me to endeavor to change that which is beyond my power to
> change.

It's not IN Court - it's awaiting the day that it does go into Court with
the attorneys, Plaintiff, witnesses etc. and the Judge.

<SNIP THE WEASEL AT WORK>

> Well, we've all had a chance to read it a couple of times, now.  And, for
> that matter, I at least recall precisely what I wrote.

You should do - it's staring you in the face - well, it was before you
snipped it so I'll just repeat it that there can be no doubt.

> > > To be the constant source of conflict with an institution, to behave,
as
> > > an individual, in a manner that's inconsistent with a professed belief
> > > in Baha'u'llah, and then blame that institution for failing to resolve
> > > the conflict would epitomize hypocrisy.

>The fact remains,
> however, that I haven't stated that the principle specifically applies in
> this case.  I've merely stated a principle that _could_ apply in this
case,
> depending, of course, on what further facts, if any, come to light.

Well now why didn't you say that to begin with that you were merely citing
general principles which might or might not be applicable?  Indeed why bring
it up at all for in the context in which you used it, you invited BIGS to
agree with you that this is a BAD Bahai who dares take the AO to a nasty
Civil Court.
>
> > You shouldn't even try to apportion blame for the start of this
conflict -
> > you have no evidence on which to do that.
>
> Well, then I guess it's a very good thing that I haven't tried to
apportion
> any blame, isn't it?

Really?  Let's ask the folks out there for their opinion on that
proposition!
>
> <ANOTHER SNIP OF GIBBERISH>
> Of course, you fail to notice this.  You're more interested in
constructing
> straw creaturs that can be burnt with a dab of napalm than you're
interested
> in a well-reasoned discussion of the issues.

Oh I love a well reasoned argument! Shucks! Now everybody is asking why I'm
trying it with you?  Good question!  Fact is people, I'm trying to shed a
little life into its existence!  Oh I know it's difficult!  But I've always
been an optimist!

<SNIP>
>
> > At what point does delay in responding to an appeal cross the divide
> between
> > inactivity and rejection?  If an appellant hears nothing pertaining to
the
> > Appeal for a period of time what is he/she do about that?  In other
words
> > what is a reasonable time to leave an appeal in the hands of the NSA
> before
> > taking further action?  A week, two weeks, a month, two months, three
> months
>
> Frankly, the answer would depend on the issues involved.  Some appeals
> require immediate attention.  Others not so immediate.

Put a time on it - a specific time.  After what period of elapsed time would
you expect
>
> It would also depend on the manner in which the appeal has been made.  The
> fallacy of communication is the assumption that it has taken place.  It's
> not too difficult to imagine a bombastic letter of denial and dispute as
> being someone's excuse for an appeal.  Indeed, it would be precisely the
> kind of "appeal" letter I'd expect to get from one Dermod Ryder.

Now is this another of these "general principles" or quite specific
innuendo?
>
> However, it's not entirely clear that a bombastic letter of dispute
> indicates any desire to review the issues from any point of view but that
of
> the supposed appellant.  Try sending a similar writ of certiorari to a
U.S.
> Appeals Court, and see how far it gets you.

You keep telling us the the AO system is flexible. Has it therefore the
inherent ability and flexibility to deal with such a "bombastic" complaint?
Complaints have to be dealt with - if a Microsoft customer lambasted you
with a bombastic complaint about one of the company's products, do you think
Bill would be pleased if you told her you weren;'t going to deal with the
complaint because the customer had been bombastic?  Get real!  No matter
what way a complaint is framed it has to be dealt with.  Indeed the real art
is in taking a complaining customer breathing spit, fire and brimstone, and
through careful handling of his complaint turning him into another satisfied
customer.
>
> > They may indeed have no obligation to keep her
> > informed - but is that efficiency, is that courtesy, is that the Bahai
> way?
>
> And, again, that depends on the nature of the issues involved.  To take
> something from this case, consider the whole issue involving the applause:
>
> "22. At the Annual Meeting Feast of 1999, Defendant Trustees fraudulently
> rigged the election of Trustee Nelson Sapad by calling for applause for
him
> three times prior to an election of corporate officers. Plaintiff appealed
> to the National Spiritual Assembly and Brent Poirier, who took no action."
>
> First of all, the immediately appropriate action is to investigate the
> matter.  Secondly, there are a number of things that the National
Spiritual
> Assembly might do depending on the results of that investigation.  On this
> particular issue, however, since it doesn't involve a specific adverse
> decision by an instititon involving administrative santions against her,
the
> National Spiritual Assembly has no obligation to keep her informed.
Indeed,
> the principle of confidentiality precludes them from telling her
everything
> they've done.
>
> In addition, the National Spiritual Assembly is looking to find patterns
of
> behavior, and not necessarily isolated instances of misconduct.  The issue
> isn't so much whether or not someone is stradling Baha'i law and
procedures.
> Rather, the issue is really about a person's intent.  There are known
cases
> where the Universal House of Justice has instructed a National Spiritual
> Assembly to restore an individual's voting rights because the case
involved
> a single violation of Baha'i law, and about which the individual was
> striving to correct his or her behavior.
>
> The point is that the process of applying Baha'i law is a rather lengthy
> process.  It doesn't simply consist of applying sanctions the moment the
> Assembly has determined that someone has violated Baha'i law.  Efforts are
> made to ascertain the individual's attitude regarding his or her behavior,
> the individual's knowledge of the relvant principles involved, and the
> extent to which that individual would be amenable to consultation on thie
> issues.
>
> Now, given that the most strident sanction a National Spiritual Assembly
can
> possibly apply is the prohibition on giving to the fund and attending
Feast,
> it's difficult to imagine any issue that would require a timely response
due
> to any hardship arising from any sanction that's been imposed.  I suppose
> one might argue some aspect of "emotional" damages (as are alleged in this
> complaint), but I just have difficulty finding any sympathy for that
notion.
> Yes, the courts do recognize "emotional" damages under certain
> circumstances, but more often than not, "emotional" damages have served as
> nothing more than an excuse for someone to extort money from deep pockets.

All of the above is arrant dog-muck as the NSA sat on its corporate fat arse
and did absolutely nothing.  It's the AO way!  Go ring Bob and ask him and
don't bother us again until you do!

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9abdp901k9p@news2.newsguy.com...
> <LARGE SNIP>
> At the same time, we have no knowledge of what other facts might come out
at
> trial.  Perhaps additional evidence as to how the Auxiliary Board Member
and
> the National Spiritual Assembly were dealing with the issues might cast
this
> whole case in completely different light.

It would, except that they weren't!  That's the problem and one that the
dear lady accepted as possible with her remark about molasses in January.
They may be now - the molasses may have been warmed!  Oops ! That last bit
could be speculation but the first bit isn't!

>
> You might want to heed your own advice, and refrain from such speculation.

Sorry about that! Of course you were doing the same!

<SNIP>
> > And who for this day has interpreted those authoritative texts such
> > that a believer like Alison can be kicked out on her ear without a
> > chance to justify her position.
>
> That appears to depend on whom you ask.  Some folks have alleged that the
> issue is free speech, in which case her expulsion would have come about
> because she justified her position all too well.

Was this before or after the fact? I'm certainly not aware of any comments
by her post facto justifying a position - indeed to this day, so far as I am
aware Haifa has never detailed her "errors" to allow of her justifying
anything.  The methods of the Inquisition spring to mind.  When the
Inquisitor asked his victim, "Tell the Truth!" - the victim would respond
with "About what?" and the Inquisitor would simply say "Tell the Truth!" and
the victim would then relate what he had for supper 20 years prior, not
being made aware of the specifics the Inquisitor was interested in.

But if as you suggest she "justified her position all too well" - was it
envy at her superior intellect that motivated her expulsion?

> But, the fact remains that she can still address her concerns to the
> Universal House of Justice.  Let's see.  She the Privacy Commission won't
be
> able to begin their investigation for another year.  By then, nearly 18
> months will have passed since she received the letter from the AZ National
> Spiritual Assembly.  If, during all that time, she's made no attempt to
> address her concerns directly to the Universal House of Justice, I wonder
> how the Privacy Commission will view her claim.

There is no appeal against the supreme body unless, of course, there is
"repentance" and that's a whole different ball game.  In not consulting with
her beforehand the supreme body indicated that it had determined the matter
absolutely.

I wouldn't speculate about the attitude or remit of the Privacy Commission.

> In any event, this too, is a case that will play itself out.  Neither your
> opinion nor mine will make a great deal of difference in the outcome.

Which makes one wonder why you venture an opinion at all.  Nonetheless it is
gratifying to see that you have accepted the fact of "expulsion" rather than
"disenrollment!  Progress is always possible!
>
> > You were warned by the Guardian that your Faith could fail.  It has!
>
> Which begs the question, why are you here?  You're wasting your time.  Get
a
> life, indeed!

Bloodsports!  I enjoy the kill - the smell of cordite and the whiff of
napalm in the morning ... Ooops! Getting carried away there! Sorry!

> > > To be the constant source of conflict with an institution, to behave,
as
> > > an individual, in a manner that's inconsistent with a professed belief
> > > in Baha'u'llah, and then blame that institution for failing to resolve
> > > the conflict would epitomize hypocrisy.
>
> > You really are selective.  Nima has confirmed the essentials of the type
> of
> > behaviour in this particular community (I know of others who will do the
> > same) yet you ignore it in face of your own prejudice.
>
> When it comes to Mr. Hazini, I have a great deal of justification in not
> trusting what he attempts to pass off as fact.  And, since I've not heard
> anyone else either confirm or deny what is alleged in the complaint, I
have
> no further evidence upon which to formulate an opinion.

So why have you formulated an opinion?  You're not going to hear any further
evidence.  Doubtless the parties and their witnesses have been told to
button up and say nothing to further inflame the situation.
>
> But you seem to forget.  I haven't, at all, discussed the validity of the
> factual claims in the complaint.  On that score, I'll wait until the case
is
> either dismissed or there is more evidence that's been brought to light.
> What I _have_ done is discuss the legal issues surrounding the facts that
> have been alleged in the complaint.  Clearly, you don't like the fact that
I
> have, but you cannot accuse me of either selectively or not selectively
> speculating on the accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint.  At
> least, you cannot do so and also advance some claim to understanding the
> meaning of the word "truth".

You can speculate on the "facts" all you want - doesn't affect the "fact"
that a Complaint has been filed and that if it is not satisfactorily
resolved it could wind up in Court and the AO could win or it could lose.

>
> > You are blaming the
> > Plaintiff - you are practially accusing her of being the source of
> conflict,
> > ignoring everything else.
>
> At which point did I claim that she is, indeed, the source of the
conflict?
> I don't recall saying so.  If I haven't, then how can you claim that I've
> assigned any blame to anyone?

Try this bit - cited above: -
> > > To be the constant source of conflict with an institution, to behave,
as
> > > an individual, in a manner that's inconsistent with a professed belief
> > > in Baha'u'llah, and then blame that institution for failing to resolve
> > > the conflict would epitomize hypocrisy.

> All I've done is articulate a principle: i.e. to be the source of
conflict,
> etc.  It's certainly possible that some level of that applies in this
case,
> but it's also possible for that principle to apply in numerous other
> instances.

You shouldn't even try to apportion blame for the start of this conflict -
you have no evidence on which to do that.  To "articulate a principle", as
above, in the context in which you did is to leave all aware of your
predetermined judgement that the Plaintiff is to blame for the contention.

> > You're the hypocrite who can't even
> > see that an Assembly could go wrong and that if it does go wrong the NSA
> > should rectify matters and if it doesn't then someone has to!!
>
> Oh?  Then please allow me to disabuse you of your misconception: Local
> Spiritual Assemblies get things wrong all the time.  On a daily basis.
> Sometimes rather hugely.
>
> And, yes, when things go wrong, the National Spiritual Assembly should
> endeavor, to the very best of its ability, to rectify matters.  I also
> believe that the National Spiritual Assembly should do so while upholding
> all relevant Baha'i principles, not just those principles that a few
> individuals might think are relevant to the exclusion of other principles.
> And, in general, it is the National Spiritual Assembly's duty to decide
what
> those applicable principles are and how they should be applied.

Within a Bahai context I would agree with you but in other matters it lies
within the purview of the Courts if either party makes an appeal thereto for
resolution.

>
> What I don't quite cotton to is the idea that somebody _has_ to "make
things
> right" when the National Spiritual Assembly doesn't do things to their
> satisfaction.  There are some lines, here, that one can cross rather
easily.
> That doesn't mean Ms. Buchhorn has crossed any of them.  We simply don't
> have sufficient information to know whether this is an instance of the
> National Spiritual Assembly not responding at all to her appeals or an
> instance where the National Spiritual Assembly responding in a manner
that's
> not suitable to her satisfaction.  The one thing we can say is that
they've
> probably not kept her informed of what they were doing if they were doing
> anything, but it's not entirely clear that they had an obligation to keep
> her informed.

At what point does delay in responding to an appeal cross the divide between
inactivity and rejection?  If an appellant hears nothing pertaining to the
Appeal for a period of time what is he/she do about that?  In other words
what is a reasonable time to leave an appeal in the hands of the NSA before
taking further action?  A week, two weeks, a month, two months, three months
...  In other words how long has an appellant to await a decision and at
what point, given that no decision or other communication, has been
received, is an appelland driven to the inevitable conclusion that the
appeal is being ignored?  They may indeed have no obligation to keep her
informed - but is that efficiency, is that courtesy, is that the Bahai way?

> > > > The behaviour of its apologists on this list has been less than
> > helpful -
>
> > > One could say the same thing about the behavior of others in this
forum.
>
> > You're an expert on the ad hominem and, like all experts in that field
you
> > just hate it when somebody else comes along and plays you at your own
> game.
>
> No.  What I detest is when people take me to task for a behavior when they
> behave exactly the same way.  _That's_ hypocrisy.

No! It's sauce for the goose!

> > Nobody will ever adequately address your points because you don't come
> here
> > to discuss - you come to bludgeon with your ill informed and often
> > groundless opinions.
>
> Gosh, if my opinions are so groundless, then it shouldn't be necessary to
> even respond to them.  As for "bludgeon", well...pot, kettle, black, as
they
> say.
>
> > Noted - you have not contradicted me on my refutation
> > of your silly so called legal assessment in your last post.
>
> Sorry, sport, but I just posted that refutation a few moments ago.  Please
> pardon me for taking the time to conduct a little search through U.S. case
> law.  Unlike other folks around here, I prefer to spend at least some time
> conducting a little research here and there.
>
> > Mr Ryder plays a long game - he has already spread the news into the
right
> > quarters.
>
> Mr. Ryder plays many games.
>
> > And FYI this conversation and the events spawning it is being
> > watched by a number of people.  Who knows but that it might turn up in
an
> > Albuquerque Court as evidence of the malevolence
>
> Wow!  Talk about the use of a bludgeon.  If you can't get me to stop
> exercising my right to voice an opinion by insulting me to death, perhaps
> you can get me to shut up by suggesting that my comments might appear as
> evidence in a court of law somewhere!
>
> Nice try, old boy.  But, I'm not buying.

I don't ever wish to still your voice - basic belief that ALL are entitled
to free speech, to say what they want where they want, save as provided for
in law.  But all actions have consequences.  As for "insulting" - I come
from a robust society where in badinage, insult/counter insult is the order
of the day.  FYI I'm not really insulting you - were I to do that, believe
me, you wouldn't be standing here and you wouldn't be talking.  But if you
can't take the heat, don't want the "chuckle" getcher ass out.  Otherwise,
keep on trotting!

>
> > Time alone will tell whether the case goes to Court or is resolved
between
> > the parties.
>
> Actually, it's already gone to court.  I believe the issue is whether or
not
> it will go to trial.

Well - terminology - two nations divided by a common language.  Been to
Court many times and settled on the Court steps many times - quite literally
too.




"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tci29rkvh6abd0@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9aaoh10pfq@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > I suspect that the Complaint has been filed in Court as a last resort
in
> > an
> > > effort to get the NSA to deal with a complaint that has been resting
in
> > its
> > > office for a very long time.

> > If that's the case, then why does the complaint fail to mention any
effort
> > to bring these issues to the attention of the Universal House of
Justice?

> The normal procedure is to file an appeal against a decision of the NSA to
> Haifa.  There is no decision in this case to appeal.

Actually, there is a provision under which an individual can take an issue
to the Universal House of Justice if the individual feels that the National
Spiritual Assembly isn't responding to the issues.  This would be a rather
thin excuse for not taking the issue to the Universal House of Justice, if,
indeed, that is the case.

> There are many possible points of view on this - short answer is that I
> don't speculate in public on matters such as this on which I have
absolutely
> no information.

Except that "speculate" is precisely what you did in the message to which I
replied.  Indeed, "speculate" is precisely what you're doing in the very
next paragraph in this message:

> > Or, it might be an opportunity to practice a wide range of Baha'i
> > principles

> I doubt that somehow - to have sworn testimony in Court that the matters
> alleged in the Complaint are well founded, that a member of the
corporation
> declared himself to be the voice of God etc.

At the same time, we have no knowledge of what other facts might come out at
trial.  Perhaps additional evidence as to how the Auxiliary Board Member and
the National Spiritual Assembly were dealing with the issues might cast this
whole case in completely different light.

You might want to heed your own advice, and refrain from such speculation.

> > Well, adherence to principles and authoritative texts can, and often
> > does, give rise to unavoidable conflicts with certain individuals.
> > We've seen a number of instances where individuals have demanded that
> > a Baha'i institution take an action that is clearly outside that
> > institution's sphere of legitimate authority.  It's difficult to see
> > how such issues would be negotiable.

> And who for this day has interpreted those authoritative texts such
> that a believer like Alison can be kicked out on her ear without a
> chance to justify her position.

That appears to depend on whom you ask.  Some folks have alleged that the
issue is free speech, in which case her expulsion would have come about
because she justified her position all too well.

But, the fact remains that she can still address her concerns to the
Universal House of Justice.  Let's see.  She the Privacy Commission won't be
able to begin their investigation for another year.  By then, nearly 18
months will have passed since she received the letter from the AZ National
Spiritual Assembly.  If, during all that time, she's made no attempt to
address her concerns directly to the Universal House of Justice, I wonder
how the Privacy Commission will view her claim.

In any event, this too, is a case that will play itself out.  Neither your
opinion nor mine will make a great deal of difference in the outcome.

> You were warned by the Guardian that your Faith could fail. It has!

Which begs the question, why are you here?  You're wasting your time.  Get a
life, indeed!

> > To be the constant source of conflict with an institution, to behave, as
> > an individual, in a manner that's inconsistent with a professed belief
> > in Baha'u'llah, and then blame that institution for failing to resolve
> > the conflict would epitomize hypocrisy.

> You really are selective.  Nima has confirmed the essentials of the type
of
> behaviour in this particular community (I know of others who will do the
> same) yet you ignore it in face of your own prejudice.

When it comes to Mr. Hazini, I have a great deal of justification in not
trusting what he attempts to pass off as fact.  And, since I've not heard
anyone else either confirm or deny what is alleged in the complaint, I have
no further evidence upon which to formulate an opinion.

But you seem to forget.  I haven't, at all, discussed the validity of the
factual claims in the complaint.  On that score, I'll wait until the case is
either dismissed or there is more evidence that's been brought to light.
What I _have_ done is discuss the legal issues surrounding the facts that
have been alleged in the complaint.  Clearly, you don't like the fact that I
have, but you cannot accuse me of either selectively or not selectively
speculating on the accuracy of the facts alleged in the complaint.  At
least, you cannot do so and also advance some claim to understanding the
meaning of the word "truth".

> You are blaming the
> Plaintiff - you are practially accusing her of being the source of
conflict,
> ignoring everything else.

At which point did I claim that she is, indeed, the source of the conflict?
I don't recall saying so.  If I haven't, then how can you claim that I've
assigned any blame to anyone?

All I've done is articulate a principle: i.e. to be the source of conflict,
etc.  It's certainly possible that some level of that applies in this case,
but it's also possible for that principle to apply in numerous other
instances.

> You're the hypocrite who can't even
> see that an Assembly could go wrong and that if it does go wrong the NSA
> should rectify matters and if it doesn't then someone has to!!

Oh?  Then please allow me to disabuse you of your misconception: Local
Spiritual Assemblies get things wrong all the time.  On a daily basis.
Sometimes rather hugely.

And, yes, when things go wrong, the National Spiritual Assembly should
endeavor, to the very best of its ability, to rectify matters.  I also
believe that the National Spiritual Assembly should do so while upholding
all relevant Baha'i principles, not just those principles that a few
individuals might think are relevant to the exclusion of other principles.
And, in general, it is the National Spiritual Assembly's duty to decide what
those applicable principles are and how they should be applied.

