Appendix — Nayak v. MCA, Inc.

EDITOK'S NOTE:

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED.

Ny

OF THE

UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1990

VEDA NAYAK,

Petitioner ‘Plaintiff )

-~against-

MCA, INC. et al,

Respondents (Defendants)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCULT

VEDA NAYAK

4770, Ww. Bellfort,

Suite 28S

Houston, TX 77035

(713)684-6552

a os

Sa ren

7 am,

Pee sta -

er

_

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX: VOL 1

1 Judgment of tne United States

Court of Appeais for the Fifth

Circuit; September i7 13390

Press Feports and other related

information

ao

3 Plaintiff's original complaint

filed with the U © District Court,

Southern District of Texas 34

4 Biblical Extracts

Outline on the life of Jesus 78

APPENDIX: VOL ILI

S Defendants’ Motion to Oismiss for

failure to state & claim 95

Plaintiff's response to

c.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 104

7 Judgment of the District Court 19)

d Flaintiff-Appellant's Brief to tne

Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 1Sz2

g Appellees’ Reply Grief 219

10 Appellant's response to

Appellees’ brief 235

1) Extracts from The Urantia Boox abJ

12 Comparison between the New

Testament and the film LTC zoey

13. Comparison of “Touching” with

transcript in Bindrim vy Mitchell 2396

14 Definition of Cnristianity 30)

1S. Definition of the Bible 305

NOTE: For this presentation, for easy reference,

the internal page numbers of references are made

consistent with each otnmer, althougn such

references may Neve appeared with different page

numbers 1N submission to courts Delow

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

VEDA NAYArF . >

>

Plaintiff, )

)

) CIVIL ACTION

Vv )

) NO H-89-2695

>

MCA,INC , et al )

)

Defendants )

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), all

defendants move to dismiss the complaint

for failure to state a viable claim:

1° The nature of plaintiff's attack

on “The Last Temptation of Christ”

In his complaint, the plaintiff seeks

an injunction against further distribution

of the film “The Last Temptation of

Christ “ Basically, the plaintiff alleges

that the film gives a false, sacrilegious

-95-

version of the life of Christ He alleges

five causes of action:

--(a) “Defamation of the person of

Jesus Christ”

--(b) “Interference and infringement

of religious freedom

--(c) “Injury”

--(d) “Defamation of the God of the

Republic”

--(e) “permanent injunction "

The defendants submit that the

plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed,

both under federal constitutional grounds

and under common-law tort principles.

2. It would violate the Constitution for

any court to try this case.

This case posits a theological

controversy The plaintiff reads the Bible

one way He asserts that the film's

interpretation 16 different and wrong, and

that 1t defames Christ and God In order

to resolve M16 claim, the district court

~96-

would Mave to determine the “true” story

of Christ

This case raises exactly the sort of

religious issue that courts may not

decide Under the First Amendment's free

speech, oun exercise and establishment

clauses, such an 1S5sue 16 non justiciable:

The law knows no heresy, and is

committed to the support of no dogma

the establishment of no sect . Freedom

af thought, which includes freedom of

religious belief, 16 basic in a society

of free man. It embraces the right to

maintain theories of life and death and

of the hereafter which are rank heresy

to followers of the orthodox faiths Men

may believe what they cannot prove. They

may not be put to the proof of their

religious doctrine or beliefs Many

take their gospel from the New

TeStament But 1t would hardly be

Supposed that they could be tried before

@ jury charged with the duty of

offFn

determining whether those teachings

contained false representations The

religious views espoused by respondents

might seem incredible, if not

preposterous, to most people But if

those doctrines are subject to triai

before a jury charged with finding their

truth or falsity, then the same can be

done with the religious beliefs of any

sect When the triers of fact undertake

the task, they enter a forbidden domain

US vv. Ballard, 322 US 78, 86-87, 64

S Ct 882, 886-887 (1944)

Thus, the Supreme Court has held that

no court could determine whether the film,

“The Miracle” was unlawfully

"Sacrilegious” :

(Il»t 15 enough to point out that the

State has no legitimate interest in

protecting any or all religions from

views distasteful to them which is

sufficient to justify prior restraints

upon the expressions of those views

-98-

It 15 not the business of government in

our nation to suppress real or imagined

attacks upon a particular religious

doctrine, whether they appear in

publications, speeches, or motion

pictures

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 US.

498, $08, 72 $ Ct. 777, 7862 (1982). See

aléo, eg , Presbyterian Church in the

US. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memoria:

Presbyterian Church, 393 US. 440, 450, 89

S$ Ct 601, 606-607 (1969) (the First

Amendment forbids civil courts from

interpreting church doctrine); Cantwell v

Connecticut, 310 US 296, 310, 60 S Ct

900, 906(1940) (under the Constitution,

the religious advocate may resort "to

exaggeration, to vilification of men who

have been, or are, prominent in church or

State, and even to false statement”):

Crowder v Southern Baptist Convention,

828 F 246 718, 721 (11th Cir 1987), cert

denied, 484 VU S$ 1066 (1988) ("By

~99-

adjudicating religious disputes, civil

courts risk affecting associational

conduct and thereby chilling the free

exercise of religious beliefs. Moreover,

by entering into a religious tControversy

and putting the enforcement power of the

state behind a particular religious

faction, a €ivil €ourt FisSks ,

‘establishing’ a religion") cert. denied,

108 S Ct 1026 (1988)

These principles apply just as much

in a defamation suit as in any other

context. See Paul v. Watchtower Bible &

Tract Society, 819 F 2d 875, 883 (9th

Cir », cert denied, 484 VU GS 92611987)

(“offense to someone's sensibilities

resulting from religious conduct 16 Simply

not actionable in tort"); cf. New York

Times Co v Sullivan, 376 US. 254, 84

Ct. 710061964) (state libel laws are

W

subject to First Amendment constraints »)

6B. Common law tort principles bar this

action.

=100-

i i eeers—™—

The constitutional gqrounds are

sufficient to warrant dismissal The

defendants submit, however, that dismissal

iS alS0O required under basic principles of

Texas defamation law:

=-(a) There 16 no defamation attion

in favor of a plaintiff who 16 not injured

in HES Own reputation See, eg,

Newspapers, Inc v. Matthews, 339 S W 2d

890, 893 (Tex 1960) ("the asserted libe}

must refer to some ascertained or

ascertainable person, and that person must

be the plaintiff"): Renfro Drug Co v

Lawson, 160 S&S W 2d £46 (Tex 194Z2) (no

recovery for defamation of the dead):

Goldstein v. KDFW, S41 S W 2d 862, 864

(Tex Civ App - Wace 1976, writ refid

nre.d; Gonzales v_ Times Herald Printing

Co S13 S W 2d 124, 125-126 (Tex. Civ

App Dallas 1974, no writ) (no recovery

for defamation of the dead): Keys v

Interstate Circuit, Ine 468 S W 2d 485,

‘

486 (Tex Civ App - Tyler 1971, writ

=101=

dis'd w.0.j.) (no recovery by survivors of

Clyde Barrow for depiction in the film

“Bonnie and Clyde"); Barrow v. Enterprise

Co., 367 $.W.20d 426 (Tex. Civ. App. -

Beaumont 1964, no writ); Dick v. Allen,

3203 $.W.2d 390, 391 (Tex. Civ. App. -

Eastland 1957, no writ).

--(b) Opinions may not be the

subject of a defamation suit:

Under the First Amendment there 15 no

such thing as a false idea. However

pernicious an opinion may seem, we

depend for its correction not on the

conscience of judges and juries but on

the competition of other ideas.

A H Bel Corp. v.Rayzor, 644 S.W.2d 71, 79

(Tex App - Ft. Worth 1982, writ ref'd

n.r e.), Quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch,

Incg., 418 V.$. 323, 94 $.Ct. 2997 (19784).

4. Conclusion

The defendants do not question the

sincerity of the plaintiff's own views.

Under well-established principles,

-102-

however, it 16 clear that the plaintiff

may not use the courts as a vehicle for

penalizing those who may not agree with

nim

The complaint should be DISMISSED

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES T MCCARTT(sd)

James T McCartt

Southern District Bar No 2768

S100 First Interstate Bank Plaza

1000 Lou1siana

Houston, TX 77002-5096

(713)651-9366

Attorney in charge for the Defendants

(TRUE COPY)

-103-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION.

VEDA NAYAK > CIVIL ACTION No:

>

Plaintiff > H-89-269S.

>

>

vs. >

>

>

MCA, INC. et al., )

>

Defendants. >

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

UNDER RULE 12(b)(6).

I

Plaintiff submits to deny various

allegations and points cited in the above

mentioned Defendants’ motion to dismiss

Plaintiff reaffirms his original claims in

the complaint which are viable and

jJusticiable under the constitutional law

The Defendants have inter-alia admitted

Plaintiff's major issues and claims from

the complaint in para 1 of their motion,

-104-

which they could not Nave stated if there

were no claims Plaintiff specifically

denies Defendants’ statements that it

would “violate the constitution for any

court to try this case". Plaintiff submits

that this court has Jurisdiction to try

this case under federal constitutional law

- to protect the rights of the Plaintiff

and do justice to the third party he

represents Plaintiff further submits that

the Defendants’ right to freedom of

speech, expression or opinion 1s not

unrestricted under the constitutional law

as the Plaintiff will unfold in this

petition In addition, Plaintiff submits

that Plaintiff's Dasic assertions in his

original complaint are "“1ssues of fact”

and not of “opinion” The Defendants

allude in their motion that their film,

“THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST”,

hereinafter "“"“LTC"" 1s a matter of their

"opinion" of Christ, and therefore, has

First Amendment protection, whereas

-105-

Plaintiff affirms they are not “opinion”

but “issues of fact", which only a triar

of fact may determine, and therefore, may

not be disposed of by this court ona

summary basis as further substantiated

below

The Plaintiff further submits to this

court that the Defendants have

misinterpreted and misquoted in their

motion (para 1), Plaintiff's basic

allegations in nis original complaint.

Plaintiff nas not alleged that the film

"LTC" was “sacrilegious” to the person of

Cmrist, Dut a tissue of false defamation,

which the First Amendment does not protect

as “free speech". The term “sacrilegious”

does not apply to a deity person, But to

“sacred things" as contained in Joseph

Burstyn, Inc vs Wilson (343 US S24)

“Tne definitions given for

“sacrilege” by two dictionaries published

in 1742 and 1782 are typical Bailey's

Gefined it as “the stealing of sacred

-106-

things, Church Robbing; Barclay's said it

is “the crime of taking any thing

dedicated to divine worship, or profaning

any thing sacred"

The Plaintiff Nas no case that has

anything to do with the term "sacrilege".

Plaintiff does not represent in his case,

any church or denomination, and does not

subscribe to a particular theology other

than the universal gospel of Christ, his

life and mission, and in so doing, asserts

his freedom of religion, which the

Defendants have interfered with. Plaintiff

does not interpret the “bible in one way"

as the Defendants wrongly allege. The

basic premise in Plaintiff's case, as

stated earlier, 1S an 1ssue "fact" on the

life and times of Jesus as based on

authoritative sources as opposed to the

false and frivolous portrayal of Jesus in

the Defendants' film "LTC" with a

deliberate intent to assassinate Christ's

character with malice and premeditation.

-107-

Such an act, the Plaintiff submits, has no

protection under the First Amendment.

Plaintiff therefore submits that the

Defendants motion under rule 12(b)(6) 1s

untenable and should be dismissed.

II

Plaintiff submits that the

Defendants’ constitutional grounds and

citations in para 2 of their motion for

dismissal 1S inapplicable, inappropriate

and irrelevant to Plaintiff's complaint,

and the stated issues in the complaint, as

follows:

(a) Plaintiff asserts that his

complaint is not an exercise in

theological controversy, and the

Defendants Nave no standing as a

theological body. The Principal Defendants

(MCA, INC. and Cineplex Odeon Gevaeestion

(USA), are not chartered as a church or

religious body under California State Law,

and they have not produced the film “LTC"

in the capacity of a religious body. The

-108-

Principal Defendants are chartered as

profit making corporations in motion

Picture business, and the said film, “LTC"

as alleged in Plaintiff's original

complaint, was exhibited by the Defendants

with prior knowledge that it will defame

and insult the character of Jesus Christ,

and that it was opposed to the historical

and biblical “facts" on the life and

mission of Jesus Christ. Plaintiff

reiterates that the issues of defamation

cited in Plaintiff's complaint are not his

“opinion” on the Bible, but are issues of

“fact” as universally understood about the

person of Christ, and are therefore

triable and justiciable

(b) US. vs BALLARD (322 VU.S.78),

which the Defendants have quoted 156

inapplicable in their favor because it

upheld the religious freedom of Ballard et

al, a religious sect per se, whose free

exercise of religion was infringed upon Dy

the State The State action was considered

-1N9-

unconstitutional under the “establishment”

clause by the Supreme Court. There are no |

such state action or establishment

conflicts involved in the Plaintiff's

case. Ballard did not involve false

defamation of any person such as in the

Plaintiff's case, and therefore, the

citation is not quite relevant.

(c). JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. vs. WILSON

(343 US 495), cited by the Defendants, is

Similar to Ballard and therefore, is also

inapplicable in the Plaintiff's case. The

case involved New York State action to

censor the film “Miracle”, placing a prior

restraint on the basis of a censor's

opinion, which was found by the Supreme

Court as violating the First Amendment

rule. Plaintiff may point out however,

thet the issue was not on just censorship,

but on “unbridled censorship". Also, at

was not the opinion of the court that the

motion picture industry had unilateral

-110-

license to exhibit any film. The court

Said inter-alia:

“If there be capacity for evil, it may

be relevant in determining the

permissible scope of community control,

but it does not authorize substantially

unbridled censorship such as we have

here ..It does not follow that the

Lonstitution requires absolute freedom

to exploit every motion picture of every

kind at all times at all places. That

much iS evident from the series of

decisions of this court with respect to

other media of communication of ideas "

(343 US SO02- 503)

Joseph Burstyn vs. Wilson's case, in

the court's opinion, involved arbitrary

New York censorship standards, which were

constitutionally vague and therefore

considered by the Supreme Court as

difficult to administer. The court held

that the word “sacrilegious" was 111

defined for the purposes of censorship

-ll1-

Pn Lar ae

Standards Besides, the film “Miracle” did

not falsely defame or insult Christ or any

other deity or religious figure per se as

the Defendants’ film “LTC" does with

impunity, and therefore, this citation too

is not a defense in favor of the

Defendants.

The latter part of the above

mentioned Supreme Court's opinion held

that not all films can have First

Amendment protection, which 16 applicable

to the Plaintiff's case. Therefore, the

Defendants’ have no unbridled license

under the First Amendment to exhibit the

film "LTC", in so far as it defames

falsely, the person of Jesus Christ,

interferes with and infringes the freedom

of worship of the Plaintiff.

The rest of the citations quoted by

the Defendants unde. para 2 of their

motion are also inapplicable and

irrelevant to the Plaintiff's case for the

following reasons:

-11l2-

(gd) PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE US

vS MARY ELIZABETH BLUE HULL MEMORIAL

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (393 US 440): This 16

a dispute between two churches and under

the constitutional principle of separation

of church and state, the Supreme Court

held that it may not interfere with the

internal disputes of the church concerning

a church property Neither the Plainti ff

nor the Defendants in the dispute over the

film, “LTC”, are part of a “church” for

the purpeses of this litigation and

therefore, the quoted citation is

inapplicable and irrelevant Also, in the

Presbyterian church case, there was no

issue of false detamation of a religious

figure, which 16 the central issue in the

Plaintiff's case The Defendants' citation

ig therefore, dissimilar to the

Plaintiff's case on "LTC" as to the

parties, relationship of parties to each

Otter, nature of dispute and type of

issues

=Ll3=-

(e) CANTWELL vs. STATE OF

CONNECTICUT (310 Us 296): This Citation

too, 16 inapplicable and irrelevant

because like Ballard, discussed before, it

waS a Question of state intervention in

matters of religious freedom of an

individual. The case 16 HOt Similar either

aS to parties or to the nature of issues

such aS the Plaintiff's case.

(f) CROWDER vs. SQUTHERN BAPTIST

CONVENTION (828 F 2d 718): This case

cited by the Oefendants, 15 Similar to the

Fresbyterian Church Case discussed above,

inveivaing church dispute. The Court of

Appeals did not enter into the dispute

under the principles of Separation of

Church and State Therefore, it 16 also

inapplicable and irrelevant to the

Plaintiff's case aS to parties,

|

relationship of parties to each other,

nature of dispute and type of issues [t

may again be repeated that neither the |

Plaintiff nor the Defendants in the “LTC"

=114=

Bsc Bah oF Salon Sa

case are part of the "church". Neither

goes the Plaintiff's case involve any

“establishment” issue

(@?) PAVL vs WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND

TRACT SOCIETY «819 F 2a 875): This case,

like FPresbyterian Church and Crowder

Stated above, 16 a dispute between members

of the church of Jehovah's witnesses and

the church itself, an internal matter,

therefore both the District Court and

Court of Appeals would not intervene under

the principles of separation of Church and

if

tate and the governing rule of

ecclesiastical abstention This too, 15

dissimilar, irrelevant and inapplicable to

Plaintiff's case on "LTC" as to parties,

relationship of parties to each other,

nature of Wispute and type of issues

(Hh) Lastly the Defendants nave

Quoted NEW YOR TIMES CO vs SULLIVAN

that "State libel laws are subject to

First Amendment constraints " Plaintiff

Ras no quarrel with this assertion, But it

Lg

#115=

is irrelevant to Plaintiff's case, as he

Mas not cited any State Law to back up his

claim On the contrary, New York Times Cu

Vs Sullivan would be in favor of the

Plaintiff, as 1t rightly resolves the

broader issue of “Defamatory falsenood

with malice" as unprotected speech under

First Amendment, which 1s the Plaintiff's

claim in Mh1S Complaint, and therefore,

cannot be dismissed summarily without a

trial

“It does indeed go without saying that

an official, who 16 1n fact guilty of

using his powers to vent his spleen upon

ethers, or for any other personal motive

not connected with the public good,

should not escape liability for the t

injuries he may so cause; and, if it

were possibdle in practice to confine

such complaints to the guilty, it would

be monstrous to deny recovery “ CNEW

YORk TIMES CO vS SULLIVAN: 376 US

302)

~116-

Plaintiff submits that based on the

discussion in II above, on constitutional

grounds, the Defendants nave no grounds to

press for a summary judgement before a

trial

Ill

In New York Times Co vs Sullivan

(376 US 277), the Supreme Court observed:

“What a State may not constitutionally

bring about by means of criminal statute

1s likewise beyond the reach of its civil

law of Libel “ Plaintiff submits that if

the Defendants cannot substantiate their

motion on constitutional grounds as

discussed in Il above, they cannot

substantiate their motion on Texas Libel

law Furthermore, the Plaintiff mas not

filed his case invoking any State Law, and

Mis case NaS Not LEEN under the

jurisdiction of tne State of Texas before

However, Plaintiff may Substantiate below

that the Defendants claim for a dismissal

of Plaintiff's petition, 1n principle,

3D Fon

does not even meet state standards without

»

ee tie ee Pa

prejudice to Plaintiff's position that he

1S not governed py Texas State Law in his

dispute with the Defendants on "LTC", as

the film's distribution 16 an inter-state

matter, and therefore, a matter that would

fall legitimately under federal

Constitutional law In fact, the film's

distribution 156 international in scope and

therefore, the implications of its

potential for evil 16 all the more

greater For it could misinterpret

unjustifiably and falsely, the person of

Jesus to many nations which are not

"Christian" nations, but neathen

Therefore, the film, a fabrication of

talsenood, if unfettered, may easily pass

aS Hollywood's interpretation of Christ,

even a presentation of the US. For

Hollywood 1S synonymous with the US. to

Third World nations The gullible third

world, quite unexposed to the gospel, may

believe that such was the character of

SMe Ae

-118- j

Cnrist the God of the Christians - a

liar, a sinner, a coward and an adulterer,

‘whus foaded for btrtG comnt Ging” my the cra,

Plaintiff Submits below that none of

the Texas statutes on libel cited by the

Defendants are relevant or applicable to

the Plaintiff's case on “LTC

(1) Renfro Co VS Lawson

( ) 0) LJ | Aan)

(11) Goldstein vs DFW (S54) sW 2d B62

(111) Gonzales vs Times Herald Printing

Co (S13 SW 20 124)

lv) Keys vs Interstate Circuit, Inc

All the above mentioned citations

re ter to defamation of Line dead, tre

a)

fh

~

fv

Ndants meaning thereby that Jesus 15

dead and therefore the Plaintiff 15 not

entitled to any remedy or recovery This

1s Defendant's “opinicn" like the

fallacious film itself and not a fact

Plaintiff asserts and affirms that Jesus

Christ 16 not dead, but 165 alive. His

-1)9-

resurrection 16S neither a myth nor an

“opinion”, but a matter of fact and the |

Flaintiff can provide substantive

authorities and proofs that he 156 alive |

The Spirit of Truth, which 16 Christ, 1s

alive and active in this Universe, anc

especially on this Planet of his

incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth The

résurrection 1ssue again 1S a triable

issue of fact, and the following citations

from authoritative sources will prove the

fact of Resurrection of Jesus.

