Court case
Contempt Motion by Wilmette NSA
against Orthodox Bahá'í Faith:
Parties await decision of Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in NSA's appeal of decision finding Orthodox Bahá'ís were not in contempt
All documents are in PDF format. If you cannot open the files, click here for free download of Acrobat Reader
[Updated 18 May 2009]: The action by the NSA finally gets the attention of the press. Click here for information about the Chicago Tribune's article about the action pending in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois. The appeal was brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith
[Revised 28 February 2009] The parties are awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, Illinois in the appeal brought by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States (NSA), located in Wilmette, Illinois, after it lost its contempt motion against members of the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith and the Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant, which are two separate and distinct entities.
The NSA had called upon the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division to hold in contempt members of both minority Bahá'í organizations who, the NSA claimed, were in violation of an injunction its predecessor obtained some 40 years ago against a rival Bahá'í body (the NSA loyal to Mason Remey).
In legal documents provided to the court on December 6, 2006, the NSA claimed that members of the current minority Bahá'í groups, although not parties to the case brought against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey, nevertheless are bound by the 1966 Judgment. While not providing any specifics with regard to how the minority bodies have harmed the majority body, the NSA contended that the websites (including this one) of the smaller organizations were doing irreparable damage to the NSA.
The basic contention of the NSA was that the members of the minority groups were violating the NSA's alleged trademarks on the name "Bahá'í" and the religious symbol of the "Greatest Name", and it sought from the court a ruling which would prohibit the minority members from using the alleged trademarks to the detriment of the NSA.
The NSA sought to restrain both those individuals who at one time were even remotely associated with the enjoined rival Bahá'í body and any 'nonparty' members who have since developed different Bahá'í organizations.
Those members of the minority group who call themselves Orthodox Bahá'ís, to distinguish themselves from the members of the majority organization, stated that the trademark by the Wilmette NSA on the "Greatest Name" is the equivalent of a Christian denomination trademarking the Cross and then saying that no other Christian congregation can use that symbol in their activities or in their contacts with others.
Additionally, Orthodox Bahá'ís maintain that the name "Bahá'í" is in the public domain and cannot be the exclusive property of one organization. They say that like the name "Christian" and "Muhammadan", which refer to followers of Christ and Muhammad respectively, the name "Bahá'í" refers to a follower of Bahá'u'lláh, who all Bahá'ís acknowledge as the latest Prophet from God.
For some 35 years the Orthodox Bahá'ís have been employing the name "Bahá'í" in their newspaper and magazine publicity and in the telephone Yellow Pages, and during that time the NSA has made no move to implement the provisions of the injunction that the majority organization is now using to seek contempt citations against members of the minority groups. Should the NSA be successful in its efforts to curtail their activities, Orthodox Bahá'ís contend that, for them, the First Amendment of the Constitution is no longer valid.
The NSA on 23 May 2008 filed an appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit of a ruling that the Orthodox
Bahá'ís were not in contempt of a injunction entered in 1966
against the NSA loyal to Mason Remey."[T]he chain of
successorship lacks a link," wrote the Honorable Amy J. St Eve,
United States District Court Judge,in her Judgment in favor of the
Orthodox Bahá'í Faith and the Bahá'í Publishers Under the
Provisions of the Covenant. The Court ruled on 23 April 2008
after holding an evidentiary hearing on 7 January 2008 in Chicago,
Illinois on the contempt motion brought by the NSA. In her decision, the Court stated that: "the
vast weight of the record (including credible testimony) reflects that
there was a significant doctrinal rift on a critical tenet of each
group’s faith, and that the PNBC’s membership varied materially from
that of the NSA-UHG. The record further reflects a demonstrable lack of
intent to violate the injunction, and that the PNBC was not created to
avoid the effect of the injunction. Simply put, there is no substantial
continuity between the NSA-UHG and the PNBC, and, as a result, Mr.
Schlatter, Mr. Marangella, and the PNBC have not violated the
injunction."
The appellate case had
been fully briefed when the parties argued in Chicago Illinois on 20
February 2009 before a panel of Judges of the Court of Appeals: the
Honorable Daniel A. Manion, the Honorable William J. Bauer, and the
Honorable Diane S. Sykes.