What I don't quite cotton to is the idea that somebody _has_ to "make things
right" when the National Spiritual Assembly doesn't do things to their
satisfaction.  There are some lines, here, that one can cross rather easily.
That doesn't mean Ms. Buchhorn has crossed any of them.  We simply don't
have sufficient information to know whether this is an instance of the
National Spiritual Assembly not responding at all to her appeals or an
instance where the National Spiritual Assembly responding in a manner that's
not suitable to her satisfaction.  The one thing we can say is that they've
probably not kept her informed of what they were doing if they were doing
anything, but it's not entirely clear that they had an obligation to keep
her informed.

> > > The behaviour of its apologists on this list has been less than
> helpful -

> > One could say the same thing about the behavior of others in this forum.

> You're an expert on the ad hominem and, like all experts in that field you
> just hate it when somebody else comes along and plays you at your own
game.

No.  What I detest is when people take me to task for a behavior when they
behave exactly the same way.  _That's_ hypocrisy.

> Nobody will ever adequately address your points because you don't come
here
> to discuss - you come to bludgeon with your ill informed and often
> groundless opinions.

Gosh, if my opinions are so groundless, then it shouldn't be necessary to
even respond to them.  As for "bludgeon", well...pot, kettle, black, as they
say.

> Noted - you have not contradicted me on my refutation
> of your silly so called legal assessment in your last post.

Sorry, sport, but I just posted that refutation a few moments ago.  Please
pardon me for taking the time to conduct a little search through U.S. case
law.  Unlike other folks around here, I prefer to spend at least some time
conducting a little research here and there.

> Mr Ryder plays a long game - he has already spread the news into the right
> quarters.

Mr. Ryder plays many games.

> And FYI this conversation and the events spawning it is being
> watched by a number of people.  Who knows but that it might turn up in an
> Albuquerque Court as evidence of the malevolence

Wow!  Talk about the use of a bludgeon.  If you can't get me to stop
exercising my right to voice an opinion by insulting me to death, perhaps
you can get me to shut up by suggesting that my comments might appear as
evidence in a court of law somewhere!

Nice try, old boy. But, I'm not buying.

> Time alone will tell whether the case goes to Court or is resolved between
> the parties.

Actually, it's already gone to court.  I believe the issue is whether or not
it will go to trial.

> It is most kind of you to assume the term of "egomania" to
> describe your own part in the discussion on this forum.

Have I?  Well, then, kindly post a quote of me saying that anyone should
regard my opinion as establised fact.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

Well, Susan, maybe the reason this religion is obscure is because they're
quite a number of people running around in the AO claiming to be the Voice
of God (by committee) and running out of it those people who would
potentially help it out of its obscurity. To hold it obscure is precisely
the bottom line problem. This thing wasn't supposed to be obscure! You have
only yourselves and your leaders to blame for that.

cheers,
Nima

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010402214218.27249.00003359@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> to have sworn testimony in Court that the matters
>alleged in the Complaint are well founded, that a member of the corporation
>declared himself to be the voice of God etc.  Evidence like that is a
heaven
>sent story for the press

Dermod,

You can't be serious? Do you really think that either the courts or the
press
cares that a member of an obscure religion claims to be the voice of God?.
Just
turn on the television. They do it every morning at 11:00 am and what does
John
Q. Public do? Turn the station, of course. This is neither news, nor an
legal
matter.

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/

"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9aaoh10pfq@news2.newsguy.com...
> > I suspect that the Complaint has been filed in Court as a last resort in
> an
> > effort to get the NSA to deal with a complaint that has been resting in
> its
> > office for a very long time.
>
> If that's the case, then why does the complaint fail to mention any effort
> to bring these issues to the attention of the Universal House of Justice?
> Wouldn't it be equally reasonable to suspect that the complaint was filed
in
> a New Mexico court because the plaintiff doesn't recognize the authority
of
> the Universal House of Justice to settle matters which have caused
> differences among the members of the Baha'i Faith?

The normal procedure is to file an appeal against a decision of the NSA to
Haifa.  There is no decision in this case to appeal.  Furthermore, as you
are aware an appeal to Haifa is to be lodged via the NSA.  Would such an
appeal, if lodged, not wind up in a permanent pending tray in light of the
inordinate time the NSA has already had the case?  One must also consider
the possibility that an appeal to Haifa has been already made and not
actionned.  As has been pointed out the NSA is notoriously slow in such
matters.

There are many possible points of view on this - short answer is that I
don't speculate in public on matters such as this on which I have absolutely
no information.
>
> > It can of course opt for an open Court case but that would be to court
> > further adverse publicity.
>
> Or, it might be an opportunity to practice a wide range of Baha'i
principles
> relating to truthfulness, honesty and justice regardless of whether
> adherence to those principles would court adverse publicity or not.

I doubt that somehow - to have sworn testimony in Court that the matters
alleged in the Complaint are well founded, that a member of the corporation
declared himself to be the voice of God etc.  Evidence like that is a heaven
sent story for the press - it will only serve to bring the AO into
disrepute.  My bet is that the AO will move heaven and earth to keep this
one out of the press.  It really doesn't want to appear as stupid as it is -
wrecks all that carefully crafted PR with the UN and the White House.

Anybody with any appreciation of Public Relations will tell you that the
last thing needed in this case is further publicity.

> > In as much as I and others have long anticipated
> > (and warned of) such a case developing due to the AO's aversion to
dealing
> > with dissent by such sensible means as reconciliation, conflict
resolution
> > and/or negotiation, it has brought this situation on itself.
>
> Well, adherence to principles and authoritative texts can, and often does,
> give rise to unavoidable conflicts with certain individuals.  We've seen a
> number of instances where individuals have demanded that a Baha'i
> institution take an action that is clearly outside that institution's
sphere
> of legitimate authority.  It's difficult to see how such issues would be
> negotiable.

And who for this day has interpreted those authoritative texts such that a
believer like Alison can be kicked out on her ear without a chance to
justify her position.  Your religion is crumbling around you - a religion
which has chosen as its first priority to build marble monuments to its
follies in Haifa.  Get a life!  True religion is about the love of God and
His creation - in face of that the AO crumbles in the most miniscule
importance.

You were warned by the Guardian that your Faith could fail.  It has!  Your
institutions cannot do their work for lack of money - there's a dearth of
new believers and a rapid exit by the few who sign up to a liberal faith
only to discover they have fallen into a maelstrom of fundamentalism.  Hell
is coming down on those who have wrecked this Faith - from Wilmette to Haifa
and back again.  Someday somebody will rediscover that it was meant to be a
religion that taught the path to unity of mankind via tolerance,
brotherhood, respect and acceptance of diversity of race, creed and belief.
Right now those things have been negotiated away to the greater glory of
corruption.

> To be the constant source of conflict with an institution, to behave, as
an
> individual, in a manner that's inconsistent with a professed belief in
> Baha'u'llah, and then blame that institution for failing to resolve the
> conflict would epitomize hypocrisy.

You really are selective.  Nima has confirmed the essentials of the type of
behaviour in this particular community (I know of others who will do the
same) yet you ignore it in face of your own prejudice.  You are blaming the
Plaintiff - you are practially accusing her of being the source of conflict,
ignoring everything else.  You are blaming a person for seeking, in the only
way that seems proper, justice, that best beloved of things and bringing
about a proper running of her Assembly.  You're the hypocrite who can't even
see that an Assembly could go wrong and that if it does go wrong the NSA
should rectify matters and if it doesn't then someone has to!!

> > The behaviour of its apologists on this list has been less than
helpful -
>
> One could say the same thing about the behavior of others in this forum.
> The posting of outright lies, getting distracted over inconsequentional
> statements while failing to adequately address the points that had been
> raised, promoting a double-standard of conduct with regard to comments
> relating to character, all of these have contributed nothing to the
> advancement of truth or the level-headed consideration of facts and
issues.
>

You're an expert on the ad hominem and, like all experts in that field you
just hate it when somebody else comes along and plays you at your own game.
Nobody will ever adequately address your points because you don't come here
to discuss - you come to bludgeon with your ill informed and often
groundless opinions.  Noted - you have not contradicted me on my refutation
of your silly so called legal assessment in your last post. Noted - you have
no facts to offer on this case, just opinionated rambling.

> But, more importantly, I think Mr. Ryder greatly exaggerates the
importance
> of whatever happens in this little corner of the Internet.  What happens
> here has about as much impact on the rest of the world as a New York
street
> squabble has on passers-by.  A few folks might stop and watch, but they
all
> go on about their business.

Mr Ryder plays a long game - he has already spread the news into the right
quarters.  And FYI this conversation and the events spawning it is being
watched by a number of people.  Who knows but that it might turn up in an
Albuquerque Court as evidence of the malevolence displayed towards those
whose belief in justice far outweighs their adherence to fundamentalist
bigotry and as evidence suggesting that the AO just might regard itself as
over and above the law!  Nothing pisses a judge off more than that attitude.

> > It may be this hope of reform which motivates the Plaintiff rather than
> the
> > "egomania" which is normally attributed to "opponents" of the AO.
>
> The case will play itself out.  As for "egomania", that's not a bad word
> describe the attitude under which one attempts to pass one's opinions off
as
> established fact.

Time alone will tell whether the case goes to Court or is resolved between
the parties.  It is most kind of you to assume the term of "egomania" to
describe your own part in the discussion on this forum.


"Brian F. Walker" <dr.walker@fsandp.remove.com> wrote in message
news:9077A8DC6drwalkerfsandpcom@202.76.4.10...
Hi Brian,

The sun is shining today - spring is in the offing ... I hope.

> Leave it to the lawyers - truth will never, ever come out of it, neither
> will justice. Remember OJ. In this case, all sides lose.

This NM case is only an issue here on TRB as far as I can see.   There has
been little comment on Talisman and that was reticent in view of the fact
that with only a Complaint to deal with, there is a real lack of knowledge
of the underlying facts.

TRB has exploded after a quiet March into an orgy of so called fact finding
and ill founded opinions about this case.

I suspect that the Complaint has been filed in Court as a last resort in an
effort to get the NSA to deal with a complaint that has been resting in its
office for a very long time.  Unfortunately for the NSA thereby, the entire
affair has become a matter of public interest and the potential for
embarrassment is now enormous. It is, of course, not too late for the NSA to
tackle the underlying causes of the legal action and do its duty - there is
nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing to mediation and/or
arbitration.  It will of course have to do this in agreement with and under
the supervision of the Plaintiff.

It can of course opt for an open Court case but that would be to court
further adverse publicity.  In as much as I and others have long anticipated
(and warned of) such a case developing due to the AO's aversion to dealing
with dissent by such sensible means as reconciliation, conflict resolution
and/or negotiation, it has brought this situation on itself.

The behaviour of its apologists on this list has been less than helpful -
comments about the competency, or lack thereof, of the attorney concerned do
nothing to spare the potential blushes of the AO or create a situation in
which the underlying conflict can be amicably resolved.  Indeed these
comments can only inflame the situation and, I would suggest, draw from the
woodwork more disaffected persons with evidence, perhaps on Albuquerque or
elsewhere.  The possibility of other such cases arising can only be
increased by the controversy generated here and/or elsewhere.  The opining
about the competency of the attorney will only, I would think, increase the
determination of him and his client to bring this to a successful conclusion
and thereby make a consensus solution more difficult.  The apologists'
ardour is backing the NSA into a corner where it either contests the case in
Court with resultant risk of losing and even more adverse comment or it has
to surrender in private.  In such an event the only result can be sweeping
reform which will, if carried out with good grace, only resound to the
longer term benefit of the AO as a whole.

It may be this hope of reform which motivates the Plaintiff rather than the
"egomania" which is normally attributed to "opponents" of the AO.  No
organisation cannot but beneft from reform and change where it seeks to
avoid or settle conflict and create conditions which make the organisation
more amenable to current members and more attractive for new ones.

Sadly I don't think the AO will opt for amicable and open resolution - that
is a hard pill to swallow for a body marked more by its intolerance towards
dissidence than accommodation.  It has taken a long time for attitudes of
tolerance and accommodation to emerge in Northern Ireland - they have
emerged and that puts this society streets ahead of the AO.  Of course it is
never too late!

As ever,

Dermod.


"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcffifhqjfmm83@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> "Rick Schaut" <rsschaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a805e0dpn@news2.newsguy.com...
> > >  Do you really think that any lawyer in his right mind, is going to
> > > paste the detail of his case on the Internet?

> > No, but, then, we're not talking about something an attorney simply
posted
> > to the internet

> Indeed yes but very annoying to all of you BIGs.

That I find it annoying has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Baha'i.
It has everything to do with the pattern of behavior under which certain
individuals latch on to whatever might cast someone else in a bad light
regardless of the actual substance behind it.

> > I do, however, expect a competent attorney to put
> > sufficient detail into a complaint filed in court to at least provide
the
> > court with probable cause to believe that the plaintiff has, indeed,
been
> > harmed in some way and that the harm is one that's addressable under
civil
> > law.

> Well I really think that that is a matter for the Court to decide

I don't recall ever saying that I should be regarded as the arbiter of this
case.  All I did was express an opinion.  Is there some reason you have to
flatulate like this every time someone expresses an opinion?

In the mean time, I'm _still_ waiting for someone to point out where this
particular complaint actually alleges a justiciable issue.  The more you
whinge at me, sport, the more it looks like my assessment of the quality of
the complaint is spot-on correct.

> > Do _you_ really think a judge is going to accept any vague claim of
fraud
> > or libel without a single allegation of fact that would constitute fraud
or
> > libel under the law?

> That's why there are things called Hearings in Court

You haven't actually answered the question.  You have an amazing
prediliction for repeatedly stating the obvious.  I can only conclude that
the not-so-obvious has a tendency to elude your grasp.

> The Defendants do of course under US law have the opportunity to file for
a
> motion of dismissal.

Yes, they do.  They likely will.  It will likely succeed unless plaintiff
files an amended complaint.

> Your current rubbishing of it just displays your partisanship founded and
> steeped in arrogance, ignorance, prejudice and bigotry of the first order.

It should be really easy to demonstrate this.  Go through the complaint and
show us where it alleges any fact that constitutes a justiciable matter
under the law.  If you're as bright a lad as you seem to think you are, then
this should be a rather simple task.

> > >  As usual, Rickster, you made the ad hominem and are now trying to
> > > weasel your way out by casting the blame on somebody else.

> > Ah, had I argued that the complaint is flawed _because_ the attorney is
> > incompetent, then it would have been an ad-hominem argument.  In fact, I
> > argued precisely the opposite: that the attorney appears to be
incompetent
> > because the complaint is so obviously flawed.

> As you've already been told, the guy with a Ph.D. has obviously done more
> with his head than grow hair.

Which still doesn't explain why the complaint manages to fail to allege any
actual facts that would constitute a justiciable issue.

> What you did was a sneaky look
> around the Internet or wherever to get the "dirt" on the guy!

A "sneaky look around the internet"?  I entered the guy's name in one of the
standard search engines.  What, on earth, is so bloody "sneaky" about that?
And, what, on earth, does the date of the guy's having passed the written
portion of his bar exam have to do with "dirt"?

I'm not sure what amazes me the most.  The fact that you find the act of
gathering facts despicable, or the fact that you chastise me for actually
finding the facts while simultaneously claiming that someone else supplies
me with my opinions (both of which, by the way, really are ad-hominem
arguments).

Oh, and I'll remember your comments on "dirt" the next time you bring up Dr.
Danesh.

> It is not the function of a Complaint to prove facts - its function is
> to state a case that the Complainant intends to address to the Court.

Very good, Mr. Ryder.  Now, care to expand on the meaning of the phrase
"state a case"?

> Now
> from the Complant it appears that the Complainant intends to ask the Court
> to rule on matters which are clearly within the Competence of the Court -
> the allegations of fraud, libel and that this Assembly failed/refused to
> carry out its business in accordance with its own rules.

Yes, the complaint manages to use the words "fraud" and "libel" rather
liberally, as if doing so constitutes an effective means of stating the case
one intends to prove.  If one actually takes the time to read past all the
gratuitous splatterings of the words "fraud" and "libel", then one finds
that there are paultry few facts upon which to even base a claim.

Let's see.  Some  people applauded some individuals before an annual
election.  Plaintiff was asked by the LSA to stop airing a program on the
Baha'i Faith.  Plaintiff complained to her Auxiliary Board member and to the
U.S. National Spiritual Assembly, but seems to have not been satisfied with
the response.

Now, exactly which of those constitutes a justiciable issue under the law?
Under which system of law does any of those alleged facts constitute either
fraud or libel that would render the claim justiciable?

> No! I stand by it. FACT is that it is a disgraceful indictment that your

You can repeat that opinion as many times as you'd like.  It won't magically
become a fact through the mere act of repetition.

> > But I will state an opinion on an issue where I do have sufficient
facts,
> > and that issue is the extent to which some people are willing to reach
> > conclusions based on such collections of "facts" as the accounts one
reads
> > in newspapers or a poorly written complaint that's been filed in a court
> of
> > law in a case for which the defendants haven't even had enough time to
> file
> > a competent response to that complaint.  Now _that's_ a disagrace.

> Au contraire, Rickster!!  The defendants had this case within their
purview
> for some time and did nothing about it.

Thank you, dear sir, for making my point for me.  It's so very kind of you
to do so.

> What further FACTS have come to light - that YOU consider this case
flawed,
> that the lawyer passed his NM Bar exams 6 months ago?

What I had in mind is Dr. Cole's despicable practice of retaining the
newspaper article about Dr. Danesh without so much as a hint of the fact
that the entire matter was decided, by dismissal of a civil lawsuit, in a
court of law.  Also, your dear friend, Mr. Hazini, made a point of wanting
to know why the Dr. chose not to defend the issue when it came to a license
he no longer wanted to use despite the fact that a civil lawsuit has cleared
the Dr. of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

So, Mr. Ryder, when can I expect you to chastice Dr. Cole and Mr. Hazini for
their behavior?

>  What have you
> become - the arbiter of public opinion and public decency?

Hardly.  I have an opinion, and I've stated it.  Unlike others, however, I
haven't put up any pretense that my opinion should be regarded as fact, so
I'm not quite sure whence comes this notion of being the arbiter of public
opinion and public decency.

Just because you have an amazingly inflated sense of self-importance doesn't
mean that everyone around you shares a similar opinion of themselves merely
because they have the, shall we say, unmitigated gall to express an opinion.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Dermod Ryder" <grimreaper@freenetname.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tcd8qmduvkmi1b@xo.supernews.co.uk...
>  "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:9a36ok01e7b@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Yes.  And, of course, it all began when I made a side comment
> > about the apparent competence of the attorney.

>  Do you really think that any lawyer in his right mind, is going to
> paste the detail of his case on the Internet?

No, but, then, we're not talking about something an attorney simply posted
to the internet.  We're talking about the actual complaint that he filed in
court.  The means by which that complaint managed to get posted to the
internet, indeed the very fact that it was posted, is rather irrelevant.

>  Do you really think
> that any lawyer is going to put more detail than he need to on the
> Writ posted in Court to initiate proceedings knowing it to be a
> document that will be posted on the Internet?

As noted above, whether or not the complaiing has been posted to the
internet is irrelevant.  I do, however, expect a competent attorney to put
sufficient detail into a complaint filed in court to at least provide the
court with probable cause to believe that the plaintiff has, indeed, been
harmed in some way and that the harm is one that's addressable under civil
law.

Do _you_ really think a judge is going to accept any vague claim of fraud or
libel without a single allegation of fact that would constitute fraud or
libel under the law?  If so, then you must believe that the courts look
kindly on lawsuits that are filed for the purposes of conducting a fishing
expedition.

> Do you really
> think witness statements and/or other evidence is going to be
> disclosed for your erudition?

As a matter of fact, no.  One doesn't have to prove the allegations of fact
in a complaint.  However, one does have to at least allege facts that would
constitute an addressable issue under the law.  This complaint fails to do
so.

>  As usual, Rickster, you made the ad hominem and are now trying to
> weasel your way out by casting the blame on somebody else.

Ah, had I argued that the complaint is flawed _because_ the attorney is
incompetent, then it would have been an ad-hominem argument.  In fact, I
argued precisely the opposite: that the attorney appears to be incompetent
because the complaint is so obviously flawed.

As usual, you and Mr. McKinney are finding ad-hominems where there are none,
and are failing to speak out about it when someone actually does engage in
an ad-hominem argument.  Of course, that would require you to chastise
yourself as much as you've chastised anyone else, but I guess a little
hypocrisy is allowed when one's agenda is at stake.

> As usual Mr
> Schaut, you delight in spreading the news that he has only recently,
> apparently, passed the Bar exam in New Mexico and perhaps suggest
> thereby that he's not that good and the case therefore is a mere
bagatelle,
> something for the boy to cut his teeth on.