The fact that Jesus 165 alive and not

Sead 165 Substantiated by the following

Diblical and historical references as to

eyewitnesses to Mis resurrection.

FROM THE BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT:

“And the angel of the Lord answered and

Said unto the woman, FEAR NOT YE: FOR I

1NOW THAT YE SEEK JESUS WHICH was

CRUCIFIED HE 1S NOT HERE: FOR HE IS |

RISEN, AS HE SAID. COME, SEE THE PLACE )

WHERE THE LORD LAY AND GO QUICKLY, AND

-120-

TELL HIS DISCIPLES THAT HE 15 RISEN FROM

THE DEAD; AND, BEHOLD, HE GOETH BEFORE

YOU INTO GALILEE: THERE SHALL YE SEE

HIM: LO, I HAVE TOLD YOU they departed

Quickly from the sepulchre with fear and

great joy; and did run to bring his

disciples word And as they went to tell

his disciples, penold, Jesus met them,

saying, ALL HAIL. And they came and held

him by the feet, and worshipped him

Then said Jesus unto them, BE NOT

AFRAID: GO TELL MY BRETHREN THAT THEY GO

INTO GALILEE, AND THERE SHALL THEY SEE

ME Then the eleven disciples

went away into Galilee, into a mountain

where Jesus had appointed them And when

they saw him, they worsnipped him: but

some doubted And Jesus came and spake

unto them, saying, ALL POWER IS GIVEN

UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH GO YE

THEREFORE, AND TEACH ALL NATIONS,

BAPTIZING THEM IN THE NAME OF THE

-1?1-

FATHER, AND OF THE SON ANDO OF THE HOLY

GHOST: TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL

THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED yOu:

AND, LO, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, EVEN UNTO

aloe: iekih Opal cn jitter deste

THE END OF THE WORLD. Amen “ (St

Matthew's Gospel, ch 28: 5-10, 16-20)

“Then the same day at evening,

being the first day of the week, when

the doors were shut where the disciples

were assembled for fear of the Jews,

came Jesus and stood in the midst, and

$aith unto them, PEACE BE UNTO YOU And |

wnen he had so said, he shewed unto them

his hNands and his side Then were the

disciples glad, when they saw the Lord

Then said Jesus to them again, PEACE BE

UNTO YOU: AS MY FATHER HATH SENT ME, i

) EVEN SO SEND I YOU." (St. Jonn's Gospel,

chapter 20:19-21 ) :

ON RESURRECTION: FROM “THE URANTIA BOOK."

(Urantia Foundation, Chicago, 1955).

“Shortly after nine o'clock that

evening, after the departure of Cleopas

PA bt BO Se dae eo 9

-122-

and Jacob, while the Alphaeus twins

comforted Peter, and while Nathaniel

remonstrated with Andrew, and as the ten

apostles were there assembled in the

upper chamber with all the doors bolted

for fear of arrest, the Master, in

morontia form, Suddenly appeared in the

midst of them, saying: “Peace be upon

you Why are you so ftrightened when I!

appear, as though you had seen a spirit?

Did I not tell you about these things

when I was present with you in the

flesn? Did I not say to you that the

chief priests and rulers would deliver

me up to be killed, that one of your own

number would betray me, and that on the

third day I would rise? Wherefore all

your doubtings and all this discussion

about the reports of the women, Cleopas

and Jacob, and even Peter? How long will

you doubt my words and refuse to believe

my promises? And now that you actually

see me, will you believe? Even now one

-123-

of you 16 absent When you are gathered

togetner once more, and after all of you

know for a certainty that the Son of Mar

nas risen from the grave, go hence into

Galilee. Have faith in God; Nave faith

in one another; and so snall you enter

a

3

into the new service of the kingdom of

Re TUE eel SF BO rm,

heaven. 1 will tarry in Jerusalem with

you until you are ready to go into

Galilee My peace |! leave with you

VS pe Sta ie Sere ae aoe aK

As to Defendants' citation,

NEWSPAPERS INC. vs. MATTHEWS (339 SW 2d

890), this case 16 not applicable to j

Plaintiff, because Plaintiff's allegation

tee sae NS, wane oy

in his complaint 16 that he and other

believers like Mim Nave been injured,

their right to freedom of worship has bee:

interfered with by the Defendants'

attempted demolition of the unblemished

character of their core of worship - Jesus

Cnrist. Besides, under federal law,

Flaintiff will nave standing to represent

himself and the third party, if the third

-124-

ete ctinctsientronstznnnacinnn RE a AOR ihe SANS NNO EES LAS Raga bicidteail it, Figh ot ite

party 16 closely related, which 1s the

case between the Plaintiff and Jesus

Christ, his friend and Spiritual Father

Finally, the Defendants' contention

that their film "LTC" 165 a@ matter of

“opinion” and may not be subject to a

defamation suit, and Nave cited the cases

of AH Belo vS Raysor (644 SW 2d 71) and

Gertz vs Welch, Inc (418 US 323),

Plaintiff submits that the citations are

not relevant or applicable to Plaintiff's

case which disputes Defendants’ claim to

“opinion” as misrepresentation of "facts",

and therefore, 15 a triable 1ssue

Plaintiff Submits that the

Defendants’ petition to dismiss does not

Stand even on Texas 11b0e1l law, and the

need to try the issues of "facts" will

therefore be all the more necessary in the

light of the foregoing discussion and

Justification For these reasons, the

Defendants’ petition should be dismissed

-125-

Plaintiff submits and substantiates

below the constitutional rights and law in

support of his complaint, his standing and

the relief he is entitled to, to mitigate

— he en ee ee

the offenses and damages caused by the

Defendants, by interfering with

Plaintiff's freedom of worship and the

rights of the Third Party he represents in

order to prove PRIMA FACIE before the

trial that his complaint may not be

summarily dismissed by this court, on

Detendants' motion

IV

Plaintiff's complaint holds

|

Defendants liable for false defamation

with malice in the film, "UTC", which has

two aspects of offences,

(a! It anjgures the Plaintiff and

many believers like Him, and interferes

with the freedom of worship which the

Constitution guarantees,

(b). It insults and slanders the

CREATOR of the Universe, whd was the :

-126-

incarnated Jesus Christ and who 16 the

Spiritual Father of the Plaintiff and

other believers in this nation and other

nations of the world

The following citations on

Constitutional law, on defamatory

falsehood and libel, 15 in Support of

Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants,

and would restrict the Defendants’

misunderstood position, that they Nave

unfettered freedom to exhibit the film,

"LTC" which 165 the prime cause of action

In Plaintiff's complaint

(a) CHAPLINSKY vS NEW HAMPSHIRE (3lgé

US S7i*8/72): ” It 1€ well understood

that the right of free Speech is not

absolute at all times and under all

circumstances There are certain well

defined ant narrowly limited classes of

speech, the prevention and punishment of

which have never been thought to raise

any constitutional problem These

include the lewd and obscene, the

-127=

profane, the libelous and the insulting

or fighting words - those which by thei:

very utterance inflict injgury or tend t.

incite an immediate breach of the peace

it has been well observed that such

utterances are no essential part of any

exposition of itdeas and are of such

Slight social value as a Step to truth

that any bemefit that may be derived

— es

from them is clearly outweighed by the

Social interest in order and morality "

a ee

(b) (Cas Quoted from Cantwell vs

Connecticut 310 US 296, 309-310)

“The most stringent protection of free

es ———

speech would not protect a man in

faisely Shouting fire in a theater and

eel Renae

causing fire " (249 US at S2 as quoted

from Campers Vs Bucks Stove and Range —

Co 221 US 418,420)

(cd) ” Crime is none the less so,

nor less oWlous, because sanctioned by ©

whet any particular sect may designate ©

as religion It was never intended that

-128- j

the first Article of Amendment to the

Constitution that "Congress shall make

no law respecting the establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof, should be a

protection against legislation for the

Punishment of acts inimical to the

peace, good order and morals of

society "

(4) " The qQuarantis of freedom of

expression in effect in !0 of the 14

States which by 1792 had ratified the

Constitution, gave no absolute

(Davis vs Beason 133 US 323)

orotection for every utterance Thirteen

of the 14 States provided for the

prosecution of libel, and all of those

Cc

~

tates made either blasphemy or

profanity, or both. statutory crimes

Perly as {t71., Massachusetts mavie it

criminal to publish “any filthy,

obscene, or profane song, pamphlet,

libel or mock sermon" in imitation or

mimicking of religious services Acts

=] 29=

AS

and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay,

c CV Sec 8 (1712), Mass. Bay Colony

Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus,

profanity and obscenity were related

offences.” (Roth vs. United States 354

US at 462-483 »

.e) “Libelous utterances are not

within the area of constitutionally

protected speech " (Beannharris vs

lilinois «343 US 250, 266)

(ft) “Spreading false information

in and of itself carries no First

Amendment protection. “ (Herbert Vs

Landau (99 S Ct 1635)

(g) “Corporations as a class may

net be <©<..d to be “public figures” for

rirst Amendment purposes (Bruno and

Stillman Inc. vs Globe Newspaper Co

633 F 2d S83).

(g> "Knowingly false statement anc

false statement made with reckless

disregard of the truth do not enjoy

(umnsulitutional protection (Apple Tree

-130-

©

|

vs City of Hartford 555 F. Supp 224)

(nd False and misleading

representations are not shielded by the

First Amendment (Better Business Bureau

Of Metropolitan tine VS Medical

Directors, Inc 509 F Supp Bll,

injunction modified, affirmed 681] F 2d

397)

(1) “Should Plaintiff in defamation

action be deemed private figure,

Strictures of First fimendment are not as

rigidly imposed and nis Durden 15

therefore substantially lessened in so

far as he need only establish that

Defendant was ne)) lgent in farling to

ascertain whether or not published

Statements were false and defamatory

(Ali vs Daily News Publishing Co

;

Inc , S40 F Supp 142)

defense in almost al) cases and

privileges designed to foster free

communication are almost universally

=) 3l-

recognized But the basic theory of

libel mas not changed and words

Jetamatory of another are still placed

in the same class with the use of

explosives or the keeping of dangerous

animals (FProsser, the Law of Torts: 10

at 792) Thus some antithesis between

freedom of speech and press and 11be}l

action persists, for libel remains

premised on the freedom of the Pubiisner

to express certain sentiments at least

without guaranteeing legal proof of

their substantial accuracy “ (Curtis

Fb RA ety otlilab Sao je when dal TT aR ln aad Bok gaat

Publishing Co ve Butts 388 US at iSi-

i ae

Vv.

Plaintiff cites below constitutional

cases in his favor as to Standing, to

represent mis case on mis behalf, and on

the behalf of the tnird party - Jesus

Crrist

"Dismissal on the pleadings tor

lack of standing 1S inappropriate, even

i ™

if the extreme generality of a complaint

leaves the injury in fact component of

standing in doubt, where the standing

requirement may be satisfied on

affording an opportunity to make more

definite, the allegations of the

complaint Action “Alliance of Senior

Citizens of Greater Philadelphia vs

Margaret Heckler (789 FF Zd 931)

For person who Mimself can

allege injury in fact to be permitted to

assert constitutional rights of

another, thereby seeking redress of both

Ais Own injury and that of the third

party, there must be a close

relationship between litigant and person

whose right he 165 asserting and activity

litigant proposes to pursue must be

inextricably bound up with

constitutional right of person from whom

the right 1S drawn and also there must

exist some obstacle to third party i1n

asserting mis or her own rights

-133-

(y $ C A Const. Art. 3:2, cl. 1: Bowman

vs. Wilson 672 F. 2d 1145).

Plaintiff submits that he, like

many other believers, 156 closely related

to Jesus Christ, his Creator Father and

Spiritual Father, not only in a temporal

sense but in an eternal sense, and

therefore, the rioht of the Plaintiff 15

inextricably “bound up" with Christ, the

third party which the Plaintiff

represents

Vi

Plaintiff submits the following

citations in Support of the injunction ne

Mas prayed for in nis complaint to

mitigate tne damage that the false and

defamatory film would cause in the future

‘ad “The purpose of an

injunction 16 to prevent future 11llegal

a'vi wrongful acts and respondent's past

conduct 168 a relevant factor to be

considered " (Offner vs. Shell's City,

Inc 376 F 20 S74)

-134-

ib») “Purpose of an injyunction

1S to prevent future violations, and

court, in determining whether to grant

injunctive relief, must look to the

future as well as to the past and insure

that wrongs are not repeated and there

is fealty to the law (US vs

Richberg 398 F. 2d S23)

(c) “Injunction” 16

prohibitive writ 16Ssued Dy court of

equity forbidding party-defendant from

certain action, or In €as5e of mandatory

Ingunct1ion, commanding positive action

(United Bonding Ins Co vs. Stein 410

F 2d 483)

(d) “Injunction will be granted

where court of equity determines that

Injunction 165 essential to restrain act

contrary to equity and good conscience

Washington Capitols Basketball Club,

Inc vS Barry 304 F Supp 1193

affirmed 419 F zd 472)

(e) "Sole function of

-135-

bnjgunctive reliet , whether temporary or

permanent, 1S to forestall future

Violations (United Parcel Service, Inc.

vS Local 25 of Intern Broth of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warenousemen and

Helpers of America (Local 25), 42) F

Supp 462)

(fd) “An injunction 1S an

equitable remedy “ (Firemen's Fund Ins

Co vs Myers 290 F Supp 405)

(g) “Court nas inherent power

Lo 16Sue mandatory injunction where

appropriate “ (International Tel & Tel

Corp vs General Tel & Electronics

corp , 351 F Supp 1153, affirmed in

part, reversed in part, SI& F 2d 913)?

VIL

Tre authority of tnis court to near

Fiaintitt’s case has Deen substantiated in

parts IV, V and VE Plaintiff will now

Submit to tne court as to why Defendants’

motion Should not be granted which will

amount to Summary dismissal Plaintiff

-136—-

_——

cites the followinj cases 1N Support of

his plea that this court smouldad not

4ismiss M16 complaint in view of the

Ciarcumetances ewrqpobatined in this petition,

and on the strenyth of Flaintiff's

original complaint

La) "On the basis of the record

before us, and in view of the weight to

be accorded the complaint on a motion

for Summary judgement, we are not

Prepare: tw say that VeEefendant's version

must be believed, nor that tne

allegations of the Plaintitfs, which the

court below deemed "“rougnily drawn", are

SO vague and general as to strip them of

all credibility Tne resolving of such

issues must be left to the finders of

fact, and not decided upon a motion for

summary judgement “ (Sarnoff et al vs

Claglia 165 F 2d 167)

(Db) “It 16 our opinion that

Rule S6& Should be invoked only when the

Complete absence of a genuine 15SsuUe of

-137-

fact 16 4nparent upon the face of the

record Resort to the remedy where there

1S any doubt is futile, because it 15

now well settled that all doubts on this

preliminary 16Ssue must be resolved

against the moving party The rule can

be made to fulfill its purpose if it is

Liivekerd Only In appropriate caSesS, aiid

these are not too numerous The motion

for Summary Judgement 16 denied (21g

Zag Spring Co vs Comfort Spring

Corporation ss F Supp 419)

(c) “A litigant Mas a right ts

a trial where there 16 the sliqntest

d2ubt as to the facts, and a denial of

that rignt 15 reviewable; Dut refusal tc

Qrant a4 Summary judgement 16 not

reviewable Sucn 4&4 jJuagement, wisely

used, 16 a Pralseworthy time-saving

‘teviees Rut, altmoucm prompt despatch ot

judicial business 15 @ virtue, it 15

neitner tne sole nor the primary purpose

for which courts Nave been established,

-138-

Denial of a trial on disputed facts 15

worse than delay ( Cf Arenas vs United

States 322 U5 419, 429, 433, 545 Ct,

1090, 88 L Ed 1363) The district

courts would do well to note that time

has often been lost by reversals of

summary Judgements improperly entered

The motion for Summary judgement 15

denied “ ‘Rolle Mfg Co vs Marco

Chemicals 92 F Supp 218)

(Jd) "Federal rule providing for

summary judgement gives district court

no Jurisdiction to summarily try the

factual issues in advance of a trial

(Fed Rules Civ Proc , rule $6, 28

US CA (Silvray Lighting vs Versen 10

FRO 507)

le) "Pederal summary judgement

rule does not vest 1n court the

Jurisdiction summarily to try the

factual 16Ssues on pleadings and

affidavits of parties Dut vests in court

limited authority to enter summary

oie

Judgement if it clearly appears from any, |

record that there 16 no genuine issue asi

tuo any Material fact amd that moving

party 1s entitled to Judgement as a

matter of law, and complete absence of

any genuine issue of fact must be

apparent and all doubts thereon resolvec

against moving party. (Fed Rules Civ

Proc , rule Sb, 28 US CA (Newark

Evening News Pub Co vs King Features

Syndicate 7 F RD 645)

(f) “Where factual questions

are at 16Sue, aS well as legal

principles, the court 16 precluded from |

enteriing Summary jJuchjement ‘(Fed Rules.