Appearing on behalf of the Orthodox Bahá'ís was James McClymonds, a New York attorney who is the
grandson of A.S. Petzoldt, the chairman of the NSA under the Hereditary
Guardianship (under Mason Remey) and whose deposition was taken by the
NSA in the original case. James was a small child when his grandfather
expressed the wish that someone would one day come forward to overturn
the outrageous judgment that the Wilmette NSA had obtained against
Remey's NSA.
The appellate briefs and a recording of the oral argument held on 20 February 2009 are available on the web site of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago Illinois:
Appellate Briefs: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/briefs.htm Enter the Year = "08" and the Case Number = "2306" Then click "List Cases", then click the Case Number for a listing of the briefs in PDF format.
Article on the Oral Argument with Transcribed Portion of NSA Argument
Click Here for Oral Argument Recording.
Trial Court Documents
Click here for courtroom art images of the hearing
Click Here for Judge's Opinion
NSA Testimony Reveals True Reasons for Court Action
Click Here for the NSA's Reply to the OBF's Response
Click Here for the OBF's Sur-Reply to the NSA's Reply
Click Here for selected Court Orders and Hearing documents
Click Here for Post-Hearing Briefs
NSA's Motion for Rule to Show Cause
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Exhibit A - Judgment of 6-28-1966
Exhibit B - Declaration of Geoffrey N. Wilson
Exhibit C - Declaration of Christopher M. Dolan
Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H
Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M
Exhibit N Exhibit O Exhibit P Exhibit Q Exhibit R
Exhibit S Exhibit T Exhibit U Exhibit V Exhibit W Exhibit X
Response by Orthodox Bahá'í Faith:
OBF's Response to Motion for Rule to Show Cause
Memorandum in Support of Response
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury of Joel Bray Marangella
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury of Jeffrey Alan Goldberg
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury of Marilyn Kay Meyer
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury of Franklin Daniel Schlatter
NSA's Reply Memorandum to OBF's Response to Motion for Rule to Show Cause
Exhibit 1: 49-2 49-3 49-4 Exhibit 2: 49-5 Exhibit 3: 49-6 Exhibit 4: 49-7 49-8 49-9 Exhibit 5: 49-10 49-11 Exhibit 6: 49-12 Exhibit 7: 49-13 Exhibit 8: 49-14 Exhibit 9: 49-15 Exhibit 10: 49-16 Exhibit 11: 49-17 49-18 49-19 Exhibit 12: 49-20 Exhibit 13: 49-21 Exhibit 14: 49-22 Exhibit 15: 49-23 Exhibit 16: 49-24 Exhibit 17: (sealed)* Exhibit 18: 49-26 Exhibit 19: 49-27 Exhibit 20: 49-28 Exhibit 21: 49-29 Exhibit 22: 49-30 Exhibit 23: (sealed)* Exhibit 24: 49-32 Exhibit 25: (sealed)* Exhibit 26: (sealed)* Exhibit 27: 49-35 Exhibit 28: (sealed)* Exhibit 29: (sealed)* Exhibit 30: (sealed)* Exhibit 31: (sealed)* Exhibit 32: 49-40 Exhibit 33: 49-41 49-42 49-43 49-44 49-45 Exhibit 34: (sealed)* Exhibit 35: (sealed)* Exhibit 36: 49-48 Exhibit 37: 49-49 Exhibit 38: (sealed)* Exhibit 39: (sealed)* Exhibit 40: (sealed)* Exhibit 41: 49-53
Exhibit 42: 49-54 49-55 49-56 49-57 49-5849-59 49-60 49-61 49-62 49-63 49-64
Exhibit 43: (sealed)* Exhibit 44: (sealed)* Exhibit 45: (sealed)* Exhibit 46: (sealed)* Exhibit 47: 49-69 Exhibit 48: (sealed)* Exhibit 49: (sealed)* Exhibit 50: (sealed)* Exhibit 51: (sealed)* Exhibit 52: 49-74 Exhibit 53: 49-75 Exhibit 54: (sealed)* Exhibit 55: (sealed)* Exhibit 56: (sealed)* Exhibit 57: (sealed)*
*Redacted Pursuant to Protective Order
Sur-Reply by Orthodox Bahá'í Faith:
OBF's Sur-Reply Memorandum to NSA's Reply Memorandum
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Selected Court Orders and Hearing Documents:
OBF's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
NSA's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
OBF's Responsive Post-Hearing Brief