As usual, Mr. Ryder, you have your facts somewhat confused.  I had suggested
that the attorney didn't seem particularly competent based on a reading of
the complaint he filed.  Mr. Hazini responded by pulling some facts out of
his backside, and, while I admit to having a small amount of pleasure in
subsequently proving that Mr. Hazini must have pulled those facts out of his
backside, I have never argued that the attorney in question is incompetent
merely because he only passed the New Mexico bar exam some six months ago.

> You know nothing about this lawyer;

Well, actually, I do know that he only passed the written portion of the New
Mexico bar exam some six months ago.  That's a little more than "nothing."

>  but has it
> occurred to you that a man with a PH. D has used his brain for more than
> keeping his ears apart (a practice in which you are adept, perhaps).

I don't recall ever saying that I thought the man to be a complete idiot.
At the same time, having a Ph.D. in biochemistry doesn't necessarily qualify
one to be an attorney.  Now, were I to be awed by this chap's skill as an
attorney merely because he holds a Ph.D. in some unrelated field, then one
might suggest that I've used my brain for little more than keeping my ears
apart.

> You
> know nothing about the detail of the case and, in spite of that, are
> endeavouring to make little of it.

Except that you forget the reason why I know so little about this case: the
complaint doesn't allege any facts that would constitute addressable issues
under civil law.  And, while you and Mr. McKinney have been engaging in your
own form of ad-hominem argument by hypocritically taking me to task for an
ad-hominem argument I haven't made, neither of you have attempted to address
the issue of whether or not the complaint alleges sufficient facts for a
court to find probable cause that a justiciable issue exists.

> Fact is - win or lose - it is a disgraceful indictment of your
> religious organisation that one of your fellow believers has to take a
> complaint to an attorney at law to endeavour to get it dealt with in a
> satisfactory manner.

It's amazing, or perhaps amusing, that I should have to point that you've
prefaced a statement of opinion with the words, "Fact is."  And, while
you're certainly entitled to hold whatever opinion suits your fancy, I
generally prefer to have sufficient facts in hand before forming an opinion.
In this instance, I'd rather prefer to allow the lawsuit to play itself out
before I decide who, if anyone, has acted disgracefully.

But I will state an opinion on an issue where I do have sufficient facts,
and that issue is the extent to which some people are willing to reach
conclusions based on such collections of "facts" as the accounts one reads
in newspapers or a poorly written complaint that's been filed in a court of
law in a case for which the defendants haven't even had enough time to file
a competent response to that complaint.  Now _that's_ a disagrace.

Worse yet, some of these people seem to have inoculated themselves against
revising their opinions when further facts have been brought to light.
Rather than revise their opinions, they engage in a most vile form of
personal attack against the individuals who have had the temerity to bring
those further facts to light.  That's not a disagrace.  That's downright
despicable.

Regards,
Rick Schaut

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010401171857.28041.00003369@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> >
> >Somebody made it available for posting.  I wonder who that was.
>
> Probably the plantiff who realizes she will get more mileage out of it on
the
> internet than she ever will in court.

I thought it was a public document that anybody could access and post
wherever.  Any evidence for your opinion that it was the plaintiff?

"Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010331235309.27129.00003215@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> > Do you really think that any lawyer in his right mind, is going to
> >paste the
> > detail of his case on the Internet?
>
>
> The lawyer didn't post this complaint to the internet. Somebody else
posted it
> here.

Somebody made it available for posting. I wonder who that was.

>
> >Do you really think that any
> >lawyer is
> > going to put more detail than he need to on the Writ posted in Court
> >to
> > initiate proceedings
>
> He has posted a great deal less than is necessary to get it to go
anywhere. My
> guess is that it won't make it past first base.

And it's no more than a guess - you're no lawyer, same as me.  I also have
no experience of US law which is why I have been circumspect about
commenting on the merits of this Complaint.  Based on mine own experience
with affairs legal here (which has been substantial) there is enough in this
Complaint to merit the next stage which, here, would entail discovery or
revelation of documents by each side to the other.  One should also not
discount the possibility that it is intended not to go to hearing - the
Complaint is but a measure of the complaiant's intention to get this mess
sorted out.  Knowing that the Complaint when filed in Court was likely to
find wider circulation, there exists the possibility that sufficient to
present a case was detailed - the balance being retained to save AO blushes.

>
> warmest, Susan
>
>
>
> "And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no
time
> left to start again . . "
> Don McLean's American Pie
> https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>

 "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9a36ok01e7b@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>  "Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>  news:9a2pqk$enp$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >  Greetings, Rick.
> >      Sigh. I'm sure you'll be sad to hear I'm too busy to devote
the
> >  attention to this I'd like to.
> >     For the record, as usual there's a lot here about WHO rather
than
> > WHAT.
>
> Yes.  And, of course, it all began when I made a side comment
about the
>  apparent competence of the attorney.  That particular comment
wasn't
>  intended to be probative of anything.  Rather, it was based on the
rather
>  obvious lack of any substance in the complaint that's been posted
here.

 Do you really think that any lawyer in his right mind, is going to
paste the
 detail of his case on the Internet?  Do you really think that any
lawyer is
 going to put more detail than he need to on the Writ posted in Court
to
 initiate proceedings knowing it to be a document that will be posted
on the
 Internet?  Do you really think witness statements and/or other
evidence is
 going to be disclosed for your erudition?  If so you are a bigger
"gossoon"
 than I allowed for.

>
>  It was your friend, Mr. Hazini who, rather than address the point I had
>  raised (i.e. the idea that the complaint is long on allegations but short
> on alleging any actual facts), chose to single out my side comment
>and present
> the rather unfounded thesis that the attorney is supposedly some
> high-powered chap who has won several cases.  If you wish to take anyone
> to
> task for not addressing the issues, Mr. McKenny, I suggest you
point your
> Solar Guard's weapon in Mr. Hazini's direction, and not mine.

 As usual, Rickster, you made the ad hominem and are now trying to
weasel your way out by casting the blame on somebody else.  As usual Mr
Schaut, you delight in spreading the news that he has only recently,
apparently,
passed the Bar exam in New Mexico and perhaps suggest thereby that he's not
that good and the case therefore is a mere bagatelle, something for the
boy to cut his teeth on.  You know nothing about this lawyer; but has it
occurred to you that a man with a PH. D has used his brain for more than
keeping his ears apart (a practice in which you are adept, perhaps).  You
know nothing about the detail of the case and, in spite of that, are
endeavouring to make little of it.

Fact is - win or lose - it is a disgraceful indictment of your
religious organisation that one of your fellow believers has to take a
complaint to an attorney at law to endeavour to get it dealt with in a
satisfactory
manner.

Greetings Michael - prime that solar guard weapon and aim it at the
jolly sailor boy in Seattle!

As ever,

The Trim Leaper.


> "Susan Maneck " <smaneck@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010331002616.28097.00002915@ng-mi1.aol.com...
>  Dear Pat,
>
>  She is not going to be able to persuade a judge that there is something
> wrong with applauding someone. A judge would like find it nonsensical
>that electioneering was termed "rigging.'  And she says nothing about the
> Baha'i teaching that might make this intelligible.
>
>  warmest, Susan

Dear Lady,

 Are you fishing again?  No doubt, when it comes to a hearing,
evidence will be adduced to show that "electioneering" is forbidden in the
Bahai
system. Now the question that will then be posed is, in light of this ban,
what actions could constitute electioneering that would be in
contravention of the ban?

Now is it conceivable that behaviour that drew particular attention
to one individual over and above any other in an atmosphere of quiet and
prayerful consideration of the respective merits of all persons in the
community, might just be construed as a subtle, but nonetheless, illegal
electioneering technique?  We must needs await the evidence in a hearing
before
coming to a conclusion.

As in most things you fundies miss the point - it is inconceivable
to you that anybody would, in the name of conscience, oppose the evil
fascist empire that you support.  Ring out a crisis, see the "enemies of the
faith" on the march and out you people come from your lairs like maggots
and vultures attracted by the blood of a fresh smelling corpse?

Then the fishing starts and maggots are good bait for coarse fishing!  There
is information of sorts in the Complaint filed before the Court but
if you start appearing critical and incredulous perhaps more information
might be gleaned that you can bring back to the Gruppenfuhrers who control
you and pull your strings.  Sad to say there is no information out here for
you to glean. Like I said Yorgos is a sharp cookie who does more with his
head than keep his hat up in the air.  The guy is playing it close (just
enough disclosed to show that there is a case to answer) but I think he has
already hoist this LSA and the NSA - after all, no lawyer goes to Court
without having a better than fifty per cent chance of winning.

Of course if he is, as Rickster has suggested, a "rookie" he is all
the more dangerous.  "Rookies" like to win - there are reputations to be
made
from that.  So maybe he is that bit better prepared, maybe he has taken a
longer harder look at the evidence, put more hours into it than usual -
maybe, if it is his first case he has decided not to take it to Court unless
he has a better than 80 per cent chance of winning.

Who knows but that the LSA/NSA have screwed up the preliminaries so
much that they have actually handed him a case?  The Complaint notes that
Ms Buchorn has complained of these matters to the NSA but it has done
nothing.  It invites the question - has the NSA sat on the complaint for a
long time, has it ignored it and is thus caught with its trousers down when
the
lawyer comes on the scene?  Or perhaps the NSA responded to the Complaint
with a 'snow' job - the embryonic immaturity sob story that is invariably
invoked under option one as a means of dealing with dissent?  Been there,
seen it - loada waffle!

None of your prattling on this or any other forum about this case is
relevant however - like me, you're not involved.  Like me you don't
have even "hearsay" evidence to proffer.  Your comments to date have been
naught but ill-informed speculation - efforts to rubbish a case you have no
hard information on.  Why are you doing it?  Are your puppet masters so
worried that they have got to try to proffer some defence on this forum or
are they already setting the scene for a pre-trial surrender or a post trial
humiliation?  Are you endeavouring to set up the faithful to view
this as another bit of martyrdom inflicted by yet more of these internal
enemies of the Faith?

What this case represents is a BIGS standing up for what she
believes to be a total abomination of Bahai and civil law, in which it is
alleged
the NSA has knowingly colluded in failing to take steps to rectify the
situation.  I note that Nima who has lived in this community has been unable
to
offer any information contrary to the details noted in the Complaint and I
assume that there is weight of evidence ready for Court, otherwise this
Complaint would not have been filed in Court.  Irrespective of the outcome,
the fact
that such a Complaint has been filed in Court is a damning indictment of
the AO modus operandi.

This is nothing new of course; we have all seen it before - Alison,
Michael etc etc. ad nauseam.  But ponder this, dear lady: -

 "The worst enemies of the Cause are in the Cause and mention the
Name of God.  We need not fear the enemies on the outside for such can be
easily dealt with.  But the enemies who call themselves friends and who
persistently violate every fundamental law of love and unity, are difficult
to be dealt with in this day, for the mercy of God is still great.  But ere
long this merciful door will be closed and such enemies will be
attacked with a madness.. "
Abdul-Baha answers questions asked by Dr. E. C. Getsinger in the
Holy Land: Star of the West, Vol. VI, No. 6, p. 45)  - Multiple Authors:
Lights of Guidance, page 93

Now what was it one the named defendants is alleged to have said? Something
about the "voice of God" - is that it?

As ever,

Dermod.

>
> "Stuart Palin" <kweezil@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:_hpx6.6631$u93.932586@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> > news:3AC6130A.13BB6207@ameritel.net...
> >
> > Welcome to usenet, TRB and ARB, Stuart,
>
 Indeed yes! Stuart!  Welcome to Hell on Earth!  BTW how is Stroke
City these days?
>
> Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

Mein Gott! The AO speaks the secret of its failure!

>
>  Perhaps Mr Glaysher,
>  if you backed up your venom with facts, rather than grandiose and
>  unsubstantiated claims I would consider your opinions worthwhile.
As it
> is,
>  from a purely objective point of view, you seem to spend most of
your time
>  pouring out tired posts attacking this religion. You reiterate the
same
>  points over and over again under new header and avoid any form of
>  intelligent debate. Indeed, your own warning signs of fanaticism
fit you
>  like a glove.
>
Well now, Stuart!  Before you start making half cocked statements
like that I suggest you take a wee trot over to Fred's site and take a long
slow look because it is full of FACTS about the unmitigated corruption at
the
heart of the AO.  No doubt Fred is a tad angry but maybe he deserves that
having been treated like dirt by the obsequious venomous toads in the AO.
But
one thing you got to say for him - he has got his facts and the facts of
others, similarly treated, well posted at that site together with links to
other sites that may just be as interesting and as full of FACTS.  Of
course nobody expects a BIGS to be able to distinguish the fact that Fred's
site is full of FACTS - it's a kind of mental block that years of adherence
and subservience to the AO has accomplished.

So! Like! Use yur loaf and tak' a wee dander over there, afore ye
open yur bake again, cos ye've blarged intil an area where some folks don't
take kindly tae gulpins!

>  I only joined this newsgroup today in the hope of some intelligent
>  discussion, instead I find tired arguments being trotted out for a
>  peanut-gallery crowd. Such a waste of time, both mine and yours. I
hope
> you
>  all enjoy Mr. Glaysher's spectacle, I certainly won't be staying
for
> another
>  encore.

You sure came to the wrong place.  You need the kinder moderated
places like SRB where everything is kissing the ring and everybody's pals in
the
 unmodulated self praise of those who are in the right religion and
everybody else is an poor unfortunate or an "enemy of the Faith".  If you
want intelligent conversation you have no chance here - full of fundie
bigots.  Of course you might feel at home with that type of client.

Chin Chin

 Dermod.

>
>

>
>Apologies for crossposting, I only really meant to make a statement on ARB.
>I hadn't even started reading TRB when I posted. :\

Dear Stuart,

These are twin lists and you need not worry about cross-posting to them But be
careful if you respond to anything Fred writes as it might well be crossposted
to everything under the sun. 

warmest, Susan 

"And we were gathered in one place, a generation lost in space, with no time
left to start again . . "
Don McLean's American Pie
https://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Top of the mornin to you, Stuart. Any relation to UK NSA member Ian Palin or
would that be veteran Monthy Python man Michael??

cheers,
Nima

"Stuart Palin" <kweezil@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_hpx6.6631$u93.932586@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC6130A.13BB6207@ameritel.net...

> Welcome to usenet, TRB and ARB, Stuart,

Thanks :)

Apologies for crossposting, I only really meant to make a statement on ARB.
I hadn't even started reading TRB when I posted. :\

-Stuart Palin
--
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

Pat Kohli <kohliCUT_THE_CAPS@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AC6130A.13BB6207@ameritel.net...

> Welcome to usenet, TRB and ARB, Stuart,

Thanks :)

Apologies for crossposting, I only really meant to make a statement on ARB.
I hadn't even started reading TRB when I posted. :\

-Stuart Palin
--
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

Hey y'all!

Just thought I'd lay this shiny pearl before you in all its glory:

March is God's way of letting those of us who don't drink experience a hangover.

See ya down the road a bit,
Roy

-- 
***************************************************************
"Behold a candle, how it gives its light. It weeps its life away
drop by drop in order to give forth its flame of light."
 ~ 'Abdul-Baha
***************************************************************

Visit my website:
https://www.aiconnect.com/~arhil/Welcome/
"You'll be glad you did!"

ICQ# 92215158

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
https://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----From: "Yorgos" <nthyorgos@hotmail.com>
Subject: From the attorney
Date: Saturday, May 26, 2001 1:09 PM

Re: The lawsuit against the Albuquerque LSA and the NSA

Who are we and why did we file this lawsuit?

There is a growing group of us Baha'i attorneys who want to return the 
Faith into conformity with the vision of Baha'u'llah and the directives 
of the Universal House of Justice.  The Baha'i Faith is like a tooth 
with cavities that need drilling and filling --- but the patient is 
unwilling.  To "save the tooth" we have decided to act in comformity 
with the UHJ, which has directed the named plaintiff to "take positive 
action."  For those of you who doubt, I suggest that you examine:

  a.. the section on the role of the individual in the letter from the 
Universal House of Justice titled "To the Bah=E1'=EDs of the World 
Ridvan 153";
  b.. the May 19, 1994 letter to the National Spiritual Assembly from 
the Universal House of Justice; and
  c.. Dr. Peter Kahn's taped speech on the Four-year plan.

The offenses that concern me most are when LSA's behave like the KGB.  
They think that the role of a spiritual assembly is to control and 
guide, rather than to facilitate and to follow.  In addition, some older 
male members from Iran tend not to fully understand the "two wings of a 
bird" concept, believing that women should be seen and not heard.  
Understand this: the Baha'i Faith is meant to be a grassroots, bottom-up 
movement, not an elitist, top-down scam.  Read the writings.

The named plaintiff in the Albuquerque case is a 51-year old widowed 
mother of two children, and a Baha'i of 30 years.  Her 30-year old son 
has muscular dystrophy and has been unable to breathe without a 
respirator for 15 years.  The named plaintiff has taken care of her son 
at her home all these years.  She turned to her Faith for support and 
love, and instead has consistently received abuse, oppression and fraud. 
 The NSA has consistently failed to respond in a meaningful way to her 
appeals, and the UHJ finally told her to "take positive action."  She 
did, and we filed this lawsuit.  I might add that the named plaintiff 
knows the writings better than 99.99% of the Baha'i I have met, and she 
dedicated any monetary awards she will receive to be used for the 
purpose of direct teaching.  The other unnamed plaintiffs have been 
Baha'i on an average for 30-50 years.

The LSA has recently moved to dismiss the complaint, rather than deal 
with their issues like grown adults.  The NSA has 
irresponsibily chosen to ignore the summons and complaint.  

If your spiritual assembly behaves like the KGB, please contact me to
discuss starting a similar lawsuit in your city.  We are preparing these
suits all over the USA.  Work with us to return the Faith to conformity 
with the vision of Baha'u'llah and the directives of the UHJ.

-Yorgos Marinakis, Ph.D., J.D.
Attorney-at-law
From: "Edward Smith" <ridgerunner@privacyx.com>
Subject: Outing Al Marbig
Date: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:52 AM

This is of particular interest to the one who calls himself the Mojo Man,
but it may well be of interest to Dr Maniac, the Sugar Plum Fairy, Mogadon
Man, Prozac Pete, the Raptor Kid, Kaiser Bill's Batman, Neanderthal, Dr.
Death, the Butcher Boy, the Diazepam Duck and all of the other assorted
morons and cretins within the Administrative Order - Praise be lavished upon
it.

As one who is well acquainted with Al Marbig under all of her various guises
and in advance of the publication of the next issue of her current organ, I
can assure all of you assorted morons and cretins of the AO that none of you
have had a clue as to the real identity of Al Marbig.  I have consulted Al
about this and graciously received consent to tell the full story to the
waiting world.

Al Marbig is the nom de plume de ma tante of  Michael John McTavish, an
nonagenarian Bahai of indeterminate administrative status who seasonally
migrates between the Orkney Islands
and Malta.  Michael, or John, as we prefer to call him was desperately keen
to write a satirical magazine.  Unfortunately he just wasn't very funny but,
as we are a kindly
bunch of souls, we let him make the coffee and write the letter every month
advertising the new edition.  From this grew a reputation unparalleled in
the unpublished annals of the AO which gladdened his heart enormously.
Conveniently it also distracted the Thought Police - whilst they were
looking for Al Marbig, the rest of us could work in peace and quiet to bring
BNW to the spiritually deprived masses of the World.  John, or Michael as he
preferred to
be called just loved being the centre of this attention.  But he became
very distressed by the way that the Thought Police ganged up on the most
vulnerable, in true AO fashion, persisting with their illusions as they
vainly thrashed about seeking to find him.  We think this contributed to,
indeed was the prime cause, of his recent passing.

As befits a true soldier of the cause, Michael, or John as we preferred to
call him, was laid to rest in an unmarked grave.  To the end he insisted
that his passing be kept secret - "Fred," he said, "don't let them know I'm
gone!  Keep yourselves safe by having them still chase after me!"  John, or
Michael as he preferred to be called, used to call me Fred although my name
is Edward.  I think he confused me with somebody else.  In that confusion
he was indeed a true disciple and adherent of the AO - Praise be lavished
upon it.

Quite frankly the name Al Marbig was a mistake.  Michael, or John as we
preferred to call him, was in one of his periodic states of delusional
dementia when he signed up.  It should have been Al Rabbig, which as the
more perceptive of you will clearly see is a carefully crafted anagram of
Big Rab - his cousin.  Big Rab was a six dimensional figure, well known
amongst the assorted watering holes of Glasgow.  He disappeared suddenly
during the Government sponsored slaughter programme to eradicate Mad Cow
Disease, a condition from which he had suffered for many years and which he
had successfully spread throughout the AO, where the disease still persists
in its most virulent form.

Sadly I can say no more about Al at this point in time - his memoirs are
currently being edited for publication by George Ronald later this year,
with serialised highlights due to appear, subject to contract, in The
American Bahai in an effort to boost circulation.