Civ Froc , rule 56, 28U SC A (Nortofl

¥S ‘Supreme Fuel Sales Co , 72 F Supp

ae7)

(9g) “A motion for summary

Judgement must be denied where a genuing

and substantial i16sue of fact 16

presented by the pleadings (Schenley

Digstributors vs Wisconsin Wine and

-140-

Spirit Import Corp 2% F Supp 635)

(rh) “Where complaint averred

bib) per ae wotuaAl punitive damarye

could be recovered without pleading

special damages" (Gertz vs Welch, 306

F Supp 310° Motion for Summary

Judgement denied?)

AFFIDAVIT:

The Plaintiff's Affidavit affirming

certain basic facts of the case 15

enclosed

CONCLUSION:

In view of the foregoing facts,

citations, justification and Affidavit,

Plaintiff has indeed stated mis claim, and

the Defendants motion to dismiss

Plaintiff's complaint before a trial

should be dismissed

Respectfully Submitted:

(VEDA NAVA »

Plaintiff Pro Se

-141-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

HOUSTON DIVISTUON

CIVIL ACTION NO: H=89=2695

VEDA NAYAK vs MCA, INC. et al.

State of Texas

County of Harris

Veda Nayak, Plaintiff in the above

mentioned case, duly sworn, deposes and

Says to the best of his knowledge and

belief that:

(1) The selected statements of

public protest and agitation to the film,

“THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST", herein

after "LTC", and other press information

contained in EXHIBIT I to the original

complaint filed with the Federal District

Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston

Division ain the above mentioned case, are

true extracts and copies from selected

-142=

papers and magazines as iGentified in that

exAibit. Plaintiff affirms that prima=

facie, the objections to the film as

eontained in the press feports are

representative of the wide spread

objections to the film among universal

believers of Christ as defamatory

falsehood on the life and character of

Jesus Christ. MCA, Ine. and Cineplex Qdeon

(USA), RMereinafter "Principal Defendants, "

also received such protests from

interested leaders and members of the

ehurch, But the Principal Defendants took

out anh advertisement in leading newspapers

before the release of the film on August

12, 1990, asserting their rights to

release the film inspite of these protests

and objections. Plaintiff further affirms

that Defendants knew that their film was a

defamatory falsehood of the life and times

of Jesus Christ, but yet they decided to

release the film with reckless disregard

to the truth.

=143-

Si el —- = 2 7 ee

(2) Plaintiff further affirms tms:

the Defendants’: action was motivated by

profiteering and malice - to profit from é

false story that would cause excitement

and controversy, which could bring a

windfall of publicity to the film, “LTC”

Malice because, a majority of the chief

executives who contro! the Principal

Defendants’ corporations did not subscribe

to the Christian belief and did not

respect the religious sentiments and

rights of the believers in Jesus Christ,

which was evident from the fact that the

Principal Defendants decided to release

the film, “LTC” inspite of knowing

Christian public protest, and inspite of

knowing that their film was considered an

insult and slander to tne person of Jesus

Christ, contrary to biblical and

historical records and traditions of the

church

(3) Plaintiff further affirms and

*

States that the Diblic.! references toa

IAA SAT

“ew

define the divine and Muman character of

Jesus Christ 45 given in Exhibit II, II,

IV, V and VI are true reflections of the

immaculate and blameless perfect character

of Jesus Christ, testified by some

eyewitnesses on the life and mission of

Jesus Christ Exhibit VIT, which gives the

contents of the “Urantia Book", written Dy

living witnesses to the life and times of

Jesus Christ 165 another true source

besides the gospels of the bible, to voucr

for the immaculate and perfect life of

Jesus Christ Paper 120 of the VUrantia

Book, included in Exnmibit VII proves that

Jesus was the incarnated Creator, Christ

Michael of this universe Tne Urantia book

also proves that Jesus rose from the déad

after mis crucifixion, and 16 now ruling

this universe as 1ts Creator and God

Plaintiff atfirms tmat 1t 165 this Creator

the founders of this nation recognized,

and it 16 the incarnated character of tnis

Creator - Jesus of Nazareth that the

~146-

Defendants have falsely defamed in their

film, “LIC”, contrary to Mistorical and

Diblical facts, as detailed in the

Plaintiff's original complaint

(4) Plaintiff further affirms that

Plaintiff's letter to Léw Wasserman,

Chairman, MCA, Inc. dated March 30, 1989.

together with enclosures, 165 a true copy

of the letter and documents sent Dy

certified mail, which was received Dy Leé»u

Wasserman’'s office on 4/5/69 (Receipt no

P114039479' Tne said letter was kept in

Wascerman’'s office till 4/10/89, and was

returned opened to FPlaintiff on 4/13/89

with another claim check # O80670 with tr:

remarks on the envelope “Refused”

Plaintiff therefore believes that Lew

Wasserman or his office knew the contents

of Plaintiff's letter dated March 30,

1969, which included Paper 120 of the

“Urantia Book”, and this Paper, naving

been written Dy an eyewitness of the life

atwd Limes of J@sus Christ, included 4 tru

-147-

free

statement to the @ttect that Jesus was the

incarnated Creator, Christ Michael of this

Universe Therefore 2 Defendants knew

that they were detfaming talsely, the

incarnated Creator Jesus of Nazareth, but

they continued to defame and profane mis

name aS a Coward 46 Liat 4 sinner an

adulterer, a Jéw killer and demon

possessed, throuan their film a i my

this country and other countries of the

_reator and God and to many thousands of

other pelievers Tme Defendants, Dy

demoliscnmina the IMMACULATE image of Cnmrist

in their film Lie Mave seriously

interfered with the freedom of worsmio of

the Plaintiff and ti uUsands of other

believers like mim Plaintiff also affirms

that ne reoresents Jesus the incarnated

Creat yr »f tre Universe 96 8&8 tNird party

in order to fing iustice tr udr the

courts from the defamatory falsenood of

the Defendants of mis life in their film

In doing so, Flaintiff will also ve

representing many other pelievers like

him to whom Jesus is God and Creator

(—o) Plaintiff affirms tnmat 1f the

Cetendants' film continues to ve exhibited

tmrougm various media formats, it will

furtmer defame falsely, Jesus Christ, and

ris cmaracter may be seriously

misunderstood in third world, non-

Lmriatian Countries, @Nd even in this

Mation, to young children Plaintiff

affirms that tne ends of justice will bce

met only througm 4 permanent injunction to

restrain the film in ali media in ail tre

territories of the world

(7) Flaintiff will amend mis

Originél petition to include general and

PUNILTLVvVe damages as Me Mas pointed out in

mis original complaint and streamline nis

-149-

complaint as to 16SuUeS and remedies

sougnt

y

VEDA NAYAK (sd)

(YEDA NAYAK dD

Affiant

~“UOScCrined and swear tm before me

this iotn Gay of

December Loe |

SUSAN S Ol FILIRFFPO (sd)

JOotary Public >tate of le@xas

My commission Eexplres reo ,

lg g)

-150-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

VEDA NAYAK.

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

H-89-2695

MCA, INC , et al

SF SA OM BY Ow OO OM ONY O&M Om OY

Defendants

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

For the reasons set forth in

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure

to State a Claim, the complaint in this

case 15 hereby DISMISSED

Signed tris 17th day of January,

a Le,

KENNETH HOYT (sa)

UNITED STATES OLSTRICT JVUOGE

(TRUE COPY)

-15l-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Docket No: 90-2188.

VEDA NAYAK,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

-against-

, INC. et al,

De fendants-Appel lees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

VEDA NAYAK

4770, W. Bellfort,# 285

Houston, TX 77035

(713)684-6552

VEDA NAYAK

Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se

-152-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (13). Curtis Publishing Co v. Butts,

-. oie oe eee eo) ye awe

Page

(14). Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson,

343 U.S. 495, SOS (19582) 26

(1) Gaines v Canada,

05 US 350 16 : (15). Cantwell v. Connecticut,

310 U.S. at 296 pet fe ily sauna

(2) Yick Wo v Hopkins,

lig vV.S. 356, 369 ek oe ae 16 (16) Presbyterial Church v. Blue Hull,

393 US 440, 450 26

(3) Kovacs v. Cooper,

336 US. 77,88, (17).Crowder v. Southern Baptist

69 S Ct. 448, 454 (1949) 16 Convention, 828 F.2d. 718, 721..26,27

(4) Schneck v US, (18) Paul v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract

249 U.S. 47,82 $.Ct. 247, 249 16 Society of New York, Inc

819 F 2d., 875 27

(S) Herbert v Lando,

44) US. at 15$3 ; lo (19).New York Times Co v. Sullivan,

i 376 US 254 27

(6) Winters v. New York,

333 U.S. 507, SIS : 18 (20) New York Times Co v. Sullivan,

376 US 254, 3V02 af

(7) Lynch v. Donnelly,

465 US 668, 674, (21) V.S. v. Judith Kuch,

104 S$ Ct , 1355, 1356 18 288 F Supp., 439, 449(1968) .28

(8) Zoracn v Clauson, (22) Renfro v Lawson,

343 VU S 306, 312-315 19 160 SW. 2d., 246 28

(Ys Lynch v Donnelly, (23) Goldstein v. KDFW,

465 U S 668, 674-678, 451 S$ W.2d., 862 28

104 S$ Ct , 1355S, 1389 2)

(24) Gonzales v. Times Herald

(10) United States v. Ballard, Printing Co

332 US 78,86-87 25 ’ S13 S$.W.2d , 124 28

(‘l1l) Davis v. Beason, (25) Keys v. Interstate Circuit,Inc.,

133 US. 333, 342 25 468 S W.2d , 485 28

(12) Herbert v. Lando, (26) Senior Citizens of Greater

| Prhiladelpnhia v Margaret Heckler,

441 US at 153 (1979) 6 789 F 20d at 93) 29

-153-

-154-

(27) Bowman v- Wilson,

8 oe ee ee ee eee ao

(28) Sierra Club v. Morton,

408 U.S. 727,

Oa 6 Ge...) Saee> hierar... .... nee

(29) US v Students Challenging

Regulatory Agency Procedures,

412 U.S. 669, 933

i ee | a 29

(30) Burrows v. Jackson,

2846 U.S. 249 CIRSa)......:7.. 29

(31).Belo Corp. v. Raysor,

2 2 ee ee | a 29

(32). Williford v. People of CA,

A ae ee re 30

(33) Saranoff et al v. Claglia,

Pe cee, Oe PP eG eee ..30

(34) Rolls Mfg Co. v. Marco Chemicals,

Sa F . 24. Bie, Gee se 30,3)

-155-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

VEDA NAYAK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

-~against-

MCA, INC et al De fendant-Appel lee,

On Appeal From A Judgment of The District

Court For The Southern District Court of

Texas

APPFILANT'S BRIEF

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Under 28 US C , section i291,

Plaintiff-Appellant (nereinafter

PLAINTIFF) appeals from a summary judqment

s

of dismissal for failure to state a claim,

entered on 1/23/90 by the District Court

for the Southern District of Texas,

granting Defendants-Appel lees'

(nNMereinafter DEFENDANTS) motion to dismiss

-156-

— CU

Flaintiff's complaint for breach of

Plaintiff's constitutional rights to

freedom of religion and worship, which

have been infringed and interfered with by

the Defendants, through their film, "THE

LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST", which profanecd

and SsSlandered Plaintiff's God and God of

this Universe by defamatory falsehood The

Plaintiff Sought a remedy through an

injunction to enjoin the Defendants not to

distribute and exhibit the film that

continues to injure the Plaintiff and

millions of others in this nation and

internationally and interferes with their

freedom of religion and worship

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

Defendants MCA and Cineplex Odeon

Corporation (hereinafter Principal

Defendants), are producers and

distributors un the motion picture and

television industry, and are public

corporations incorporated under California

State Laws Plaintiff 16 an individual

-157- :

E es a

with certain basic constitutional rights

to freedom of religion and worship

Vefendants produced and distributed a film

entitled "THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST"

which proafaned and defamed the God of the

Plaintiff and many others in this nation

and other nations of the world Defendants

assert their rights to produce and

distribute the defamatory falsehood

regardless of Plaintiff's rights The

basic questions are as follows:

(a) Can the Defendants in the

exercise of their constitutional freedom

under the First Amendment infringe and

rntferfere in AN AWGoOlite way with the

religious freedom of the Plaintiff and

many others by their film "THE LAST

TEMPTATION OF CHRIST" which profanes and

Slanders by defamatory falsehood,

Plaintiff's God, God of this Universe and

God of many people in this Republic and

abroad, and not be liable under VU S&S laws?

=#15A=

(b) Has the District Court erred ir

holding Defendants’ plea that it “would

violate the Constitution for any court to

try this case?”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The film, “THE LAST TEMPTATION OF

CHRIST”, (hereinafter LTC), the cause of

this Suit, produced by Defendant, MCA,

INC in collaboration with Defendant

Cineplex Odeon and released in this

Country amd abroad from August 1988, 1s by

and large in the present day genre of

Hollywood's film products, with an accent

to violence and immorality

Dramatized films have been made on

the life of Jesus in the past, but these

films were not objectionable, since they

did not conflict with the basic facts,

character and mission of Christ

Exceptionally, they were a source of

inspiration and entertainment to both

Christians and non Christians alike aroun:

the world (e gq , BENHUR, THE ROBE and

zceffereli’‘s JESUS OF NAZARETH)

For quite some time, the Jewish movie

prodcers-daistribtbutors of Hollywood

(nereinafter “JMP") nave been attempting

to create a different Jesus for the world

- a fictitious Jesus rather than of

history, a Jesus of the flesh rather than

of the spirit, apparently to satisfy their

own theological egos and to neutralize the

evangelical movement in this nation and

elsewhere in the world

Around 1972, Sidney Lumet (JMP), a

Hollywood film director, obtained the

rignts of the fictitious Jesus story from

thie widow of Nikos kFazvantvakiac, an

excommunicated Greek Koman Catholic

writer, for his dubious work on Jesus

Christ Unsuccessful as Ne was 1N making

the movie then, he gave the book to Barbra

Hershey who wanted to play the part of

Mary Magdalene

-160-

Hershey, who was a leading lady in

the film, “BOXCAR BERTHA", gave the book

to 1ts director Martin Scorcese (an ex-

Roman Catholic seminary drop out).

Scorcese wanted to make the film, knowing

its support among JMP, and the proposal

made rounds in Hollywood studios among

JMP, which were initially reluctant to

make the film based on tne teetitiow book |

that departed widely from the story of the

n1storical Jesus Christ. In 1983,

Paramount Pictures finalized plans to make

the movie in Israel, but dropped the

project when Israel refused to give

permission to Paramount to shoot the film

there, as it would offend Christians

around the world and Christian tourists

who visit the land of Christ's nativity

Two years later, Defendant MCA, Inc

i a a i Ue et i ei th « Te ii et ie oe

(JMP) in partnership with Defendant

Cineplex Odeon (JMP), came forward to

et in’ »

produce the film Prominent actors with

Christian background were approached to

-161-

play the lead role of Jesus of Nazareth -

a character tmat according to the script,

confessed that he was a coward, a liar and

a sinner who had serious mental and

emotional problems, who was Dranded a

traitor for making “crosses” to crucify

his own Jewish brethren, who was a

hypocrite that could never admit openly

ove with Mary Magdalene,

—

that he was in

who could only watch helplessly, Magdalene

making love to other men in her prostitute

parlor, who was reluctant to do his divine

calling, who finally freaked out from the

cross 1n a JIream to betray his weaknesses

when he does make love to Mary Magdalene

Then he marries Magdalene and after her

deatn, remarries Martha, one of the

Lazarus sisters, commits adultery with

Mary, the sister of Martha and has

Children with both of them and lives with

them for many years, when suddenly he

returns to the cross from h1s dream world

-162-

and dies on the cross saying, “It's

finished."(Record Excerpts, Pgs 19-27)

Robert DeNiro, a Roman Catholic, who

made movies before with Director Scorcese

(TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL) was offered the |

fictitious role of Jesus and he declined |

In 1987, Defendant MCA chose Morocco as a |

location for the film, cast Willem Dafoe |

to play Jesus with Barbra Hershey, Harvey

Keital and David Bowie, with Scorcese

directing the film. The production team

and cast consisted predominantly of JMP

In order to forestall any problem

from Crristian objectors to the film,

Defendant MCA covertly named the film as

“THE PASSION” during foreign location

shooting

In early 1988, Defendant MCA hired

Tim Pinland, an evangelical Christian and

Public Relations Specialist, to promote

the film among the Christian public, but

he resigned in mid 1988 after knowing the

content of the film and knowing the wide

-163-

spread objections from several Christian

leaders across the country who Nave Dy

this time, reac the profaning and

defamatory script of the film

Unable to pacify Christian leaders

and scared of possible injunctions, the

Principal Defendants moved the date of

release of the film from September 1985 to

August 1988, which further infuriated the

Christian leaders When the film was

released on August 12, 1988, there were

wide spread objections to the profanity

and defamatory falsenood of the film from

the Christian public (Record Excerpts

Pages 2-11, See Appendix: Pages 6-30 )

The film assassinated the character

of Jesus and branded him by his own

confession, a liar, a@ coward and a sinner,

and assailed nim aS a traitor and

adulterer. Tne film unleashed a phenomenal

controversy and the pro JMP publicity and

promotion in network television could not

drown the naked offence of profanity and

~164-

Slander of the film ina land where the

majority were traditional or born again

Christians

Defendant MCA, Inc. and Defendant

Cineplex Odeon took in defence of the

defamatory film they produced, a full page

AD in leading newspapers that they had a

right to make and show the film under the

First Amendment and their right was not

for sale. This was a hurried response to a

suggestion from William Bright of the

Campus Crusade for Christ, that the

Defendants abandon the offending film and

destroy all its copies for a compensation

of $10 million that Campus Crusade will

ralse

Plaintiff, a Christian, saw the film

LTC, and was offended and injured by the

film, aS 1t was an outrageous profanity

and slander of God, the Christ, a capital

lie and a woeful obscenity (as it showed

Jesus making passionate and naked love to

Mary Magdalene) The film attempted to

-165- .

