7th Circuit Ct of Appeals Judges hammer NSA's attorney
Jeffrey
decision favoring the Orthodox Baha'is was held on 20 February 2009 in
Chicago Illinois.
Here is a transcript of part of the exchange between Mr. Handelman,
the attorney for the NSA, and a couple of the Judges of the Court of
Appeals. No matter how hard he tried to obfuscate the outrageous
position of the NSA, the Judges carefully questioned him and exposed
the oppressive and fascist nature of the NSA's position, and it is
here for all the world to see. [Incidentally, Judge Bauer below
persistently questions Mr. Handelman on how the 1966 injunction was
entered and Mr. Handelman evades the fundamental truth that only the
NSA appeared at the "hearing" and that the Remey organization did not
appear and put on evidence (for some unknown reason). Mr. Handelman
later admitted that only the NSA appeared which means the Injunction
was effectively entered by "default"]
Here is part of the oral argument. Enjoy:
=============
Jeffery A. Handelman, for Defendant-Appellant National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States: The principle we are
here advancing today has been adopted by other courts of appeals and
that is that a-- while the general rule is that a nonparty cannot be
bound by an injunction issued in a case in which it wasn't named as a
party, there are -- there is an important exception to that general
rule and that is a nonparty is bound by an
injunction if he is legally identified with the defendant
corporation...
Judge William J. Bauer: Do you know of any case involving that
particular rule that you enunciated to us in a civil rights case?
Handelman: Your honor, there are a couple of cases on point, the
Federal Circuit in Additive Controls addressed this question of what
do you do in applying an injunction when the corporate defendant has
been dissolved.
Judge Bauer: That had to do with a patent infringement case?
Handelman: That is correct.
Judge Bauer: Other than a patent infringement case, do you have
anything besides-- civil rights cases that involve that theory that
you just enunciated?
Handelman: The two cases we rely on-- one is a patent infringement
case Additive Controls. The other one is a trademark infringement case
Judge Bauer: Also from the Circuit?
Handelman: That is from the First Circuit
Judge Bauer: The First Circuit?
Handelman: Correct. Both of these cases draw on, first of all, the
fact that Rule 65d codified the common law in this regard and so
Justice Jackson in the Regal Knitwear case summarized Rule 65d: "is
derived from the common law doctrine that a decree of injunction not
only binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them
in interest."
Judge Bauer: Let me intrude myself again. Was the original injunction
a consent decree or was it a fought out battle?
Handelman: No the scenario leading to the injunction, the...
Judge Bauer: No, all I ask is a very simple question. Did Judge Austin
formulate this decree himself or was it a consent decree?
Handelman: It was not a consent decree.
Judge Bauer: OK
Handelman: There were findings of fact and conclusions of law...
Judge Bauer: Based on a contested argument before, and presentation of
evidence before Judge Austin?
Handelman: The... my understanding is that the NSA...
Judge Bauer: See you weren't around in those days. I was.
Handelman: But your Honor Judge Austin.. Bare in mind this was the
counterclaim, the original was, was against the NSA. The trademark
infringement claim was brought by way of a counterclaim. So they
started it. We responded and there was a findings of fact and
conclusions of law entered by Judge Aspen.
Judge Bauer: After a hearing?
Handelman: I do not know if there was testimony at the hearing. I do
not believe there was testimony given at the hearing by both sides but
Judge Austin...
Judge Bauer: What was the predicate for the decision? Stipulation of
facts?
Handelman: No, there was no stipulation, the NSA...
Judge Bauer: Then how did he arrive at a decree at all?
Handelman: The uh, I believe, the NSA submitted, appeared at the
hearing and presented Judge Austin. I don't know if there was live
testimony at the hearing or not but it presented evidence on which the
findings and conclusions were based.
Judge Bauer: What evidence did they and how did they present it?
Handelman: Well, for example, the deposition of the chairman of the
UHG was taken and submitted to the Court, so we had the deposition...
Judge Bauer: Accepted by both sides as factually true?
Handelman: The testimony was sworn deposition testimony of the
Chairman
Judge Bauer: There is sworn testimony on each side of the case
normally but I want to know, how did Judge Austin arrive at the
conclusion if there was no presentation of live witnesses?
Handelman: Um
Judge Bauer: Was it a stipulation of facts? In which case..
Handelman: No I do not believe it was a stipulation, your honor. We
can look into whether
Judge Bauer: It was a question of fact, and he made a resolution based
on affidavits?
Handelman: If I could look into that and get back to you I would
prefer to do that.
Judge Bauer: I have no idea how the decree came to be, thats my
problem
Handelman: OK
Judge Diane S. Sykes: Do you know whether the constitutionality of
issuing such an Injunction was litigated, given the religious context?
Handelman: Yeah, I believe Judge Austin made explicit findings that
the trademark laws apply equally to religious organizations and
commercial organizations and that this, this case involved a blatant
infringement of trademark rights that were recognized under federal
law.
Judge Sykes: The legal landscape in this area of course has changed
since then. We are talking of, about an injunction issued 40 years ago
and the Supreme Court, in the meantime has issued the Presbyterian
Church case that talks about the principles, the neutral principles
doctrine that needs to be applied in this context, and of course that
case wasn't on the books at the time.
Handelman: That is correct your honor. With respect to, first of all
the validity of the trademark and the finding of infringement, those
issues are not open to be retried in the context of a contempt
proceeding as a prefatory matter, but beyond that the law is well
settled that religious organizations as I mentioned are entitled to
the protection of the trademark laws and in this case...
Judge Sykes: But they are not entitled to a judicial declaration that
their church is the one true church and thats what Judge Austin said.
Handelman: Well if, your honor, in the context of a religious case
under the Lanham Act, the mark is valid. There is no per se rule
against trademark protection in the religious organization context.
What you look at is whether the mark in question signifies affiliation
or membership with a single organization and in this case the National
Spiritual Assembly has a three tiered administrative structure as is
laid out in the briefs. You have the Universal House of Justice at the
highest level, you have the national spiritual assemblies at the
intermediate level of which there are 183 worldwide, and then you have
the local spiritual assembly. The Baha'i mark is federally registered,
is extensively used, was federally registered at the time of the
original injunction, and it signifies members who are affiliated with
national spiritual assemblies authorized by the Universal House of
Justice in Haifa. Now whats happening in this case, the Alleged
Contemnors, are through their web sites calling themselves the
official, in
one case, the SIBC has a web site where it calls itself the official
Universal House of Justice, and as a result prospective members are
going to that site thinking they are contacting our client, the
Universal House of Justice in Haifa Israel, when they are not. They
are also believing that the content on the site is approved by the
Universal House of Justice, when it is not. And this is precisely the
harm that the Lanham Act is intended to prevent and Professor McCarthy
in his treatise recognizes as much, and if I could quote briefly: "If
a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion
it is entitled to protection against the minority's use of the same
name. For example, a preliminary injunction can be obtained by the
Mother Church against a local which has disaffiliated as it stops
paying to the Mother Church and the rationale makes sense because
without a preliminary injunction the Mother Church would be outside
of..."
Judge Bauer: Who are you quoting at the moment?
Handelman: Professor McCarthy, his treatise on Trademark and Unfair
Competition. So he is recognizing...
Judge Bauer: He is recognizing but the Supreme Court is more
significant than Professer McCarthy is I would suspect, wouldn't you?
Handelman: But the point is that this case does not call upon this
Court to evaluate religious doctrine. It calls upon this Court to
apply the Lanham Act to religious organizations which has been done
before.
Judge Sykes: Well to the extent that you are reading the injunction as
prohibiting anyone other than the NSA from using the word Baha'i in
the title of the religious organization's name, um, that clearly
raises some constitutional concerns. Is that how you are reading the
injunction? That you have exclusive, that your client has exclusive
rights to the term Baha'i and no schismatic organization, schismatic
group,breakaway group could ever use it into perpetuity in the United
States?
Handelman: As long as the trademark rights are valid and federally
registered and not abandoned, that is correct, as Professor...
Judge Sykes: The word Baha'i? So to use a hypothetical. Someone could
copyright Christianity. Somebody could copyright Judaism, and that
would prohibit anybody else from using that terminology in the title
of their religious organization?
Handelman: No, each, each religious name or
Judge Sykes: I am sorry, not copyright, trademark.
Handelman: Yeah, each religious name or mark has to be evaluated on
its own merits. There is no blanket...
Judge Sykes: But whats the response to the hypothetical, though?
Handelman: The hypothetical is yes, we. In other words a splinter
group that is not affiliated with the National Spiritual Assembly
authorized by the Universal House of Justice is not permitted to use
the term Baha'i in a way where it is holding itself out as being
affiliated with the group headed by and authorized by the Universal
House of Justice.
Judge Sykes: Well that's, that's, different. But they can use the
word Baha'i in the name of their new church, but they just can't use
it in a way that implies affiliation with the Mother Church.
Handelman: That is correct. They cannot, cannot confuse the public
into believing that they are affiliated with the Mother church when
they are not, particularly where, as here, their doctrines are in many
cases antithetical to those espoused by the Mother Church.
Judge Sykes: What could they call themselves and escape liability for
contempt?
Handelman: They would have to use a non-confusingly similar name
because they are not...
Judge Sykes: Can they use the word Baha'i?
Handelman: It would depend on-- not if it suggested affiliation with
the Mother Church.
Judge Bauer: How about Reform Baha'i? Can they use that term?
Handelman: That would be a hypothetical that...
Judge Bauer: That's my hypothetical...
Handelman: It would...
Judge Bauer: And I want a hypothetical answer.
Handelman: If the use suggested affiliation...
Judge Bauer: I just gave it to you. Reform Baha'i.
Handelman: No that. Under the injunction, that would be prohibited.
The injunction...
Judge Bauer: Yeah, I read the Injunction. I just don't know how it
came to be. But you're going to enlighten me on that subject.
Handelman: So the injunction would prohibit a use likely to cause
confusion as to affiliation.
===============
Funny thing is Mr. Handelman quotes from Professor McCarthy that "If a
parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion it
is entitled to protection against the minority's use of the same
name." Of course, the Wilmette NSA DOES NOT REMAIN TRUE to the tenets
of the religion as the Orthodox Baha'is are constantly pointing out.
We do not know how the Court will rule, but clearly the Judges of the
7th Circuit are not fooled by the NSA's obfuscation. The NSA wants
the Courts to enforce their belief that they are the one and only
Baha'i Faith, and the NSA has proved itself to be in contempt of the
basic religious freedoms of this country, even while the publicly
whine about similarly motivated persecution against them in Iran, a
country that does not have the same traditions of freedom of religion.
The true colors of the NSA come out here. They would trample over our
freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution.
This is the World Order they seek to impose upon the world.
Jeffrey
paha...@onetel.net.uk
This reads to me like the current judge is very doubtful about
applying trademark rules to a religion.
Obviously, the UHJ cannot copyright the term "Baha'i", as the judge
tried to point out with his hypthetical analogy with "Orthodox/Reform
Jews".
But I think there's a fair point in websites claiming to be the
official UHJ fooling people into thinking they are communicating with
the one based at Haifa that the majority of Baha'is in the world see
as the head of their faith. - that should surely be avoided.
"Of course, the Wilmette NSA DOES NOT REMAIN TRUE to the tenets
> of the religion as the Orthodox Baha'is are constantly pointing out."
This, of course, is purely your contention - the majority Baha'is
believe that it was Mason Remey who betrayed the authority of Shoghi
and the other Hands of the Cause in deciding to form his own break-
away religion.
Interesting to read the transcript on this, however.
Paul
JG9
>
> This reads to me like the current judge is very doubtful about
> applying trademark rules to a religion.
>
> Obviously, the UHJ cannot copyright the term "Baha'i", as the judge
> tried to point out with his hypthetical analogy with "Orthodox/Reform
> Jews".
>
> But I think there's a fair point in websites claiming to be the
> official UHJ fooling people into thinking they are communicating with
> the one based at Haifa that the majority of Baha'is in the world see
> as the head of their faith. - that should surely be avoided.
>
> "Of course, the Wilmette NSA DOES NOT REMAIN TRUE to the tenets
>
> > of the religion as the Orthodox Baha'is are constantly pointing out."
>
> This, of course, is purely your contention - the majority Baha'is
> believe that it was Mason Remey who betrayed the authority of Shoghi
> and the other Hands of the Cause in deciding to form his own break-
> away religion.
>
> Interesting to read the transcript on this, however.
>
> Paul
There has been no evidence that the Orthodox Baha'is have any web
sites or publications that confuse the public to believe that we are
affiliated with the headless UHJ. To the contrary, everything on our
sites is critical of that organization and expressly points out our
differences. But they have taken the position that simply use of the
word "Baha'i" somehow creates the confusion and this is an absurd and
over-reaching view.
Jeffrey
All Bad
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:a1d7b8b6-08ff-4347...@f24g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Feb, 05:16, Jeffrey <Jeffrey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The oral arguments of the Wilmette NSA's appeal of Judge St. Eve's
> decision favoring the Orthodox Baha'is was held on 20 February 2009 in
> Chicago Illinois.
>
Though this is not the Official Website of the Universal House of Justice,
it claims to be just that: http://www.uhj.net/
So, if this case is about BUPC/SIBC, or whoever these folks are, infringing
on trademarks, it looks like "case closed."
- All Bad
> and as a result prospective members are
> going to that site thinking they are contacting our client, the
> Universal House of Justice in Haifa Israel, when they are not. They
> are also believing that the content on the site is approved by the
> Universal House of Justice, when it is not. And this is precisely the
> harm that the Lanham Act is intended to prevent and Professor McCarthy
> in his treatise recognizes as much, and if I could quote briefly: "If
> a parent religious society remains true to the tenets of the religion
> it is entitled to protection against the minority's use of the same
> name. For example, a preliminary injunction can be obtained by the
> Mother Church against a local which has disaffiliated as it stops
> paying to the Mother Church and the rationale makes sense because
> without a preliminary injunction the Mother Church would be outside
> of..."
>
(snip)
Ron House
> Though this is not the Official Website of the Universal House of Justice,
> it claims to be just that: http://www.uhj.net/
>
> So, if this case is about BUPC/SIBC, or whoever these folks are, infringing
> on trademarks, it looks like "case closed."
The BUPC/SIBC are not identified with the defendants of the countersuit.
The NSA would have to sue them in a case of their own right in which
they get a chance to defend themselves.
--
Ron House
Australian Birds: http://wingedhearts.org
Principle of Goodness academic site: http://principleofgoodness.net
All Bad
news:49A77D01...@smartchat.net.au...
> All Bad wrote:
>
>> Though this is not the Official Website of the Universal House of
>> Justice, it claims to be just that: http://www.uhj.net/
>>
>> So, if this case is about BUPC/SIBC, or whoever these folks are,
>> infringing on trademarks, it looks like "case closed."
>
> The BUPC/SIBC are not identified with the defendants of the countersuit.
> The NSA would have to sue them in a case of their own right in which they
> get a chance to defend themselves.
>
So, who is the suit about?
I remember 20 years ago there was an advertisement in the Washington Post
addressed to the heterodox Baha'is. I was a new believer at the time and
had told one of my co-workers about my conversion. He saw the paper and
asked me if I were a heterodox Baha'i and I told him that I'd never heard of
them. It took me an hour of looking at that thing to realize I was being
addressed.
- All Bad
JG9
wrote:
The suit involves both the Orthodox Baha'is and the Baha'is under the
Provisions of the Covenant (which is the Jensen/Chase group and I
believe is responsible for the web site you mentioned). My point was
that there is nothing like that from the OBF group. The NSA's actual
position, as stated by Handelman after questioning by the Judges, is
that nobody else can use the word Baha'i, and this position is
outrageous if only you could see dispassionately and free of fanatic
blinders.
Jeffrey
JG9
his best not to state what their position was, but after being
hammered by the Judges, he was forced to admit that the NSA wants to
enforce the Judgment's finding that they are the one true Baha'i Faith
and they are the only ones who could call themselves Baha'i.
This finding happens to be unconstitutional and goes against a long
line of Supreme Court precedent which began in 1969, several years
after the Judgment was entered. This is what bothers the Judges of
the Court of Appeals. The NSA is asking them to deny us our religious
freedom-- the right to call ourselves Baha'is.
Jeffrey
mash_ghasem
>
> read more »
"Handelman: The two cases we rely on-- one is a patent infringement
case Additive Controls. The other one is a trademark infringement case
"
"Patent & trade mark infringement"!!!!! Are you guys serious? Here we
are defending Bahai's right in Iran, but didn't know I am defending
"Patent & trade mark infringement"!!!!! Now you have to pay for patent
to whorship non-existing god? Mullah is a mullah is mullah doesn't
matter Baha'i or muslim. Don't let them to come to power period. Don't
like this a bit.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
It's a lawyer thing, I think mash.
Lawyer's aren't trying to necessarily make arguments that make logical
sense - they're trying to use whatever analogies work to get the
judge, or the jury see things in the way that is most beneficial to
their client's case.
So, if intellectual property laws have been successfully used before,
that's the track that will be used again. The way I read this is that
the basis of legal thinking on religious rights and controversies
between different groups claiming to be the REAL version of partical
religions in the US has changed since the original rulings that the
majority Baha'is US NSA were hoping to rely on was made. Obviously,
the majority group's lawyer is trying to convince the judge that the
basis of the original ruling was correct, and the judge in this case
is clearly not finding that very convincing.
When you're not worried about Baha'is being arrested and imprisoned
for believing the wrong things, I guess you have the time and the
luxury to be worried about potential converts getting hold of the
wrong information or sending their emails to the wrong webpage.
Paul
mash_ghasem
That is why I don't trust any religious establishment. Any. We have
tried and see the result. I like them to go and pull their patent and
trademark in front of Mullahs.
.
Ron House
> "Ron House" <rho...@smartchat.net.au> wrote in message
> news:49A77D01...@smartchat.net.au...
>> All Bad wrote:
>>
>>> Though this is not the Official Website of the Universal House of
>>> Justice, it claims to be just that: http://www.uhj.net/
>>>
>>> So, if this case is about BUPC/SIBC, or whoever these folks are,
>>> infringing on trademarks, it looks like "case closed."
>> The BUPC/SIBC are not identified with the defendants of the countersuit.
>> The NSA would have to sue them in a case of their own right in which they
>> get a chance to defend themselves.
>>
>
> So, who is the suit about?
The "suit" is the original 1960s legal action between Remey's
organisation and the NSA, and the judge has already ruled that all the
targets of the NSA's current posturing are not successors in interest to
Remey's organisation, and are therefore no part of the suit and the
verdict does not apply to them. As I said, whatever you imagine the
outcome might be if a suit involving BUPC/SIBC were to be tried, be you
right or wrong, the fact remains no such suit has been initiated.
PaulHammond
mash_ghasem wrote:
Legal arguments don't work if you say "we don't care what the judges
said when the Shah's corrupt regime was in office, we run the place
now"
Or if you say "well, that is human law, but we have God's law, and
that says apostates must be sentenced to death"
Who would care about letters going the wrong way if all Baha'is,
regardless of whether they consider the UHJ, or someone who calls
themselves Guardian, their leader if they were all equally regarded as
heretical and deserving of sentence of death?
As I say, I've been reading about Tudor history in the last few months
- we used to burn people for having the wrong kind of religion, too -
we had our own mullahs in charge in the past - like those ones you
mentioned in another thread recently, The Spanish Inquisition...
Paul
Aor
> This finding happens to be unconstitutional and goes against a long
> line of Supreme Court precedent which began in 1969, several years
> after the Judgment was entered.
The significant piece of case law the judges cited which demolishes
any argument brought forth by the NSA was,
U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial
http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/presbyterian-church-blue-hull-memorial-19990216
Out of curiosity, why didn't the Orthodox Baha'is use this themselves
back in 1969 or thereafter to challenge the trademark ruling of 1966 -
which would have been an unconstituonjal ruling even then. Also, and I
would like to know as well, like the first appelate judge who asked,
what was exactly was the predicate for that 1966 ruling? How did the
court exactly do its thing?
> This is what bothers the Judges of
> the Court of Appeals. The NSA is asking them to deny us our religious
> freedom-- the right to call ourselves Baha'is.
This is a closed and shut case, my friend. You guys have won this one
for posterity, hands down, no doubts about it, and there is no chance
USSC will take it on either. Luckily your case here has now set a
precedent that can be cited in virtually every Common Law jurisdiction
outside of the US.
W
JG9
> On Feb 28, 3:31 am, JG9 <Jeffrey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This finding happens to be unconstitutional and goes against a long
> > line of Supreme Court precedent which began in 1969, several years
> > after the Judgment was entered.
>
> The significant piece of case law the judges cited which demolishes
> any argument brought forth by the NSA was,
>
> Out of curiosity, why didn't the Orthodox Baha'is use this themselves
> back in 1969 or thereafter to challenge the trademark ruling of 1966 -
> which would have been an unconstituonjal ruling even then. Also, and I
> would like to know as well, like the first appelate judge who asked,
> what was exactly was the predicate for that 1966 ruling? How did the
> court exactly do its thing?
>
> > This is what bothers the Judges of
> > the Court of Appeals. The NSA is asking them to deny us our religious
> > freedom-- the right to call ourselves Baha'is.
>
> This is a closed and shut case, my friend. You guys have won this one
> for posterity, hands down, no doubts about it, and there is no chance
> USSC will take it on either. Luckily your case here has now set a
> precedent that can be cited in virtually every Common Law jurisdiction
> outside of the US.
>
> W
The Supreme Court case was not decided until 1969, and at the time of
the 1966 Judgment the federal courts were split on the issue (which
split was resolved by the Supreme Court).
The Orthodox Baha'is did raise the issue and the line of cases from
1969 on neutrality principles, but Judge St. Eve never even reached
the issue because she ruled that the Orthodox Baha'is were not even
bound by the Judgment. Since we are not bound by it, the question of
the Judgment's enforceability did not have to be decided.
Jeffrey
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> Luckily your case here has now set a
> precedent that can be cited in virtually every Common Law jurisdiction
> outside of the US.
>
> W
So explain to me, mr Cod-expert. How does a US case form precedent in
jurisdictions OUTSIDE the US?
Ruhaniya
On Mar 2, 4:34 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> So explain to me, mr Cod-expert. How does a US case form precedent in
> jurisdictions OUTSIDE the US?
In all Common Law jurisdictions any stare decisis of another Common
Law jurisdiction can be considered as forming a precedent for a judges
consideration in the other jurisdiction, i.e. the ratio. Australian,
New Zealand, Canadian and many other judges who are regulated by the
Common Law system regularly consider the decisions from other courts
in UK, American, NZ, Australian and similar jurisdictional cases. Here
in Australia British High Court decisions as well as US Supreme Court
and NZ High court decisions are regularly cited by Australian High
Court judges. It is not a binding precedent, but it is precedent
nevertheless which regularly influences ratios of argument in the
conclusion of given cases - and they are always specifically cited by
the judges.
Here is something for your bahaim crafted ignorance to munch on, limey
ponce!
W
Reform Bahai Faith
Thank you for letting us know about the US Court of Appeals
testimony on February 20, 2009.
The recording of the proceedings is quite interesting, and actually
hearing the tone of judge's voices is fascinating. Neither Judge Sykes
nor Judge Bauer fail to understand what's really going on, while the
NSA
lawyer is clearly sweating throughout their questioning and evading
their identification of the real issue--"constitutional concerns."
Congratulations, again, for defending religious freedom broadly,
and that of Bahais of all denominations. The final written opinion
ought
to be very interesting.
Bahai regards,
Frederick Glaysher
95 Theses - On Bahai Liberty - Articles - Abdu'l-Baha's Covenant
The Reform Bahai Faith
www.ReformBahai.org
7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges hammer NSA's attorney
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCourt_Appeals09.htm
An update from Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the lawyers representing the
Orthodox Baha'i Faith, posted to talk.religion.bahai, along with
several of his comments on it. See especially the last several
paragraphs for reference to Reform Bahai. The same message, along with
further details and Court PDF files, is available on the Orthodox
Baha'i blog.
You may listen to a recording of the Court proceedings via the
Orthodox Baha'i website or click below for the approximately thirty-
minute recording of the oral argument.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-2306_002.mp3
Alternatively, I've excerpted a three-minute clip that follows the
partial transcript below, near the end, in black font, which in
particular reveals the NSA attempt to deprive other Bahai
denominations of their Constitutional right of religious freedom and
specifically mentions Reform Bahai:
US Court of Appeals 2-20-09. Mp3 file.
On Feb 26, 12:16 am, Jeffrey <Jeffrey...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ruhaniya
On Mar 2, 10:08 pm, Reform Bahai Faith <reformbaha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> Thank you for letting us know about the US Court of Appeals
> testimony on February 20, 2009.
>
> The recording of the proceedings is quite interesting, and actually
> hearing the tone of judge's voices is fascinating. Neither Judge Sykes
> nor Judge Bauer fail to understand what's really going on, while the
> NSA
> lawyer is clearly sweating throughout their questioning and evading
> their identification of the real issue--"constitutional concerns."
>
> Congratulations, again, for defending religious freedom broadly,
> and that of Bahais of all denominations. The final written opinion
> ought
> to be very interesting.
>
> Bahai regards,
>
> Frederick Glaysher
>
> 95 Theses - On Bahai Liberty - Articles - Abdu'l-Baha's Covenant
> The Reform Bahai Faithwww.ReformBahai.org
>
> 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges hammer NSA's attorneyhttp://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCourt_Appeals09.htm
>
> An update from Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the lawyers representing the
> Orthodox Baha'i Faith, posted to talk.religion.bahai, along with
> several of his comments on it. See especially the last several
> paragraphs for reference to Reform Bahai. The same message, along with
> further details and Court PDF files, is available on the Orthodox
> Baha'i blog.
>
> You may listen to a recording of the Court proceedings via the
> Orthodox Baha'i website or click below for the approximately thirty-
> minute recording of the oral argument.http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-2...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JG9
I believe this is a correct statement. There is binding authority and
persuasive authority. A decision of this Court of Appeals is binding
only in the 7th Circuit, although its logic and reasoning will be
persuasive beyond that.
Jeffrey
paha...@onetel.net.uk
I think you're talking out of your arse, Nima. There's quite a long
essay on the history of Common Law at Wikipedia, and none of it
mentions American cases forming a precedent in English courts.
I imagine the common heritage of these systems is taken as precedent
at the time the systems diverge, but from then on, do you honestly see
George III's judges taking seriously the judgements of "judges"
appointed by those upstart rebels who don't recognise the King any
more?
I think the situation is probably more like the reason why American
pints are a different size from British ones - the British measurement
system got reformed in the 1830s. The Americans kept the old
measurement, because the reform law passed in the British Parliament
didn't apply to them any more, 50-odd years since the Revolution.
Of course, in Australia the Queen is still the head of state, and at
least up until recently the House of Lords in the UK was the supreme
court of appeal in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law
btw - "It is not a binding precedent" I'm pretty sure that your
earlier post claimed that it WAS a binding precendent - so hows that
for your bahaim crafted ignorance? Let's go look upthread.
Palu - clucking at the holy chicken on a regular basis.
Death to Haifan Bahaism
On Mar 3, 9:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> I think you're talking out of your arse, Nima. There's quite a long
> essay on the history of Common Law at Wikipedia,
It is pretty obvious that the one regularly speaking out of their arse
is one who cites wikipedia/wackopedia as an authority on the
intricacies of the Common Law system inter-jurisdictionally and how
the nature of stare decisis actually works. Unlike palu hamhead those
of us who actually went to Law school, such as Jeffrey and I, know
these things whereas lying cultist ignoramuses like hamhead do not.
BTW this is taught in 1st year law school. It should be noted that
this is also the same person who can't properly count the number of
days from January 30 to March 1st.
W
maybe...@gmail.com
Citing Wikipedia makes you look like a total amateur. If you want to
argue with people who know the law, best go and find yourself a better
source of information, preferably something that is not being
gradually banned as an academic reference in schools and
universities.
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f80f7e5c-d186-48a0...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 3, 9:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 02:50, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think you're talking out of your arse, Nima. There's quite a long
> essay on the history of Common Law at Wikipedia, and none of it
> mentions American cases forming a precedent in English courts.
>
> I imagine the common heritage of these systems is taken as precedent
> at the time the systems diverge, but from then on, do you honestly see
> George III's judges taking seriously the judgements of "judges"
> appointed by those upstart rebels who don't recognise the King any
> more?
>
> I think the situation is probably more like the reason why American
> pints are a different size from British ones - the British measurement
> system got reformed in the 1830s. The Americans kept the old
> measurement, because the reform law passed in the British Parliament
> didn't apply to them any more, 50-odd years since the Revolution.
>
> Of course, in Australia the Queen is still the head of state, and at
> least up until recently the House of Lords in the UK was the supreme
> court of appeal in Australia.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law
MIa1: Citing Wikipedia makes you look like a total amateur. If you want to
argue with people who know the law, best go and find yourself a better
AB: Your point is moot since W does not know the law, clearly not nearly as
well as he thinks he does.
- All Bad
MIA1: source of information, preferably something that is not being
gradually banned as an academic reference in schools and
universities.
AB:
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Why don't you tell that to Nima, who cited Wikipedia on the career of
Sir Ronald Storrs in another thread, while being unable to offer any
context to a small segment of his memoirs that someone emailled to
him?
> If you want to
> argue with people who know the law, best go and find yourself a better
> source of information, preferably something that is not being
> gradually banned as an academic reference in schools and
> universities.
>
Whatever - is all you got, right?
Go cheerlead at someone who gives a damn!
paha...@onetel.net.uk
wrote:
I was going on your own estimare, Nima. You cited "9 days left" on
18th Feb.
And I don't believe you ever went to law school. You general
ignorance of the law, which Dermod for one is always exposing, makes
that assertion difficult to believe.
> W
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> I was going on your own estimare, Nima. You cited "9 days left" on
> 18th Feb.
And I cited 28 days on January 30. Duh!
W
Ruhaniya
Ruhaniya
wrote:
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> And I don't believe you ever went to law school.
And why should I care what you believe, again?
>You general
>ignorance of the law, which Dermod
My general ignorance? Try Dead Weed's rampant, mind-boggling
ignorance, demonstrated time and time again. Contrary to that welfare
cheat I actually have a degree. What does Dead Weed have? F-all! And
which swamp is that fenian rodent and has-been buffoon hiding out
these days? We pray he has finally met the real grimreaper as he
deserves and gone straight to hell where he rightfully belongs,
insha'Llah!
W
paha...@onetel.net.uk
It's incredibly pathetic how you insist on continuing to blame others
for the mistakes you made, about an arbitrary deadline that you
decided on, that no-one else particularly cared about or paid any
attention to.
But then you are, indeed, incredibly pathetic.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> On Mar 4, 2:51 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
> > And I don't believe you ever went to law school.
>
> And why should I care what you believe, again?
>
> >You general
> >ignorance of the law, which Dermod
>
> My general ignorance? Try Dead Weed's rampant, mind-boggling
> ignorance, demonstrated time and time again. Contrary to that welfare
> cheat I actually have a degree.
No you don't.
paha...@onetel.net.uk
Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that
sourcewatch article:
"I moved the following from the article page, because it makes a
serious allegation against Mr. Kohli ("libel and defamation") without
clear or compelling evidence.
Looking at the other references used in this article, I would say they
also don't meet our standard of authoritative sources (see
Help:References). I encourage those who are working on this article
and want to keep it on SourceWatch to try to better document their
work, for example by using news articles. A personal website of an ex-
adherent of a faith is not an authoritative source, nor are archived
email discussions, where identities are not clear and screen names can
be faked.
thanks,
Diane Farsetta 10:54, 4 March 2009 "
mash_ghasem
Nima lies!!!!! What else is new?
.
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that
> sourcewatch article:
Well, this pretty decisively proves that the IT committee is actively
watching the Kohli SourceWatch page. Don't worry, Diane will come
around, as did Bob. There is quite a substantial amount of material
proving Kohli's tactics. They'll go back in just as the Kohli article
stayed. Count on that!
W
All Bad
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:cbd472c8-18d4-4fe4...@e2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
thanks,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Kohli
That article is gummed up. The first background paragraph says that Pat
Kohli worked in a next generation flight data recorder and has in MS in CIS
from Florida Tech, and references an article in the Tester.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/110905/38174-1.shtml
Though I know Pat and I know that is accurate, the Tester article does not
say that Pat Kohli has any degrees nor does it say he worked on a next
generation flight data recorder. So, he got his redundant references
crosswired.
W/ Azal is jealous that his SourceWatch.org article went away. Did you see
how he bullied Bob Burton?
- All Bad
All Bad
"Ruhaniya" <wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ccf0a1e-d31a-4ffb...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 5, 2:03 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that
> sourcewatch article:
WA: Well, this pretty decisively proves that the IT committee is actively
watching the Kohli SourceWatch page. Don't worry, Diane will come
around, as did Bob. There is quite a substantial amount of material
proving Kohli's tactics. They'll go back in just as the Kohli article
stayed. Count on that!
AB: What about the UAV expertise and the war crimes he committed because I
took vacation?
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/23cc32e81b7dfdcd?hl=en
- All Bad
Ruhaniya
On Mar 5, 12:13 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
wrote:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli
Pat Kohli, or Patrick Kohli, is a member of the Haifan Baha'i Faith[1]
who makes regular contributions to the USENET newsgroup
talk.religion.bahai[2]. He is a computer programmer who has worked on
software for various projects, including military systems.
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Articles and Resources
2.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
2.2 References
2.3 External Articles
[edit]Background
He "is a computer scientist assigned to 4.5.3.3. He works for PMA-231
as the Open Architecture (OA) IPT lead, in the OA/FORCEnet IPT of the
Network Centric Warfare IPT. Prior to this he worked at Saint Inigoes
for 4.5 and developed a prototype next generation flight data
recorder, using COTS components, to meet incident reporting,
maintenance and FOQA needs. Pat also supported the old PMA-282 which
did weapon control systems for guided missiles. Pat has an MS in
computer Information Systems from Florida Tech." [3]
"Pat Kohli, NCW Open Architecture Lead, demonstrated how the E-2/C-2
program office (PMA-231) is continuously evaluating and implementing
software modernization to facilitate transition of the existing E-2
operational flight program to an environment using commercially
available systems. Venlet said, "The Naval Aviation Enterprise has
embraced open architecture as a fundamental building block of weapon
system development from its very inception. Our government/industry
teams continue to leverage these open system strategies and concepts
in achieving reduction in overall development cycle times and
delivering increased system capabilities to the Fleet faster and
cheaper. The advantages of integrating open architecture designs and
contracting strategies are measurable and pronounced as is
substantiated by our E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and P-8 Multi-Mission
Aircraft development programs. The key to continued success will be
maintaining the close partnership with industry experts, as we provide
the right capabilities, at the right time and right cost to the joint
warfighter."The E-2 Hawkeye team has been representing and directly
supporting Venlet's executive office - the aviation domain lead for
open architecture initiatives - since June 2004, because of its role
as a battle management command and control platform and a central
network communications node in aviation. E-2 Program Manager Capt.
Randy Mahrsaid, "Today's evolving E-2 open architecture model paves
the way for a more mature system to be used by the E-2D prior to it
taking its place in the fleet."[3]
Pat Kohli has maintained a consistent web presence since the late
1990s, particularly on USENET, addressing both external critics and
dissenters within the Haifan Baha'i Faith tradition to which he
belongs [5]. In 1998, he voted against the creation of the USENET
group, talk.religion.bahai, as an un-moderated discussion forum for
issues relating to the Baha'i faith [4]. Official discussion regarding
the creation of this group may also be found at: [6]. He posts under
the handles Mr All Bad and All_Bad [5]
[edit]Articles and Resources
[edit]Related SourceWatch Articles
[edit]References
↑ Letter from Assistant Secretary, Kishan Manocha, on Behalf of
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom [1],
dated October 8, 2002, Accessed 17 February, 2009.
↑ Discussion Archive of USENET group Talk.Religion.Baha'i, [2],
Accessed February 17, 2009
↑ 3.0 3.1 Drema Ballengee-Grunst, "Assistant SecNav visits NAVAIR T&E
laboratory", November 10, 2005.
↑ Record of votes cast regarding the creation of the USENET group,
talk.religion.bahai,[3], Accessed February 17, 2009.
↑ Excerpt from USENET group talk.religion.bahai,[4], Accessed February
17, 2009.
[edit]External Articles
Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Kohli"
Categories: United States | Religion | Military | War/peace
paha...@onetel.net.uk
What? The fact that I clicked on a link provided in YOUR post, that
you repost multiple times every day?
The fact that I then reported the most recent action by a person who's
the Chair of the committee running the Sourcewatch website, or some
such?
Well, well - I predict that within the week Nima WILL be claiming that
Diane thingy either is a Baha'i, or is in receipt of the Baha'i
shilling, and that's the only possibly reason why she might reject
libellous unproven statements appearing in an article on her website!
Paul
btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of
unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against
someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like, which actually tempted me
back onto the Wikipedia website to look around at the mess you'd been
attempting to make after months of absensce? You can't make a noise
about something, and then expect people not to hear about it at the
same time! It's your continual spamming that brought Sourcewatch to
my attention - I'd not heard of it before you publicised that link to
you and May's Pat Kholi article.
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of
> unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against
> someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of
your intended consequences were, asshole? You want to show me anything
else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your
British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that
article down. And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else.
There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your
handlers with. And be careful who and what you start threatening
again. Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up and the Tories won't
be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole
bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long-
time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
<bs snip>
W
paha...@onetel.net.uk
> <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:cbd472c8-18d4-4fe4...@e2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Mar, 01:35, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 9:03 pm, "All Bad" <AllBad_notrea...@md.metrocast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_kohli
>
> Recent comments regarding Nima's attempts to libel Kholi on that
> sourcewatch article:
>
> "I moved the following from the article page, because it makes a
> serious allegation against Mr. Kohli ("libel and defamation") without
> clear or compelling evidence.
>
> Looking at the other references used in this article, I would say they
> also don't meet our standard of authoritative sources (see
> Help:References). I encourage those who are working on this article
> and want to keep it on SourceWatch to try to better document their
> work, for example by using news articles. A personal website of an ex-
> adherent of a faith is not an authoritative source, nor are archived
> email discussions, where identities are not clear and screen names can
> be faked.
>
> thanks,
>
> Diane Farsetta 10:54, 4 March 2009 "
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Kohli
>
> That article is gummed up. The first background paragraph says that Pat
> Kohli worked in a next generation flight data recorder and has in MS in CIS
> Though I know Pat and I know that is accurate, the Tester article does not
> say that Pat Kohli has any degrees nor does it say he worked on a next
> generation flight data recorder. So, he got his redundant references
> crosswired.
>
> W/ Azal is jealous that his SourceWatch.org article went away. Did you see
> how he bullied Bob Burton?
>
> - All Bad
I notice that Nima's response to my reposting Diane's comments here
yesterday was to go back to the talk page and accuse Diane and
SourceWatch of having been "got at" by Baha'is. (The fact that Bob
didn't continue to fight him after he directed a similar accusation at
him was taken by Nima to be confirmation of the truth of his
accusation - he really does project all the time!)
This is part of Diane's response today to that accuasion coming from
Wahid. Our girl Maybeam has taken a much more canny approach of
asking for guidance on the proper use of such material as usenet
archives in SourceWatch articles. I think she's about to find out
what a liability Nima is when he's arguing on your side (when he
doesn't shoot himself in the foot, he'll be shooting you in the foot)
She's quite even tempered, imo. (Diane, I mean)
"As far as your questions, Wahid -- if something is a fact, then
please provide the evidence. What Bob and I are both trying to do is
to keep up the quality of SourceWatch articles by applying the same
standards to this article that we do to any article. No one has
lobbied us. If you respond to our requests by strengthening the
article, then we'll be satisfied. But saying you "know" something to
be true is not sufficient, for any reasonable standard. (And, on a
minor point, I only see one source that looks like a news article,
though it's actually a Navy press release.)