Armed with the memory of Al Marbig, and with the assurance of his unerring
guidance from the Cyberspace Heaven to which he has ascended, I and all of
the others who form the
blessed assembly that brings BNW to the world believe a joke is a joke and
that you leeches and bloodsuckers of the AO are the biggest joke around at
the moment.

Or to put it another way Dr. Maniac, you have been conned and you, big Bully
Boy Mojo Man - you've been conned too!

Tallyho! Tallyho! To the Hunt we go! Bring on the Rottweilers!

Rt. Hon. Edward Smith Bt.




SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
STATE OF NEW MEXICO

DEBORAH BUCHHORN, for herself )
and for MINORITY SHAREHOLDER- ) 
MEMBERS OF THE SPIRITUAL )
ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF )
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) No. CV 2001-01978
)
)
TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL )
ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í S OF )
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and )
THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE )
BAHÁ'Í'S OF ALBUQUERQUE, )
NEW MEXICO, a non-profit )
corporation, and the )
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY )
OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF THE )
UNITED STATES, )
an Illinois Corporation, )
)
Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TRUSTEES MOTION TO DISMISS
COME NOW Plaintiffs by and through their attorney of record Yorgos Marinakis and for their response state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
By incorporating in the United States, Defendant Trustees agreed to follow the law of the land, but it is clear from their Motion to Dismiss that they believe the law of the land places them above the law.  If the Bahá'í wish to undertake such civil jurisdiction over their members, they must provide due process,1 which they have failed to provide for seven years.
ALLEGED FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES
There are simply and categorically no first amendment issues in this case.  Churches are not immune from suit over issues that do not involve religious doctrines:
"[w]ithout regard to the governing structure of a particular church, a court may, where appropriate, apply neutral principles of law to determine disputed questions that do not implicate religious doctrine.  Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775.  'Neutral principles' are wholly secular legal rules whose application to religious parties or disputes does not entail theological or doctrinal evaluations."2

It will be shown below that these "neutral principles" are well-established for religious nonprofit corporations.  As a general rule, Courts can decide secular legal questions in cases involving some background issues of religious doctrine, so long as courts do not intrude into determination of doctrinal issues.3  When the canons of Bahá'í law are in conflict with the law of the land, the canons must yield.4
Defendant Trustees implicitly assert (Motion to Dismiss, page 9) that this Court cannot hear this case because it involves an intangible or emotional harm to an individual committed by a church.  In fact, this case involves violations of New Mexico State corporate law and U.S. corporate common law, not simply offenses to someone's sensibilities.  Counts III-V allege violations of statutory duties of corporate officers, Counts VI and VII allege specific violations of filed corporate by-laws, and Counts VIII and IX allege violations of U.S. corporate common law.  Count I alleges fraud and Count II alleges libel, not as individual harms but as torts by a corporation upon a minority set of member-shareholders.
Defendant Trustees assert (Defendant's Motion, Section B) that their actions are protected by the first amendment as "ecclesiastical" or "internal," simply because they are a religious entity.  If that were the rule, then the Catholic Church could have claimed that a priest's decision to commit pederasty was an ecclesiastical decision and therefore not a civil matter.
Plaintiffs in actuality allege that Defendant Trustees oppressed and abused minority shareholder-member Plaintiffs, while Defendants National Spiritual Assembly failed to act upon Plaintiffs' appeals.  This is simply a case of fraud and oppression on the shareholders, committed by corporate officers, which cases State Courts decide every day.5  The fact that the corporation is a non-profit religious society is irrelevant, because there are no background issues of religious doctrine in this case.  I will now justify that statement.  
One of the allegations relates to the failure to allow inspection of the corporate books.  New Mexico law of non-profit corporations clearly states that corporations must allow its members to inspect all their books and records:
"All books and records of a corporation may be inspected by any member, or his agent or attorney, for any proper purpose at any reasonable time."6  

In denying shareholders access to corporate books and records, the corporation has the burden to demonstrate strong and articulable reasons for denying that access, such as improper purpose.7  Defendant Trustees denied Plaintiff Buchhorn access to their books and failed to demonstrate strong and articulable reasons for doing so, having merely informed Defendant Buchhorn that they needed the guidance of the National Spiritual Assembly.  Because the right to inspect books and records by members was a right at common law,8 Defendants National Spiritual Assembly and knew or should have known that this action by Defendant Trustees violated the law.  Named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn's purpose was proper: the "draft" Annual Report showed an admitted 10% discrepancy in the books, and she wanted to investigate it.
As another example, Counts III-V allege breach of duties of corporate officers and directors.  New Mexico non-profit corporation law clearly states the duties of directors:
"A director shall perform his duties as a director including his duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner the director believes to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the corporation and with such care as an ordinary prudent person would use under similar circumstances in a like position."9

These are the same duties set forth in section 8.30 of the ABA Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (herein "Model Act").  These are the "neutral principles" discussed above in the first excerpt.  According to that same Model Act, nondirector officers with discretionary authority have the same general duty of care and loyalty as directors.10  As delegates of the board of directors, officers are fiduciaries of the corporation and within the scope of their delegated management functions are subject to the same fiduciary duties as are directors.11
According to the Model Act, to determine whether a director or officer discharged the duty of good faith, the Court must
"look to the director's state of mind to see if it evidenced honesty and faithfulness to the director's duties and obligations, or whether there was an intent to take advantage of the corporation.  A director of a religious corporation in making a good faith determination may consider what the director believes to be: (1) the religious purpose of the corporation; and (2) applicable religious tenets, canons, laws, policies and authority."12 (emphasis added)

This clearly implies that the Model Act applies to religious corporations.  Case law also permits the Court examine the religious purposes or applicable religious laws:
"Civil courts adjudicate ecclesiastical matters only when civil or property rights are involved, and then only when their determination is necessary and incident to the adjudication of civil or property rights...The courts will inquire only as to what are the rules and decisions of the church and its tribunals, and what parties or factions adhere to them, without questioning their wisdom or propriety[.]"13
There is, however, no need for the Court in this case to examine the religious purpose of the corporation.  Defendant Trustees acted in a manner that would qualify as domestic violence.14  These actions are so far opposed to the true interests of the corporation as to lead to the clear inference that no one thus acting could have been influenced by any honest desire to secure such interests, but that they must have acted with intent to subserve some ulterior purpose, regardless of the consequences to the corporation and in a manner inconsistent with its interests.
Even if this Court finds that the issues in this case involve religious doctrine, it may still hear this case, because decisions by religious entities may be the subject of civil inquiry in cases of alleged fraud:
"a civil court might be empowered to examine the propriety of such an appointment [i.e., the ecclesiastical decision of appointment to a Roman Catholic chaplaincy] if it were a product of 'fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness.'"15

This is precisely the situation in the instant case.  Defendant Trustees have made numerous decisions that Plaintiff alleges were the product of fraud.  
Moreover, even if this Court finds that the issues in this case are purely ecclesiastical, it may still hear the case, because they may pose a substantial threat to public safety, peace and order:
"The courts may not intervene in purely ecclesiastical matters, including church disciplinary actions concerning the conformity of church members to the standards of morals required of them, unless such actions pose a substantial threat to public safety, peace or order.  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963); Paul v. Watchtower of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1987), cert denied, _____U.S.____, 108 S.Ct. 289, 98 L.Ed.2d 249 (1987)."16
The Bahá'í are the world's second-most widespread religion.17  Spiritual Assemblies, similar to Defendant, are located in cities across the United States.  Widespread abusive and oppressive behavior by these entities is plausible and may represent a substantial threat to public safety, peace or order.18
Defendant Trustees claim that Plaintiffs' membership in the Bahá'í Faith constitutes implied consent to their government, which confers upon Defendant Trustees' decisions an internal nature deserving of judicial deference (Motion to Dismiss, page 6).  However, this situation invites abuse if the Local Spiritual Assembly fails to follow its own commitment to the laws, which Plaintiff alleges they have done here.  As discussed above,19 this Court has the power to determine whether the Bahá'í have followed civil and their own religious law.  
Defendant Trustees implicitly asserts "'religious questions permeate all of the issues in this case.'"20  The Supreme Court of New Jersey responded to such an allegation by stating that it was the Court's duty not to refer civil issues to a religious tribunal, but to hear them:
"To the contrary, as we have noted, distinct civil issues should have been reserved by the court not merely because it had the discretion to decide them, but also because it had a duty to do so."21

Plaintiff suggests that if this Court is concerned with the first amendment issues that it follows the recommendations of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and order the parties to fully brief which issues are religious and which are civil:
"It is imperative, in order to avoid unconstitutional entanglements of civil and religious issues and to preserve the right to civil adjudication of secular disputes, for a trial court to specify which issues are religious and therefore to be settled by religious authority; and which issues are civil and to be resolved by the court...Thus, when faced with cases such as this, trial courts initially should entertain full briefing and argument by the parties as to what issues are 'religious' and what are 'civil'; and as to what is the proper authority to decide 'religious' questions.  By providing complete and clear rulings on such questions before referral to any religious tribunal, a trial court will provide the parties and appellate courts with a clear record for informed review of any possible first amendment issues." 22

ALLEGED PLEADING ISSUES
Plaintiffs' Complaint has complied with the New Mexico law of notice pleading, shareholder derivative suit pleading, and fraud pleading.  In New Mexico, the theory of pleadings is to give the parties fair notice of the claims and defenses against them, and the grounds upon which they are based.23  Notice pleading requires only sufficient detail so that the parties and the court will have a fair idea of the action about which the party is complaining and can see the basis for relief.24  In a shareholder derivative action specifically, the complaint must be verified, the plaintiff must allege that she was a shareholder or member at the time of the transaction in question, and the plaintiff must allege with particularity the efforts she made to obtain the action she desires from the corporation.25  In Complaints for fraud, the plaintiff must allege the circumstances constituting fraud with particularity.26
Plaintiffs complied with all these requirements.  The Complaint contains numerous specific incidents and factual allegations that involve more than named Plaintiff.  Named Plaintiff verified the Complaint.  There is no requirement to name all minority shareholders as Defendant Trustees claims.  More specifically, as to Defendant Trustees' assertion regarding the libel claim (Motion to Dismiss, Section F, page 11), Plaintiff refers Your Honor to paragraph 31 of the verified Complaint.  As to Defendant Trustees' assertion regarding the literature review claim (Motion to Dismiss, Section G, page 12), Defendants' literature review policy facilitated this abusive situation by preventing shareholders from communicating with other shareholders.  This policy is in violation of U.S. law:
"[t]he statutory right accorded a stockholder to communicate with other shareholders regarding matters of common interest as stockholders is much similar to freedom of speech."27

The fundamental position occupied this right can be seen by the frequency by which shareholders use it to justify their requests to inspect corporate books and records28. In addition to enabling and facilitating the jeopardization of reasonable expectations of minority shareholders, this policy also in and of itself constitutes oppressive behavior.  
WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Plaintiff requests that this Court DENY Defendant Trustee's Motion to Dismiss.

Respectfully submitted,

Yorgos D. Marinakis
Attorney for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 45923
Rio Rancho, NM  87174
505-459-4664
877-430-9550 (fax)
I hereby certify that a true
and correct copy of the foregoing
was mailed to:
Deborah D. Wells
2201 San Pedro NE,Bldg.3, Ste. 210
Albuquerque, NM, 87110
on this ____ day of May, 2001.
____________________
Yorgos D. Marinakis
1 Exhibit A: "Developing Distinctive Bahá'í Communities," 15.6-7.
2 Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc., 125 N.J. at 414, 593 A.2d at 730.
3 Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc., supra, 593 A.2d 725; Bacher v.Metcalf, 611So.2d 1030 (Ala.1992); Ohio Southeast Conference of E.U.B.CH. v. Kruger, 243 N.E.2d 781 (Ct.Common Pleas OH. 1968); Lewis v. Lake Region Conf. Of Seventh Day Adventists, 779 F.Supp. 72 (E.D. Mich. 1991),aff'd 978 F.2d 940 (6th Cir. 1992) Yaggie v. Indiana-Kentucky Synod Lutheran Church, 860 F.Supp. 1194 (W.D.Ky. 1994).
4 Hutchison v. Luddy, 606 A.2d 905 (Pa.Super. 1992), appeal discontinued 611 A.2d 712.
5 See, e.g., McCauley v. Tom McCauley & Sons, Inc., 104 N.M. 523, 724 P.2d 232 (N.M.App.1986) (defining oppression as mismanagement of corporate affairs, misapplication or waste of corporate assets, lack of full access to corporate books and records, books and records not maintained in an accurate or equitable manner, corporate assets used for personal purposes, and jeopardization of reasonable expectations of minority shareholders); Schwartzman v. Schwartzman Packing Co., 99 N.M. 436, 659 P.2d 888 (1983); Dilaconi v. New Cal Corp., 97 N.M. 782, 643 P.2d 1234 (Ct.App.N.M. 1982).
6 NMSA 1978, § 53-8-27.
7 Schein v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Co-op, Inc, 932 P.2d 490, 122 N.M. 800 (1997).
8 Schwartzman, supra, 659 P.2d, 99 N.M. 436.
9 NMSA 1978, § 53-8-25.1 (1999 Supp.); see also Schwartzman, supra, 659 P.2d, 99 N.M. 436; Schein, supra, 932 P.2d 490, 122 N.M. 800.
10 Exhibit B: Official Comment to Section 8.42, ABA Model Nonprofit Corporation Act.
11 Exhibit C: Fletcher Cyc Corp. § 838 (Perm. Ed.).
12 Exhibit B: Model Act, Official Comments to Section 8.30, part 5.
13 Ohio Southeast Conference of E.U.B.CH., supra, 243 N.E.2d at 785 (citing 76 C.J.S. Religious Societies § 86).
14 Complaint, paragraph 11.
15 Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc., supra, 125 N.J. at 418, 593 A.2d at 731 (citing Gonzalez v. Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1, 16, 50 S.Ct. 5, 7, 74 L.Ed. 131, 137 (1929) (The Court subsequently eliminated arbitrariness as a basis for civil court inquiry in Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976).); accord, Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 151 (1969))
16 Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d at 792 (Okl. 1989) (dissenting opinion).
17 Exhibit D: "The Bahá'ís," Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1994, pages 1, 6.
18 Exhibit E: "The Bahá'í Faith in America as Panopticon, 1963-1997."
19 Supra, footnote 15.
20 Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc., supra, 125 N.J. at 419, 593 A.2d at 732.
21 Id.
22 Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc., supra, 125 N.J. at 420, 593 A.2d at 732.
23 Schmitz v. Smentowski, 109 N.M. 386, 785 P.2d 726 (1989).
24 Id.
25 N.M.R.A. 1-023.1; N.M.S.A. § 53-11-47 (1978).
26 N.M.R.A. 1-009.
27 N V F Company v. Sharon Steel Corp., 294 F.Supp. 1091, 1094 (W.D.Penn. 1969).
28 Indeed, 15 A.L.R.2d 14 et seq. devotes a section to the purposes for inspection of corporate records, dealing implicitly with the lawful and unlawful reasons why a shareholder might want to communicate with other shareholders.

11

From: "Randy Burns" <randy.burns4@gte.net>
Subject: Re: something Fred posted on Beliefnet
Date: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:01 PM

Dave

Your response would have been more meaningful to people if you hadn't spent
the last two years attacking Fred about the BIGS claim.  Those are the posts
I find gratuitous, and still do.  Doesn't it occur to you that Fred may
enjoy getting your goat so easily?

Let's face it, two wrongs don't make a right.  Just as true today as when
first stated (whenever that was).  Isn't the best and only way to help the
faith simply to be the best Baha'i you can be?

Cheers, Randy

--

Dave Fiorito <bighappymonkey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0853486.0109170654.561bec43@posting.google.com...
>
> Randy,
>
> The only thing I have ever done to Fred in the past two years is to
> point out that he is not a Baha'i in good standing as he claims to be.
>  This outburst was the result of an anger that I have felt since
> September 11th.  Fred went too far.  Maybe I went to far too, but that
> does not excuse Fred.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave

From: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: Really Essential Reading
Date: Monday, December 18, 2000 9:04 PM

Hi Mark,

    Question, do you really think that Fred is a Covenant Breaker?  I don't
think he is, you know, and that's quite some accusation to throw around.

    Besides, if he is, you shouldn't be having anything to do with him
yourself - doesn't that mean not replying to his posts?

    Yup, he's annoying, I'll give you that.  I visited his site, read his
stuff,
    learned some disturbing things that I hadn't previously been aware of,
but I don't think Fred is really making a push for alternative leadership.
Or are you saying that he associates with CBs?  Or is it just that because
you think he is 'sowing dissention', that is virtually tantamount to
Covenant Breaking?

    I hope you don't mean the last one, because we are really in trouble if
people are going to start spreading rumours about people's status, as we saw
in the recent posts Nima sent to this group.

    Well, just what, exactly, are you implying in these posts that merely
consist of quotes of Abdu'l Baha?

Best Wishes,

Paul Hammond

From: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: Really Essential Reading
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:27 AM

Mark Elderkin wrote in message <3a404346@appserver.>...
>
>"Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:3a402ca2@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>
>Are you currently referring to yourself as an ex-Baha'i? Do you spend your
>time in communication with individuals who have been declared Covenant
>Breakers? I guess the point is.............. Does any of what I posted
>affend you? I didn't post it to do that. I think it is always good to
>understand what implications lie in ones actions.
>
>
>Mark.
>
>

Hi Mark,

No, I'm not an ex-Baha'i.  And, I am not personally offended by anything
you posted.  But, since I *do* understand how serious Covenant-Breaking
is for Baha'is, I would prefer for people not to reach for, or imply things
about people.  Especially since reading the disturbing stuff the Nima
forwarded
about innuendo in the Australian Baha'i News.

In fact, I guess I go along with the second quote in one of your posts - I
would
prefer for people not to dwell on these negative thoughts of spiritual
disease.

I understand that Abdu'l Baha, and Shoghi Effendi had a lot of difficult
personal
experience in dealing with people who were eventually declared CBs, many
of whom were close members of their own families who wished to build some
kind of following *based* on the authority they attempted to derive from
their
close family ties to the central figures of the faith.

Therefore, my attitude towards CBs would be to assume that the people
I am talking to are *not* covenant breakers, unless some authority (Shoghi,
Abdu'l Baha, the UHJ or the NSA) explicitly makes that information known.

I especially don't like the kind of thing where someone might try to imply
that
another person was a covenant breaker, without explicitly saying so - the
sort
of thing that happened to Nima, where he is not a CB, but there is a message
circulating with nods and winks that leads some people to conclude that he
might be.  (Phrases such as 'he should be left to himself' spring to mind -
since
*not associating with someone* is the only thing that Baha'is are meant to
do
to coveneant breakers, it would certainly lead people to think that there
might
be some truth in that rumour).

The only thing is that, IIRC, Essential Reading for Baha'is is one of the
titles
of Fred's many repetitive posts, so I thought your subject line 'Really
Essential
Reading' was a reference to Fred's post.  And then, when I read a
commentless
post talking about Covenant Breakers...  Well, I just hope that I'm putting
two and two together to make five.  But, since I would really prefer that
you
*aren't* trying to insinuate something about someone in this way, and I am
confused as to what point you were making.  Thought, maybe I should clear
that up before I jump in with both feet and make a fool out of myself.

Because, to be honest, what would really cause me the most distress would
be to realise that you might be confirming one of Fred's theses, when he
writes
about 'techniques of Baha'i Fundamentalists', or 'Why I don't reply to
Baha'i
Fundamentalists'.  When, up till now, I had thought that the reason that he
didn't reply was because he ran out of arguments and couldn't think of
anything
else to say.  You don't need to justify Fred's paranoia.

Anyway, possibly I'm completely wrong, and you weren't getting at Fred at
all.  But, please tell me, what was it that made you think we needed to
reminded
of Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi's comments on Covenant Breakers, and
ex-Baha'is who hang around with CBs?

I think the last thing the Baha'i Faith needs is enough rumours floating
around
about who is and isn't a Covenant Breaker, so that people might become
afraid to express any criticism lest they too have rumours or threats of
Covenant
Breaking circulate about them.

I should go and do something useful now, like pack some bags and go home
for the Christmas holidays.

Best wishes, Mark,

Paul Hammond

From: "Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk>
Subject: Re: Welcome to unmoderated NGs on BF (was: Roman Catholic ...)
Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:50 AM

Dear Rick,

Your post made a number of points that have given me pause for thought.

I put the reply away in a file, so that I could reply to it at greater
length later,
so I really should give it some consideration.

There are some points in my post where I haven't been entirely careful in my
use of words, and you seem to have picked most of those up.  I tend to be
somewhat informal on usenet, so most of these faults in my message are
due to some exaggeration or hyperbole on my part.  I find that there is very
little that I can disagree with in your post, on an intellectual level.
Yet, on
an emotional level I still feel like there's something going wrong here.
So, I have
to think carefully about why *that* is.  Now I understand why some people
here find talking to you frustrating!