EE a a a a

demolish the immaculate

the Plaintiff's mind,

interfered with his

fili

religion “uch a

would degrade the person of

eyes of the children and

whether their SAVIOR was

Tne Principal Defendants

release the film in other

video, cable and televisi

Jive access to children

The Defendants were also

film abroad and it's

devastating, especially 1

people

countries where

as a SINNER Dy his

made them wonder whether

image of

and

freedom of

the

to see

saw Jesus

own confession

Christ in

seriously

worship and

Pla

ntiff felt,

Christ in the

confuse them

& SINNER himself?

nad planned to

media sucn as

on which would

film

the

releasing the

impact was

mn the third world

portrayed

and

the God of

Americans and the western world was a

sinner?

On March 30, 1969

letter to Lew Wasserman |

Defendant MCA

exhibiting the

-166-

and pleaded

detamatory

laintiff wrote a

JMP), Chairman of

with him to stop

falsenood on

Christ For his benefit and enlightenment,

the Plaintiff “included proof that the

Defendants were profaning in truth,

Christ, the CREATOR of the Universe. The

proof was not just from the biblical

sources which the JMP would reject as

heresy, but from authentic historical

records from the VUrantia Book (1). (Recorc

Excerpts Pg 45-62, Appendix, Pges 272-288)

Wasserman's office received the

Certified letter on 4/05/89* retained it

for a number of days and returned it

through the postal service as “refused on

4/10/89 The letter was received opened

(1) Urantia Book, published by the

Vrantia Foundation, Chicago Part IV of

the book 1S written Dy Supernatural beings

who were resident on Planet Earth during

the incarnation of Christ Michael, the

Creator of the Universe, as Jesus of

Nazareth

*; Record Excerpts,Pg 64 in Original submission,

**: Record Excerpts,Pg 65 in original submission.

-167-

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

ata 1 Ey oe

and since it was received in Wasserman'’s

office earlier, it was oDvious that

Wasserman and/or his office knew the

contents of the letter, but evaded notice

that they were profaning and defaming the

GOD of the Universe, and were infringing

and interfering with the religious freedom

and worship of the Plaintiff and millions

of people who believed in the same God

Plaintiff came to know through

friends and media sources that the

Principal Defendants were recélving many

thousands of letters from the outraged

Christian public, objyecting to the

profaning film, but the Defendants did not

detract from their adamant stand to defame

their God and God of this Universe,

inspite of the knowledge that the film was

profaning God and was based on a

defamatory falsenmood, and was offensive to

many people. The Defendants continued to

maliciously infringe the rights of

religious freedom and worship of millions

-168-

of believers in God, including the ;

Plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed his Suit on August

we eee in ie

10, 1989, to enjoin the Defendants througnr ©

a permanent injunction from exhibiting the

film in all media, and petitioned in the

original complaint that he will amend the

complaint to include damages. Plaintiff

allegeao in his complaint (Record Exc .28-37

Appendix Pg,34-77) that the Defendants, by

distribution and exhibition of the film

LTC which was a defamatory falsenood of

Christ, were infringing the Plaintiff's

and other believers‘ constitutional right

to freedom of worship and religion.

Plaintiff detailed selected profanity ana

defamatory falsehood of Christ in the film

that offended the Plaintiff and many other

believers (kec Exc 19-28 Appendix, Pg 45-

S939) Flaintiff alleged injury as a result

of such defamation of the core of worship

of the Plaintiff and other believers.

-169- |

< aR

re eR Lk me

Plaintiff's basic allegations stated inter

alia (Rec Exc 19-21 ,See Appendix pg 64-75)

"Plaintiff alleges tmrat the Defendants

chose to defame the character of Jesus

for the dual purpose of profiteering and

malice. profiteering By massive

propaganda and publicity to the

controversial story, and maiice through

a new religious propaganda that Jesus

was not a perfect man as the bible

portrays, but a weak imperfect man, not

@ savior of sinners Dut a Sinner

himself, not God incarnate Dut an

imperfect man attempting to pecome God

The key executives and producers of the

Krincipal Lefendants Nave been driven

by a spirit of greed and malice to

produce a film that ridiculed the

impeccable image of Christ and thereby

insult millions of true believers of

Christ. The Plaintiff affirms that he 1¢

one of such believers of Christ so

insulted and ridiculed Flaintif f

-170-

affirms his right to defend the

religious faith he belongs to, to affirm

his religious freedom to worship a

Supreme Being of his choice, who 15

Jesus Christ Plaintiff alleges that the

Mrincipal Lefendants have seriously

interfered with the Plaintiff's and

other believers’ religious freedom, by

asGasSinating the character of the

Supreme Being he and others believe in

The Defendants have done this

recklessly, for profiteering and tor

promoting their own religious vendetta.

They have abused the privileges of the

First Amendment, wrongfully seeking

protection under it while infringing the

right of others to freedom of religion

and worship which the Constitution

guarantees Plaintiff alleges that the

Defendants have no protection of free

speech that was false and defamatory,

such aS the said film was. The Plaintiff

also alleges that the Defendants' film

-171-

I il lt i k,l as

Oe

was in effect “spreading false

information in and of itself", and

therefore had no First Amendment

protection. Plaintiff asserts that the

Defendants Rave therefore no right or

protection to produce and exhibit the

said film, which 16 a fabricated tissue

of falsehood, with the deliberate intent

to defame and a5sassinate the character

of Jesus Christ, a public and religious

figure

Plaintiff alleged infringement and

interference of religious freedom to the

Plaintiff and other believers of Christ Dy

the film, (TC, especially to young

children who will be confused by the film,

as the Defendants were planning to release

the film through other film formats,

namely video, cable and television

Plaintiff alleged inter alia in this

regard:

The Defendants, by degrading the public

figure of Jesus Christ, Nave sought to

=172-

-

disturb the harmony, tranquility and

peace of individuals, families and

communities in this nation, which the

Constitution seeks to secure The

Defendants, by their callous disregard

to the religious rights of the Plaintiff

and such other people, hmave caused great

injury to their religious self-respect,

decorum and pride of worship, in this

Nation and other nations of the world

[he damage caused by the Defendants to

the believers of the world 15

substantial, as the film ridicules their

faith and insults the central core of

their worship, which is difficult

especially for the young children to

understand and cope with To the young

children exposed to the adverse

propaganda of the film througn the

media, it would be confusing to know

which Jesus 16 real It would be

Gifficult for them to discriminate

whether Jesus was a Sinner or not” Did

-173-

God have sex with his own children? Was

he a coward, a lia*s and a traitor? Was

he demon possessed”?

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants’

defamatory talsenmood was negative

religious propaganda to hurt and injure

others, and that the Defendants had no

constitutional privilege to exercise their

rights and privilege at the expense of

others’ rights Plaintiff stated inter

alia

The Plaintiff alleges that the Principal

Defendants and their key officers Nave

wilfully sought to defame Jesus Christ,

because they Dy and large do not share

in the religious sentiments and beliefs

of those demoralized by their film Ihe

Plaintiff alleges further that the

Principal Defendants would never nave

produced a film of this kind for

worldwide distribution, if it would

wound 1n any way, the religious

sentiments of their own faith and

-174-

community They have thus sought to ride

roughshod over the beliefs and

sentiments of others because of their

perverted religious zeal, to insult one

of the world's largest faiths.

The Plaintiff alleges that the

Defendants in taking the First Amendmen:

to their protection and advantage, Nave

not considered the rights of the

Plaintiff and others, which the

Constitution guarantees by way of

religious freedom The Plaintiff submits

that the First Amendment “will not

enforce freedom of speech in disregard

to the rights of others ", and

therefore, the Defendants Mave no right

to exhibit the defamatory film, as it

infringes the freedom of religion and

worship of the Plaintiff and other

believers

Plaintiff alleged insult and injury

to mMimself and other believers of Christ,

-1/5-

ee et ee om

Chey +a

including children, by

film, and stated inter

Plaintiff alleges tha

have mumiliated

and mentally disturbe

millions of believers

this nation ano other

worid by portraving t

and Savior faisely

the sa1d film as @ §1

moral Wrecr ihe Velie

jJetamativors

demolish the immacula

which millions of bel

hold as personal and

Caused immeasurable

inerital, poytchwological

health The FPlaintiff

damages will Nave far

CONSEQUENCES

and tnat of many i1nd1

families

fia y He mem: mrs

gemoraiized,

and

-

ii

on m1s Dp

tre detamatory

alia:

t tne Defendants

agqonized

ad tne Plaintiff and

9f Jesus Christ in

countries of the

meir God, Creator

deliberately in

and a

nner, lier

above

the

ria /¢ attemoted to

te image of Christ

Christ

levers of

and thereby

itual

trat these

Y¥iduals and their

WMO

young children,

the o6ai1d film

which depicts Christ, their Savior, -

the focus of their Sunday school

inspiration, as a sinful, lying, weak,

incestuous and adulterous character.

Plaintiff alleged defamation of the

Creator and God of the Republic, and

stated inter alia:

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants

not only defamed Jesus Christ, Dut in

truth Mave defamed the CREATOR UF THE

UNIVERSE, as evidenced in Urantia Paper

No:120 (EXHIBIT VII,Appendix Pq 272-288)

This 16 the CREATOR the framers of the

Constitution recognized. The Plaintiff

alleges further that the Defendants Nave

ridiculed the Constitution by defaming

the GUD which this nation trusts and

worships ("In God We Trust.") The

Plaintiff aileges furthermore that the

Defendants are willfully and falsely,

and with full knowledge - inspite of due

notice to Defendant MCA, Inc , given by

the Plaintiff, continuing to defame the

-177-

GOD and CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE by

exhibition of the said film

In conclusion, Plaintiff sought

relief by way of permanent iingunction to

restrain in all media, the Defendants from

exhibition of the film, LTC, that was

continuing to insult and injure the

Plaintiff and other people by defamatory

falsehood, and was defaming the Creator

and GOD of the Republic

The Defendants moved on November 29,

1989 to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for

failure to state a claim, on the following

points, included in Defendants’ motion

(Rec. Exc Pq 67-70, Appendix,Fas 95-103)

(a) It would violate the Constitution

for any court to try this case

(b) Texas State law on tort bar this

action

Plaintiff provided an exhaustive

rebuttal to the Defendants’ motion, that

the Defendants were infringing and

interfering with the Flaintiff's and other

~178-

believers’ right to freedom of religion

and worship, and were defaming Christ whom —

the Plaintiff represented as a third party

as well as other believers of Christ who

were also offended and injured by the

defamatory film Plaintiff cited

authorities that the court may not dismiss

Plasntift’s complaint before resolution of

issues of fact and pointed out the

misapplication of the Defendants’

authorities on his two propositions named

above (Rec Exc 75-85, Appndx Pg 104-150)

Plaintiff nad filed an Affidavit

affirming the allegations of his complaint

and declaring that he will amend his

complaint to include general and punitive

damages and streamline his complaint on

1ssues and remedies sought

OPINION BELOW

The District Court did not provide

the opportunity to the Plaintiff for a

mearing, and the case was dismissed

summarily without an opinion, relying

-179-

entirely on the Defendants’ above

mentioned propositions that “it would

violate the Constitution for any court to

try this case" and “Texas State law on

tort Dar this action “ (Record Excerpts,

Fage |, See Appendix, Page 1S) »

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Tne District Court below granted the

Defendants’ motion for dismissal and

accepted their plea tnat the Plaintiff's

case cannot be tried Dy any court on

constitutional grounds Under

constitutional law, the rights of the

Defendants are not absolute and they

cannot exercise their right Dy infringing

Plaintiff's right to freedom of worship

and religion Besides, Defendants’ alleged

constitutional rights of free speech and

freedom of religion , etc nave no

protection under constitutional law when

they have violated common law statutes of

profanity and defamation with a resultant

injury to Plaintiff and others The case

-180-

involves issues of fact which a jury has

to try, and the District Court erred in

summarily dismissing the case before a

trial

ARGUMENT

POINT I:

THE LOWER COURT ERREOD IN HOLDING

DEFENDANTS‘ PLEA THAT IT “WOULD VIOLATE

THE CONSTITUTION FOR ANY COURT TO TRY

THIS CASE “

The Defendants’ basic contention in

their motion to dismiss which the District

Court granted summarily before a trial, is

that 1t would "violate the Constitution.

for any court to try this case” which

means that the Defendants’ First Amendment

rights are absolute, and that the

Plaintiff and others injured nave no

recourse when their right to freedom of

worship and religion 1s infringed and

interfered with by the Defendants. This

position 1s unfounded in law as it denies

Plaintiff's constitutional rights and his

-181-

Pe

equal rights to justice Under First

Amendment freedom of religion, while the

freedom to believe 1s absolute, the

freedom to act, in the nature of things

cannot be absolute and remains subject to

regulation for protection of society

(WY SC A Const Amend 1)

Defendants’ assertion that the

Plaintiff's case of insult and injury by

Defendants‘ profanity and slander of

Plaintiff's God by defamatory falsehood in

their film, LTC 16s not a justiciable

matter under the Constitution of the

United States, raises the following 1ssues

of facts, misinterpretation and

misapplication of law:

is

Defendants have not questioned

Plaintiff's allegations mentioned above,

but have only questioned the

constitutional validity for courts to

adjudicate Plaintiff's case

-182-

While the Defendarts deny Plaintiff's

constitutional equal rights to justice, it

1S ironical and unfair that the Principal

Defendants (MCA Inc and Cineplex Odeon,

USA) took a full page AD in leading

newspapers sometime in 1988 prior to the

release of the offending film that they

had a right to release the film and that

their First Amendment Rights were not for

sale At the same time when they upheld

and declared their rights, they were

infringing the rights of others - the

Plaintiff and many other believers of

Christ, the Creator and God of this

Universe (hereinafter GOD), interfering

with their religious freedom and worship

by profaning and slandering GOD with

defamatory falsehood by releasing soon

after, the offending film, LTC Defe idant

nas no such right under the equal

protection and equal rights provisions of

the Constitution In Gaines v. Canada 305

U S 350, the US Supreme Court stated:

-183-

ee

"The equal protection of the law 1s "a

pledge of the protection of equal laws”

Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S.356, 369

Also in Kovacs V. Cooper 336 US. 77,

88, 69 S.Ct. 448, 454 (1949), the Supreme

Court succinctly said: "To enforce freedom

of speech in disregard of the rights of

others would be harsh and arbitrary in

itself “ In same case Supra, quoting the

famous words of Mr. Justice Holmes,

Schneck v. United States, 249 US. 47, S2

‘

39 S Ct 247, 249, the Court said, “The

most stringent protection of free speech

would not protect a man in falsely

shouting fire in a theater and causing

panic 7

Also, in Herbert v. Lando 441) U.S

153, it was held that spreading false

information in and of itself carries no

First Amendment protection

(Constitutional Law 90.1(5).

Therefore, the Defendants’ film 16 a

false and defamatory portrayal of GOD

-184-

offending and injuring many people,

including the Plaintiff, and cannot have

any First Amendment protection

If the Defendants Nave in fact

offended and injured the Plaintiff and

others and if Defendants have profaned and

Slandered their GOD with defamatory

falsehood, because of their prejudice and

inalice toward the GOD and faith of the

Plaintiff and others, then certainly, it

presents a claim which must be tried and

adjudicated by the courts to maintain

equal rights to all.

B.

If the people controlling the

Principal Defendants’ corporations were

Christian believers, certainly, such a

film profaning God aed. Chere would not

have heen produced

The Principal Defendants, the

principal executives of which are Jewish

and apparently of Jewish faith, have

callously and maliciously produced the

-185-

hana teereeretiemiiel

pete iia, th cradles

aang.

film LTC orofaning Christ = the GOD of the

Plaintiff and other believers like Fim in

this nation and abroad, = with defamatory

falsehood

The Defendants knew when they made

the film that 1t was a false story on

Christ, the GOD of millions of bellevers,

but thev still did it with 3 view to

offend the believers of Christ because

historically, they Pave denied Jesus as

the Christ Therefore, they have depicted

falsely, Christ as a@& SINNER By Ais own

ronfession and have slandered Him in their

filfa LTC, aS &@ traitor &® iiar and an

atulterer Therefore, the film LIC 165 set

up by the Defendants as a glaring object

wf religious conflict &e spiteful device

to incite réiigious tensian among

believing Christians everywhere, - ta hurt

tnem, to insult them and injure them

The basic goal of constitutional

Government inter alia as enshrined in the

Constitution 165 ta establish equal

~186-

Justice, ensure Jomestic tranquility

Oromete the venerai weltare. etc”

Tre Constitution is nw respecter of

one religious sect send the fundamentsai

rights of enualitv, Eexpressi:in and justirc-

would require that various religious

faiths and sects resvect each others’

Taitm and cCelief and co-exist Narmonious!.

4s 6 conmunity

Owmestic peace and tranquility wili

Ce at Stoke 1f one Sect slanders and

Orotanes the religious core of warship 3

Sentiments or velues of another sert in

which Case tfar Gecular government must

iNtervene to Oring €quitv end justice

Cetween the offender and the of fanseg

Wrichs 1S Common iéew ond MAS Ceen eotl,

shetched by the tcuoreme Court in Winters

v New York 333 US S07 SiS. ;

"Acts of gross and open ineecenc, +

OMScenity, Insjurious to public morais. »

imtictable 41° Common jaw 465 violative «

te Oubii.c Policy that treguires from tie

-187-

offender retribution for acts that flaunt

accepted standards of conduct " | Bishop

Criminal Law (9th ed ) SOO; Wharton,

Criminal Law (li2th ed) 16

The religious prejudice and profanity

of the film LTC, which 16 the cause of

this suit 16 against the affirmative

policy of our government as stated aptly

in Lynch v Donnelly, 465 VU > 6638, 6/74,

iva & Ct 1355, !tJ3%e

"The Constitution does not require

complete separation of Church and State,

it affirmatively mandates accommodation,

not merely tolerance of all religions, and

forbids hostility toward any

Therefore the Defendants nave

transgressed this affirmative

constitutional policy Dy producing the

film, LTC profaning and defaming the GOD

>f a majority of the population in this

Nation and a sizable number of people on

this Planet To say that they Nave the

right to do so while others do not have

-188-

such right 16 to openly flout the

Constitution

Therefore, the Defendants’ hostility

to GOD expressed in defamatory falsehood

through the film, LTC, 1s not in the

avowed spirit of the Constitution and

therefore, cannot be entitled any

protection or privilege

Cc

The Defendants contend in their

motion for dismissal (Rec Exc 68, Appnd~x

Page 97) that Plaintiff's case “raises

exactly the sort of religious issue that

courts may not decide Under the First

Amendment's Free Speech, Free Exercise and

Establishment Clauses, such an 1sSue 15

non justiciable “ Yet the Establishment

Clause 1S not inviolate and the Supreme

Court has intervened on certain cases

where i16sues of public policy, law and

order, and common law issues were

involved

-189-

es

— Ts

Ce eae ee

In Zorach v Clauson 343 VU S 306,

312-31S, where the Supreme Court ruled

over the 16sue of Establishment Clause, it

said inter alia:

“The First Amendment, however, does

not say that in every and all respects

there shall be a separation of Church and

State Rather, it studiously defines the

manner, the specific ways, in which there

shall be no concert or union or dependency

one on the other That 1s the common sense

of the matter Otherwise the State and

religion would be aliens to each other -

hostile, suspicious, and even

unfriendly Prayers in our legislative

halls: the anpeals to the Almighty nm the

messages of the Chief Executive; the

proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a

holiday: "so help me God" in our courtroom

oaths - these and all other references to

the Almighty that run through our laws,

our public rituals, our ceremonies would

be flouting the First Amendment

-190-

VA

"A fastidious atheist or agnostic

could ever object to the supplication with

which the Court opens each session: “God

save the United States and this Honorable

Court." .We are a religious people whose

institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.

