|
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:
>
.http://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
http://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
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/Bacquet.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://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
http://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
http://www.susanmaneck.com
Mahdi Muhammad
http://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
> > > http://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
> http://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
>
> fglaysher
> 9/14/01 7:51 AM 1 out of 2
>
> Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
> articulated in the Writings....
>
> fglaysher
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> 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
http://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
http://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
http://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....
> > >
> > > --
> > > Frederick Glaysher
> > > www.fglaysher.com
> > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> > > http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> > > > > > http://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
> > > > > http://www.deja.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > > http://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
> > http://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
http://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 http://www.bahai.us.com and
http://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.
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/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.
Frederick Glaysher
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,
http://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
http://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
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/NMLawsuit.htm
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/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":
http://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.
--Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/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
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/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.
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/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>...
> http://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
>
> fglaysher
> 9/14/01 7:51 AM 1 out of 2
>
> Sad fact, sad fact.... Having betrayed the moderation
> articulated in the Writings....
>
> fglaysher
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> 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: <fglaysher@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:
http://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
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/NMLawsuit.htm
See my comments interpersed throughout below.
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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.
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/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
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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.
fglaysher
>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
>
>http://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
Frederick Glaysher
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;
http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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:
http://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 http://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 http://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
> >http://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
>http://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....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> >http://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
http://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
http://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
> http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...
> >The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
> >appear to be very competent.
> The attorney in question is a high powered corporate attorney in New
> Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state. He has successfully
> sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
> Massachusettes, or so I hear.
That's quite a list of accomplisments for someone who only managed to pass
the New Mexico bar exam a mere six months ago
(http://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm). Looks more like this is his first case,
and they gave him a throw-away on which to cut his teeth.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
"Michael McKenny" <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in
message
news:9a2pqk$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"
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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"
> http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
http://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.....
>
> --
> Frederick Glaysher
> www.fglaysher.com
> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
http://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....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/index.htm
I would assume they're already aware of these newsgroups
and perhaps my website or someone else will inform them.
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> >http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/NMLawsuit.htm
> >
> >--
> >Frederick Glaysher
> >www.fglaysher.com
> >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
> >http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> >> > http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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
> http://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
http://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
http://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
http://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":
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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:
http://www.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.....
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
(http://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
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/NMLawsuit.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> > http://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
http://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:
http://www.aiconnect.com/~arhil/Welcome/
"You'll be glad you did!"
ICQ# 92215158
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://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:
http://www.aiconnect.com/~arhil/Welcome/
"You'll be glad you did!"
ICQ# 92215158
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://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:
>> http://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 http://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$1@gnamma.connect.com.au...
> "Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:99t6gc030k7@news2.newsguy.com...
> >The attorney who filed this complaint doesn't
> >appear to be very competent.
> The attorney in question is a high powered corporate attorney in New
> Mexico working for one of the top firms in the state. He has successfully
> sued and won several cases involving big corporations in New Mexico and
> Massachusettes, or so I hear.
That's quite a list of accomplisments for someone who only managed to pass
the New Mexico bar exam a mere six months ago
(http://www.nmexam.org/pas.htm). Looks more like this is his first case,
and they gave him a throw-away on which to cut his teeth.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
I didn't see his name on the people who passed the bar exam in "the
past 6
months." Pulling rabbits out of your hat again, ay Rick?
cheers,
Nima
"Rick Schaut" <RSSchaut@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:99u5090j4m@news1.newsguy.com...
"Nima Hazini" <lotusapt@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:99u0rv$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
(http://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
http://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
http://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
> http://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
http://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
http://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
> http://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
http://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
http://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
> http://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
http://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
>http://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....
>
>--
>Frederick Glaysher
>www.fglaysher.com
>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
>http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
>> >http://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
>http://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
http://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.
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
http://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).
http://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
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/NMLawsuit.htm
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> > http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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,
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/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:
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/fglaysher/index.htm
The alternative is just to hit your Refresh button.
--
Frederick Glaysher
www.fglaysher.com
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> > http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
> http://members.nbci.com/fglaysher/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
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
>
>Somebody made it available for posting. I wonder who |