There are many things you say which I agree with 100%. For example:

>Whatever problems we might see, the solution to those problems cannot
>consist of individuals also acting in a manner that's inconsistent with
>Baha'i ideals.  Pointing this out is not the same as saying that the people
>who are dissatisfied with the spiritual life in their community are the
ones
>responsible for changing things.

*This* seems to be bang on the money.

You also say that there are many, many spiritual assemblies which, imperfect
though they are, manage to solve the problems that arise in a satisfactory
way.  Of course, we never get to hear about these, because satisfied people
do not go away and set up websites talking about their problems.  This is
undoubtedly true.  Robert, for example, has posted here about the very
satisfactory experiences *he* has had of his Spiritual Assembly.  I hope
that
you are right, and that the very dysfunctional Assemblies truly are a very
small
percentage of the whole.

Surely, negative experiences get magnified in a forum like this, which is
what
started this thread off in the first place - someone new to trb had landed,
and
discovered only that first, negative impression of everyone arguing and
squabbling, and throwing around the most un-Baha'i insults - this was my
first impression too, but if you stay here for a while, you learn to find
the interesting stuff.

Well, there's no way *I* can really know about the numbers - this kind of
survey
of the health of LSAs is, presumably, a job for committees and surveys at
the
NSA level.  I hope that there *are* substantial efforts to support LSAs that
are very vulnerable.

Let me quote the start of your last message, and then I'll try to get to
grips with why I feel it's the wrong kind of response.

Rick Schaut wrote in message <91o89l0310e@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>"Paul Hammond" <pahammond@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:3a3ebdab@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
>> That's fine, but I don't think keeping quiet and trying to work with
>> the community for 13 years, before finally getting so frustrated you
>> feel like leaving is the best thing for your spiritual help fits what the
>> Guardian says here.
>
>There's a substantial difference between "keeping quiet" and upholding the
>decisions of our Spiritual Assemblies.  Quite often, I see well-meaning
>people raise their concerns in a manner that's not consistent with Baha'i
>principles and ideals.  They get so caught up in what they're trying to say
>that they fail to notice how their own behavior runs counter to the same
>Baha'i ideals that they want the Institutions to live up to.
>
>This isn't universal, but it seems there's a strong correlation between
>people who've experienced severe frustration with Baha'i institutions and
>their lack of understanding of some basic principles regarding the forums
>and manner in which they should be raising their concerns.  Why, do you
>suppose, the Universal House of Justice went through the trouble to
>elucidate upon these matters in the Individual Rights and Freedoms letter?
>
>By the way, I should point out that I was addressing Karen's remarks
>regarding obediene to our Spiritual Assemblies.  I don't recall ever saying
>that the quote I cited speaks either directly or entirely to Karen's
>circumstances.
>

OK - to pick you up on a point.  This must mean that you think that the
quote
you cited had some bearing, to a partial degree on Karen's circumstances.

Now, I don't need to defend Karen, because she is much more eloquent than
I am, and speaks for herself.

But, my emotional response to this is as follows:

I have read Karen's experiences on her website.  It seems to me that she
has a very solid understanding of the Baha'i Faith, after 13 years in the
community.  Her website also contains an issue based introduction to the
Baha'i Faith and other Religions, for any passing seekers who chance by  -
and links to the official Baha'i site, as well as non-standard Baha'i
sources,
like Alison's site, and Juan's site.

I believe her, and I believe that she sincerely participated (not 'just kept
quiet' sorry for my imprecise language) in the life of her community for
13 years, much of that time being a member of the LSA whose descisions
she was upholding during that time.

The first feeling I get is a feeling of overwhelming sympathy, which is the
main thing that I want to express to Karen.  I feel like it's a crying shame
that
her experience as a registered Baha'i was so frustrating for her, finally.
I don't
know how this is, because I have only ever read her words, but I somehow
feel the spirit behind them, and it's a spirit of a sincere person, who
tried
her hardest to make something work, and was disappointed when it
didn't work for her.  She is still striving, in some way, to make her love
of Baha'u'llah work for her in her life.

Yet, in your response, I don't see a great deal of love.  Well, maybe some
people just annoy each other, and we just have to cope with that.  It
certainly isn't possible to love everyone.  But, you start off by picking me
up on the difference between 'keeping quiet' and 'upholding desicions' - a
real
difference, I admit it.  Then you go on to say that people who get
frustrated
usually have a lack of understanding of some basic principles regarding the
forums.  (Yes, I know you say 'not universally', but you also say 'strong
correlation', which means most of the time).

Now, this doesn't sound to me like sympathy for a person.  It comes across
as being more like a priest explaining the nature of a church law, or
perhaps
the distinction between mortal and venial sin.  Possibly a very important
thing
in its own right, but somehow a very intellectual response.  It *does* sound
like you are placing the responsibility for the frustration *firmly* on the
shoulders
of that individual Baha'i.

It *doesn't* sound much like the sucessful approach that Robert described,
where each person felt the love of the other people in the room, and no-one
quoted any scripture at anyone else, or tried to persuade them to do
something
they didn't want to do.

>
>Look, my thesis is really simple:  If people who are frustrated with their
>Spiritual Assemblies behaved in a manner that's consistent with Baha'i
>principles and ideals, the situation would improve more rapidly, and with
>much less angst, than it has when frustrated individuals have failed to
>uphold Baha'i principle in their own conduct.  This thesis _presumes_ that
>Spiritual Assemblies make mistakes.  It also presumes that there is a very
>real basis for the frustration that people feel.
>

Yes.  I agree with this 100%.  And yet.  It still reminds me of what happens
to politicians who lecture their electorate.  It may well be very true that
the electorate are a large part of the problem.  People, after all, have
this nasty
habit of wanting expensive schools and hospitals, as well as low taxes.  We
want to drive fancy cars, and also have no global warming.  But, politicians
who tell it like it is that way do not win elections, and neither do they
win
the admiration or respect of the electorate.  People don't like being
lectured.

Baha'is aspire to a higher standard, and with God's help they should be able
to achieve it.  But Baha'i leadership, even more than secular leadership
should
seek to inspire and encourage, not load believers down with responsibilities
they are not ready for, and then blame the believers when it goes wrong.

>Nor, for that matter, does this thesis presume that solving the issue is an
>easy task.  In fact, Shoghi Effendi said quite the opposite: that nothing
>short of the embodiement and perfection of Baha'i ideals would be capable
of
>carefully and adequately balancing the conflicting requirements of a frank
>and loving consultation.
>

Well, I am attempting to conduct this exchange in a more fitting manner than
we often see here.  There are bound to be many imperfections in my writing.
But, I hope I have given your post a fair consideration.

Best Wishes,

Paul

From: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
  Subject: Response to a Fanatic
  Newsgroups: news.groups
  Message-Id: <857214887.14063@dejanews.com>
  Reply-To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
  Organization: Deja News Usenet Posting Service
  X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Mar 01 11:14:52 1997 GMT
  X-Originating-IP-Addr: 199.179.42.119 ()
  X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0Gold (Win95; U)
  

  (FORGIVE THE CAPS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DISTINGUISH
  MY REMARK FROM OTHERS)
  

  I'VE DECIDED TO POST A REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BECAUSE IT SEEMS
  TO ME TO TYPIFY THE GROSS FANATICISM AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS OF
  SO MANY BAHAIS....  THIS MENTALITY, I BELIEVE, UNDERLIES MUCH
  OF THE OPPOSITION TO TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI OVER THE LAST WEEKS.
  NO HONEST MEMBER OF THE BAHAI FAITH CAN FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE
  TACTIC OF INTIMIDATION USED BY SOME FANATICS TO SILENCE ANYONE
  WHO MIGHT DARE TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OTHER THAN THE
  CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED ONE.  AS A BAHAI, FOR MORE THAN 20
  YEARS, THIS TENDENCY CONCERNS ME DEEPLY.  IT IS DIFFICULT FOR
  ME NOT TO SEE IT AS THE SAME LYING, DISTORTING, AND COERCIVE
  METHODS USED BY EXTREMISTS IN ALL CULTS AND PSEUDO-RELIGIONS.
  I BELIEVE THE MODERATORS OF SOC.RELIGION.BAHAI HAVE USED
  THESE SAME METHODS IN MANIPULATING, THROUGH OTHERS, THE
  DISCUSSION ABOUT TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI....
  

  I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S JUSTIFIABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE BAHAI
  WRITINGS....
  

  
  Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:55:19 -0500
  From: Roger Reini <rreini@wwnet.com>
  To: FG <FG@hotmail.com>
  Subject: Re: Response to a Jesuit
  

  I am replying privately because I feel it's most appropriate.  You do
  NOT have my permission to post this to Usenet or any other forum.
  

  THE REASON I HAVE IS GIVEN ABOVE.
  

  In my opinion, this note of yours contained some implied criticism of
  the Institutions and could be construed as undermining their authority.
  Specifically, this quote:
  

  >This ignores the fact that many Bahais don't accept review and believe
  >it's censorship....
  

  WHAT RREINI IS INTIMATING HERE, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T PERCEIVE IT, IS
  THAT I'M A MISCREANT, INFIDEL, ETC....
  

  If this was not your intent, then you might want to rephrase the concept
  you're trying to get across so that it's clear you're not trying to
  undermine the Institutions.  On the other hand, if that was your intent,
  then that's something I prefer not to think about.
  

  HERE IT IS AGAIN....  THE RED FLAG OF ACCUSATION, OF THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS,
  USED TO SILENCE AND TERRORIZE OTHERS, TO MANIPULATE AND CONTROL....
  ENDING WITH HIS WRAPPING HIMSELF IN THE MANTLE OF PIETY AND PURITY
  OF MOTIVE....
  

  Roger (rreini@wwnet.com)
  

  THIS HAS BEEN THE APPROACH OF OTHERS DURING THIS DISCUSSION PERIOD.
  IS THIS THE KIND OF KINGDOM OF GOD WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE ON EARTH?
  THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION WORLDWIDE?  IT SEEMS LIKE IT AT TIMES....
  

  FOR OTHER EXAMPLES OF IT, ONE MIGHT LOOK BACK AT THE POSTING BY
  DR. STEVE BURGESS WHO AFTER MAKING HIS SHAMELESS INTIMATIONS
FAILED
  TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO REPLY TO ME, WHEN I CONFRONTED HIM, IN
PUBLIC,
  WITH HIS CONTEMPTIBLE INSINUATION....
  

  I PRESENT ALL THIS AS EVIDENCE, TO FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE, THAT
  AN UNCONTROLLED, UNMANIPULATED, UNCENSORED TALK.RELIGION.BAHAI
IS
  WOEFULLY NEEDED TO ENSURE THE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE
  GOD HIMSELF HAS BLESSED HUMANKIND WITH....  THERE ARE TOO MANY
  SELF-RIGHTEOUS FANATICS IN THE BAHAI FAITH FOR IT NOT TO EXIST....
  

  FG
  ROCHESTER HILLS, MICHIGAN USA
    

  SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
  COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
  STATE OF NEW MEXICO
  

  DEBORAH BUCHHORN, for herself )
  and for MINORITY SHAREHOLDER- ) 
  MEMBERS OF THE SPIRITUAL      )
  ASSEMBLY OF THE BAH ' 'S OF   )
  ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO,      )
                                )
            Plaintiffs,         )
                                )
  vs.                           )    No. CV 2001-01978
                                                         )
                                                         )
  TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL     )
  ASSEMBLY OF THE BAH '  S OF   )
  ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and  )
  THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE )
  BAH ' 'S OF ALBUQUERQUE,      )
  NEW MEXICO, a non-profit      )
  corporation, and the          )
  NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY   )
  OF THE BAH ' 'S OF THE        )
  UNITED STATES,                )
  an Illinois Corporation,      )
                                )
            Defendants.         )
  

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TRUSTEES MOTION TO DISMISS

  COME NOW Plaintiffs by and through their attorney of record
  Yorgos Marinakis and for their response state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION

       By incorporating in the United States, Defendant
  Trustees agreed to follow the law of the land, but it is
  clear from their Motion to Dismiss that they believe the law
  of the land places them above the law.  If the Bah 'ˇ wish
  to undertake such civil jurisdiction over their members,
  they must provide due process, which they have failed to
  provide for seven years.

ALLEGED FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES

       There are simply and categorically no first amendment
  issues in this case.  Churches are not immune from suit over
  issues that do not involve religious doctrines:

            "[w]ithout regard to the governing structure of a
       particular church, a court may, where appropriate,
       apply neutral principles of law to determine disputed
       questions that do not implicate religious doctrine. 
       Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61
       L.Ed.2d 775.  'Neutral principles' are wholly secular
       legal rules whose application to religious parties or
       disputes does not entail theological or doctrinal
       evaluations."
            

  It will be shown below that these "neutral principles" are
  well-established for religious nonprofit corporations.  As a
  general rule, Courts can decide secular legal questions in
  cases involving some background issues of religious
  doctrine, so long as courts do not intrude into
  determination of doctrinal issues.  When the canons of
  Bah 'ˇ law are in conflict with the law of the land, the
  canons must yield.
       Defendant Trustees implicitly assert (Motion to
  Dismiss, page 9) that this Court cannot hear this case
  because it involves an intangible or emotional harm to an
  individual committed by a church.  In fact, this case
  involves violations of New Mexico State corporate law and
  U.S. corporate common law, not simply offenses to someone's
  sensibilities.  Counts III-V allege violations of statutory
  duties of corporate officers, Counts VI and VII allege
  specific violations of filed corporate by-laws, and Counts
  VIII and IX allege violations of U.S. corporate common law. 
  Count I alleges fraud and Count II alleges libel, not as
  individual harms but as torts by a corporation upon a
  minority set of member-shareholders.
       Defendant Trustees assert (Defendant's Motion, Section
  B) that their actions are protected by the first amendment
  as "ecclesiastical" or "internal," simply because they are a
  religious entity.  If that were the rule, then the Catholic
  Church could have claimed that a priest's decision to commit
  pederasty was an ecclesiastical decision and therefore not a
  civil matter.
       Plaintiffs in actuality allege that Defendant Trustees
  oppressed and abused minority shareholder-member Plaintiffs,
  while Defendants National Spiritual Assembly failed to act
  upon Plaintiffs' appeals.  This is simply a case of fraud
  and oppression on the shareholders, committed by corporate
  officers, which cases State Courts decide every day.  The
  fact that the corporation is a non-profit religious society
  is irrelevant, because there are no background issues of
  religious doctrine in this case.  I will now justify that
  statement.  
       One of the allegations relates to the failure to allow
  inspection of the corporate books.  New Mexico law of non-
  profit corporations clearly states that corporations must
  allow its members to inspect all their books and records:

            "All books and records of a corporation may be
       inspected by any member, or his agent or attorney, for
       any proper purpose at any reasonable time."  
            

  In denying shareholders access to corporate books and
  records, the corporation has the burden to demonstrate
  strong and articulable reasons for denying that access, such
  as improper purpose.  Defendant Trustees denied Plaintiff
  Buchhorn access to their books and failed to demonstrate
  strong and articulable reasons for doing so, having merely
  informed Defendant Buchhorn that they needed the guidance of
  the National Spiritual Assembly.  Because the right to
  inspect books and records by members was a right at common
  law, Defendants National Spiritual Assembly and knew or
  should have known that this action by Defendant Trustees
  violated the law.  Named Plaintiff Deborah Buchhorn's
  purpose was proper: the "draft" Annual Report showed an
  admitted 10% discrepancy in the books, and she wanted to
  investigate it.
       As another example, Counts III-V allege breach of
  duties of corporate officers and directors.  New Mexico non-
  profit corporation law clearly states the duties of
  directors:

            "A director shall perform his duties as a director
       including his duties as a member of any committee of
       the board upon which the director may serve, in good
       faith, in a manner the director believes to be in or
       not opposed to the best interests of the corporation
       and with such care as an ordinary prudent person would
       use under similar circumstances in a like position."
            

  These are the same duties set forth in section 8.30 of the
  ABA Model Nonprofit Corporation Act (herein "Model Act"). 
  These are the "neutral principles" discussed above in the
  first excerpt.  According to that same Model Act,
  nondirector officers with discretionary authority have the
  same general duty of care and loyalty as directors.  As
  delegates of the board of directors, officers are
  fiduciaries of the corporation and within the scope of their
  delegated management functions are subject to the same
  fiduciary duties as are directors.
       According to the Model Act, to determine whether a
  director or officer discharged the duty of good faith, the
  Court must
            "look to the director's state of mind to see if it
       evidenced honesty and faithfulness to the director's
       duties and obligations, or whether there was an intent
       to take advantage of the corporation.  A director of a
       religious corporation in making a good faith
       determination may consider what the director believes
       to be: (1) the religious purpose of the corporation;
       and (2) applicable religious tenets, canons, laws,
       policies and authority." (emphasis added)
            

  This clearly implies that the Model Act applies to religious
  corporations.  Case law also permits the Court examine the
  religious purposes or applicable religious laws:

            "Civil courts adjudicate ecclesiastical matters only
       when civil or property rights are involved, and then
       only when their determination is necessary and incident
       to the adjudication of civil or property rights The
       courts will inquire only as to what are the rules and
       decisions of the church and its tribunals, and what
       parties or factions adhere to them, without questioning
       their wisdom or propriety[.]"
       

       There is, however, no need for the Court in this case to examine the religious
  purpose of the corporation.  Defendant Trustees acted in a manner that would qualify as
  domestic violence.  These actions are so far opposed to the true interests of the
  corporation as to lead to the clear inference that no one thus acting could have been
  influenced by any honest desire to secure such interests, but that they must have acted
  with intent to subserve some ulterior purpose, regardless of the consequences to the
  corporation and in a manner inconsistent with its interests.
       Even if this Court finds that the issues in this case involve religious doctrine, it
  may still hear this case, because decisions by religious entities may be the subject of civil
  inquiry in cases of alleged fraud:
            "a civil court might be empowered to examine the propriety of such an
       appointment [i.e., the ecclesiastical decision of appointment to a Roman Catholic
       chaplaincy] if it were a product of 'fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness.'"
            

  This is precisely the situation in the instant case.  Defendant Trustees have made
  numerous decisions that Plaintiff alleges were the product of fraud.  
       Moreover, even if this Court finds that the issues in this case are purely
  ecclesiastical, it may still hear the case, because they may pose a substantial threat to
  public safety, peace and order:

            "The courts may not intervene in purely ecclesiastical matters, including church
       disciplinary actions concerning the conformity of church members to the
       standards of morals required of them, unless such actions pose a substantial threat
       to public safety, peace or order.  Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526,
       32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10
       L.Ed.2d 965 (1963); Paul v. Watchtower of New York, Inc., 819 F.2d 875 (9th Cir.
       1987), cert denied, _____U.S.____, 108 S.Ct. 289, 98 L.Ed.2d 249 (1987)."

  The Bah 'ˇ are the world's second-most widespread religion.  Spiritual Assemblies,
  similar to Defendant, are located in cities across the United States.  Widespread abusive
  and oppressive behavior by these entities is plausible and may represent a substantial
  threat to public safety, peace or order.
       Defendant Trustees claim that Plaintiffs' membership in the Bah 'ˇ Faith
  constitutes implied consent to their government, which confers upon Defendant Trustees'
  decisions an internal nature deserving of judicial deference (Motion to Dismiss, page 6). 
  However, this situation invites abuse if the Local Spiritual Assembly fails to follow its
  own commitment to the laws, which Plaintiff alleges they have done here.  As discussed
  above, this Court has the power to determine whether the Bah 'ˇ have followed civil
  and their own religious law.  
       Defendant Trustees implicitly asserts "'religious questions permeate all of the
  issues in this case.'"  The Supreme Court of New Jersey responded to such an allegation
  by stating that it was the Court's duty not to refer civil issues to a religious tribunal, but
  to hear them:

            "To the contrary, as we have noted, distinct civil issues should have been reserved
       by the court not merely because it had the discretion to decide them, but also
       because it had a duty to do so."
            

  Plaintiff suggests that if this Court is concerned with the first amendment issues that it
  follows the recommendations of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and order the parties
  to fully brief which issues are religious and which are civil:

            "It is imperative, in order to avoid unconstitutional entanglements of civil and
       religious issues and to preserve the right to civil adjudication of secular disputes,
       for a trial court to specify which issues are religious and therefore to be settled by
       religious authority; and which issues are civil and to be resolved by the
       court Thus, when faced with cases such as this, trial courts initially should
       entertain full briefing and argument by the parties as to what issues are 'religious'
       and what are 'civil'; and as to what is the proper authority to decide 'religious'
       questions.  By providing complete and clear rulings on such questions before
       referral to any religious tribunal, a trial court will provide the parties and appellate
       courts with a clear record for informed review of any possible first amendment
       issues." 
            

ALLEGED PLEADING ISSUES

       Plaintiffs' Complaint has complied with the New Mexico
  law of notice pleading, shareholder derivative suit
  pleading, and fraud pleading.  In New Mexico, the theory of
  pleadings is to give the parties fair notice of the claims
  and defenses against them, and the grounds upon which they
  are based.
    Notice pleading requires only sufficient detail so that the parties and the court will
  have a fair idea of the action about which the party is complaining and can see the basis
  for relief.
    In a shareholder derivative action specifically, the complaint must be verified, the
  plaintiff must allege that she was a shareholder or member at the time of the transaction
  in question, and the plaintiff must allege with particularity the efforts she made to obtain
  the action she desires from the corporation.
    In Complaints for fraud, the plaintiff must allege the circumstances constituting fraud
  with particularity.
  

       Plaintiffs complied with all these requirements.  The Complaint contains
  numerous specific incidents and factual allegations that involve more than named
  Plaintiff.  Named Plaintiff verified the Complaint.  There is no requirement to name all
  minority shareholders as Defendant Trustees claims.  More specifically, as to Defendant
  Trustees' assertion regarding the libel claim (Motion to Dismiss, Section F, page 11),
  Plaintiff refers Your Honor to paragraph 31 of the verified Complaint.  As to Defendant
  Trustees' assertion regarding the literature review claim (Motion to Dismiss, Section G,
  page 12), Defendants' literature review policy facilitated this abusive situation by
  preventing shareholders from communicating with other shareholders.  This policy is in
  violation of U.S. law:

            "[t]he statutory right accorded a stockholder to communicate with other
       shareholders regarding matters of common interest as stockholders is much
       similar to freedom of speech."
  

       The fundamental position occupied this right can be seen by the frequency by
  which shareholders use it to justify their requests to inspect corporate books and records
  . In addition to enabling and facilitating the jeopardization of reasonable expectations of
  minority shareholders, this policy also in and of itself constitutes oppressive behavior.  
     WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Plaintiff requests that
  this Court DENY Defendant Trustee's Motion to Dismiss.
        

                                                                    Respectfully submitted,
                                       

                                     Yorgos D. Marinakis
                                     Attorney for Plaintiffs
                                     P.O. Box 45923
                                     Rio Rancho, NM  87174
                                     505-459-4664
                                     877-430-9550 (fax)
  I hereby certify that a true
  and correct copy of the foregoing
  was mailed to:
  Deborah D. Wells
  on this ____ day of May, 2001.
  ____________________
  Yorgos D. MarinakisSummary of Hearing on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in the case of
DEBORAH BUCHHORN, for herself) and for MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE
SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO,
Plaintiffs, vs. TRUSTEES OF THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í S OF
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, and THE SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S
OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, a non-profit corporation, and the
NATIONAL SPIRITUAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BAHÁ'Í'S OF THE UNITED STATES, an
Illinois Corporation, Defendants. Case No. CV 2001-01978

July 18, 2001, 10:30 AM Judge Scott in Albuquerque, NM

The Local Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Albuquerque and The
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States are
the DEFENDANTS.  Deborah Buchhorn is the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed  a complaint against the Defendants for various
wrongs committed against her as a member of the Baha'i
Faith by the local and national institutions.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint based upon
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.  In addition the NSA brought a separate Motion
to Dismiss challenging the Court's personal jurisdiction of the NSA,
a non-citizen of New Mexico.

The Defendants' attorney argued first.

She said that the complaint was barred on First Amendment grounds,
that all of the plaintiffs (minority shareholder/members of the LSA
community) were not named as required by the Rules, that it was a
corporate derivative suit that was not appropriate, that it pleads
fraud but fails to plead with particularity as required by the Rules,
that the defamation action was barred by admissions of the Plaintiff,
and that it claimed an unspecified right to communicate that does not
exist.

The Defendants argued that the free exercise clause of the First
Amendment bars the claim.  The relief requested in the complaint
that: 1) seeks to remove the Trustees of the LSA from serving in that
capacity for 19 years, 2) enjoin the NSA an LSA from enforcing its
literature review policy; 3) seeks determination that Defendants'
secrecy practices violated the law; and 4) enjoin the Defendants from
following their secrecy practices.  These claims for relief
demonstrate that the complaint involves a religious
controversy.

The US Supreme Court has ruled (in a number of cases cited in the
briefs) that civil courts must abstain from religious controversies.
The long line of US Supreme Court cases state that church government
must not be interfered with by civil courts, and there can be no
review or entanglement of the courts with religious affairs.

In the Baha'i Teachings, the Baha'is must obey the Institutions and
may not engage in backbiting or questioning of the decisions of the
LSA or NSA, for the sake of unity and harmony.  The Teaching of
'Abdul-Baha was that God would right any wrong as long as the
Baha'is remain united in obedience to the Institutions.  These are
the religious teachings of the Baha'i Faith and the secular courts
must not entangle themselves in it.

The Defendants next argued that the complaint is brought on behalf of
un-named minority shareholders of the LSA of Albuquerque.  The court
rules of procedure require that they all be named, and for that
reason the complaint should be dismissed.

Next, the Defendants argued that the complaint is improperly plead as
a derivative suit.  An appropriate derivative suit is where a member
of a corporation seeks to exercise a right that the corporation has
(but has failed to exercise that right on its own).  In this
complaint, the Plaintiff seeks redress for alleged wrongdoing against
her --- not wrongdoing against the corporation.  Thus, a derivative
action is not appropriate.

The next argument was that the complaint failed to plead fraud with
particularity.  That is, it must state facts showing the time, place,
and contents of the fraudulent communication, the identity of the
person making it, and what he obtained through the fraud.  The
complaint therefore fails to state a claim for fraud.

As for the defamation claim, paragraph 13 of the Plaintiff's
complaint admits that the Defendants did not defame her.

As for the alleged right to communicate, the Defendants argued that
it was vague and not specified as to what right this is.  The
Defendants know of no such legal right.

The Plaintiff's attorney argued next.

The Plaintiff argued that for many years she was oppressed,
defrauded,and abused in the manner of the Soviet KGB by Baha'i
leaders.  She appealed repeatedly to the NSA but received no relief.
Plaintiff argued that Baha'is have the belief that the Universal
House of Justice is infallible, but that they have misunderstood the
Arabic word used by 'Abdul-Baha which translates into "morally
immaculate" rather than infallible in the Papal sense.

American Baha'is view their Institutions as divinely guided and
therefore they are particularly susceptible to authoritarian control
techniques utilized by their leaders.  Most of the Baha'is view the
victims of the these authoritarian control techniques as being
sources of disunity in the community.

The Plaintiff next argued against the NSA's attempt to avoid personal
jurisdiction of the court.  She argued that the NSA and LSA are a
single entity.  The NSA asserts exclusive jurisdiction and authority
over the LSA, tells the LSA what their bylaws are to be, and states
in its own publications that the LSA is subject absolutely to NSA
authority and jurisdiction, and that the LSA must obey and sustain
the NSA.

As for the First Amendment issue, the Plaintiff argues that the
assertion of a religious privilege should be raised by a motion for
summary judgment instead of as an attack on the pleadings.  It is a
substantive defense and does not prevent a cause of action from being
stated.

The First Amendment protects the spiritual aspect of religious
teaching, except in cases of fraud (and this complaint is for
fraud).
As for the temporal duties of the Baha'i leadership, the First
Amendment does not protect them.  If the court accepted the
Defendants arguments, then religions would not be accountable to any
court or anyone or anything else except their own religious laws.
The complaint deals with elections, inspection of books and records,
and fraudulent activity in operating the corporation --- these are
not religious issues.

The First Amendment does not protect fraud.

The Plaintiff's attorney said that he has a tape recording of
Defendants attempting to extract confessions out of Baha'is.  The
Defendants carry tape recorders.

He said the complaint details oppression by the Baha'i leadership
against the Plaintiff and that religious law must yield to violations
of state law against oppression.

As for the shareholder derivative suit, Plaintiff argued that it was
properly plead.  The LSA has multiple causes of action against the
NSA that the LSA has failed to assert.

The NSA ignored all appeals.  There is no rule that all of the
plaintiffs be named in a derivative suit.

As for fraud, NM law says that only the circumstances of fraud must
be plead with particularity -- not the evidence.

The Defendants next argued rebuttal.

There is no rational way to interpret the allegations of the
complaint and the request for relief other than that she is a Baha'i
that requires obedience to the LSA and NSA, and that resort to the
secular courts is not appropriate.  Religious dispute would entangle
the courts.

Defendant NSA next argued the NSA's personal jurisdiction question.
There is a 3 part test. Plaintiff has burden of showing that NSA
committed an act to submit itself to jurisdiction of NM court,
Plaintiff's cause of action arouse out of that act, and that the NSA
had sufficient minimal contacts with NM.  Act complained of in
complaint is how the NSA handled appeals and its literature review
policy.  NSA has offices in Illinois.  The acts complained of
occurred in Illinois.  The NSA has no office, bank account,
phone, no address in New Mexico. None of the NSA members are
residents of New Mexico.  There is no registered agent and no
meetings of the NSA in New Mexico.  The only thing plaintiff could
identify that NSA did in New Mexico was pay for media advertising to
introduce public to the Baha'i Faith. That is not an act under NM law
that subjects the NSA to jurisdiction here.  There is nothing to show
that Plaintiff's cause of action arouse of that act (advertising).
And there were no minimal contacts to satisfy due process concerns.

Judge Scott remarked that it appeared the NSA filed a general
appearance (suggesting that the NSA had waived its personal
jurisdiction challenge by failing to file special appearance).

Judge Scott took the case under advisement. He will rule by mail.

This reporter  will follow up in a month to see if the order is on
file.

Jeffrey Goldberg

From: <Wanderer@Gulfcoast.com>
Subject: This is Bahai?
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 7:24 PM

 Let me begin by stateing up front that I am not Bahai. I was
introduced to the Bahai faith several years ago by a couple I found
very admirable and devout Bahai. From them I learned much about the
principles and beliefs of the Bahai and though I chose not to join I
gained great respect and admiration for the group. Since losing
contact with these fine people I have not had any further exposure to
the Bahai except learning of the persecution that happened in Iran.
 This news group was my rediscovery. I am shocked ! Never have I seen
so much hate, vindictiveness and viciousness in a group since
alt.society.afganistan. I am amazed, these are not the people I came
to respect and admire.
 There seems to be major power struggles going on within the Bahai
faith. It appears members are being ex communicated for disagreeing
with church leaders. It seems there are continuous lawsuits over Bahai
assets. 
 Is this what has happened to the Bahai faith? This is nothing at all
like I saw and learned a few years ago. What has happened and what is
going on?From: "Charles" <lmno@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: > bahai < - LAWSUIT - $10,000 STOLEN - FRAUD & LIBEL in New Mexico
Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:29 PM

who me? naaah... I'm a nobody.

but who sells real estate by a code of ethics in Rochester Hills, Michigan?

what do the numbers 62035 and Feb 9, 1954 have in common?  and what's your job
title?  and who's your boss?

and no, I am NOT a decent Baha'i.  I just am tired of your cross-posting and
spams.

Patrick Henry wrote:

> Let's try it again:
>
> Tell us, if you're an honest person, a decent bahai, a model of virtue,
> an examplar for others, who do you work for in the bahai administration?
>
> It's a well known fact that Maniac works for Gharidian. Who's your boss?
> And what's your job title? Assistant what?
>
> --
> FG
> www.FG.com
> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> https://members.nbci.com/FG/index.htm
>
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9afn090b3i@news2.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Patrick Henry" <patrick_henry@liberty.com> wrote in message
> > news:tcm1esqbsv2q19@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Oh you make me laugh!
> >
> > So long as you don't demand that I buy you a new keyboard, then we've
> > accomplished something positive.  That's good.
> >
> > > Your attempting to turn that into EVIDENCE of my manipulating the
> > > Complaint is so laughable....
> >
> > I didn't manipulate the complaint at all.  All I did was quote a paragraph
> > you left out of your post.
> >
> > > Tell us, if you're an honest person, a decent bahai, a model of virtue,
> > > an examplar for others, who do you work for in the bahai administration?
> >
> > Well, as Mr. McKenny has pointed out, the implications of your attempt to
> > discredit me as a person are rather clear.  Thank you.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rick Schaut
> >
> >

March 21, 1999 
The Local Spiritual Assembly of the 
Baha'is of Arlington. Massachusetts 
My dear Baha'i friends, 
I hope this year's Fast found you happy and healthy. This special season, which seems to arrive
sooner every year, always makes us slow down and reflect upon spiritual matters -- why we go
through this physically exhausting fasting process, what we expect from it, and what we believe
about God's laws and our obligation to follow them. The Fast is a test, but it's also a time of
spiritual rejuvenation, and I have always looked forward to it. 
But this year was different for me. I was not fasting with the rest of you. This year, I am
observing Lent instead; and at the end of it, I will celebrate Easter, for the first time in my entire
adult life. 
You see, I've been going through a crisis of faith over the past several months. The problem is
this: I love the Baha'i Faith dearly, but there are some doctrinal and spiritual issues in it that I can
no longer accept. Since I began attending an Episcopal church last year, many of those issues
have been thrown into sharp relief. Seeing them "from the outside" has helped me understand the
latent problems I've had with being a Baha'i all these years. 
What it ultimately comes down to is that, now, I feel closer to God and to my fellow human
beings than I did while I was an active Baha'i. That's the only factor that really counts, I think.
Everything else either contributes to it, or is secondary to it. 
I think I should explain some of my reasons for making this rather unusual move (I don't
personally know of anyone who has gone from being a Baha'i to being a Christian, let alone an
Episcopalian). This letter is my apologetic. I hope that it will also help some Baha'is and Baha'i
communities understand some of the factors that I think are causing them problems, at least in
the United States; some of these points, while controversial, should at least spark some good
discussion or soul-searching. 

                             * * *

1. Our Feasts are not spiritually nourishing. They must be for some Baha'is, but for me, they
don't even come close to a good church service, or a private meditation, or even a walk in the
woods. 
The big problem is the content. It's limited to readings and prayers from the Baha'i Writings
(which truly are a wonderful source of wisdom), and sometimes instrumental music or singing.
Nothing else. There's no spontaneous prayer, or personal reflections, or creative praise. There's
no ritual, either; even though the Writings don't actually rule out the creation of new rituals for
short-term use, they discourage ritual use over the long term (such for Feasts and for marriage
ceremonies), and Baha'is as a rule stay away from ritual altogether. 
I think that's a sad loss. Ritual is a "door to the sacred" -- the familiar repetition of a ritual,
combined with one's periodic reinterpretation of the traditions and symbolic meanings attached
to it, really do help open one's mind and heart to God. It lends focus and framework to our
worship, gives rhythm to our spiritual lives, connects us to our history, and constantly reminds us
of what's important in our chosen faith. Yes, it has the potential to mechanize worship (I'm sure
many churchgoers have this problem) and to distract us from our core beliefs, but that's
something each person can learn to rise above. Besides, Baha'is already have individual rituals
such as the 95 repetitions of the Greatest Name. Why are community rituals so much worse? 
(Incidentally, I didn't understand these truths about ritual when I was growing up in the Christian
faith. At the time, it just seemed repetitive and boring. I readily believed what Baha'is told me
about ritual -- that it calcifies the faith of a community, and becomes an end in itself, supplanting
a living and creative worship. This is not at all true in the church I now attend, which is as vital
and creative a faith community as I've ever been in. Maybe I needed to be deprived of the
blessings of ritual for a while to appreciate it!) 
Another problem is that I need music when I worship, and Baha'is do not have a strong musical
tradition yet. There are a few well-known songs here in the United States -- other countries may
have more -- but not nearly enough to provide a source deep enough to dip into at every Feast. Of
course, it's not fair to expect that a 150-year-old religion will have a musical tradition as large as
the 2000-year-old church! But the Faith is culturally so diverse. It has so much talent in its ranks.
Baha'is all know each other and travel everywhere. Countless wonderful songs should be flowing
all over the Baha'i world by now! Where are they? And lacking those, why don't Baha'is reach
into the musical traditions of other faiths more often? 
Finally, I am saddened by the exclusion of non-Baha'is from Feasts. I understand that people who
have not chosen to be a member of the Baha'i Faith shouldn't take part in the business-meeting
part of the Feast, but why can't they merely observe? And why should they be excluded from the
worship aspect of the Feast? I'm sure it must be discouraging for people looking into the Faith,
who want to experience how we worship. Their presence may enhance the Feast in unexpected
ways, too. I will have more to say about this exclusion later. 
In short, it seems like different people simply have different needs with regard to worship. Many
people I know (including some Christians) honestly don't like church services. Some need
different kinds of rituals, some need private meditation, some need to get out into the woods and
mountains. To each their own. Unfortunately, the Baha'i Faith doesn't allow much choice in how
to conduct Feasts, and what it does allow doesn't work for me. 
2. There's no clergy. I find this issue difficult to discuss because it's a core doctrine of the Baha'i
Faith, but I really think the Faith has "thrown the baby out with the bathwater" -- there are good
reasons to have clergy, and the lack of clergy causes problems for individual believers and for the
community. 
It's my understanding that the Baha'i Faith does not have a priesthood partially to avoid the
trouble that an overly-powerful clerical class can cause (witness the history of the Faith in Iran),
and partially to drive home the point that each one of us is responsible for our own spiritual life,
with no intercessors necessary between us and God. Both are valid arguments. However, many
Protestant denominations (among other groups) have solved both problems, through theology
and church structures that have evolved over time. They do fine. I think it's healthier to meet
such problems head-on than to do away with the priesthood altogether. 
I've also sensed a naivete on the part of some lifelong Baha'is about what clergy actually do,
especially Christian clergy. In mainline Protestant churches, which is all I have any real
experience with, a priest's or rector's job includes these roles: 
     ·    Facilitator for worship. They act as sort of a "living center" for sacred rituals, or they
     preach, or they are simply responsible for planning and executing the regular worship
     services. This is not a bad thing, and Baha'is might do well to have knowledgeable people
     responsible for planning and carrying out Feasts, for instance. 
     ·    Teacher. They've spent years learning about history, theology, other faiths, and so on. In
     sermons, in Bible studies, in Sunday school classes, and in private conversations, they
     teach us all this. 
     ·    Spiritual advisor. Since priests are trained in theology, and sometimes also in such things
     as psychotherapy, marriage counseling, or conflict resolution, they are people you know
     you can go to when you need guidance. In fact, that's their job. Thus, there's a higher
     level of responsibility that you can't get from volunteers or from random members of a
     Baha'i community. (Just before I got married, I really needed someone like this to talk to.
     I did not find such within the Baha'i communities that I knew, and since I wasn't living in
     a town that had an LSA, I didn't "have" an institution available to talk to either. It was a
     terribly lonely time, at a point when I feel like I should have had loving support from a
     religious organization.) 
     ·    Community leader. Each church has its own personality, and some of it (though not by
     any means all of it) comes from its priest. They are partially responsible for the health of
     a community, and again, that's part of their job. No one in a Baha'i community has its
     health and happiness as their primary concern, day in and day out. 
Of course, Baha'is have their Local Spiritual Assemblies to take care of administrative and
spiritual matters. But it's much harder to run things effectively with a committee. And you know
what? If I have a real crisis, I don't want to talk to a nine-member LSA, even if it does have
God's blessings. I want to talk to a single human being. I want to talk to someone one-on-one,
someone who has experience and knowledge that may help, someone with whom I have an
ongoing personal relationship, someone whom I know will find time for me. Yes, I know no
priest is perfect. But I'll take my chances with a trained priest who has chosen to make serving
God his or her life's work, rather than go before an LSA with its nine volunteer members, all of
whom I know socially and are probably tired, pressed for time, distracted by their "real" jobs, and
woefully untrained in difficult personal issues. 
As much as I love my fellow LSA members, I have never felt comfortable going before them
with anything personal. It wasn't their fault; nine people is just too many, and their time was
always in such short supply that I didn't want to add one more thing to their agenda. Even while I
was on the LSA, I never felt we were fully qualified to deal with other people's problems that
came before us, even though our ranks did include professional therapists! 
In general, I'm hard-pressed to believe that the Baha'i Faith can throw out a role as old as the
oldest religions, and not suffer the consequences. The role of priest / elder / shaman / teacher
probably exists for good social and psychological reasons (not to mention spiritual ones), and it's
present in every other religion that I know. It does not have to be incompatible with the Baha'i
tenets of personal spiritual responsibility, the independent investigation of the truth, or anything
else. 