We Quarantee the freedom to worship as one.

chooses We make room for as wide a

variety of beliefs and creeds as the

spiritual needs of man deem necessary We

sponsor an attitude on the part of

government that shows no partiality to any,

one group and lets each flourish according

to the zeal of its adherents and the ;

appeal of its dogma For it then respects

the religious nature of our people and :

accommodates the public service to their

Spiritual needs To hold that it may not

would be to find in the Constitution a

requirement that the government show a

callous indifference to religious groups

Ihat would be preferring those who believe

in no religion over those who do believe

-191-

Therefore, Defendants’ assertion does

not hold that courts cannot intervene in

the Plaintiff's’ case on the issue of the

Establishment Clause If it does, it will

be preferring the Defendants’ defamatory

portrayal of GOD to the Truth and the long

traditions of this nation, respecting all

religions

In Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 VS. 668,

674-678, wherein the Supreme Court also

ruled another case on the issue of

Establishment Clause, it said inter alia:

"This Court has explained that the

purpose of the Establishment and Free

Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment 156

“to prevent, as far as possible, the

intrusion of either (the church or the

State) into the precincts of the other "

Lemon v Kurtzman 403 U S 602, 614, 91

$.cCt 2108, 2112, 29 €d 2d 745 (1971)

At the same time, Nowever, the Court nas

recognized that "total separation 16 not

possible in,an absolute sense The

-192-

concept of a “wall” of separation 16 a

useful figure of speech probably deriving ©

from views of Thomas Jefferson The |

metaphor has served as a reminder that thie

Establishment Clause forbids an. \

|

established church or anything ee

it But the metaphor itself is not a |

wholly accurate description of the

practical aspects of relationship that in

fact exists between church and state ”"

’ In the very week that Congress

approved the Establishment Clause as part

of the Bill of Rights for submission to

the states, it enacted legislation 7

providing for paid Chaplains for the House

and the Senate In Marsh v Chambers, 463;

U.S 783, 103 $.Ct. 3330, 77 ..Ed.2d 1019

(1983), we noted that 17 Members of that

First Congress had been Delegates to the |

Constitutional Convention where freedom o'

speech, press, and religion and antagonis’

toward an established church were subsect: |

}

of frequent discussion We saw no conflic'| ”

;

;

-193-

with the Establishment Clause when

Nebraska employed members of the clergy as

official legislative Chaplains to give

opening prayers at sessions of the state

legislature Id, at 791, 103 S Ct ., at

3336 It 16 clear that neither the 17

draftsmen of the Constitution who were

Members of the First Congress, nor the

Congress of i789, saw any establishment

problem in the employment of congressional

Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the

Congress, @ practice that has continued

for nearly two centuries It would be

difficult to identify a more striking

example of the accommodation of religious

belief intended by the Framers "

e Other examples of reference to

our religious heritage are found in the

Statutorily prescribed national motto "In

God We Trust,” 36 US C Section 186,

which Congress and the President mandated

for our currency, see 3) US C Section

S112(d)(1) (1982 ed ), and in the language

,

~194-

"One nation under God," as part of the

Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag

That pledge 16 recited by many thousands

of public school children - and adults -

every year Art galleries supported by

public revenues display religious

paintings of the 15th and l6eth centuries,

predominantly inspired by one religious

faith The National Gallery in Washington,

Maintained with Government support, for

example, has long exhibited masterpieces

with religious messages, notably the Last

Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth

of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the

Resurrection, among many others with :

explicit Christian themes and messages

The very chamber in which oral arguments

on this case were heard 16 decorated with

8 notable and permanent - not seasonal

syinbol of religion: Moses with the Ten

Commandments Congress has long provided

Chapels in the Capitol for religious

worship and meditation Equally pervasive

-195-

16 the evidence of attommodation of all

faiths and all forms of religious

@&*<pressian, and hostility toward none

Therefore, the Defendants’ offending

film, LTC, 16 contrary to this spirit of

religious tolerance and the Establishment

Clause can be no bar for Plrintiff to find

justice when precisely such a public

policy of respect to all religions 165

openly infringed by the Vefendants

D

uefendants cite two cases principally

snd five others to Support their special

constitutional privilege over the

rlaintiff, and their contention for a

summary d16$m1S$S$4al of Plaintiff’ S$ case, but

none of them are appiicable to the

Piaintiff's case because they are not

Similar a6 to the 1$S$ues or 46S to facts or

4S to nature of the parties

The 16¢6ue of Defendants’

Cungtitutional privilege over the

Flaintiff's 16 just unconstitutional as

~196-

detailed hereto before secondly,

Plaintiff's case alleges common law

offences such as profanity and slander by

defamatory falsehood by Defendants, with

resultant injury to the Plaintiff and

others, which are not protected by the

First Amendment and are in fact, abuse of

Defendants’ claimed rights These abuses,

—

not protected by the First Amendment as

Stated rn the original complaint, must be .

tried by a jury and adjudicated by the

court because they raise issues of fact

Defendants further state (Rec Exc

Pgs 67-68, Appendix, Page No: 96) that the

Plaintiff's case “posite a theological

controversy The Plaintiff reads the Bible

one way He asserts that the film's

interpretation 16 different and wrong, anc

that it defames Christ and God In order

to determine this CLAIM, the court would

fave to determine the true story of

Christ

~197-

Plaintiff submits that the discussion

hereto before would justify intervention

in a matter of public polity such as this

case touches upon, relative to religious

tolerance and inter-religious harmony, in

the interest of societal peace and

harmony, and that the Establishment Clause

will not be a bar to this intervention

Besides, Plaintiff submits that in

making the above statement, Defendants

inadvertently admit that there 1s an issue

of fact, and that 16 whether the

defamatory film 16 true or false in

relation to the Bible and other historical

records Plaintiff has provided as an

Appendix to his complaint, extracts from

the Bible and the VUrantia Book which gives

the Historical mission of Christ, to prove

his allegation that the Defendants have

defamed GOD Whether the Plaintiff reads

the Bible one way and the Defendant

another way, and whether Plaintiff's

reading 1S correct or not whith may or may

=198=

not prove Defendant's offence, 16 aN 15S

of fact which only a jury can determine,

as well as other issues connected with

this case, suth as profanity, defamation

and resultant injury suffered by the

Plaintiff and other believers.

Defendant cites U.S. v. Ballard 322

U 78, 86-87 to Support his contention

@

that no court can adjudicate Plaintiff's

case But the cited case has no relevance

to Plaintiff's case as to facts and

issues. Although this 15 a mail-fraud Case

in which Ballard et al belonging to @

religious sect, having certain false

religious beliefs, the issue before the

Supreme Court was whether those religious

beliefs were honestly believed to be true)

The issue was one of “religious belief"

and not defamatory falsehood, profanity

and resultant inguries, which 16 the

Flaintiff's case Even in Ballard, the

Supreme Court, citing Davis v Beason |} 3:

YS. 333, 342

observed:

,

=199=

ROTTS OE

“With Man's rélatrons to his Maker

and the obitigations he may think they

im@aose, and the manner in whith an

expression shall be made By him of Mis

belief on those subjects, no interference

can be permitted, provided always the laws

of society, designed to secure its peace

and prosperity, and the morals of 1ts

people, are not interfered with "

If 165 the latter fhat the Defendants

infringed - the morals of the common law

and the morals of oublic polity of

‘eliqious tolerance, respect and non-

inter ference. which 1S &@ justiciriadle

1ssue Also, the defamatory falsehood of

the film (TC, Mas no First Amendment

protection: Herbert v Lando, 44) US. at

j 1S3 (1979); Curtis Pub Co v Butts 388

US at 130 (1967) Ballard did not raise

any such 2iS6Sue

Next, tne Defendants cite another

citation which 15 also irrelevant to

Plaintiff's case as to facts and issues:

=200=

Joseon Burstyn v Wilson 343 VU S 49S, svt

B-FgIsex TMs 16

Ww

(i952) (see Appendix: Fages

an) appeal taken by Burstyn because of a

Prior restraint of their film, “MIRACLE”.

by New York Censor Board (Nielson) and the

comment of the Supreme Court of

Governmental non-interterence relates to

attack on “religious doctrine” as opposed

to commor law violation of defamatory

faisenood, profanity and interference witi

tne rights cf others, whicn are the issues

>f Plaintiff's case

Besides, the Defendants Mave cited

Cantwell v State of Connecticut, 3lv U

296, which 16 Similar to Ballard on the

issue of religious belief aS opposed to

—

4a4intitf's case and claim

In addition, the Defendants mave cited

tree following three cases, all of whicr

are irrelevant to Plaintiff's case as to

facts, 196Sueés and parties All of them

relate to internal church disputes on

Oreverty, dDelietf or doctrine Neither the

—

*; Record Excerpts Page 68 in original submission.

-201-

1

Plaintif

f mor

tne

Defendant

G

=)

of the same church and involved in

f 32mMmmMmen f

to First

COMMent

i) t rile

Powe et

of using

sbyte

forw

rlan

pertyvy disputes The c

Churcn in the VU 5S V

slue Hull Memorial

4a. ASO:

,

Convention,

Watch Tower

4

v

254 and

Ss are scudje

nt " But th

e Plaintiff

1

3

-_

vt

he Defendant

eel 3O without saying

71e& 721 Paul

id Tract Society = |

tiv the Defendants

sullivan 3 us

state libel law

Amendment constral

is irrelevant as th

dO Mmis case under an

Ew YOrr Imes Widic

laintiff as it may

issue f defamatory

ted speecnm against

does ind

Attic tA wri is 1

1s Dowers to V ene

—

oe ree! *

upon others, or for any other personal

motive not connected with the public good

should not escape liability for the

injuries he may so cause; and if 1t were

possible in practice to confine such

complaints to the guilty, it would be

monstrous to deny recovery." (NEW YORK

TIMES CO. v SULLIVAN 376 U.S. 254, 302)

Besides the foregoing, Plaintiff

would draw the Court of Appeals' attention

to Plaintiff's statement on the violation

et US Statutes, Article 18, Section 1|4b4

and 1465 by the Defendants, which will be

included in Plaintiff's revised complaint

Piaintiff has advised the District Court

that Mis complaint will be revised

POINT II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING

DEFENDANTS' PLEA THAT PLAINTIFF'S

PETITION ALSO WARRANTS DISMISSAL UNDER

TEXAS DEFAMATION LAW

In addition to constitutional grounds

urged by the Defendants, they nmave also

-203-

urged dismissal: Rec Exc 69-7U,Appndx, Pas

1u1-102) of the Pliaintiff's case on Texas

defamation law and nave quoted four cases

on defamation of the dead, Renfro v

i_awson 150 S W 2d, 246: Goldstein v

+ DFW. Sdl Ss W zd bo2: Gonzales v Times

Herald Printing Co, $13 S.W.2d, 124: keys

Interstate Circuit, Inc 468 S$ W 2d

ass AS Submitted before, to the District

Court, (Rec .Exc 82-83, Appndx,pgs 117-118),

Piaintiff has not filéd mis complaint

under State Law but under Federal law and

;

the Plaintiff 16 not bound by Texas Law

In Y¥.s Vv Judith kuch, 288 F Supp., 439,

449 (1968), it was Said Dy the court

‘This court, NMowever, 165 not bound by the

sions of the California Supreme

Court The concern here 165 to analyze the

scheme and effects of the federal statutes

under which Kuch has been indicted “" There

are a@ Number of supreme Court cases on

Jefamation and on false statements which

-204-

will more aptly apply to Plaintiff's case,

which were quoted Supra, Page 26

Besides, Plaintiff 16 not suing for

defamation of the dead. Apparently,

Defendants contend that Jesus Christ 15

dead But Plaintiff contends that Christ,

the Creator, 15 not dead, but alive, which

1s the truth Plaintiff has provided

historical proof that Christ, the God and

Creator of this Universe 15 alive. (Record

txcerpts, Pages S4-63), and therefore,.the

issue of defamation of the dead does not

arise. Even 1f it 15 raised as an 1S5Svue,

1t has to be resolved by the jury as an

issue of fact

Plaintiff Nowever, submits that he

had submitted to the District Court

before, two cases in support of his

Standing on behalf of the third party -

Jesus Christ: Alliance of Senior Citizens

of Greater Philadelphia v. Marqaret

Heckler, 789 F 2d. 931, Bowman v. Wilson

672 F 2d 1145S Besides, there are other

-205-

—e- a

cases that could be cited for third party

standing, which 15 a matter of discretion

for the courts ina case like this which

affects many others, such as in the

environmental issue cases: Sierra Club v

Morton, £058 .S. 72/7, S92 s8.Ct 1361

(1972), (The fact that the injury alleged

need not be limited to economic injury);

United States v Students Challenging

Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S

DoF, 9S S.Ct. 2608 (1973), (Standing 16

not to be denied simply because many

people suffer the same injury); Burrows v

Jackson 346 U.S. 249 (1963), (Granted

Third Party standing to White seller to

assert the rights of Black purchaser )

Besides, the Defendants' state Texas

State case, Belo Corp v Raysor, 644

S W 2d 71, 79, and assert that “under the

First Amendment, there 1S no such thing as

a false idea" and therefore, they are

entitled to First Amendment protection

Whether 1t 165 an “idea" or a "fact" 1S a

-206-

triable 1ssue, and cannot be decided in a

summary judgment

In support of Plaintiff's assertion

that the District Court erred in granting

a summary judgment of dismissal before a

trial, Plaintiff would like to cite the

following cases:

Williford v. People of California,

352 F 2d 475, 476: “In passing ona

motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the facts set forth in the

complaint must be assumed to be true and

complete, and affidavits and other

evidence may not be considered. See Land

Voliar, 230 V.s 7S, 7323, Of &.CL

1009, 3! ..@0: Tage, 7. 2 It follows that

the dismissal of the action under Rule

iZ2(b) (6) cannot be sustained on the

ground relied upon by the district

court the order 1S not sustainable as a

summary judgment because there are genulr

1ssues as to material facts Rule S6ic)

ex~pressly precludes the entry of summary

-207-

judgment where there are such 1s6suUes In

our view there are genuine issues of

material fact

uw

aranoff et al v Claglia, 16S F 2d

at 167: “On the basis of the record before

us, and in view of the weight to be

accorded the complaint on a motion for

summary judgment, we are not prepared to

say that Defendants’ version must be

believed, nor that the allegations of the

Plaintiffs, which the court below deemed

“roughly drawn" are so vague and general

as to strip them of all credibility The

resolving of such issues must be left to

the finders of fact, and not decided upon

a motion for summary judgment

Rolls Mfg Co v Marco Chemicals, 932

F Supp 218, 220: "A litigant has a right

to a trial where there 1s the slightest

doubt as to the facts, and a denial of

that right 1S reviewable; but refusal to

qrant a Summary judgment 16S not

reviewable Such a judgment, wisely used,

~208-

1S a Prailseworthy time-saving device But

although prompt dispatch of the judicial

business 16S a virtue, it 16 neither the

sole nor the primary purpose for which

Courts have been established Denial of a

trial on disputed facts 15 worse than

delay (Cf Arenas v United States 322

433

‘ ‘

i 363) The district courts would do well

to note that time has often been lost by

reversals of Summary judgments improperly

entered The motion for summary judgment

1S denied

Before closing, Plaintiff would like

to submit the social repercussions of the

decision of the District Court in this

case, that would contravene the time

honored policy of inter racial and inter

religious Marmony in this nation If the

District Court'S Jdecis610n 16S affirmed, 1

would give an open license to other

producers in Hollywood to exploit other

religious themes with defamatory

-209-

64 $ Ct. 1090, 88 L Ev

t

Sitblined,

4 ath act» ii a 8 rt ele

falsehood, and would also encourage other

character assassinations of other

Historical fiqures More recently, the

defamatory film, LTC, mas encouraged a

maverick artist to drown the “crucifix of

Christ", the symbol of Christianity, in

the artist's “urine", which has aroused a

wave of religious prejudice and protest

Such orofanityv 1S against the US. Code

Articl 18, Section 1464 and 1465), and

ah

the policies of respect td various

religions, which 15 a part of our national

law In the words of Senator Jesse Helms,

such profanity 15 an obscene

blas

v

mY

10

3

<

£

mI

ma]

i

degenerates the faith

of millions of Americans “ And the grossly

Offending and defamatory tftilm, LIC in the

“As for “The Last Temptation of Christ"

the first commandment Qiven man by God

concerns the honor to be accorded God,

Who warns “Thou Shalt mave no other

-210-

qods before Me “ Whatever gods the

producers of this vile movie were

serving (the god of the fast buck, whose

shrine i165 the box office? ), their

blasphemous assault on God's only

Begotten Son offends God and should

offend all decent-minded men “ (Letter

dated September 21, 1989, from Senator

Jesse Helms to Veda Navak, copy included

in Appendix, Pages 31-33"

Plaintiff would like to submit to the

Court that this defamatory LAST TEMPTATION

OF CHRIST story was staged as a play two

years ago in South India, when some

Christians Stood against the play and

sougnt to ban it Dy a court action. The

case went up to the Supreme Court of

India, and that migm court decided tnat

the Dlay was indeed defamatory and banned

rt AS @ result, the blasphemous film,

LTC, Nas been van é€d from being imported

into India

*; Copy included in Addendum in original submissio

-211-

ratte hha eh ita Senn. lata edailelnate “abi,

Plaintiff wiril SuBdmit separately,

citations on this case which has Deen

requested, dut suffice it to say that

another Democratic Republic which has

similar traditions of free speech, freedom

of religion, etc. has found the film

objectionable, and not protected either by

free speech or freedom of religion

Also, Plaintiff would like to state

that Nhe will be prepared to Subdmit for the

Court's review a copy of the recently

released video tape of the offending film,

LTC, if the Court so desires

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the foregoing

authorities and argument, the Appellant

submits that the decision of the District

Court be reversed and the case remanded to

that court for further proceedings

Respectfully Submitted.

April 7, Ily909 (VEDA NAYAK»)

Houston, Texas Fiaintiff-Appellant

Pro se

4770, W Bellfort,# 285

Houston, TX 77035

Tel. (7) 3)6%a-6S5S52

-212-

AODENOUM

PLAINTIFF'S NOTES ON PROFANITY UNDER U >

CODE 18, SECTIONS 1464 AND {1465S

Us. Code Article 18, Section 1464

prohibits against use of "any obdscene,

indecent or profane ianquage by means oT

radio communications “ Section 1465S of

Article 18 prohibits transportation in

“interstate or foreign commerce for the

purpose of sale or distridution of any

obscene, iewd, lascivious or filthy book,

pamphiet, picture, fiim,

paper recording, electrical

transcription or other articie capable ot

producing sound or any other matter of

indecent or immoral character, shail be

Fined not more than 85000 or imprisoned

not more than five years or both "

Defendants Nave protaned GOD by

Dranding him By Nis own confession and

falsely in their film, LTC, as a liar, a

; ’

traitor, an adulterer and a sinner The

film 16 a woeful médium of profanity ana

<-213-

obscenity as God has been shown in such

lewd sense that he committed incest with

his own mortal children, in raw sexue-

contact with Mary Magdalene, and depicted

aS committing adultery with the Lazarus

sisters Such a defamatory falsehood has

no basis at all in Historical or biblicai

traditions

Profanity 16 defined in the

dictionary as contempt or disregard for

God or holy things, irreligious,

irreverent, blasphemous, while obscenity

is defined as offending modesty or

decency, filthy and vile Vile means

highly objectionable, disgusting, evil,

low and immoral Both these red lettered

words and their meanings fully define

Defendants' film, LTC

Defendants have violated, prima

facie, both Section 1464 and 1465 of

Article 18 of the U S Code, because they

have transported the profane and obscene

film material interstate and

=214=

internationally, in various formats, both

to sell and exhibit the film for profit,

and by intending to broadcast the film

through cable and television media, either

in the present or the near future. They

still continue to unlawfully profane the

God of this Universe

The following cases confirm the

criminality of profanity and indecent

speech, which 1s the offence of the

Defendants’ film, LTC:

"The question of what constitutes

profane language Nas been before the

courts for centuries The subject 15

usually dealt with as a branch of the

common-law offense of bDlasphemy, Dut in

the United States particularly it has bee:

a frequent subject of legislation In the

(entury dictionary, “profane” 1s defined

as follows: “Irreverent toward God or holy

things; speaking or spoken, acting or

acted, in manifest or implied contempt of

sacred things; blasphemous: as, profane

-215-

language; profane swearing Duncan v

United States, 48 F 2d at 128

“It's true that profane lanquage 15

language irreverent toward God or holy

things " Georgetown v Secury 90 S$ C 346

“If there were any reason to believe

that the Commission's characterization of

the Carlin monoloque as offensive could be

traced to its political content - or even

to the fact that it Satirized contemporary

attitudes about four-letter words - First

Amendment protection might be required

But that 165 simply not this case. These

words offend for the same reasons that

mbscenity of fends heir place in the

hierarchy of First Amendment values was

aptly sketched by Mr Justice Murphy when

he said: "“(S)such utterances are no

essential part of any exposition of ideas,

and are of such slight social value as a

step to truth that any benefit that may be

derived from them 1s clearly outweighed by

the social interest in order and

-216-

morality “ FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 43

US at 746

The principle that profanity and

obscenity are not protected by First

Amendment freedom of speech has been held

througheut and until this time, and in

Roth v. United States 354 US 482,483

(1956), the Supreme Court held that: "The

Quaranties of freedom of expression in

effect in 10 of the 14 States which by

1792 Nad ratified the Constitution, gave

no absolute protection tor every

utterance Thirteen of the 14 States

provided for the prosecution of libel, ane

éll of those States made either blasphemy,

or profanity, or both, Statutory crimes

As early as 1712, Massachusetts made it

criminal to publish “any filthy, obscene

Or profane song, pamphlet, 11be)l or mock

sermon" in imitation or mimicking of

religious services. Acts and Laws of the

Province of Mass Bay, c CV, Section 8

(1712), Mass. Bay Colony Charters & Laws

-217-

Thus

d offense

-218-

c

2

profani

ty

y

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APFEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

VEDA NAYAK

Piaintiff-Appel lant

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES OISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

James T McCartt

>usman Godfrey

floo First Interstate

Bank Flaza

1}QOOO Lou1lslana

Houston, Texas 77002

(713)651-9366

Attorney for the Appellees

-219-

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE t+ IFTH CIRCUIT

VEDA NAYAK.

Plaintiff-Appellant,

MCA, INC et al .

Defendants-Appel lees

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

The undersigned counsel of record

certifies that the following listed

persons Nave an interest in the outcome of

this case These representations are made

in order that the Judges of this Court may

-220-

evaluate possible disqualification or

recusal

(1) Veda Nayak

CZ) MCA, Inc

(3) Cineplex Odeon Corporation

(4) Ben Drummond

JAMES T MCCARTT (sd)

Attorney of record for the Appellees

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

This appeal presents succinct,

straightforward 1ssues Appellee submits

that oral argqument 165 not necessary

-221-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

AH Belo Corp vv Rayzor

644 S$ W 2d 71 (Tex App. - Ft

Worth 1982, writ ref'd n re) S

tiarrow v Enterorise Co ,

387 S W 2d 426 ‘Tex. Civ. App. -

Beaumont 1964, no writ? S

Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson,

mee U.S. 495, 72 S$ Ct 90001940) 4

Cantwell v. Cannecticut

210 UV S 2396, 80 $.Ct 300(1940) a

Crowder v Southern Baptist Convention,

823 F 24 718011 th Cir 1987),

cert denied, 484 US 1066617988) 4

Dick v Allen,

303 S$ W 20d 390 ‘Tecx. Civ. App -

Eastland 1957, no writ) 5

Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc

4186 VU $S.323, 94 $.Ct 2997 (1974) S

Gonzales v Times Herald Printing Co,

SiI3 S W 2d 124 (Te» Civ App -

Dallas 1974, no writ) S

Feys v Interstate Circuit Ine

At,73 ~> WJ ata ai as ( Te : Cc lv App

Tyler 1971 writ dis'd w.o0 Jj.) S

New York Times Co- v Sullivan,

376 U.S 254, 2845 Ct. 710(1964) 4

Newspapers, Inc . Matthews

339 S W 2e 890( Tex 1960) S

Paul v. Watchtower Bible &Tract Society,

819 F 2d 875°(9th Cir .), cert

denied, 484 VU S$. 926(1987) a

-222-

Presbyterian Church in the v.39. ¥

Mary Elizabeth Blue Hill Memorial

Presbyterian Church, ;

393 vU.$.4a0, 89 S Ct. 601 (1969)

Renfro Drug Co. v. Lawson,

160 S.W 2d 246 (Tex. 1942)

US v. Ballard,

322 US 78 64 S Ct 882(1944)

-223-

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

THis appeal presents the following

questions:

late the Constitution

ct court to try this

law principles bar this

action?

The defendants submit the answer to

questions is "yes

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Veda Nayak filed this Suit on August

1939 In his complaint, the plaintiff

seeks an injunction against further

distribution of the film, “The Last

Temptation of Chris

Basically, 1e laintiff complains

that “The Last Tempte of Christ" 15

and slandered Flainti : and God of

this Universe by defamatory falsehood

Before this court hie

-224-

conspiracy by “the Jewish movie producers

distributors of Hollywood "

The defendants filed a timely motion

to dismiss the complaint under Rule

}ecb) (6) The motion pointed out that this

case raised non justiciable religious

issues, and that it also conflicts with

basic orinciples of defamation law

The district court entered its Order

of Dismissal on January 17, 1999

SUMMARY OF THE APPELLEES ARGUMENT

This case raises issues that are not

justiciable Trial of religious issues

raised by the Flaintiff would violate the

First Amendment

In addition, dismissal 15 warranted

under Texas defamation law There 165 no

detamation action in fa r of a plaintiff

who 165 not injured in Ais Own reputation

Moreover OM mMmion may not be the subject

of a defamation suit

-225-

ARGUMENT

A. [It would violate the Constitution for

any court to try this case.

This case posits a theological

controversy The plaintiff reads the Bible

one way He asserts that “The Last

"

Temptation of Christ presents a different

and incorrect interpretation, and that it

defamed Christ and God In order to

resolve His claim, the district court

would have to determine the "true story”

of Christ

The plaintiff thus raises exactly the

sort of religious issue that courts may

not decide Under the First Amendment's

free speech free exercise and

> f

|

establishment clauses such 16Ssues

religious correqtness 11e in a non

justiciable "forbidden domain":

The law KNOWS me meresy, 1 | l

committed to the support of no dogma

the establishment of no sect Freedom

-226-

f thought. which includes freedom of

i1gious belief, is baSic in a SOcIEety

v

of free man It embraces the right to

Maintain tmeories of life and death and

of the hereafter which are rank heresy

to followers of the ortnodo»x faiths “Me

may believe what they cannot prove The,

may not be put to the proof of their

religious doctrine or beliefs Many

take their gospel from the New

Testament But it would hardly be

supposed that they could be tried befor:

: Jury Charged with the duty of

determining whether those teachings

contained false representations The

210UuUS Views espoused Dy respondents

3Rit Se incredible if not

preposterous Lo most people But if

j t 17 re 5tut ct to trial

f 4 AvTYy cnarged with finding tnei

trutt r faisityv then the same can be

4 ' witt the eligious beliefs of an

sect Winer tHe t 1

the task tney ent

US V Ballard 322

> Ct S82, 886-887 «

In accord with

Supreme Court has he

determine whether th

"¢

was unlawfully “cs

c

fom

Wn

y

enough . ¥

Ww

views distacteful)

sufficient to just

upon the express

It is not the busi

Our nation to supp

~at_tatks upon a4 f

doctrine whether

publications spec

Pictures

Joseph Burs ty? i

A935 Sot ? C3

fu

a

pews

cof f t wnde

a 7 viNdEeEn a

= aa 26-87

Aa)

iS principle

that no court

fiin, The Mir

EqQicus

Out th

trier mich is

Y f{ ] estra

f those eu

- ? 3 ¢ r rif oa

5S real or ima

(4 —- | r¢ j Mu

ey apnea i’

— ’ ‘ ? y

Wii 14 3

ritLske

2M3B1N

64

thie

could

acieé

Me

Nn

ry

] aa

rm?

gqined

also, e@ g FPresbyteri

y > / riary lizvabett:

Presbyterian Church, 3

> Ct 601, 606-607 (19

Amendment

interpreting

Connecticut

IVb t

JUD

tne

exaggeration,

Mave Deen, Cc

11lEed 4a

Jer

adjudicating

~

courts ae

put tj ng

forbids c

1940)

religious

a

lvl

church

310 US

(under

ES

reiigious

‘fe

cting

tMme entorc

particu

-229-

I2MINneNnt

itlling the

Church in the

& Hull Memoria

Lue

u < 4A

- ,

450,

69) (the First

l1 courts from

Cantwell

<<

~

310, 60 Ct

the Constitution,

may resort “to

lication of men

in

statement” )

se

Convention

‘

Otist

1S 7), (

disputes,

associational

free

beliefs Moreover,

igigous controversy

ement power of the

lar religious

whic)

i

>

c#nourcrm o1

faction, a civil court risks

‘establishing’ a religion"). cert. denied,

108 S.Ct 1028 (1988)

These principles apply just as much

in a defamation suit as in any other

context. See Paul v. Watchtower Bible &

Tract Society, 819 F.2d 87S, 883 (9th

Cir ), cert denied, 484 U.S. 926(1987)

(“offense to someone's sensibilities

resulting from religious conduct 1s simply

mot actionable in tort"): cf New York

Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US. 254, 84

S.Ct. 710(1964) (state libel laws are

subject to First Amendment constraints »?

B. Common law tort principles bar this

action.

The constitutional grounds are

sufficient to warrant dismissal The

defendants submit, however, that dismissal

is also required under basic principles of

defamation law:

-230-

(1) The plaintiff claims that God

and Christ, not the plaintiff, Nave been

defamed There 16, Nowever, no defamation

action in favor of a plaintiff who 1s not

injured in his Own reputation. See, e.g,

Newspapers, Inc. v. Matthews, 339 S W 2d

e990, &93 (Tex 1960) ("the asserted 11bel

must refer to some ascertained or

ascertainable person, and that person must

be the plaintiff"); Renfro Drug Co. vy

Lawson, 160 S$ W.2d 246 (Tex 1942) (no

recovery for defamation of the dead);

Goldstein v. KDFW, $41 S$. .W.2d 862, 864

(Tex. Civ. App. - Waco 1976, writ ref'd

nr.e@.); Gonzales v_ Times Herald Printing

Co., SI3 $.0.20 124, t2e-ize: (tex. Civ

App - Dallas 1974, no writ) (no recovery

for defamation of the dead); Keys v

Interstate Circuit, Inc. ., 468 S W 2d 485,

436 (Tex Civ App - Tyler 1971, writ

dis'd woJj ) (no recovery by survivors of

Clyde Barrow for depiction in the film

-231-

“Bonnie and Clyde"); Barrow v. Enterprise

Co 387 S.W 2d 426 (Tex Civ App -

Beaumont 1964, no writ); Dick v. Allen,

Eastland 1957, no writ)

(2) Opinions may not be the subject

of a defamation suit:

' Under the First Amendment there 15 no

such thing as a false idea However

pernicious an opinion may seem, we

depend for its correction not on the

conscience of judges and juries Dut on

the competition of other ideas

A H Bel Corp. v. Rayzor, 644 5 W 2d 71, 79

(Tex App - Ft. Worth 1982, writ refi'd

nre sd, queting Gertz v Robert Welch,

Inc 418 US 323, 94 $.Ct. 2997 (1974)

STATEMENT CONCERNING THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

The defendants have tried to maintain

a conciliatory tone in this case Their

counsel must, Mowever, register his most

strenuous objection to the anti-Semitic

Statements in the Plaintiff's Drief #4 They

are offensive in the extreme

The plaintiff 16 proceeding without

counsel. His pro se status does not,

however, give him license to conduct

himself in such a thoroughly

unprotessional manner.

CONCLUSION

Under well established principles,

the plaintiff may not use the courts as a

. Appellant's Brief at 3 ("For

quite some time, the Jewish movie

producers-distributors of Hollywood

(mereinafter ‘JMP') nave been attempting

to create a different Jesus for the

world"); id at 17 ("The Principal

Defendants, the principal executives of

which are Jewish and apparently of Jewish

faith, nave callously and maliciously

produced the film LTC profaning Christ" »)

-233-

agree with mis réiigious views

ty ce * ae c rt c r 4ism1sse:3

ine district tL L Orope LY GdiLsmissSse

the complaint Its judgment should be

Respectfully submitted

JAMES T MCCART I od)

, « - T 4 - «

James | Mcocartt

usman Godotrey

1 Ope f 11 + Inter: etate

P ‘

bank Frlaza

) ¢ | a

} } i { LA i a 2 '

(TRUE COPY)

iN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

VEDA NAYAK ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

MCA, INE et al

De fendants-Appel lees

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

Veda Nayak

Flaintiff Pro &

4770, W. Bellfo

Suite 285

Houston, TX 77035

(713)684-6552

e

a

t

-235-

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellant submits that although this

court may decide this appeal on the basis

of the records filed, he would be ready

and willing to appear before the court to

answer any questions and also to present a

video tape of the film, “THE LAST

TEMPTATION OF CHRIST", recently released

by the Defendants, to demonstrate the

offensive nature of the film and how the

Plaintiff and others have been injured by

such offence, and how it continues to

injure the Plaintiff and others, and their

families

-236-

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ee ee ee

ee ee me ee ee ee ee ee ce ee ee ee

VEDA NAYAK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

ee

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

“laintiff/Appellant (hereinafter

Plaintiffs, submits that Defendants/

Appellees (hereinafter Defendants) allude

(Pg 224-225 of Appendix, Appellee's Brief?

-237-

vu

Ul

tu

'

—

1

Ww

c+

D

~

wy

e~

3

c+

“>

“bh

U)

nm"

ee

“>

onoloaic

>f Defendants acts in eplann

3 Is s5 Jas statement of

it{mougnm Plaintiff never int

Mat wav Cmnepliracty is mea

r2asonable « treacnme us Pp

estroy anotmer person 3rou

nmtity &2 combination of ¢c

ecretly togetnmer ana resoiy

rcomplisn an évil or unlawrt

UI

iD

ip

r “

nda

Wn

5

ul

ul

c+

‘a

J

in

c

~

ry

O

Ooudan

uUged O'

—

. me Ps -

fanned accord

- .

> 166e ~ f FANSERLrAar = j

ic zaoawe w < —tw +] y a~As é

me Defencantse if esrabiiSsned will

> ' > . + ‘ - - . ~ +

. it e ns S-mMIsgants

j =~ a «A - 2 — =

wedhster =) lry Wwew Internation

_ - ¢ ’ - P Cc _

+ 7 i" ~ %, f Mor , - _ ,orF

~otionary vot. Mer! em CoO rid 2D

- 4

eacy

mea

2m) 2a

ici.

ww

ti

profane and slander GOD and injure the

people of GOD including the Plaintiff. Ana

as stated elsewhere in Appellant's Brief

‘Pg 17, Appendix,Pg 185-186),the motive is

Sustained by the fact that Such a

profanity against Christ - God of the

Christians and God of this Universe, could

not Nave been fabricated by Christians

Logically, it can only be done by those

who are opposed to Cnrist, with a

prejudiced intent to insult and injure the

eple of Christ Plaintiff sudmits that

this finding of fact by a triar of fact -

&@ jury - would be an important finding in

the adjucication of this case For such a

false religious propaganda and spiritual

warfare with resultant injuries 16 not an

expression protected by the First

Amendment

Plaintiff would also like to

distinquism Defendants’ statement(Pg 2 of

Appellee's Brfdthat they did not state in

-239-

treir moti

before the

int

compla

inciples

r

~ !

A FOINTS

F la Lin

eave ryt {

a | | € &*5e

« ; } +

rte weirza cl .