Simply put, you can't assert what you can't document is true. I
understand that something may be true even if a news article hasn't
been written about it, but in order to keep SourceWatch a reliable
resource, we need to insist upon referencing standards. If that's not
possible to do in this case, then SourceWatch isn't the forum you
should be using to make those assertions. Thanks for understanding.
-- Diane Farsetta 10:58, 5 March 2009 (EST) "
Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=Talk:Pat_Kohli"
Hey - that's cool! The SW webpage apparently has some gizmo that
automatically adds an attribution if you cut and paste something from
there!
Paul
PaulHammond
Ruhaniya wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
>
> > btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of
> > unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against
> > someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
>
> And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of
> your intended consequences were, asshole?
What were they, exactly? I didn't notice anything in particular,
except that you screamed and screamed until you went purple here, and
made about 20 sockpoppets, some of them named after me (they DO say
that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery) at Wikipedia, which
got thrown off in pretty short order - and also resulted in some
suspicion being thrown on some user ids whose editing history looked
suspiciously like yours who WEREN'T actually you.
Are those the consequences you were talking about? Because I rather
think that supports my side of the argument. If you make a lot of
noise about something, not all the attention you attract will be
welcome to you.
> You want to show me anything
> else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your
> British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that
> article down.
I don't have any British Labour Party connections. Why do you think I
do?
I voted for them in the last election. But of course, if you've got
any detailed info that proves otherwise...
> And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else.
So, you admit that you're motivated by your vendetta against me and
Pat in this group, and by no higher concern?
Should we send Diane Farsetta a fairly comprehensive list of YOUR
usenet contributions and many aliases, so she knows EXACTLY whom she's
dealing with?
> There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your
> handlers with.
Thank you for being SO explicit about your motivation. I'm sure that
will come in handy.
> And be careful who and what you start threatening
> again.
I haven't ever threatened you, to my knowledge. YOu've threatened me
many times, however.
> Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up
And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime
Minister of Great Britain. I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
>and the Tories won't
> be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole
> bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long-
> time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
>
And in fact, you're threating me again on this thread!
Calm down and stop clucking, Holy Chicken - you'll lay an egg or
something!
Palu
Ruhaniya
Ruhaniya
On Mar 6, 12:19 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> I don't have any British Labour Party connections.
Bullshit!
> IBut of course, if you've got
> any detailed info that proves otherwise...
Yes, we do, and some of which has already been put up.
> So, you admit that you're motivated by your vendetta against me and
> Pat in this group, and by no higher concern?
There's a lot more other concerns, and you know that, hamhead. But if
it's all the same to you, nailing your hackery and that of Kohli's
motivates me -- absolutely!
> Should we send Diane Farsetta a fairly comprehensive list of YOUR
> usenet contributions and many aliases, so she knows EXACTLY whom she's
> dealing with?
Do so, and give me precisely the argument I am making to her (which
she currently denies) that you are lobbying her, while giving me the
opportunity to send a comprehensive list of your contributions and
intimidations and libel and bullying against people dissenting against
you and your leash-holders, not to mention to comprehensive list of
plausible denials by you of being a Bahai or connected to the
organization.
> And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime
> Minister of Great Britain.
Fuck the current Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck the former
Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck future Prime Ministers of Great
Britian! Fuck all past Prime Ministers of Great Britian! And, most
especially, fuck Great Britian and especially fuck the British! And
prognosticating a clear election defeat for that fatass Gordon Brown
is not a threat, idiot!
> I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
Good for them, I hope they did, which is why I wrote it.
> And in fact, you're threating me again on this thread!
In your regard my threat is a promise. When the time arrives, you are
going down, and let the whole world know that. Don't believe anything
else!
W
PaulHammond
Ruhaniya wrote:
> CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
>
> On Mar 6, 12:19 pm, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
>
> > I don't have any British Labour Party connections.
>
> Bullshit!
>
>
> > IBut of course, if you've got
> > any detailed info that proves otherwise...
>
> Yes, we do, and some of which has already been put up.
>
What? You mean, that quote from an old post at Wikipedia where I say
"I voted Labour in the last election"?
I just said it again now - how do you make out that this is evidence
confirming your Labour Party-Baha'i IT Committee - Paul Hammond cross-
over conspiracy?
Paul
PaulHammond
Ruhaniya wrote:
>
>
>
> > And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime
> > Minister of Great Britain.
>
> Fuck the current Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck the former
> Prime Minister of Great Britian! Fuck future Prime Ministers of Great
> Britian! Fuck all past Prime Ministers of Great Britian! And, most
> especially, fuck Great Britian and especially fuck the British! And
> prognosticating a clear election defeat for that fatass Gordon Brown
> is not a threat, idiot!
>
Where did you mention an Election defeat?
"> Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up "
Those are your words - and in some other words of yours, this looks a
lot like a Gordon Brown murder fantasy to me!
> > I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
>
> Good for them, I hope they did, which is why I wrote it.
>
You're a stupid cunt, aren't you? Really.
All Bad
On Mar 6, 11:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
> btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of
> unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against
> someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
WA: And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of
your intended consequences were, asshole? You want to show me anything
else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your
British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that
article down. And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else.
There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your
handlers with. And be careful who and what you start threatening
again. Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up and the Tories won't
be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole
bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long-
time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
AB: We've all seen you getting medieval. You look like the invisible man,
not showing up for the duel you challenged to have. Clu cluck cluck,
chickenhead!
- All Bad
All Bad
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:5561f208-0d6d-44da...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
AB: It is a funny performance. W was doing so well at playing the
non-paranoid until he tossed in the libeling thing, and then it starts to
unravel with accusations of footsy and Diane calls him on his 'well known
fact' codewords for prejudicial assertion. You can paint the spots off the
leopard, but then the paint starts to wear off as the leopard does its
leopard stuff, and the spots show through, again.
- All Bad
All Bad
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:5b0359f0-ab7b-479a...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Ruhaniya wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:55 am, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
>
> "First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
> interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
> that he is probably working for them."
>
> -- Eric Stetson, September 2003
>
>
> > btw- didn't I give you a comprehensive lecture on the law of
> > unintended consequences that time when you started fulminating against
> > someone at Wikipedia that you didn't like,
>
> And didn't I show you what the repercussions of the reprcussions of
> your intended consequences were, asshole?
PH: What were they, exactly? I didn't notice anything in particular,
except that you screamed and screamed until you went purple here, and
made about 20 sockpoppets, some of them named after me (they DO say
that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery) at Wikipedia, which
got thrown off in pretty short order - and also resulted in some
suspicion being thrown on some user ids whose editing history looked
suspiciously like yours who WEREN'T actually you.
PH: Are those the consequences you were talking about? Because I rather
think that supports my side of the argument. If you make a lot of
noise about something, not all the attention you attract will be
welcome to you.
> You want to show me anything
> else, ponce? Take your best shot, if you dare. I don't think even your
> British Labor Party connections have the kind of pull to take that
> article down.
PH: I don't have any British Labour Party connections. Why do you think I
do?
PH: I voted for them in the last election. But of course, if you've got
any detailed info that proves otherwise...
> And if you do, we'll get you and KKKholi somewhere else.
PH: So, you admit that you're motivated by your vendetta against me and
Pat in this group, and by no higher concern?
PH: Should we send Diane Farsetta a fairly comprehensive list of YOUR
usenet contributions and many aliases, so she knows EXACTLY whom she's
dealing with?
> There are now multiple resources and venues to fuck you and your
> handlers with.
PH: Thank you for being SO explicit about your motivation. I'm sure that
will come in handy.
AB: That is why Nima and his Bitch-Que, the long line of his irrational
grievances, ought to be on Disinfopedia, so that no matter where he spouts
his paranoid rants, there is a resource that decodes them.
> And be careful who and what you start threatening
> again.
PH: I haven't ever threatened you, to my knowledge. YOu've threatened me
many times, however.
> Gordon Browne's lease on life is almost up
PH: And indeed, you are apparently now also threatening the current Prime
Minister of Great Britain. I'm sure somebody might have noticed that.
>and the Tories won't
> be hiring you once they take government, at which point expect a whole
> bunch of us to go insanely medieval on your arrogant, justice-long-
> time-coming, little faggot limey ass!
>
PH: And in fact, you're threating me again on this thread!
PH: Calm down and stop clucking, Holy Chicken - you'll lay an egg or
something!
AB: "Stop clucking", your trying to trick him into killing himself!!!!!!
If the chcken stopped clucking, it could cease to exist in the Weasel-verse.
As W's fantasies, we could all die. AHHHAAAA.
- All Bad
Ruhaniya
paha...@onetel.net.uk
in to Sourcewatch and bring Diana's attention to this thread.
Today on Sourcewatch, Nima himself has provided the full rant in green
link, with all the links to this very thread which would be one I'd
want her to see - along with a random sample of three or four of the
most recent attempts to use Sourcewatch as a prop to bolster his hate-
campaign against Pat on this site.
Didn't I give Nima until July to start accusing the Sourcewatch people
of being roped in by the Baha'i Black Ops committee into the worldwide
conspiracy?
I did think at the time that that was a generous estimate - but it's
good to give oneself the best possible chance of being right!
"Hi Diane, it is precisely this completely unexplainable attitude of
antagonism displayed by yourself to me right now that proves to me
that in fact you and Bob were indeed lobbied by these people, whatever
you are saying here otherwise -- especially when you are inviting me
to leave when I have been making important contributions here and have
given you absolutely no reason to say such a thing. This tells me that
certain third parties have contacted you, "
(small sample of the chicken's rant on the Pat Kholi talkpage today)
On 6 Mar, 12:59, Ruhaniya <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
> <
This was yet another copy of the Pat Kholi page at Sourcewatch
paha...@onetel.net.uk
"Nima himself has provided the full rant in green link,"
Sorry, should read "full rant in green ink" - a reference to the
colour proverbially preferred by the writers of crazy letters to
public figures.
I think I confused myself with the "link" (that Nima helpfully
provided to this thread) in the latter part of the sentence.
All Bad
AB: I really am sorry about this trial for SourceWatch.org. I admire your
goals, but a Disinfopedia is an obvious magnet for propagandists. It looks
like you and Bob/Diane have a good handle on things. So, I am impressed.
It looks like you will work through this one.
AB: W. Azal is telling me I should not talk to you. In fact, he told me
that twice, once right after another.
WA: The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
or aren't a hack.
WA: And BTW everything stated in that SW article, including the libel/
defamation part are prima facie and evidentiary statements of FACT.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/eb135460d63358f5
WA: The SW editors will have a lot more to lose if we catch them being
lobbied by you, which Paul Hammond has unequivocally admitted to. But,
KKKholi, why don't you hire an attorney here in OZ and let's take this
whole matter into a courtroom. I am sure that a certain gentleman
living in Northern Ireland would come to testify in a case such as
this, not to mention one living in Victoria. If you are game, let's
get it on. Let's let a impartial judge and jury decide whether you are
or aren't a hack.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/46ef078931001733
AB: So I figure it might be good if I did drop you a line. For me, it is a
safe bet that if Wahid tells me to jump in a lake, then I probably don't
need a bath, and if he tells me to speak up, I must be saying something
stupid. If he tells me not to talk to you, it is best if I do.
AB: Is there anything I can do to help?
AB: I do see you noted that I have no identity. I saw how this place
operates. Years ago two people did the right thing on TRB and for their
troubles got their personal email spammed, and one got her co-workers
spammed at work. Some of the folks on TRB really are not nice people.
AB: I don't pretend to be good, and in general I try not to do the right
thing; I'm just here for my own entertainment, but I see you working to do
the right thing, and so I feel like I have to offer to help, at least. I
voted for the presidential candidate who I saw standing up for me, and I
expected to stand in line for that. I do live in the same community as Pat
Kohli; he knows what is going on, and he appreciates your efforts to get
things in sorted out. But I want to be crystal clear, I'm not a do-gooder,
I'm just trying to get by.
AB: I don't think I libel anyone; though I do joke around though. I don't
think Pat would libel anyone.
AB: Would you like me to find examples of Wahid Azal libeling Pat Kohl? A
few years back his name was Nima Hazini. He says he changed his name to
Wahid Azal.
NH(W-2003): Mark Foster has admitted in the past that the presence of
various individuals on the internet contains a financial dividend of up to
$10,000.00 + per annum by the satanic AO cult to its various online
agents. Susan Maniac has never explicitly denied that she recieves
financial assistance for her internet presence, and neither has Pat
Kohli. Obviously if these people had real jobs with real lives they
would not be continually wheeled out to these sites to respond to
every single post posted by any percieved given enemy of their
corrupt, sleazy, satanic organization and cult which puts Scientology
to shame.
Nima Hazini, DEC2002
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/fe8c74a12c81ee48
NH (W-2003): Of course it is a well known fact to people in the know that
Kholi is a paid and hired agent of the baha'i cult administration, sent on
the
internet to police baha'i boards and battle those of its opponents. It
is an even better known fact that Dr Maniac (the Antichrist of My
Revelation) is paid by this cult as well, as confessed by Mark Foster
who admitted the monies that he was being paid by the baha'i cult
administration. These glaze eyed cultists speak with forked tongues
and have the gall to talk about a credibility which they themselves do
even not possess nor would they know what credibility was, since they
have sold their souls collectively to the accursed Satan of
materialism and Big LIE. Thus, their whole aim when uncomfortable
facts are brought to them is to smear and call into question the
integrities of those who dare question the flimsy foundations of their
dangerous, malicious cult, rather than the issues.
Nima Hazini, JAN2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/e96f20af8a24b6f0&cd=US&hl=en?pli=1
AB: Wahid still tries that "well known fact" line to underscore some
prejudice of his that he just can't be bothered to substantiate, like "the
Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible".
I mean, wow, but that is an assertion, not a proof.
AB: If you scroll down in that link above, you see Corax pointing out he
does not post to
usenet for $10K per year and a rejection of some of Nima's recent
activities. Of course you see the hypocrisy of Nima accusing contributors
of being professional puppets and then projecting about attacks on
credibility - even though he is still posting as THE ONE! BTW, before he
was Wahid, the readers could infer that he was a messiah, but I hope he has
gotten that under wraps.
AB: Shortly after Nima (then Wahid) posted that, who should appear to
corroborate, or dispute the alleged confession of Mark Foster? The same
Mark Foster, of course!
MF: Nima, I never told you that I had received $10,000, a portion of that
amount, or any other
amount from the Baha'i Administration. It is simply not true.
Mark Foster, JAN2003
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/1294ab6b0cddff34
AB: So, even though W's original 'evidence' of the Baha'i IT Committee was
his
imaginings, he's continued to accuse and accuse for six years. Last month
he posted here his demand that the UHJ tell him he is wrong about the
Baha'i IT Committee . At least, I think he did that. I was trying to
remember what the
day of ignominy was about. I guess if he didn't send the UHJ a letter or an
email, but just posted here, and got a response, that would imply that at
least there is an informal conduit, but I guess that did not happen either.
AB: So, with no evidence, for _years_, even changes in personality from THE
ONE to just a person, from Nima to W, the lie remains the same. But he says
that others are libeling on TRB.
AB: You've even seen his hintings about a Baha'i IT comittee pressuring
you.
AB: I really do hate to help people on the internet, but you folks are
worthy, so please ask if there is anything I can do, and I'll think about.
- All Bad
All Bad
<paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:94ece59c-555e-413b...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 3:25 pm, pahamm...@onetel.net.uk wrote:
"Nima himself has provided the full rant in green link,"
PH: Sorry, should read "full rant in green ink" - a reference to the
colour proverbially preferred by the writers of crazy letters to
public figures.
PH: I think I confused myself with the "link" (that Nima helpfully
provided to this thread) in the latter part of the sentence.
AB: That was soo thoughtful, like a trail of powder to the keg. I left her
and Bob Burton a note. For $10 a year I can sign them up as galley slaves
in the bahooooooooveyeyeyey IT committee! Whooooopppppeeeee! 10,000 more
minions in my war against moronacy and I can attack Irkutsk from Kamchatka!
For now, though, W can see that I am pressuring them to get assimilated or
have their bahoooooveyeyey admin rights suspended for going along with the
itlessway underway.