3. Chronic community fatigue and "burnout." The Baha'i Faith seems to attract more than its
share of responsible, intelligent overachievers. This is wonderful, up to a point -- the Faith's
small numbers in the Boston area belies the huge amount of activity that goes on! But this takes
an enormous toll on people. I think the typical active Baha'i works a 50-hour week (either in a
job or at home), serves on at least two committees or an LSA, gets lots of Faith-related email
every day, goes to talks and deepenings and Feasts, and maybe somehow finds time for daily
prayers in the midst of it all. Then they're asked to host a talk or a party or something. Or to make
something for a potluck. Or to serve on one more committee. And they cannot say "no" to the
Faith they want to serve, until they are just too tired to say "yes" anymore. 
After all, the Faith's needs are so great; who are we to decline the opportunity for service? 
I've thought about this issue for a long time. I now believe that the Baha'i Faith in the United
States is simply too demanding of its active members. Except in the really big urban areas,
everything is done by volunteers, who all have their own lives to deal with. (Hired administrators
and secretaries and such would help, but there's never enough money for such luxuries.)
Furthermore, service to the Faith is implicitly expected of its members -- and active teaching is
explicitly expected. There's always so much that we're being asked to do, to fulfill teaching plans
and meet fund-raising goals. Plans are made by LSAs, Regional Councils, National Spiritual
Assemblies, the World Center, the Universal House of Justice, and so on and so on. We
constantly overreach ourselves, often fall short of our goal, then set the next goal higher.
Sometimes victories are won, but at a high human cost: people who were once enthusiastic "burn
out," or just get too discouraged to keep going. 
I think a religion should allow for more balance. We should all have time for contemplation and
reflection. Time to be with our families, time to do our jobs really well without being tired, time
to allow spontaneous things to happen like talking to a friend or taking a walk. Can we be
spiritually whole without that? When we're so busy serving and running around, we can't hear the
"still small voice" of God whispering into the ears of our souls. And that's so important. 
Why do we have an endless conflict between taking the time we personally need, and giving the
Faith the time and energy it needs? Faith and sacrifice go hand in hand, but does God want us to
sacrifice our spiritual well-being for the immediate needs of the Faith? I just can't believe that. 

4. The pressure to teach. This is directly linked to the burnout problem: if we had more people,
the work would be spread out more, but at the same time, teaching is the reason we spend so
much time and effort and money in the first place! Sometimes it seems that the Baha'i Faith's
whole purpose is to spread itself. In fact, this is probably a sound theological point -- if the
Faith's only ultimate purpose is to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth, then growth to a
"critical mass" is exactly what it should be trying to do. 
But is this what religion is all about? No, of course not. A religion is also about an individual's
relationship with God and the rest of humanity. It's about seeking truth, and it's about learning
how to love other people beyond love for one's self. The Christian denominations that I grew up
in keep these things paramount; growth is secondary (though it's certainly wonderful when it
happens). That comes closer to matching what I know, deep in my soul, to be true. 
Now, if I truly believed that the Baha'i Faith is the right answer for everyone else, then teaching
it would come naturally. But I don't. I know that many of my closest friends and family are
spiritually content where they are; or maybe they're not interested in religious topics, and would
be bored or put off by my constantly mentioning the Faith. Love and consideration for the people
in my life should take precedence over teaching them. 
In a more sinister vein, the Faith sometimes encourages us to use friendship as a means to the
end of teaching. A recent letter from the Regional Council for the Northeastern States
recommends that we choose a single seeker to take under our wing, and make friends with them -
- with the express purpose of opening their heart through kindness and friendship, so that they
will be more receptive to the Faith. Isn't this putting the horse before the cart? If I were that
seeker, I would be offended if I found out that such a "friendship" was built on the other person's
drive to teach, not on a genuine liking and respect for each other. 
Finally, I think the emphasis on teaching pulls energy and resources away from non-teaching-
oriented service and charity efforts. Perhaps if Baha'is were less focused on teaching, and less
overwhelmed by the weight of all their other activities, they could do more in the way of
community service, which they are enjoined to do by the Writings. Then again, maybe what's
really needed is a change of heart -- away from growth as a primary goal, and towards love and
compassion for all people regardless of their beliefs. (Mind you, individual Baha'is are among
the most loving and compassionate people I've ever met; here I'm talking about the Baha'i Faith
as an institution.) 

5. An uncomfortable split between Baha'is and non-Baha'is. We talk about unity this and
unity that, but we still use that declaration card to draw a sharp dividing line between who can
attend Feast and who can't, who can read certain letters and who can't, who can give money and
who can't, and so on. It creeps into our language -- "I'm inviting a non-Baha'i to this deepening,
is that OK?" "We had six non-Baha'is and ten Baha'is come to this event." It affects our social
lives -- we draw a cozy circle around "us Baha'is" and occasionally widen it to include a new
declarant or an enthusiastic seeker. It subtly alters the way we view humanity, so that we no
longer see one world, but two: Baha'i and non-Baha'i. 
This is a particularly thorny problem for those of us who have spouses who are not Baha'is. For
instance, if there's a special event coming up that my husband and I want to go to, I have to ask if
we can both go, or if only I can go. Yet we both enjoy the company of our beloved Baha'i friends
(not to mention each other's company), so tension is the result. Another side of this issue came up
a few months ago, when I told a Baha'i group that I was willing to loan or give them a large
amount of money, but I had to discuss it with my husband first to make sure it was financially
feasible at that point in time. Even though it would ultimately have been my own money, I was
turned down flat, because he was not a Baha'i and shouldn't be involved with giving money to
the Faith! 
In contrast, the church we now attend welcomed us right from the beginning, regardless of where
we were in our spiritual journeys. Nothing was barred to us before officially becoming members,
except for voting rights in the annual meeting. In fact, we didn't even know there was such a
thing as officially signing up, until just before that annual meeting. No one made a big deal out
of it. Even Vestry meetings (the Vestry being the lay governing committee of an Episcopal
church, roughly the equivalent to the administrative aspect of an LSA) are open to anyone who
wants to observe. Overall, I felt much more welcome there than I probably would have if I had
visited Baha'i events as a non-Baha'i. 
Isn't this Revelation for everyone? What are Baha'is afraid of? Why can't we welcome people
into our events and lives with open arms and no prejudices based on whether or not they've
signed a card? Maybe in some countries there's a security issue, but here in the United States,
there's no political reason to fear outsiders! Are we afraid people will laugh at us, or that they'll
think we're foolish or naive? Are we afraid they won't approve of us if they see how we talk to
each other or conduct our community business? Surely the Faith is stronger than that. 
This kind of insularity can only hurt the Faith. Worse, it undermines our belief in unity, and
borders on hypocritical. I can't imagine Abdul-Baha' making a big deal out of whether or not
someone has signed a declaration card; on the contrary, I think he would welcome everyone,
without even pausing to ask whether they were technically Baha'is or not. 

6. An uncertain intellectual foundation. I've been fighting against this one for years, afraid to
look too hard at some of the belief structures given to us in the Writings. I still can't force myself
to study some of the more pedantic works, like "Some Answered Questions," because I can't
reconcile myself to believing what's in them. 
For example, the unity of all religions is a wonderful idea, and for ten years, I truly wanted to
believe it. Guided by the Baha'i Writings, I tried my best to make myself believe in it. There are
some assertions in the Writings about other faiths that I never could believe, though. One is
about the resurrection of Christ being strictly symbolic. Yes, a physical resurrection is hard to
understand and accept, but isn't that the whole point of the ends of the Gospels? Over and over
again (in three of them, anyway), they emphasize that he really did physically return, wounds and
all, to the shock of his friends and disciples; the letters in the rest of the New Testament keep
coming back to that point. It's so fundamental to Christian doctrine that to reinterpret it as "only
symbolic" is to dismiss nearly the entire history of Christian theology, not to mention the
obvious meaning of the Gospels. In my opinion, it's intellectually dishonest for Baha'is to claim
unity with a theological construct that most Christians never believed in the first place. 
But that isn't the half of it; that doesn't address the central core of beliefs that the Baha'i Faith
says is common among all the revealed religions, like a belief in a monotheistic God. Buddhism
does not necessarily teach this belief. Some individual Buddhists do believe in God, which may
be OK within the tenets of some Buddhist schools (I don't know this for sure), but the earliest
Buddhist writings we have -- the Pali texts -- apparently indicate that Buddha himself did not
teach monotheism at all! Yet Abdul-Baha' claims he did. Again: how can Baha'is honestly claim
unity with this religion whose doctrine they have changed to be something different from what
was historically taught, and against all evidence found by historians and scholars? 
The Baha'i counterargument I have heard most often is that Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha' had
direct knowledge from God about these other religions, and therefore we should believe them
and not what the other religions currently teach. That may be so; we can't prove or disprove such
a claim, at least not in this world. But in a sense, this is a false unity -- the theological sleight-of-
hand may help Baha'is feel like they're standing on a firmer foundation, but it does nothing to
help them find genuine common ground with modern-day Christians and Buddhists and others. If
anything, it hinders any such efforts, because it tends to put people of other faiths on the
defensive by essentially telling them they've been wrong all this time. I've seen that happen on
the Net, and it's not pretty. 
Besides, at some point, our own common sense has to kick in and decide whether or not a
revelation is correct, or else we'd be blindly following every nut case who claims direct
revelation from God. We chose to believe in Baha'u'llah not just because he told us to, but
because his teachings resonated with us at some level; either logically or intuitively, we already
believed most of what we heard him teaching. Now if Abdul-Baha' had seriously told us that the
moon was made of green cheese, and that in the year 2000 we'd all follow the cow in jumping
over it in order to bring about the lesser peace, wouldn't a rational person begin to question the
fundamental correctness of the Writings? At some point, credibility vanishes and one ceases
taking everything on faith. I have reached that point. 

7. A lack of open intellectual discussion. This isn't entirely true, of course; since the spark of
truth comes from the clash of differing opinions, open discourse is fine, as long as it stays within
certain bounds. But those bounds have felt awfully constricting lately. Personally, I haven't
wanted to be accused of not being "firm in the Covenant," so I have avoided certain topics that
I'd really have liked to talk openly about. This includes many of the issues I've brought up in this
letter. (Even if my dear Baha'i friends didn't explicitly accuse me of anything, I know they would
still be saddened and disturbed to hear me bring up these topics, and they would probably feel
torn between their friendship with me and their loyalty to the Faith. I'd hate to put them through
that.) 
I did a Web search a few months ago and ended up on FG's Web site. While
exploring there, I found an article called "A Modest Proposal," written by a handful of Baha'is in
1987 for the now-defunct "Dialogue" magazine. It was an excellent article, well-written,
insightful, and full of courageous and loving suggestions for revitalizing the Baha'i Faith in the
United States. But the National Spiritual Assembly did not allow its publication. Personally, I
could see nothing in it that might be considered blasphemous, or disrespectful of the Covenant,
or even disunifying; to this day, I have no idea why its publication was prevented. 
That got me wondering why it's still necessary to review articles written by Baha'is before
publication. Is it really just to make sure the Faith is presented in a dignified manner, and to
guarantee factual accuracy? If so, why wasn't the Dialogue article corrected and then published?
Or is it because certain ideas are considered dangerous, even when they don't directly conflict
with the Writings? That frightens me. If the Faith is true and from God, it should be strong
enough to remain standing in spite of all our questions and reinterpretations. Eternal truth is like
that. If all serious Baha'i discourse has to be vetted for intellectual acceptability before
publication, that belies a deep insecurity on the part of the Baha'i institutions. 
In relation to this incident, the Talisman email list incident, and other things, I have heard many
anecdotes that indicate that academics engaged in Baha'i studies feel ignored, belittled, or
distrusted because of their work. Add to this the May 1997 correspondence between the
Universal House of Justice and Susan Maneck, and I'm almost certain there's an anti-academic
undercurrent running through the Faith, in America and elsewhere. (This letter implied that
traditional, non-religious methods of analyzing religious texts and histories by Baha'is are less
worthy than a faith-based approach, in which the basic tenets of the Faith are already accepted as
truth by the investigator.) Again, one wonders what the UHJ is afraid of. Shouldn't we be eager
to learn more about the historical context of our Faith, regardless of the source of the knowledge?
Why would a dispassionate analysis of the Faith, done by methods widely accepted by the world
at large, be worth less than those done from the perspective of faith? It seems to me that we need
both, for balance. 
Finally, there's the matter of Covenant-breakers. We're not supposed to talk with them, nor read
what they write. Why not? We're adults, not children; for the most part, we're not so fragile that
we can't hear bad things about our Faith and not be seduced into believing them. We might
believe on an individual basis that we're not prepared to read such stuff, or that we just don't want
to, but that should be a personal decision, not one imposed upon us. For the most part, I bet their
arguments against the Covenant couldn't stand up to logical analysis or spiritual wisdom. (The
few I've read aren't worth the electrons they're printed on!) If they can, well, maybe it's good for
us to argue against them, up to a point -- we could learn from the experience, and grow
spiritually and intellectually. Maybe we could even bridge the chasm between us, and view them
as human beings deserving of respect and empathy. But sticking our heads in the sand gets us
nowhere. Once again, it indicates a fundamental insecurity about the truth of the Faith -- or, even
worse, a lack of trust in the faith of individual Baha'is. Either way, it's very authoritarian, and I
can't bring myself to agree with it anymore. 

8. An overemphasis on unity as an ultimate good. Unity is wonderful, of course, but odd
things happen when it becomes the highest ideal that we try to attain. I'm not sure that it ought to
be. 
When I began looking into the Episcopal Church a few months ago, they had just held the
Lambeth Conference, a worldwide bishop's conference which happens every ten years. I read the
news stories. Boy, did they have unity problems! There were conservative factions, and liberal
factions, and harsh words, and behind-the-scenes politicking, and a near meltdown of the
Anglican Communion -- all over the single issue of the Scriptural acceptability of homosexual
behavior. I found myself thinking, "How awful. This would never, ever happen in the Baha'i
Faith." 
Later I thought, "Maybe it should." 
Look at what brought about the conflicts at Lambeth: many different interpretations of Scripture,
to be sure (which Baha'is aren't supposed to have), but also a love for God, for the truth, and for
the Church's spiritual direction. And, importantly, a knowledge that they could express their
opinions freely, even if those opinions were unpopular with other bishops or were a break with
the past. Now wouldn't it be wonderful if they ever do find unity, given these circumstances?
That would be a hard-won, genuine unity. That would be a unity based not on an order that
"Thou shalt be unified!", but on care and respect, forged in the furnace of real conflict. On love,
not on law. 
I think this "difficult unity" is ultimately better and stronger than one that tends to subsume the
search for truth in the name of unity. This happens among Baha'is, like during LSA meetings --
for instance, someone may want to keep discussing a point they know is right, but according to
consultation rules, shuts up in the name of unity. It also happens in public discourse, as I
discussed above -- if someone has an interpretation of some aspect of the Writings that differs
from the standard one, they may feel discouraged from talking about it, for fear of causing strife
and disunity (or, horror of horrors, being seen as a schismatic). 
Instead of resolving such conflicts honestly, Baha'is tend to bury them, lest those conflicts fester
and cause disunity. It seems a little cowardly to me now. 
Also, there's a little logic problem in Baha'i doctrine that has bothered me for a while. Baha'is
believe that the Faith has never been split into sects (lasting ones, anyway), and will in fact
remain basically undivided. But those groups that do separate from the mainstream of the Faith
are declared non-Baha'is, simply because they separated. It's a semantic trick, no more. I'm sorry,
but there are other Baha'i groups that do not consider the Universal House of Justice an
authority. They do believe in Baha'u'llah (though not in the Covenant as we understand it, hence
the term "Covenant-breakers"), so the rest of the world would consider them Baha'is. They
consider themselves Baha'is too. Only mainstream Baha'is don't, and they have a powerful
psychological motive for not doing so: the bedrock of their faith would be shaken if these
breakaway groups were acknowledged as Baha'is. 
This is very shaky ground for the claim that this faith is superior to Christianity and Islam, with
respect to a lack of internal division. It also causes mainstream Baha'is to actively shun the
company and opinions of certain other people who believe in Baha'u'llah; my soul tells me this is
neither healthy nor just, and paradoxically, it makes the Faith less tolerant of diversity than many
other religions. 
And at some levels, what's really wrong with division, as long as it doesn't cause hatred or
unloving behavior? I can choose to worship in a progressive church and still love conservative
parishioners who leave to go someplace more suited to their beliefs. I can be an Episcopalian and
still love my Unitarian and Catholic friends. (And my Muslim friends, and my Baha'i friends,
and my Pagan friends, and so on!) I can even play Democrat to my Republican friends, or vice
versa. It may be a little harder to understand where they're coming from, since I don't share their
beliefs, but tests such as these are opportunities for intellectual and spiritual growth, not an
indication that we need enforced uniformity of beliefs. I think what the world really needs is not
a ban on divisions, but a spiritual discipline that prevents those divisions from causing hatred and
prejudice. 

9. Too many answers, not enough mystery. The Baha'i Writings are vast. In my ten years as a
Baha'i, I'm sure I haven't read even half of all the English works, and of course I don't stand a
chance at reading all the untranslated Arabic and Persian works. Between the writings of the
Central Figures and the decisions of the Universal House of Justice, there's probably something
authoritative written on almost any topic of spiritual significance! 
It really does makes life easier, having such an extensive set of laws and beliefs that I can
subscribe to as a body. It means I don't have to think all the time. I can just say, "Sorry, I don't
drink," rather than having to decide how much alcohol is too much. It means I can believe in the
ultimate unity of the religions and then shape my observations to that belief, rather than doing the
hard work of forming hypotheses based on what I observe. It means I don't have to have any
doubts about the humanity's future, since we pretty much know what's eventually going to
happen. It means I have a perfectly good explanation of Christ's Resurrection; no need to keep
going back to it year after year, looking for new layers of meaning. It means that there are very
few unanswered questions left. 
And this is supposed to help me grow spiritually? 
It seems to me that all my real spiritual growth has come during periods of doubt, when I was
unconvinced that the answers offered by the Christian or Baha'i doctrines were true. (This is one
of those periods.) During those times, I have to go looking for my own answers; those that are
given free, without the search, somehow lack the same weight. I feel like I have to use the mind
that God gave me, even -- especially -- in religious matters, and to do otherwise would be
something less than human. I take the independent investigation of truth very seriously. 
The Baha'i Faith tells us that humanity has finally outgrown its adolescence and reached
adulthood. Why, then, are we given yet more laws and answers than before? To me, it just
doesn't seem to fit. 
Furthermore, the set of Baha'i beliefs and laws can only grow over time, as the Universal House
of Justice issues more infallible interpretations over the years. They certainly don't seem to be in
the business of abrogating anything that the Central Figures have said, nor what they themselves
have said in the past. Therefore, the amount of authoritative "stuff" in the Faith cannot shrink; it
can only grow. If it continues this way, it seems to me that the Faith will calcify -- with so many
unchangeable answers, it will gradually lose its ability to adapt, even if it must do so in order to
fulfill its divine station. 
There is one non-religious idea that I've concluded is a fundamental truth about the world: the
concept of incremental change, of slow adaptation to changing conditions while retaining an
unchangeable core of individuality or "self." It's required for anything to thrive, whether it be an
organism, a species, a personality, a building, a city, a software artifact, even a belief system.
Christianity tried for centuries to resist change, only to be rocked by periodic upheavals like the
Reformation. Now many denominations have learned to adapt to a changing world and an
advancing understanding of morality, and they work pretty well. The Episcopal Church, at least,
offers a relatively simple Gospel-based core doctrine, but its non-core beliefs change with the
times. The changes are done thoughtfully, not according to whims or fads, but slowly -- just
enough to maintain a certain aliveness. The Church once condoned the subordination of women;
now it doesn't. It may once have been silent on the issues of slavery and racism in America; it
certainly isn't anymore. The institution learns and adapts. 
(Ironically, the Baha'i Faith explicitly teaches incremental change, in the form of progressive
revelation -- each religion teaches a core of unchangeable truths, but with a set of beliefs and
laws that change from one revelation to another. But the time scale is all wrong; will we really be
living with all these same early-twentieth-century interpretations for a thousand years? I find that
hard to believe.) 
Christianity in general seems to fit this incremental-change model particularly well. There are
many Gospels, and none of them are guaranteed to have accurately recorded the exact words and
deeds of Christ. Their authors had certain audiences, certain agendas. They contradict each other
sometimes, in fact. But because of these loving yet human retellings, the story of Christ's life
takes on a mythic status, more so than a historical one. And here the importance of mystery
arises: because the Christ story is myth-like, its meaning shifts and deepens throughout a person's
life (or a culture's). How can there be any one interpretation to something as profoundly simple
as the Last Supper? It's a holy mystery. Different interpretations are appropriate for different
people, or at different stages of a person's life, or in different cultures. No one can force a certain
interpretation on me, nor should they -- it would lose its mystery, and ruin any chance that I can
get other meanings out of it later. Nailing down a single interpretation would damage the myth
beyond repair, by stripping it of its mysterious aspect. 
I'm convinced that this is why Christianity has lasted so long, and is still growing, in spite of its
fragmentation. Its mythic basis allows for changing interpretations, while still remaining firm on
the fundamental Christian truths (those pronounced uniformly by all the Gospels). It permits a
diversity of denominations, for people with different needs and values. And above all, it offers an
infinitely deep pool of spiritual truth, never running dry, no matter how many times a person
goes back to it during his or her lifetime. 
In contrast, the Baha'i Faith offers a pool which is large, but necessarily finite; definitive answers
are always there for the asking. 