- +

’ i) “~

Plain

aragdau nent 1

Amendment

them the LA

profane an

and iniure

am F Le lrit

tne l ‘ TY ee

A J27r the

*: ]

Pages

fr are

wm Be SLiSmissS unde Rule Iaiet

District Court that Plaintiff's

EONTFLLEts with tra basic

of defamation law per se brit

iples of Texas Getfamativi law"

ARGUMENT

AND CASES NOT Ul INGUISHED 6&4

APPELLEES

see ubmits that the Defendants

Sstingquished an, the point

iit j Ll) ‘- ’ ; t tere f

> Brief ee Apoendi Pagdes

\*

tiff's main trirust “3 als

S$ that Detendants First

t re SsDee r iP ft —- nm t ]1 -

miiaat ae) ia jt t t Talsely

a slander GOD snd thereby insult

the people of | icluding

iff art tr int witt

3 or w Slo a ee, ld

Constituti i] tion of

submisslon.

to 33 in original

-240-

e

mual rights to law, the Defendants hav:

no special priviiege to abuse their First

Amendment rights to injure others and

arry out a vendetta at the expense of

others sentiments, peace and tranquility

Such infringements of others’ rights and

interference with others’ religious

freedom nave no protection under the

fwnetitution, and the Defendants nave

|

ailed to address this basic point and

Ssue, which 165 the cause of this Suit

Defendants state that "religious

ssues" are nat jyusticirable in any court

awe z, last para, Appellee's Brief Se

Tpendix« Pg 225), whereby VDefendants want

re mwurt to condone their transgression

f wthers'’ rights, to condone their

ontinued profanity and slander of GUD

mich 1s a vVirslation under WY > Code

>e@. tions ldeb4dé and 1465); to condone the:

ontinued assault on the Plaintiff and th.

Hole rf fits by coNnbtinuirmg to insult as

injure their sentiments, peace and

tranquility by continuing to erhibit the

offending film LTC, and extending such

injuries to include children by expanding

the media formats to video, cable and

television, etc to condone their action

to carry out a religious propaganda and

prejudice injurious to inter racial and

inter religious Harmony of the Republic;

to condone their spiritual warfare to

Slander another's religion and faith

Plaintiff submits tnmat religious

issues which involve violation and/or

protection of others' rights are

Justiciable, even as the Supreme Court has

held, affirmed and/or agreed to review 1n

a number of cases Plaintitf tas cited

relevant cases in this regard ‘Appellant's

Brief,Pg 16 to 23, See Appentix,Pg 1S2) to

establish Mat the lower court erred in

dismissing the Plaintiff s complaint on a

summary basis before a trial Plaintiff

reiterates these in brief here:

Ci) Winters v. New York 333 U.S 507

S1S :Acts of gross and open indecency or

bscenity injurious to public morals are

indictable at common law as violative of

Dubilic pol

~

mY

<

11) Lynch v Donnelly 465 VU & 668

670-678 104 S Ct 1355S, 1358 to 1361

Constitution does not require complete

eparation of church and state and it

affirmatively mandates accommodation,

not merely tolerance of all religions

and forbids hostility toward any .

-ongress nas practised from the

beginning a policy of respect to

religious sentiments, sensitiveness to

practice religious tolerance, upheld

religious heritage and statutorily

prescribed national motto "In God We

La mH US C [ection 186. which

Plaintiff therefore reiterates that

the Establisnment Clause under tne First

Amendment will not be a bar to try

Plaintiff's case To not to try the case

would be to prefer Defendants’ presumed

unilateral rights to interfere with

others’ rights and to give open license to

the Defendants to continue to insult and

injure Plaintiff and others Dy profaning

and slandering their God through their

besides, the Defendants have not

distinguished Plaintiff's citations on

standing and on the inapplicability of

Summary judgment entered by the District

Court (Appellant's Brief, Appendix Pages

207-209 )%

& RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' /APPELLEES '

ARGUMENT

‘Appellees’ Brief: Appendix, Pys 22b- 23a

Plaintiff disagrees with the

Vefendants tnat Plaintiff's case 15 a

tmeciogical controversy Plaintiff nas n

*: Pg 29-31 in original submission.

xk: Fg 3 to 5 in original submission.

-245-

filed the case based on any reéligisus

goqgma or opilnior Matters of Cnrist's lite

story based mnmistorical facts libel and

slander to the Deity and resuitant injury

t> the FPlilaiIntiff arid sthers are not

Matters of theology and or dogma, but

simply matters of fact - Dare facts and

nothing Dut facts, and therefore, can be

tried and established under applicable

laws and common law Profanity and slander

jrrec ted wjainset ML) Caerinvest ( eopue Carvetes

trhe banner »f Defendant ; any others

LMeoLogy ! qoqma then Defendants

WOuULd De pDenly fiocutl } tme > Lode

Wettenagants insult af } Liij Ul y OT

Plaintiff's God and God of many other

people farnnot ar Appressed Ance

Defendants misunderstood First Amendment

rights For an injury 16 an injury wrongly

and deliberately inflicted Dy the

Nefendants on the Flaintiff and others

GOD enshrined in the Constitution is¢

tne God everyone sees from his own

religious perspective and understanding

Tne Defendants, by abrogating the public

coeolicy of respect of others’ faith or

religion, nave protaned and slandered

Christ the God of the majority of the

2ple in this Republic - tney nave

therefore profaned and slandered God

ensmrined in the Const rtution It does not

matter whether Defendants believe in this

God or not, and they nave a perfect right

1eve what tney like to ‘(as belief 1:

absolute?) but they Nave no right to

itrer profane or slander God (as it woul

f rte the U code’) and they Mave nec

to insult and injure others by thet

action to profane and slander God, using

Geliverately, a faise story and knowing

mat it 15 false Because the freedom tc

act in the exercise of religion 15 not

absolute, out su laws and

oO

uw

>

a

c

¢ -

L

regulations

Also, in Lynch v Donnelly (104

determining whether governmental activity

violates Establisnmment Clause, inquiry

calls for “line drawing and no fixed, per

se rule can be formed The Clause erects

a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier

aepending on o)1 the circtamstances «eof ‘

Particular relationship

(1984) by the Supreme Court and Mas not

been distinguished by the Defendants

APPLICABILITY OF APPELLEES °

Cc)

~

>

Appellees Nave quoted tne same

authorities in their Brief (pgs 226-232*,

which they quoted in ther notion te

dismiss Plaintiff's comolaint before the

C - s 7*

District Court See ADDeENd1 x Pages *to

*: Pgs 3 to 5 in original submission

*: Record Excerpts, Pgs 68 to 70 in original submission.

-248-

102). Plaintiff nas dealt with these

citations (Appellant's Brief: See*x

Appendix, Pgs 196-to 203), that they are

not applicable to Plaintiff's case as they

are not similar as to issues or as to

facts or as to nature of the parties

Besides, as stated earlier, Defendants

solely rely on the erroneous principle

that their First Amendment right to

freedom of speech is absolute in acting or

that right, the way they acted, and on

their assertion that the "religious

issues" which arise out of their action

aré non justiciable, which 15 untenable

and unsupported Dy Constitutional law

Before this Court, Plaintiff will aac

and reiterate the following points on the

inapplicability of cited authorities in

Appellee's Brief (Appendix Pgs 226-232):

(a) U.S. v. Ballard 322 V.S. 78,

86-87, 64 S$ Ct 882, 886-887(1944): This

,

case does not concern a dispute or

*: Appellant's me Oy in original submission.

’

conflict between two private parties where

one party profanes and slanders the God of

the other party, and thereby insults and

injures the other party and continues to

do so with malice Ballard 1S also not a

case that involves slander of another

wv

_

party. It 165 a case between Ballard et

a peculiar religious sect with rather

es)

strange religious practices, and the VU

Government, which convicted it as

violation of US Codes The Supreme Court

held that the Establishment Clause was

violated by the Government as the Sect had

a right to practice its avowed faith. Here

the Federal Government was directly

intervening in the religious practices of

4 private religious body But certainly,

the courts will not refuse to try a case,

lf Ballard et al was guilty of profanity

and slander, with resultant injury to

another party In order to illustrate this

point, Plaintiff would like to cite

-25C-

m

Chaplinsky v New Hampsnmire 315 VS SE

S571-S72, which upheld punishment of

Chaplinsky's offensive language i1n a

public place according to New Hampshire's

State statute

“There are certain well-defined and

narrowly limited classes of speech, the

prevention and punishment of which nave

never been thought to raise any

Constitutional problem These include the

lewd and obscene, the profane, the

libelous, and the insulting or “fighting”

words - those which by thelr very

utterance inflict injury or tend to incite

an immediate breach of the peace It nas

been well observed that such utterances

are no essential part of any exposition ot

idéas, and are of such sjight social value

15> @2 Step to truth that any benefit that

may be derived from them 1s clearly

Outwelgned by the social interest in order

anda morality

-251-

Defendants’ film, LTC has profaned

and slandered GOD - the Christ, by calling

HIM a liar, @ traitor, an adulterer and a

SINNER, and such profane, libelous and

insulting words have inflicted injury on

the Plaintiff and other people of Christ,

and Nave continued to do so because the

Defendants continue to show their film in

411 média, knowing well that it offends

many, and knowing well that the story of

the film 165 false and frivolous, and 1s a

blatant profanity against GOD

(Db) Defendants’ citation of Joseph

Burstyn, Inc v Wilson, New York

Commissioner of Education, 343 U 5 S72.

$08, 72 $. Ct. 777 IS2¢1952) 16 also not

mplicable to ft gINtiff'S Case Le AGE

they are not similiar 4S to 1595Sues, context

Or parties Firstly, it 16 a Case Detween

Josepnm Burstyn, a private film company,

and Wilson a New York State Government

that was considered “sacrilegious” by the

Government's Censor Board based on a Néw

York State statute. The basic problem in

this case wés prior restraint of the film

base gd on the Censor's conclusion that the

film "“Mirac) was sacrilegious, which was

it

coneidered by the Supreme Court as

unmbridiea censorship The Supreme Court

ruled basically on tme 16Sue of censors

of the film, “Miracle” and meld tmat the

tandareds of New York censorshi1lo statut-:

4

vere too vaque and Croad in the

recuLirement that the film 165 not

um

sacrilegious" The Supreme Court aiso

anomaly in tne definition of tr:

word #" sacrilegious” as according to

t Oefendants Mave also mistakenly used

tric word sacrilege” (Appellee's Brief p.2,

Apocendix Fage 222), which the Plaintiff

ras not allegec, for the offence of the

Uetendants is not on any church propert

Cut ; the eit Y

English law, the term related mainly to

church property and has nothing to do with

blasphemy or profanity of GOD In any

case the film "Miracle" did not raise any

issue of profanity or slander of Deity

with resultant injury to people such as

the fiim LTC does Fyvyen in the film,

"Miracle’ the Supreme Court ooserved: 343

U Ss at $02(19S52):

“It does not follow that the

Constitution requires absolute freedom to

exhibit every motion picture of every kind

aa

at all times and all olaces That much 16

evident from the series of decisions of

this court with respect to otner media orf

communication of ideas

Besides the Supreme Court

specifically said in regard to the New

York Statute that censored "Miracle" 343

v.S at SO3

"The statute involved here does not

seek to punish as a past offence, speech

-254-

sy owriting falling within the permissit |»

scope of Subsequent punishment "

Therefore, the firim LTC which 1s not

censored by prior restraint, which

continues to profane and slander GOD,

which ansults and injures the people of

G00 i165 net comparable to

the film, “Miracle”. However, the

Defendants can be punished for a past

offence “within the permissible scope of

subsequent punishment " Therefore, the

film LTC cannot Mave total immunity

reqaurdless of its profanity and slander

Velty and resultant insult and injury to

pecole

In addition, the Defendants cite 3

»ther cases " Appellee's Brief (Id Page

4, see Appendix Pages 229,230)

(1) Prestyterian Church in the L&

Mary Elizabeth bBiue Hull Memorial

Presbyterian Church, 393 US. 440, A450,

uw

Ct 601, 606-607(1969)

-255=

(11) Crowder v ~Iuathern Baptist

o

Q

a

tL

CiilJ’ Paul v. Watchtower 6151

Plaintiff reiterates his statement in

Appellant's Brief (ld 26, Appendix, Pages

201 202) that none of these citations

have any relevan context or similarity

ry

p>

;

t6© Plaintiff's éase All of these

citations relate t internai church

disputes on property | fjactrine Neithes

the riaintit* nm tric f) njantse ce

members we the sane Py t and tovolved

im property or j tL mai lisputes

Besides the Defendants cite Cantwell

Vv Connecticut 10 U S 296 310, 690

5 Ct 900 30661940) but this too 165 like

Ballard not appiicable to Flaintiff's

case Cantwell did not profane and slander

GOD and did net insult and injure the

U

—

.

Tv)

limes

ibe!

9nst

rrele

mr

>

r

Cc

ar

in

Vi

an

ast

f God, like

the firim

international media

tly, the De

, Sulliv

9(1964) and

laws are subj

aints ”" But t

vant as the P

Sse

nm

fendants c

an, 376 VU

comment :

ect to Fir

he comment

Ripe

and

ite

aces ,

in all

New York

State

st Amendment

ls

laintiff nas not filed

under the State law, but federal

fact, the citation will go in

f's favor

Joes indeed go without saying

or for .any

nnected with

C<

muse: and,

to confine

it would be

other personal

the public

4

Y for the

if lit were

goo

Inju

pos

motive

d, shoula

ries he

sible in

such complaints to the

monstrous

LO

deny

adulterer and a SINNER nad insulted and

injured the Plaintiff and others, (Record

Excerpts, Pages 34-37) and continue to

injure them Dy continuing to exhibdit the

Nndants, oy slandering Christ -

‘

icting him as a liar, a traitor, an

LTC Moreover, the injured will now

ude the children also, vDecause the

>nidants Mave released the film LTC on

format and are planning to release

frim on caole and television SsuCcN a

tv

gé will demoralize and confuse the

Jer generation in Christian families,

savior Raving sex with his own

ei children (Mary Magdalene and the

that their GOD was 2

@ traitor, a coward, an adulterer,

27 possessed and a SINNER (Rec Exc

for selected specific scenes from

\

)

VU)

film, LTC ee Appendix, Pas 45-5

-259-

Therefore, tne Texas State Defamatio

law citations on the defamation of the

dead are not applicable to Plaintiff's

case

Ill APPELLEE'S COMMENT ON APPELLANT'S

BRIEF ee Append P9S 232-233 &

Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants

Defendants’ profanity and slander of

Cririst and resultant insult and injury to

Plaintiff and other believers of GOD is

anti-Semitic Plaintiff Nas narrated the

fa

)

cnronoloaical order of events

the production di

exhibition of the film ana tnos

Involved in the film wri Dm amd LS 4’

truly Mappen to De Jewish and apparently

of Jewisnm faitr to establisnm an

underlying motive of religious p aganda

and bigotry against Christ nd Christian

belief as such an act is not protected by

the First Amendment By definition,

*; Pages 5-6 in Original submission.

-260-

Wi

r

Dp

nN

c

\e

»

uu

u

os

Qo

=

ti

it

C

-rear , >7 tme VUnNiverse 3 ilar r=]

t 212% an adguiterer anaa sinner to say

> - on

mic smODlalnt and subsequent submissions

st aliegsti 5 to establish the real

notives of the Defendants Tne terms -

| Calious anad malicious used are etrictly

leaqsl and parliamentary in tme context f

tre f.cts stated in thi °46e

taken pieces of material from statement

ae Also see statements Dy Roosevelt

ms

<

(

~

Grieéi 5 Movle company CA

-

y

‘

c?

would dare to make fun of the Creatc

* - -

- - ‘ if ~~ a —— ; ,

ne Universe LADPEeNndc! » rage e~t Js)

.

Fd

(Record Excerpts, Page 4)

-261-

Facts - Appellant's Briet* (Appendix Pa

) re ( , _ t = “yf r i Zs wi Tr Q C enc l , -’* | — —

1Be- Argument) ** ¢t "rive at his thesis

of anti-Semitism oy the Plaintiff lf at

a. i +e ~ + + é-+¢ - +. +

= & & ay = Vv Ge ae Win ea b eS ve @& & cv

it 16 the Defendants who are guilty of

anti-Cr l tla oOrejyudi > The record

Will prove that inspite f this anti-

“hrist 41 ~t?r lf isl — “ al + + ¢ has nor

called the Jewish o jucers and

distributors f tme fii MF Es anti-

Christiar Not merely mristians but

tre 2 ae T > . >* ¢ c <é

ur a rng ' 2 r A ; ive

a : 1 s t .

TEMPTATION f r treat ea ‘

everything that tmeél lig. x ld

sacred nad bee 's faned 1 the movies

Tre 1 is not Chriétia eNns rig

1t 15 Hollywood's ninhilisn Dennis

f ager, @a Jew and &@ Ae! Mas]

*: id at 3 in Original submission

**: id at 17 in Original submission

-262-

Commentator tsee Appendix, Fage 13))

“Human decency and ethical standards

should keep all people respecting each

others’ religions (Or. Maher Hathiout,

Spokesman, Islamic Center, Southern

California CSee Appendix Page 15])

+#Anti-Semitism means mostility

towards Jews as a religious or racial

minority group, often accompanied Dy

social, economic and political

discrimination: opposition to Zionism;

sympathy with opponents of the State of

lsrael

Therefore Fiaintiff submits that he

mas not said or done anything in Mis C3aSe

Warrant the name “anti-Semitic” as

Jefined above, and the learnea counsel tc

the Defendants mas not been quite

t Webster's Third New International

Dictionary; G&C Merriam Co, Publishers

-263-

rignt or gentle inr 7 tne Plaintiff as

-

such

Also, Plaintiff submits that the

comments of Defendants’ Counsel that

Plaintiff is thoroughly “unprofessional” **x

1S unwarranted and betrays intolerance

Whatever allegations the Plaintiff has

Stated in his complaint or before this

court are matters of fact or issues of

fact To not to say those would amount to

supression of truth Plaintiff does not

command vast legal resources as the

Defendants do, but this does not give them

any right to insinuate the Plaintiff Pro

Se without any basis. Of course, truth is

inditing the Defendants, but this should

not make them angry, because what has beén

**: unprofessional conduct: that which

violates ethical code of profession or

such conduct which 1s unbecoming

(Blackstone's Legal Dictionary)

-264-

ul

a

me

GO

~

u

ul

c

me

oa

o~<

very mucn 10 Civllilzed

Lanquage ~laintif’ aS 4&4 Orivate Httorney

senerai 1

“epresent mis cause and tnat of many

others in the pursuit of truth and

justice, whicn tne Defendants’ counsel

must appreciate and be considerate to tne

Flaintiff

Plaintiff also disagrees that

Defendants’ Mave Deen conciliatory <CGniy

if they mad been so, they wouid not Nave

continued to offend Christ and Christians

in this Republic, Dy continuing to exhibit

their orofane film and extend 1ts coverage

througn other media formats Plaintiff and

UL)

many others ‘Record Excerpt cages 40 to

6S) nave oOleaced in conciliatory terms

metfore +o persuade tme Vetendants to see

U

the truth and resist their outrignt

profanity and slander of Cnrist - tne

of

;

nt

ator of tnis Universe and resultant

injury to nis people But they didn't, anc

-265-

‘

fb

Q'

ft

Wi

ct

~~

=

’

cm

il

a

co

L'

om

r

ad

~

wr

c

e~

2

0

~

~*

Ww

Cc

-

-ontinuing ¢t

\

0

“—

oO

a)

a

1)

i

a

O

ul

Qi

2

QO

ft

ty

uu

6

O

-eantinuing to offend the Constitution of

the Republic by offending the GOD of tnis

Fepublic Dy exmibditing their film and

KNOWLNgG that it 16 false and libelous, as

Stated by the foliowing peopie tnat

represent a oroad spectrum of Christian

damaging to the image ofr Christ -e

cannot be made tne onodjyect of low

fantasies (Franco ceffirelli, Italian

,

Film Director (See Appendix, page 18-19])

*"“Neitmer tne label fiction nor the

First Amendment, gives Universal the

right to libel, slander and ridicule the

most central figure in world history

(Jerry Falweil, Lyncnberg JA. (See

Appendix, page |9])

‘It's the most serious mistake a Studio

aS made 1n decades " ‘Tim Pinland

ICA's Marketing Expert for tme film, LTC

_Se#e #00ena1 cage 20]:

Tris if aN intentional attack on

Christianity “ '+Joseon Reilly, Morai

Majority L_eader(tee Appendix, Page 23))

CONCLUSION

The trial of this case 16 crucial for

tne estadlishment of the constitutional

neipieé ensmrinea in tme Constitution.

and tne constituticonal law that in a

multi-racial and multi-religious society

Ssucn as this Republic, one ¢ect, Nowever

powerful 1t may be with media resources,

cannot openiy offend, insult and injure

the religious sentiments, values and

traditions of anotner, which would bring

“estility and matred petween peocoles and

wM1icm will violate tme constitu

c

QO

-

a

—

purpcse of guarantee of equal rights and

Quarantee of cCeacée and tranquiiity

But for some vehement protests and

strong statements, there Nave been no

militant or violent actions outwardly by

people in this case, because this nation

1S a Civilized nation, peopled largely by

those of Christian persuasion, and they

still practice Christian love in dealing

with non-Christian assaults such as the

Defendants Nave done by assassinating the

character of Christ and thereby ridiculing

his people But the people's patience and

non violence cannot be misunderstood as

lack of feelings, because every such

unjustified action, if not mitigated by

justice, builds up a silent volcano of

community tension among the offended,

which may erupt anytime It 1s therefore

not in the interest of all peoples to set

a precedent as the Defendants seek, that

they have a right to exhibit the offensive

film, LTC, violative of the constitutional

principle of preserving inter-religious

-268-

and inter-racial Narmony of the Republic

To illustrate this point further,

Plaintiff submits that if the Defendants’

prayer to affirm the District Court's

order 1s granted, it will give open

license to Hollywood to assassinate other

religious characters, not only to make

profit by the controversy it creates, but

also to carry out their religious

prejudice and vendetta. A libelous film on

prophet Mohammed could be next in the line

of character assassinations. But this

could trigger international violence,

affecting many peoples and may cause

disturbances in this Republic also,

because unlike Christians, the muslims may

seek instant retribution based on the Old

Testament law: "An eye for an eye and a

tooth for a tooth “ Another slanderous

film on Jesus or Jesus family is also

possible, slandering Deity and

asSassinating other biblical characters

-269-

lt is therefore also in the public

interest that a line 1S drawn on this

ase, on the freedom of the media to

assassinate falsely, the character of

religious figures, and thereby insult the

faith of many people The law on this type

of abuse has already been settled when the

Supreme Court Meld in Chaplinsky v New

Hampshire cited before, that such profane,

libelous and insulting speech, as in the

film, LTC are “no essential part of any

exposition of ideas, and are of such

slight social value as a step to truth

that any benefit that may be derived from

them is clearly outweighed by the social

interest in order and morality “

The Defendants' film, "THE LAST

TEMPTATION OF CHRIST" that falsely

assassinates the character of Christ,

which 16 profane and libelous, which

ridicules and injures the people of

Christian faith in this Republic and other

~270-

Nations of this world, is also no

essential part of any exposition of ideas

as &@ step to truth, and therefore,

Plaintiff's appeal should be allowed and

the case remanded for trial expeditiously

so that justice is rendered for the

benefit of tne of fended.

Tne judgment of the District Court

should be reversed.

(VEDA NAYAK)

Plaintiff Pro Se

4770, W. Bellfort, Suite 285

Houston, TX 7703S.

(713)684-6552

~271-

THE

URANTIA

BOOK

COPYRIGHT

URANTLIA FOUNDATION

, °

sys

URANTIA FOUNDATION

All rizhts reserved, including translation

in the United States of America, as well as in Canada

and other countries of

the International Copyrizht Union

All rizhts reserved under Van-American Copyright Conventions

and under the Universal Copyright Convention

URAN TIA FOUNDATION

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

1955

-272-

The Parts of the Book

PART I

THE CENTRAL AND SUPERUNIVERSES

Sponsored by a Uversa Corps of Superuniverse Personalities

acting by authority of the Orvonton

Ancients of Days

PART II

THE LOCAL UNIVERSE

Sponsored by a Nebadon Corps of Local Universe

‘Personalities acting by authority of

Gabriel of Salvington

PART III

THE HISTORY OF URANTIA

These papers were sponsored by a Corps of Local Universe

Personalities acting by authority of

Gabriel of Salvington

PART IV

THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF JESUS

This group of papers was sponsored by a commission of twelve

Urantia midwayers acting under the supervision of

a Melchizedek revelatory director.

The basis of this narrative was supplied by a secondary

midwayer who was onetime assigned to the superhuman

watchcare of the Apostle Andrew.

-273-

Vv

icin nna tana enite

The Titles of the Papers

PART I. THE CENTRAL AND SUPERUNIVERSES

Paper

Foreword

The Universal Father

The Nature of God. .

The Attributes of God .

God’s Relation to the Universe

God’s Relation to the Individual .

The Eternal Son .

Relation of the Eternal Son to the

Universe. . .

The Infinite Spirit .

Relation of the Infinite Spirit to the

Universe .

. The Paradise Trinity . ,

. The Eternal Isle of Paradise .

. The Universe of Universes. . .

. The Sacred Spheres of Paradise .

. The Central and Divine Universe

. The Seven Superuniverses .

. The Seven Master Spirits . :

. The Seven Supreme Spirit Groups .

. The Supreme Trinity Personalities .

. The Co-ordinate a

Beings .

. The Paradise Sons of God .

. The Paradise Creator Sons .

. The Trinitized Sons of God

. The Solitary Messengers

. Higher Personalities of the Infinite

Spirit .

. The Messenger Hosts of I Space

26. Ministering Spirits of the Central

Universe

. Ministry of the Primary

Supernaphim

. Ministering Spirits of the Sune r-

UnIVETSEs .

vii

-274+

AUTHOR

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Universal Censor

Perfector of Wisdom

Perfector of Wisdom

Perfector of Wisdom

Perfector of Wisdom

Universal Censor

Universal Censor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

Perfector of Wisdom

Perfector of Wisdom

Mighty Messenger .

Divine Counselor

Divine Counselor

One High in Authority .

Perfector of Wisdom

Perfector of Wisdom

Mighty Messenger .

306

viii THE TITLES OF THE PAPERS

PAPER AUTHOR Pace

29. The Universe Power Directors . . Universal Censor . . . 319

30. Personalities of the Grand Universe. Mighty Messenger . . . 330

31. The Corps of the Finality. . . . Divine Counselor and

One Without Name and

Number. . .. . + 345

PART II. THE LOCAL UNIVERSE

32. The Evolution of Local Universes. . Mighty Messenger . . . 357

33. Administration of the Local

Universe. . . . Chiefof Archangels. . . 366

34. The Local Universe Mother Spirit . Mighty Messenger . . . 374

35. The Local Universe Sons of God. . ChiefofArchangels. . . 384

36. The Life Carriers. . . . Vorondadek Son. . . . 306

37. Personalities of the Local Univ erse. Brilliant Evening Star. . 406

38. Ministering Spirits of the Local

Universe . . cle = + » « Bo « s « e Qe

39. The Seraphic Hosts Sees a:

40. The Ascending Sons of God . . . Mighty Messenger . . . 443

41. Physical Aspects of the Local

Universe... . « « Archangel. . > las: Dee

42. Energy—Mind and Matter . . . . Mighty Messenger » « « 467

43. The Constellations . . . . . . MalavatiaMelchizedek. . 485

44. The Celestial Artisans . . . . Archangel. . ... =. 497

45. The Local System Administration . Melchizedek . .... 50%

46. The Local System Headquarters. . Archangel. . . .. . 519

47. The Seven Mansion Worlds . . . Brilliant Evening Star. . 530

48. The Morontia Life . . .. . . Archangel. ..... 54!

49. The Inhabited Worlds . . . . . Melchizedek . . ... 559

50. The Planetary Princes. . . . . Secondary Lanonandek . = 57:

51. The Planetary Adams . . . . . Secondary Lanonandek ._ 580

52. Planetary Mortal Epochs . .° . . Mighty Messenger . . . 584

/ 53. The Lucifer Rebellion . . . . Manovandet Melchizedek. — 601

/ 54. Problems of the Lucifer Rebellion . Mighty Messenger . . . 613

55. The Spheres of Light and Life . . Mighty Messenger . . . 621

56. Universal Unity . . , . . . . Mighty Messenger and

Machiventa Melchizedek . 637

PART III. THE HISTORY OF URANTIA

57. The Origin of Urantia . . . . . Life Carriere . . . .. 651

58. Life Establishment on Urantia . . Life Carrier . . . . . 664

59. The Marine-Life Era on Urantia . Life Carrier . . . . . 72

-275-

THE TITLES OF THE PAPERS

PAPER

_ Urantia during the — Land-Life

Era.

. The Mammalian E ra on Urantia ‘

. The Dawn Races of Early Man.

. The First Human Family .

. The Evolutionary Races of Color .

. The Overcontrol of Evolution .

. The Planetary Prince of Urantia .

. The Planetary Rebellion

. The Dawn of Civilization .

. Primitive Human Institutions .

The Evolution of Tluman

Government .

. Development of the State .

. Government on a Neighboring

Planet .

. The Garden of Eden .

Adam and Eve.

. The Default of Adam and Eve

. The Second Garden .

. The Midway Creatures . ;

. The Violet Race after the Days of

Adam . '

Andite F xpansion in the Orien nt .

Andite Expansion in the Occident

. Development of Modern

Civilization

. The Evolution of Marriage

. The Marriage Institution

. Marriage and Family Life .

The Origins of Worship

. Karly Evolution of Religion

The Ghost Cults .

. Fetishes, Charms, and Magic .

. Sin, Sacrifice, and Atonement .

. Shamanism—Medicine Men and

Priests. :

The Evolution of Pra yer

. The Later Evolution of Religion.

. Machiventa Melchizedek . . . .

. The Melchizedek Teachings in the

Orient .

. The Melchizedek Teachings | in oe

Levant

. Yahweh—God of the ‘Hecews

-276-

AUTHOR

Life Carrier

Life Carrier

Life Carrier

Life Carrier

Life Carrier

Life Carrier

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Solonia .

Solonia .

Solonia .

Solonia .

Archangel .

Archangel .

Archangel .

Archangel .

Archangel .

Chief of Seraphim

Chief of Seraphim

Chief of Seraphim

Brilliant Evening Star .

Brilliant Evening Star .

Brilliant Evening Star .

Brilliant Evening Star .

Brilliant Evening Star .

Melchizedek ped

Chief of Midwayers .

Melchizedek ie 2

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

Melchizedek

793

711

730

741

754

763

772

783

800

808

821

828

839

847

855

868

878

889

goo

913,

Q22

931

944

950

958

967

974

986

994

1003

1014

1027

1042

1052

/120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

Tue TITLES OF THE PAPERS

PAPER

. Evolution of the God = among

the Hebrews .

. The Melchizedek ‘Teachings in n the ,

Occident .

Social Problems of Religion

. Religion in Human Experience .

_ The Real Nature of Religion .

The Foundations of Religious Faith .

. The Reality of Religious Experience .

. Growth of the Trinity ee ;

. Deity and Reality. :

. Universe Levels of Reality .

. Origin and Nature of Thought

Adjusters .

. Mission and Ministry of Thought

Adjusters .

. Relation of Adjusters to Universe

Creatures.

. Relation of Adjusters to Individual

Mortals

. The Adjuster and the Soul .

. Personality Survival . ‘age

. The Seraphic Guardians of Destiny .

. Seraphic Planetary Government .

. The Supreme Being .

. The Almighty Supreme .

God the Supreme .

. Supreme and U Itimate—Time and

Space .

. The Bestowals of Christ Michael

PART IV. THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF JESUS

The Bestowal of Michael on Urantia.

The Times of Michael’s Bestowal

Birth and Infancy of Jesus.

The Early Childhood of Jesus .

The Later Childhood of Jesus .

Jesus at Jerusalem

The Two Crucial Years .

The Adolescent Years .

Jesus’ Early Manhood . >

The Later Adult Life of Jesus .

-277-

AvuTUOR

Melchizedek

Melchizedek .

Melchizedek .

Melchizedek .

Melchizedek .

Melchizedek

Melchizedek .

Melchizedek . . .

Melchizedek . . .

Melchizedeck . . ,.

Solitary Messenger .

Solitary Messenger .

Solitary Messenger .

Solitary Messenger .

Solitary Messenger .

Solitary Messenger .

Chief of Seraphim

Chief of Seraphim .

Mighty Messenger .

Mighty Messenger .

Mighty Messenger .

Mighty Messenger . ,.

Chief of Evening Stars .

Mantutia Melchizedek .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

140.

147.

145.

140.

150.

151.

152.

153.

154.

155.

156.

157.

158.

159.

160.

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

§ Oy.

170.

THE TITLES OF THE PAPERS

PAPER

On the Way to Rome .

The World’s Religions .

The Sojourn at Rome

The Return from Rome .

The Transition Years

John the Baptist. . .

Baptism and the Forty Days .

Tarrying Time in Galilee .

Training the Kingdom’s Messengers .

The Twelve Apostles .

The Ordination of the Twelve .

Beginning the Public Work

The Passover at Jerusalem .

Going Through Samaria .

At Gilboa and in the Decapolis

Four Eventful Days at Capernaum .

First Preaching Tour of Galilee .

The Interlude Visit to Jerusalem .

Training Evangelists at Bethsaida

The Second Preaching Tour

The Third Preaching Tour .

Tarrying and Teaching by the Seaside

Events Leading up to the —

Crisis .

The Crisis at Caperna ium

Last Days at Capernaum

Fleeing Through Northern Galilee

The Sojourn at Tyre and Sidon.

At Caesarea-Philippi .

The Mount of Transfiguration

The Decapolis Tour .

Rodan of Alexandria . ;

Further Discussions with Rodan .

At the Feast of Tabernacles ;

Ordination of the Seventy at Magadan

At the Feast of Dedication .

The Perean Mission Begins .

Last Visit to Northern Perea

The Visit to Philadelphia

The Resurrection of Lazarus .

Last Teaching at Pella

The Kingdom of Heaven

-Zi0-

AUTHOR

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

xii

171.

172.

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178.

179.

180.

181.

iS?,

153.

184.

185.

186.

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

Iq2.

647.

14.

195.

196.

Tie Titces or Tue PAPERS

Parvin

On the Way to Jerusalem

Going into Jerusalem. .

Monday in Jerusalem

Tuesday Morning in the Temple .

The Last Temple Discourse .

Tuesday Evening on Mount Olivet .

Wednesday, The Rest Day .

Last Day at the Camp

The Last Supper .

The Farewell Discourse . ;

Final Admonitions and ‘icine

In Gethsemane ;

The Betrayal and Arre st of Je SUS .

Before the Sanhedrin Court .

The Trial Before Pilate .

Just Before the Crucifixion .

The Crucifixion . .

The Time of the Tomb .

The Resurrection .

Morontia Appearances of Jesus

Appearances to the Apostles and

Other Leaders :

Appearances in Galilee .

Pinal Appearances and Ascension .

Lestowal of the Spirit of Truth.

After Pentecost

The Faith of Jesus

-279-

Vt tite

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commissio.: .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Conmmission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Midwayer Commission .

Vacs

1867

1878

1888

1897

1905

1912

1920

1929

1936

1944

1953

1Qh3

197!

1975

1987

1997

2004

2012

2020

2024

2037

2045

2052

2059

2069

2087

PART IV

The Life and Teachings of Jesus

PAPER 120

THE BESTOWAL OF MICHAEL ON URANTIA

‘tue 4‘

SSIGNED by Gabriel to supervise the restatement of the life of Michael

A when on Urantia and in the likeness of mortal flesh, I, the Melchizedek

director of the revelatory commission intrusted with this task, am au-

thorized to present this narrative of certain events which immediately preceded

the Creator Son’s arrival on Urantia to embark upon the terminal phase of his

universe bestowal experience. To live such identical lives as he imposes upon

the intelligent beings of his own creation, thus to bestow himself in the likeness

of his various orders of created beings, is a part of the price which every Creator

Son must pay for the full and supreme sovereignty of his self-made universe of

things and beings.

Before the events I am about to delineate, Michael of Nebadon had bestowed

himself six times after the similitude of six differing orders of his diverse crea-

tion of intelligent beings. Then he prepared to descend upon Urantia in the

likeness of mortal flesh, the lowest order of his intelligent will creatures, and,

as such a human of the material realm, to execute the final act in the drama

of the acquirement of universe sovereignty in accordance with the mandates of

the divine Paradise Rulers of the universe of universes. —

In the course of each of these preceding bestowals Michael not only acquired

the finite experience of one group of his created beings, but he also acquired an

essential experience in Paradise co-operation which would, in and of itself, {ur-

ther contribute to constituting him the sovereign of his self-made universe. At

any moment throughout all past local universe time, Michael could have as-

serted personal sovereignty as a Creator Son and as a Creator Son could have

ruled his universe after the manner of his own choosing. In such an event, Im-

manuel and the associated Paradise Sons would have taken leave of the universe.

But Michael did not wish to rule Nebadon merely in his own isolated right, as

a Creator Son. He desired to ascend through actual experience in co-operative

subordination to the Paradise Trinity to that high place in universe status where

he would become qualified to rule his universe and administer its affairs with that

1323

-280-

1324 Tue Lire o

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.