MaryamJoon

• 
  
• FEDERAL APPEALS COURT SLAMS HAIFAN-BAHAIS FOR FRAUD, CRIMES, & CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS:

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has slammed the headquarters of the Haifan-Bahai organization (which is the main Baha'i organization) on that grounds that it: (1) engaged in Fraud Upon the Court, (2) engaged in service of process fraud in contravention of the rights of others in order to obtain a fraudulent order from a lower court where the adversaries were given no notice of the hearing (which is a crime), and (3) for attempting to exert monopoly rights to use of the word "Baha'i" by deception so that no other individuals or organizations could criticize them or create an alternate Bahai congregation (violations of speech and freedom of religion rights).  The fraudulent order they attempted to obtain by subverting the legal system would have given them power to take down critical videos, articles, and suppress Baha'is who have made their own groups and even suppress the voices of their own followers.  This is important: The Haifan-Bahai's committed several massive crimes and ethics violations to try to silence critics, to take away free religious choice from others, and to control their own members.  The U.S. Appeals Court's official documents are at this link, and summarized below.  (See Federal Appeals Decision & and Full Audio of Oral Argument; transcript below: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:64-cv-01878.)  Notably the Federal appeals judges stated, "It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not bound by a judgment which he has not been made a party by service of process." (They were obtaining false orders against people to silence them.)  And the Court further stated,  "Considered First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction (the fraudulent order Baha'is obtained) are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that [an Israeli man connected to the Zionist criminal mafia called 'Irgun'] was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and 'highest authority' in the United States and was 'entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,' including the exclusive use of the word 'Bahá’í.' "  (In plain terms, what the Court says is that this so-called "faith" had the audacity to try to restrict the speech rights of critics and to restrict religious freedom in the United States by obtaining a fraudulent lower court order that could not be contested on the merits.)

• 
  
• DANGER TO IRAN FROM THIS HIGHLY POLITICAL CULT THAT ACTS MORE LIKE A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY THAN A RELIGION: 

Dear Iranians, hamvantans that genuinely care for the security of Iran, and all with open minds to consider facts, this is precisely one of the reasons the Haifan-Bahais are extremely dangerous to Iran.  So the next time someone comes along and refers to the "Baha'i Censorship Cult" on this website or any other, be certain that this allegation is supported by U.S. Appellate Panel's findings of facts and conclusions of law and that the U.S. Supreme Court did not revisit this decision, making it the final law of the land and binding precedent.  When I use the term "appellate panel" it means that multiple Federal appeals court judges unanimously ruled on review against the Haifan-Bahai organization without one single dissenting judge.  If you have any sense of reason, you will quickly understand that despite their denials to the contrary, the Haifan-Bahai Group (a/k/a the main Bahai Organization) is an extremely political group, to the point that they will even attempt to subvert justice and make U.S. judicial officers accessories to the outrages, crimes and ethics violations.   

•  
• WHY ARE THE BAHAIS DOING THIS & WHAT IS THE PICTURE YOU POSTED ABOVE ABOUT?

The picture above is a conversation I was having on this website with another person.  This site has frequently been mentioned as a hotbed of Haifan-Bahai activity.  When I mentioned to the person with whom I was chatting that ordinary Baha'is (the followers) could join other congregations to avoid less ties to Israel my comment was flagged (something they have been doing to my comments from the first day I signed up for this site).  The person with whom I was chatting explicitly says in his reply that he did not flag my response to him and that there was absolutely no reason for doing so.  In other words, they attempted to intrude upon and silence the conversation of two consenting adults.  And you still wonder why this group is considered dangerous in Iran if they manage to get even the slightest foothold in any position of official power or even cultural influence under this government or any other future government?  Let me remind you that for approximately 160 years this organization has been rejected by both secular and religious governments in Iran, including the people of Iran, and members of other minority faiths such as Christians and Zoroastrians which describe the group as "predatory" towards other minority groups.  

