Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Opinion of US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit No. 08-2306
4 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2010 - 8:40AM #1
Reformbahai
Posts: 31

US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit No. 08-2306


 



7th Cir: Public online 08-2306 case documents
Opinion in case# 08-2306
www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?case...


p 7: False finding of "fact" by Judge Austin in 1966

p 13: "...civil authorities may not make judgments about religious controversies when deciding church property disputes.  Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116. (The church-autonomy principle recognized in Watson “must now be said to have federal  constitutional protection as a part of the free exercise of religion against state interference.”)."
  "Building on Kedroff, the Supreme Court held in Presbyterian Church that “the First Amendment severely circumscribes  the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.”

p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966  injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual  Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the  marks  and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the  boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits  obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes  sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the  name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the First Amendment line  appears to have been crossed."

p 17: "’It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not
bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been  made a party by service of process.’ ”"

p 20: The court expands on and concludes that the parties were simply not in privity with the 1966 flawed decision by  Judge Austin.



-- 
Chicago Tribune. Baha'i rift. Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith
articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-18/n...

Comments posted to The Chicago Tribune Forum on one page:
www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Chicag... 

 



 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Apr 17, 2011 - 2:38PM #2
Reformbahai
Posts: 31

According to Jeffry Goldberg, "Decision is final! NSA did not further appeal the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision which affirmed trial court decision finding Orthodox Bahá'ís were not in contempt. [Updated April 14, 2011]: The deadline for the NSA to file a petition for certorari with the United States Supreme Court was March 29th, but the NSA did not file anything with the Supreme Court. Therefore the decision of the Court of Appeals is final and this litigation, pending since November 2006, is now finally concluded." trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court...

Baha'i on Huffington Post - Another Forum for Haifan Disinformation 


www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Huffin...

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook