# Appendix — Nayak v. MCA, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_3253%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1991 - **Citation:** 498 U.S. 1087 ## Text 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 "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- | 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 @&*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 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 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 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 ' > . + ‘ - - . ~ + . 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 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 Cnidants 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 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 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 or Jesus perfection of insight and wisdom of execution which will sometime be character- istic of the exalted rule of the Supreme Being. He aspired not toperfection of rule as a Creator Son but to supremacy of administration as the embodiment of the universe wisdom and the divine experience of the Supreme Being. Michael, therefore, had a double purpose in the making of these seven be- stowals upon the various orders of his universe creatures: First, he was complet- ing the required experience in creature understanding which is demanded of al! Creator Sons before they assume complete sovereignty. At any time a Creator Son may rule his universe in his own right, but he can rule as the supreme repre- sentative of the Paradise Trinity only after passing through the seven universe- creature bestowals. Second, he was aspiring to the privilege of representing the maximum authority of the Paradise Trinity which can be exercised in the direct and personal administration of a local universe. Accordingly, did Michael, dur- ing the experience of each of his universe bestowals, successfully and acceptably voluntarily subordinate himself to the variously constituted wills of the diverse associations of the persons of the Paradise Trinity. That is, on the first bestowa! he was subject to the combined will of the Father, Son, and Spirit; on the second bestowal to the will of the Father and the Son; on the third bestowal to the will of the Father and the Spirit; on the fourth bestowal to the will of the Son and the Spirit; on the fifth bestowal to the will of the Infinite Spirit; on the sixth be- stowal to the will of the Eternal Son; and during the seventh and final bestow). on Urantia, to the will of the Universal Father. Michael, therefore, combines in his personal sovereignty the divine will of the sevenfold phases of the universal Creators with the understanding experi- ence of his loca] universe creatures. Thus has his administration become repre- sentative of the greatest possible power and authority although divested of all arbitrary assumptions. His power is unlimited since it is derived from experi- enced association with the Paradise Deities; his authority is unquestioned inas- much as it was acquired through actual experience in the likeness of universe creatures; his sovereignty is supreme since it embodies at one and the same tinie the sevenfold viewpoint of Paradise, Deity with the creature viewpoint of time and space. Having determined the time of his final bestowal and having selected the planet whereon this extraordinary event would take place, Michael held the usual prebestowal conference with Gabriel and then presented himself before his elder brother and Paradise counselor, Immanuel. All powers of universe aii- ministration which had nut previously been conferred upon Gabriel, Michac'! now assigned to the custody of Immanuel. And just before Michael’s departur« for the Urantia incarnation, Immanuel, in accepting the custody of the univers« during the time of the Urantia bestowal, proceeded to impart the bestowal -ouns«! which would serve as the incarnation guide for Michael when he would presently grow up on Urantia as a mortal of the realm. In this connection it should be borne in mind that Michael had elected tv execute this bestowal in the likeness of mortal flesh, subject to the will of the Paradise Father. The Creator Son required instructions from no one in order to effect this incarnation for the sole purpose of achieving universe sovereign() -281- Tue Bestowat oF MICHAEL 1325 but he had embarked upon a program of the revelation of the Supreme which involved co-operative functioning with the diverse wills of the Paradise Deities. Thus his sovereignty, when finally and personally acquired, would actually be all-inclusive of the sevenfold will of Deity as it culminates in the Supreme. He had, therefore, six times previously been instructed by the personal representa- tives of the various Paradise Deities and associations thereof; and now he was instructed by the Union of Days, ambassador of the Paradise Trinity to the local universe of Nebadon, acting on behalf of the Universal Father. There were immediate advantages and tremendous compensation [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_3253%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.