To answer the question as to why the Haifan-Bahais do the things they do, like any historical analysis, is difficult (but not impossible) to account for in a single short article, however, I will show you one of the reasons, which is also backed by official government records.  The Bahais' holy figure was a man by the name of Abdul Baha and about one third to half of his followers disputed the authenticity of his will which supposedly appointed a successor. (Who came to ultimately control the Bahais after his death is important) .  At the time of Abdul Baha's death those disputing his will obtained an official forensic and handwriting analysis of the will, which was proven to be false by the appointed expert who also expertise has been used in authenticating documents for major groups including museums, the Library of Congress and courts.  I have tracked down the original copies of those documents for you at this link.  The bibliography of the expert that determined that will was fraudulent is archived by the U.S. Library of Congress at this link.  What appears to have happened is that the Haifan-Bahai group was quickly taken over by members of the embryonic zionist criminal gangs, members of which later formed "Irgun," that would later come to fill official positions within the government of Israel; much in the same way that a McDonald's hamburger franchise can change owners and reformulate its policies.  The Israelis have done similar things before; If they can infiltrate Hamas, they can certainly take over an unarmed religious movement to offload their agenda in countries (particularly Muslim dominated ones) that require non-zionist fronts to effectuate the agenda of the State of Israel.  (See Wall Street Journal: "Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades; See Video of U.S. Congressman, "Israel created Hamas to destabilize Arafat"; See Video of Sec. Hillary Clinton, "America created militant Wahabi groups in Afghanistan in the 1980s with Saudi help.")  The examples that could be given of both Israel and the U.S. infiltratign or creating religious organizations is vast; I will leave it to the reader to pursue the further examples.  (See Excellent video showing threats to Iran & their sources .)  

•  
• TRANSCRIPT OF FEDERAL APPEALS COURT ORAL ARGUMENT CATCHING HAIFAN-BAHAI FRAUD: 

 Haifan-Bahai Lawyer:  Appearing Jeffery A. Handelman, for Defendant-Appellant National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha’is before the U.S. Court of Appeals:  

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….

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
 civil rights cases that involve that theory that
you just enunciated?

Handelman: The two cases we rely on-- one is a patent infringement case and the other one is a trademark infringement case.

Judge Bauer: Let me intrude myself again. Was the original injunction (restricting criticism and religious freedom)
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. 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:   There was a findings of fact and conclusions of law.

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? (Where both sides agree about facts.)

Handelman:  No, there was no stipulation, the NSA (Haifan-Bahais) ...

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 to 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?

Judge Bauer:  Was the evidence you submitted accepted by both sides as factually true?

Handelman: The testimony was sworn deposition testimony of the Chairman (of the Haifan-Bahais).

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?

Handelman: No I do not believe it was a stipulation, your honor. We can look into …

Judge Bauer: I have no idea how the decree came to be, that’s 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 … this case involved a blatant infringement of trademark rights that were recognized under federal law.

Judge Sykes: We are talking of, about an injunction issued 40 years ago.

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 you are not entitled to a judicial declaration that your church (Hafain Bahais) is the ‘one true church.’

Handelman:  Well if, your honor, [lawyer pretends to quote from the law].

Judge Bauer:  Who are you quoting at the moment?

Handelman: Professor McCarthy, his treatise on Trademark and Unfair Competition.

Judge Bauer: The Supreme Court is more significant than Professor McCarthy I would suspect, wouldn't you?

Handelman: But the point is that this case does not call upon this Court to evaluate religious doctrine.

Judge Sykes: Well to the extent that you are reading the injunction as prohibiting anyone other than the NSA (Haifa Bahai Organization) from using the word Baha'i 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:  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?

Judge Sykes:  But what is the response to the hypothetical, though?

Handelman:  The hypothetical is yes. No one else is permitted to use the term Baha'i.

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...

Judge Bauer: I just gave you the question. Reform Baha'i?  Can they use it?

Handelman:  No 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.

• RELATED ARTICLES WORTH READING:  

 

• God Business is big business: Bahai Leaders confirm not caring about Followers

 

• Dialogue with Haifan-Baha'i Leaders -- People Have Questions.

 

• a 40 year veteran of the Bahai Faith and a Former Bahai leader states explicitly on video that "Bahais try to threaten, defame, and stalk" others to avoid talking about issues 

 

• "Money deals the Bahai leaders have engaged in to make them extremely wealthy, includes exploiting the misery of other people."  

 

• Baha’i Child Rape Court Case - Implications for Iran

 

• "Iranians under attack by Haifan Bahai propaganda organization."

• Holy Water: Christianity in Iran - Myths versus Facts