                             * * *

As you can see, I seem to have irreconcilable differences with the Baha'i Faith. The question
remaining to me is: am I still a Baha'i? If I believe in Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for
this day, then I would still be a Baha'i. That's the only test that counts. 
The answer is, I just don't know anymore. I no longer have the certitude I once had. I know I'll
find out if He is or not in the next world, but until then, I just can't make myself believe it.
Because of the solidity, coherence, and authority of its teachings, the Baha'i Faith is not a
religion in which one can just pick and choose what to believe or not believe. 
My soul is still moved by Baha'u'llah's writings, and probably will always be; their beauty is
simply incomparable. I'm sure they're divinely inspired (though I'm no longer sure exactly how).
But most of the issues I've described here come from later interpretations, not from His own pen.
Therein lies the problem. With the Covenant, Baha'u'llah made it very clear that Abdul-Baha'
was his successor, and that what he said was authoritative; and then it passed to the Guardian,
and so on down to the Universal House of Justice. To believe in the authority of some of these
institutions and not others is to break the Covenant, which is emotionally impossible for me. It's
also illogical. I don't see how I can believe that Baha'u'llah was who He said He was, and yet
discount what He clearly said about the succession of His authority. 
That leaves two choices: I accept all of it, or I accept none of it. 
Now you know what I have to do. Since I can't make myself accept all of it anymore, I feel like I
have no choice but to resign my membership in the Baha'i Faith. 
Please understand that this was not an easy decision for me to make. It took months. It's still
deeply painful, and it will remain so for a very long time; I have been a Baha'i for my entire adult
life, and it is part of my identity. Its teachings are deeply entwined with my personal value
system, to the point where I don't know sometimes where my own beliefs end and the Baha'i
doctrines begin. I still have a great love for my Baha'i friends, and I'm acutely aware of how
much pain this will cause them. To spare them this pain, I considered quietly "going inactive,"
but I don't think that would be intellectually honest, especially since I plan to be active in the
church that we're attending. I also need closure to this whole matter, and leaving it open-ended
like that just prolongs it unnecessarily. And besides, every new beginning requires an ending! 
I hope that the Baha'is that I know and love can understand why I am doing this. I don't think the
Faith is entirely wrong -- I'm just not sure it's entirely right, that's all. It's definitely not right for
me, at this point in my life. I know that many of my Baha'i friends do know it's right for them;
may they continue growing happily in the Faith! My prayers will always be with them. And the
Faith will be right for many seekers. I do think that growth will come, in time; the Faith offers so
many wonderful solutions for the problems of this world. 
But I also hope that if "entry by troops" does not happen in the way that Baha'is expect it to, that
they may better understand why the Faith is not right for many seekers. I tried my best to make it
right for me, but couldn't do it -- and I was a deepened Baha'i with a strong incentive to stay with
it! One of the ways I think the Faith must adapt is to accept its place as one of many, many
diverse religions in the world, not as a tiny religion which assumes that it will eventually claim
the majority of the world's people. It will not appeal to all those people, because many people's
spiritual needs will not be fulfilled by the Faith. If this letter can help the Baha'is understand that
better, then that's really the best I can hope for. 
I read a book recently called "Things Seen and Unseen." It's an autobiographical work by an
Episcopalian woman who describes her slow transition into a church community as being
"pushed by God" -- as though there was an invisible hand at her back, gently pushing her in the
direction that she needs to go to achieve spiritual maturity. That's what I've been feeling for the
last six months. When you feel the hand of God, you go with it. I don't know where I'm going.
But I trust that it will be where God wants me to be. 
I love you all dearly, and I pray that God may walk with you through all your journeys. 

Jenifer Tidwell 

www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/letter_lsa.html 

From: "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
Subject: UHJ letter on withdrawals (for Don)
Date: Saturday, October 06, 2001 2:28 PM

4 April 2001

To all National Spiritual Assemblies

Dear Baha'i Friends,

         The International Teaching Centre has sought elucidation
of issues concerning the attitude of Baha'is and Baha'i
institutions towards those who have withdrawn from the Faith.
In response, we have provided the following comments, which
are being sent to you for your information and guidance. You
are free to share this letter with the believers under your
jurisdiction as you wish.

         One's beliefs are an internal and personal matter; no
person or institution has the right to exert compulsion in
matters of belief. Since there is a wide range of meanings in
the Sacred Scriptures, there are bound to be different ways in
which individuals understand many of the Baha'i teachings.
Nevertheless, it is necessary for the viability of the Baha'i
community that its members share a common understanding
of essentials. This implies a commitment by each member to
function within the framework established by such an
understanding.

         This framework includes, for example, cognizance of the
existence of a Divine Revelation brought by Baha'u'llah, the
Manifestation of God for this age, and acceptance of the two
primary duties prescribed by God, as expressed in the
Kitab i Aqdas, the Most Holy Book of the Baha'i Revelation.
These are: "recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His
Revelation and the Fountain of His laws," and observance of
"every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These
twin duties," the Aqdas firmly states, "are inseparable. Neither
is acceptable without the other."

         'Abdu'l Baha, Whom Baha'u'llah appointed as the
Interpreter of His writings, reaffirms these fundamentals of
Baha'i belief. In His Will and Testament He writes: "This is the
foundation of the belief of the people of Baha (may my life be
offered up for them): 'His Holiness, the Exalted One (the Bab),
is the Manifestation of the Unity and Oneness of God and the
Forerunner of the Ancient Beauty. His Holiness the Abha
Beauty (may my life be a sacrifice for His steadfast friends) is
the Supreme Manifestation of God and the Dayspring of His
Most Divine Essence. All others are servants unto Him and do
His bidding.'"

         It is within the context of these statements of basic belief
and practice that membership in the Baha'i Faith is
determined. Acknowledging that the matter of ascertaining the
qualification of a true believer is a delicate and complex
question, Shoghi Effendi, the appointee of 'Abdu'l Baha as
Guardian of the Cause and authorized interpreter of its
teachings, set down for Spiritual Assemblies the principal
factors that must be taken into consideration before deciding
whether a person may be regarded as a true believer or not:
"Full recognition of the station of the Forerunner, the Author,
and the True Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in
'Abdu'l Baha's Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and
submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen;
loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's
sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as
the form of the present day Baha'i administration throughout
the world...."

         Viewed in the light of these texts, a statement that one
wishes to withdraw from the Baha'i community, but not from
the Faith, is seen to be self contradictory. The Baha'i
community must be seen in its proper light. The necessity for
its existence as an inseparable element of the Faith itself is
explained by the stated purpose of the Revelation of
Bah=DF'u'll=DFh: to baing about a Divine Civilization. The
embodiment of that purpose and of the spirit breathed by
Baha'u'llah into the world is the Order He has ordained, to
which He refers in the Most Holy Book in asserting: "The
world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating
influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's
ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this
unique, this wondrous System   the like of which mortal eyes
have never witnessed."

         Normally, a Spiritual Assembly is called upon to make a
decision in such matters only as the result of an action by an
individual, either in declaring his belief in Baha'u'llah, or in
stating that he wishes to withdraw from the Faith, or, very
rarely, in persistently promoting concepts which are clearly
inconsistent with the essentials of membership outlined above.

         Acceptance of the Faith is the voluntary act of an
individual and is registered by the appropriate Baha'i institution
unless it has good reason not to do so. Likewise, a Baha'i is
free to leave the Faith voluntarily. When a member of the
community informs the Assembly of his wish to withdraw, it
would try to help him overcome whatever problems seem to be
the cause of his desiring to take such a step. If he persists in
his intention, the Assembly would normally accept the
withdrawal unless there were grounds for suspecting that he is
acting insincerely out of some ulterior motive, such as to
violate a Baha'i law with impunity.

         In spite of loving encouragement given by their
Assemblies, not all Baha'is are active in the work of the
community. This does not, of course, necessarily indicate
withdrawal. An Assembly should carefully distinguish between
those who are not active but still identify themselves with the
Faith, and those whose inactivity indicates complete lack of
interest and a wish to have nothing more to do with the Cause.

         Once a person's resignation from the Faith has been
accepted, his status is that of a non Baha'i and   except as
noted below   his relationship with Baha'i institutions and
individual believers is the same as that of any other
non Baha'i. As in all human relationships, the closeness of
this connection, and the warmth of friendship, depend upon
personal factors.

         Sometimes, after a person's withdrawal from the Cause
has been accepted, it becomes evident that his statements
were insincere and were made merely in order to evade Baha'i
law. The Assembly need not take any overt action in such a
case, but would note the matter in its records. In other words,
it would have to be cautious about accepting a subsequent
declaration of belief from this individual until satisfied that it is
made in good faith. Also, depending upon the circumstances,
the Assembly might require him to rectify the action, taken in
violation of Baha'i law, which was the motive for his
withdrawing from the Faith.

         An analogous situation arises when a person who is
engaged in some activity which he suspects would result in
his being declared a Covenant breaker withdraws from the
Faith under the impression that this step would prevent such
an outcome. The Universal House of Justice may conclude
that the withdrawal provides adequate protection of the
community from the individual in question. However, if he
persists, following his withdrawal, in trying to undermine the
Covenant or joins forces with Covenant breakers, he may be
judged to have broken the Covenant, and the friends would be
told to have no association with him. Each such case would
be considered in the context of its specific circumstances.

         There is one other condition which should be mentioned.
There are certain former Baha'is whose actions do not
necessarily constitute Covenant breaking, but are seriously
destructive. Where such people have shown that they are
impervious to explanations or exhortations from the Baha'i
institutions, continued association with them can be
burdensome and can exert a spiritually corrosive effect on the
faith of believers. In such cases the Head of the Faith may
simply advise the Baha'is to leave them to their own devices.

         Thus, there are exceptional cases in which a former
believer's spiritual attitude to the Faith may, to various
degrees, create an estrangement between him and the
Baha'is. In general, however, a person who has withdrawn from
the Faith is regarded as being among the generality of
humankind with whom the Baha'is are enjoined to associate
"in joy and fragrance".

With loving Baha'i greetings,

cc: International Teaching Centre
          Continental Boards of Counsellors
          Counsellors



--
"The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . . ." --
Baha'u'llah

PART I

From the Universal House of Justice to all National Spiritual Assemblies

April 4, 2001

Dear Baha'i Friends:

The international teaching Centre has sought elucidation of issues concerning the attitude of
Baha'is and Baha'i institutions towards those who have withdrawn from the Faith. In response,
we have provided the following comments, which are being sent to you for your information and
guidance. You are free to share this letter with the believers under your jurisdiction as you wish.

One's beliefs are an internal and personal matter; no person or institution has the right to exert
compulsion in matters of belief. Since there is a wide range of meanings in the Sacred Scriptures,
there are bound to be different ways in which individuals understand many of the Baha'i
teachings. Nevertheless, it is necessary for the viability of the Baha'i community that its
members share a common understanding of essentials. This implies a commitment by each
member to function within the framework established by such an understanding.

The framework includes, for example, cognizance of the existence of a Divine Revelation
brought by Baha'u'llah, the Manifestation of God for this age, and acceptance of the two primary
duties prescribed by God, as expressed in the Kitab-I-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book of the Baha'i
Revelation. These are: "recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the
Fountain of His laws," and observance of every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the
world. These twin duties," the Aqdas firmly states, "are inseparable. Neither is acceptable
without the other."

Abdul-Baha, Whom Baha'u'llah appointed as the Interpreter of His writings, reaffirms these
fundamentals of Baha'i belief. In His Will and Testament He Writes: "This is the foundation of
the belief of the people of Baha (may my life be offered up for them): 'His Holiness, the Exalted
One (the Bab), is the Manifestation of the Unity and Oneness of God and the Forerunner of the
Ancient Beauty. His Holiness the Abha Beauty may my life be a sacrifice for His steadfast
friends) is the Supreme Manifestation of God and the Dayspring of His Most Divine Essence. All
others are servants unto Him and do His bidding.'"

It is within the context of these statements of basic belief and practice that membership in the
Baha'i Faith is determined. Acknowledging that the matter of ascertaining and qualification of a
true believer is a delicate and complex question, Shoghi Effendi, the appointee of Abdul-Baha
as Guardian of the Cause and authorized interpreter of its teachings, set down for Spiritual
Assemblies the principal factors that must be taken into consideration before deciding whether a
person may be regarded as a true believer or not: "Full recognition of the station of the
Forerunner, the Author, and the True Exemplar of the Baha'i Cause, as set forth in
Abdul-Baha's Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been
revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will;
and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the present day Baha'i administration
throughout the world ."

Viewed in the light of these texts, a statement that one wishes to withdraw from the Baha'i
community, but not from the Faith, is seen to be self-contradictory. The Baha'i community must
be seen in its proper light. The necessity for its existence as an inseparable element of the Faith
itself is explained by the stated purpose of the Revelation of Baha'u'llah: to bring about a Divine
Civilization. The embodiment of that purpose and the spirit breathed by Baha'u'llah into the
world is the Order He has ordained, to which He refers in the Most Holy Book in asserting: "The
world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new
World Order. Mankind's ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique,
this wondrous System   the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed."

   

 AnnaPortenz 
6/10/01 4:28 PM  38 out of 43   
 

PART II -- Continued

Normally, a Spiritual Assembly is called upon to make a decision in such matters only as the
result of an action by an individual, either in declaring his belief in Baha'u'llah, or in stating that
he wishes to withdraw from the Faith, or, very rarely, in persistently promoting concepts which
are clearly inconsistent with the essentials of membership outlined above.

Acceptance of the Faith is the voluntary act of an individual and is registered by the appropriate
Baha'i institution unless it has good reason not to do so. Likewise, a Baha'i is free to leave the
Faith voluntarily. When a member of the community informs the Assembly of his wish to
withdraw, it would try to help him overcome whatever problem seems to be the cause of his
desiring to take such a step. If he persists in his intention, the Assembly would normally accept
the withdrawal unless there were grounds for suspecting that he is acting insincerely out of some
ulterior motive, such as to violate a Baha'i law with impunity. 

In spite of loving encouragement given by their Assemblies, not all Baha'is are active in the
work of the community. This does not, of course, necessarily indicate withdrawal. An Assembly
should carefully distinguish between those who are not active but still identify themselves with
the Faith, and those whose inactivity indicates complete lack of interest and a wish to have
nothing more to do with the Cause.

Sometimes, after a person's withdrawal from the Cause has been accepted, it becomes evident
that his statements were insincere and were made merely in order to evade Baha'i law. The
Assembly need not take any overt action in such a case, but would note the matter in its records.
In other words, it would have to be cautious about accepting a subsequent declaration of belief
from the individual until satisfied that it is made in good faith. Also, depending upon the
circumstances, the Assembly might require him to rectify the action, taken in violation of Baha'i
law, which was the motive for his withdrawing from the Cause.

An analogous situation arises when a person when a person who is engaged in some activity
which he suspects would result in his being declared a Covenant-breaker withdraws from the
Faith under the impression that this step would prevent such an outcome. The Universal House
of Justice may conclude that the withdrawal provides adequate protection of the community from
the person in question. However, if he persists, following his withdrawal, in trying to undermine
the Covenant or joins forces with Covenant-breakers, he may be judged to have broken the
Covenant, and the friends would be told to have no association with him. Each such case would
be considered in the context of its specific circumstances.

There is one other condition which should be mentioned. There are certain former Baha'is whose
actions do not necessarily constitute Covenant-breaking, but are seriously destructive. Where
such people have shown that they are impervious to explanations or exhortations from the Baha'i
institutions, continued association with them can be burdensome and can exert a spiritually
corrosive effect on the faith of believers. In such cases the Head of the Faith may simply advise
the Baha'is to leave theme to their own devices.

Thus, there are exceptional cases in which a former believer's spiritual attitude to the Faith may,
to various degrees, create an estrangement between him and the Baha'is. In general, however, a
person who has with drawn from the Faith is regarded as being among the generality of
humankind with whom the Baha'is are enjoined to associate "in joy and fragrance".

The Universal House of Justice

[Four footnotes]
 

From: "BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
Subject: Why I Crosspost to Three Newsgroups
Date: Friday, April 27, 2001 7:16 AM

In addition to below, be sure to see FULL TEXT:
New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL 3/2/2001
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/NMLawsuit.htm

------------------------------------------------------
My crossposts to soc.culture.israel, soc.culture.iranian,
and talk.religion.misc are entirely within the acceptable
parameters for crossposting to newsgroups related to
the subject at hand:

The bahai faith *began* in Iran in 1844, the major bahai
religious sites and institutions are *located* in *Israel*,
*all* religions may join discussion on talk.religion.misc.

The unsuspecting public ought to be informed and
have the opportunity to judge and decide the facts for itself.

It should be evident to any intelligent person that bahai
fundamentalists have a hidden agenda and their self-interest
in mind when they malign me and many, many other people on
talk.religion.bahai, alt.religion.bahai, AOL, and elsewhere.

Since fundamentalists among my fellow bahais have always relied
on their ability to operate one way in one country and another
elsewhere and the Internet now no longer makes that possible, as
dramatically demonstrated with the former USSR and China,
the universal house of "justice," like other totalitarian regimes,
will have to confront and answer for the consequences of their own
hypocrisy. Their slandering me for "spamming" also won't prevent
perceptive people from realizing what's really going on....

Those interested in judging independently for themselves my
background and whether I'm "unbalanced," as bahai fundamentalist
struggle to portray me, may do so by reading my Biographical Note:
https://fglaysher.com/bio.htm

I believe it is my duty, bahai and otherwise, to inform my fellow
citizens, local and global, of the appalling and incessant hypocrisy
that lies behind the deceptive, progressive facade that the uhj so
often fobs off on the unsuspecting public....

--
FG
www.FG.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/index.htm



From: "BIGS - Bahai In *Perfectly* Good Standing" <patrick_henry@liberty.com>
Subject: Why I Don't Respond to Fundamentalists
Date: Saturday, April 28, 2001 6:26 AM

In addition to below, be sure to see FULL TEXT:
New Mexico LAWSUIT against bahai institutions for FRAUD & LIBEL 3/2/2001
https://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/FG/NMLawsuit.htm

After over four years of observing the tactics of
bahai fundamentalists, I've learnt a few things about
the way they operate:

1. Always smear and attack the individual.

2. Lure into supposed discussion then cut the jugular.

3. Work together to create the perception for non-bahais
     that the individual is unbalanced, aberrant, etc....

4. Change or ignore the subject.

5. Shift to the past and argue over who said what, when, where,
    how, etc....

As long as the uhj uses "review" to suppress all free thought and
discussion and encourages such unseemly tactics, attempting to
disucss anything with them is simply a waste of time and energy.

I have many interests in life. Documenting bahai fundamentalism
is only one of them. Many people other than myself have noted
"The Baha'i Technique":
https://members.nbci.com/FG/technique.htm

Nobody has to read my reposts who has done so already. My
Message Rules are full of fundamentalists. Others may use the same
technology to filter out my reposts.They're intended for the
uninformed.... And they will be staying on the newsgroups I choose
as long as bahai censorship and deceit continue. It should be evident
to informed people that fundamentalists desire to suppress all knowledge
of their suppression and coercion of bahais and non-bahais over the
last decade or more now.

I am only interested in preserving the record of what bahai
fundamentalists have done. Others may read it and decide
for themselves.

Anyone interested in my views may read them in my archives or
glean them from my reposts, which, in my view, preserve the
historical record of how low bahai fanatics have been willing to go....

I can only hope by serving humbly, as the self-appointed
archivist/historian for talk.religion.bahai and for all the many victims
of the "universal" house of "justice," that someday someone will come
along who will dig deep enough into the record that the truth will
begin to surface.

Impartial nonbahai observers might wish to compare and
decide for themselves whether the picture fundamentalists
labor so hard to paint of me is accurate or not:

https://fglaysher.com/bio.htm  

And then ask yourself why would they go to such extremes?
What is it they don't want you to know? I submit the answers
may be found on my bahai webpages....

It is my hope that the distortions of the uhj will begin to be purged, it
will gradually reform itself, acknowledging the broad and liberal
Teachings of Baha'u'llah that it has suppressed now for so long.....

--
FG
www.FG.com 
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience


Homepage