- All Bad
maybe...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> NH (W-2003): Of course it is a well known fact to people in the know that
> Kholi is a paid and hired agent of the baha'i cult administration, sent on
> the
> internet to police baha'i boards and battle those of its opponents. It
> is an even better known fact that Dr Maniac (the Antichrist of My
> Revelation) is paid by this cult as well, as confessed by Mark Foster
> who admitted the monies that he was being paid by the baha'i cult
> administration. These glaze eyed cultists speak with forked tongues
> and have the gall to talk about a credibility which they themselves do
> even not possess nor would they know what credibility was, since they
> have sold their souls collectively to the accursed Satan of
> materialism and Big LIE. Thus, their whole aim when uncomfortable
> facts are brought to them is to smear and call into question the
> integrities of those who dare question the flimsy foundations of their
> dangerous, malicious cult, rather than the issues.
>
> AB: Wahid still tries that "well known fact" line to underscore some
> prejudice of his that he just can't be bothered to substantiate, like "the
> Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible".
> I mean, wow, but that is an assertion, not a proof.
>
> AB: If you scroll down in that link above, you see Corax pointing out he
> does not post to
> usenet for $10K per year and a rejection of some of Nima's recent
> activities. Of course you see the hypocrisy of Nima accusing contributors
> of being professional puppets and then projecting about attacks on
> credibility - even though he is still posting as THE ONE! BTW, before he
> was Wahid, the readers could infer that he was a messiah, but I hope he has
> gotten that under wraps.
>
> AB: Shortly after Nima (then Wahid) posted that, who should appear to
> corroborate, or dispute the alleged confession of Mark Foster? The same
> Mark Foster, of course!
>
> MF: Nima, I never told you that I had received $10,000, a portion of that
> amount, or any other
> amount from the Baha'i Administration. It is simply not true.
>
> AB: So, even though W's original 'evidence' of the Baha'i IT Committee was
> his
> imaginings, he's continued to accuse and accuse for six years. Last month
> he posted here his demand that the UHJ tell him he is wrong about the
> Baha'i IT Committee . At least, I think he did that. I was trying to
> remember what the
> day of ignominy was about. I guess if he didn't send the UHJ a letter or an
> email, but just posted here, and got a response, that would imply that at
> least there is an informal conduit, but I guess that did not happen either.
>
> AB: So, with no evidence, for _years_, even changes in personality from THE
> ONE to just a person, from Nima to W, the lie remains the same. But he says
> that others are libeling on TRB.
>
> AB: You've even seen his hintings about a Baha'i IT comittee pressuring
> you.
>
> AB: I really do hate to help people on the internet, but you folks are
> worthy, so please ask if there is anything I can do, and I'll think about.
>
> - All Bad
So, Pat, does this now mean you are claiming not to be Pat Kohli? If
so, this puts you and other regular posters on the board in an
interesting position.
Aor
All Bad
<maybe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1853523-805d-45ef...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
MIA1: So, Pat, does this now mean you are claiming not to be Pat Kohli? If
so, this puts you and other regular posters on the board in an
interesting position.
AB: You never did deny being Bill Ayers, did you?
AB: Seriously though, on SourceWatch,org, not only is it asserted that I am
Pat Kohli, it is asserted that Pat or I libel people, by the biggest
libeller on TRB.
AB: Rather than hypocritically asking me who I am, a question you decline to
answer, please help W find cases of somone else really libelling, preferably
me, and trot those facts over to SourceWatch.org, where Bob and Diane are
eagerly waiting, or get out of the way, or follow the facts. The facts in
this case are clear. Much of what W accuses bahoooooveyeys of, like libel,
and intimidation, is his modus operandi. He says awful things, like
"Also, from now on, quote the following below for future reference. It
is better:
1) FUCK THE TRAITOROUS FINK DERMOD RYDER AND HIS SPASTICK BRAT!"
- W. Azal, 10 December 2007
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/b162896fdc87be7a
AB: You might not know it, but W is referring to the beloved daughter of
Dermod Ryder, ex-Baha'i, outspoken critic of the Baha'i community, and
occasional poster on TRB. W. will deny saying such things, demand evidence,
accuse others of lying, and when confronted with the ugly facts, ignore
them, and repeat the drill, as he has recently. But he freely accuses
others of libel, in fact, he simply lies quite freely.
- All Bad
PaulHammond
relevant to the current row Nima seems intent on creating with the
editors at SourceWatch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:References
SourceWatch is strictly referenced. This means that every piece of
information in an article should be accompanied by a link to an
authoritative source for that information. There are two ways to
insert a link: the default way and an alternative for new editors
looking for an easier (but less useful) way. (See below.)
Some guidelines:
Reference links should point directly to the relevant page on the
referenced website. It is not sufficient to merely give a link to the
homepage. The aim is to make it as easy as possible for readers to
verify assertions in articles.
While providing a simple url weblink in square brackets is useful, it
is best to provide full reference details. For example, often a url
will go dead and, depending on what text is cited, it can often be
difficult to find substitute reference links. However, if a full
reference is included -- author, title of the article, publication,
date of publication etc -- it makes it far easier to find an
alternative link or at least find the original article in news
databases;
You should consider the authoritativeness of the external website when
giving a citation. For example, many Wikipedia articles are themselves
extremely poorly referenced, and so Wikipedia is not considered an
authoritative source for external references. (If you want to do
something about this, please join the Wikipedia Fact and Reference
Check project).
If you fail to provide adequate and convenient references for your
article or contribution, expect it to be heavily edited down by other
users or SourceWatch editors, relocated to the 'talk' page pending
verification or deleted altogether. Although SourceWatch employs paid
editors, it is not their job to bring contributions up to the required
referencing standard. That is your job.
---
Basically, Diane Fosetta followed standard SourceWatch procedure, viz:
"If you fail to provide adequate and convenient references for your
article or contribution, expect it to be heavily edited down ...
relocated to the 'talk' page pending verification or deleted
altogether. "
Yet, of course, Nima accuses Diane of "bowing to pressure" from the
Baha'i international Black Ops corps.
Paul
Ruhaniya
Ruhaniya
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
Funny, HamHead, for all your attempts to get the article removed by
lobbying SW, Dianne and Bob, the article is still standing. You were
saying again about the law of unintended consequences.....
W
paha...@onetel.net.uk
I haven't lobbied anyone. I leave that sort of thing for you.
All Bad
On Mar 8, 2:36 am, PaulHammond <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
"First, I do believe, based on Hammond's refusal to say why he is
interested in the Baha'i Faith and his frequent defense of the AO,
that he is probably working for them."
-- Eric Stetson, September 2003
WA: Funny, HamHead, for all your attempts to get the article removed by
lobbying SW, Dianne and Bob, the article is still standing. You were
saying again about the law of unintended consequences.....
AB: It has been the weekend on planet earth.
- All Bad
Aor
PaulHammond
not take 24 hours before you reverted it and Paul Hammond was
reporting your reversal on USENET. I think you and I both know that in
any court submission of evidentiary causes, there is strong evidence
here based on Hammond's behavior in linking your responses and
reporting it publically, that there is a reasonable doubt of collusion
and influence in your final decision making - not to mention in the
way you two are speaking to me from the get-go."
--Wahid 21:34, 5 March 2009 (EST)
Fuck the British!
http://bahaisandbritannia.googlepages.com/home
Also see, especially,
HOSTAGE TO KHOMEINI by Robert Dreyfuss (New Benjamin Franklin House:
New York, 1980) pp.117-118 (Pdf pages 73-74)
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/hostage.pdf
&
http://www.archive.org/details/HostageToKhomeini
...Today the Bahai cult is hated in Iran, and is considered correctly
to be an arm of the British Crown. During the destabilization of the
Shah in 1978, it was widely reported that in several instances the
Bahai cult secretly funded the Khomeini Shi’ite movement. In part, the
money would have flowed through the cult’s links to the same
international ‘human rights’ organizations, such as Amnesty
International, that originally sponsored the anti-Shah movement in
Iran. These movements also derive from the “one world” currents
associated with the Bahais since the early 1900s. (If any Iranians
have been misled on the question of the Bahais by the supposed
antipathy of Khomeini’s clique to the Bahais, it should be noted that
the Bahai cultists often deliberately encouraged anti-Bahai activities
as camouflage)...