DISCUSS COURT CASE HERE JW.org - Jehovah’s Witnesses Mobilize Global Response to Threat of Ban in Russia

[Omoyeme]

12:25 PM	Returning from the advisory room, the court refuses to satisfy all the applications submitted.

12:30p	Judge Manohin begins to present the essence of the matter.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Ahuvah]

The only justice system we can truly rely on is Jehovah's ... if his hand is in this today, HIS Justice will come through, if it's not ... then the gap between man's justice and divine justice will remain glarelingly obvious to us. This is going to be the hardest test on all of us, whether it be a global stage scenario like this or on a more personal level, and that is, being patient and waiting on Jehovah's timetable.  We want this to happen yesterday - one day it will be. So when the Great Tribulation happens is not important, just that Jehovah's will be accomplished is. 

 

I want it to happen tonight soooo much, but realistically it probably won't.

[M&M]

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://jw-russia.org/faq/3.html&usg=ALkJrhiEnJYGKfHMeJYZlX4fhArCiwZHIA

Why is it wrong to think of Jehovah's Witnesses as extremists?

[Omoyeme]

I'm so pleased to see Brother Sanderson there once again to give major support and encouragement to our brothers and sisters!

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Daniela]

A brake for  only 10 minutes....???? Not good...

12:25 PM	Returning from the advisory room, the court refuses to satisfy all the applications submitted.
12:30	Judge Manohin begins to present the essence of the matter.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Daniela

[Beggar for the Spirit]

I hope I am misunderstanding what has been happening, but in just 1 quick hour the Court got our lawyers to read off each of our petitions and each were rejected almost immediately without hardly any review or without questions to our lawyers or without questioning the Ministry of Justice.  There was only 3-4 minutes between many of the petitions, so this seems to indicate that there was little to no time taken by the Court to review most of these petitions and ask any pertinent questions.

 

I don't think this is how most Court of Appeals handle cases in the rest of the world. Very saddening if this is what is happening. 

[JW-Ind]

From Anton Chivchalov's twitter

 

It took court just 10 minutes to consider many motions, dozens of witnesses, lots of new facts of aggression against citizens

[Omoyeme]

12:45p.

	Outlining the arguments of the statement of claim, the defendant's party's position, the court retells the essence of the decision made on April 20, 2017.

[M&M]

Beggar for the Spirit, that's what I kinda get out of it too. Maybe things in the last part of the last days is gonna get harder. We have been studying similar things in our 'God's Kingdom Rules' book in a very timely manner, it seems.

[Daniela]

I hope I'm wrong too, but I have the same feeling that this appeal is a fake .... 

Then...a 10 minutes brake... ?!?!?! I think it was for coffee...:(

Edited July 17, 2017 by Daniela

[Omoyeme]

 

12:51	The court proceeds to retell an appellate petition filed on behalf of a religious organization.

 

12:58p

Having finished the report, the court suggests the defendant's side to give his explanations. The first advocate advocates Zhenkov. The first thesis is that the court in the decision did not indicate evidence of the extremist activities of the Administrative Center. Femin leads an excerpt from the protocol of the court of first instance. The court: "How is it confirmed that the organization carried out extremist activity?". The Ministry of Justice: "The religious organization has not taken any effective measures aimed at suppressing this activity ...". The court also asked the administrative plaintiff whether the adoption of insufficient measures, or even inaction, could be a sign of extremism? The Ministry of Justice, with reference to the law, was forced to admit - no, only intentional actions can be extremism.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Omoyeme]

13:04

Zhenkov: "If the Administrative Center did not commit extremist actions, we were asked by a Justice Ministry representative in court: did each of the 395 local religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia commit extremist acts? The Ministry of Justice replied that only 10 of them have court decisions, and there are no other such data. The natural question is: if it was not established in court that the Jehovah's Witnesses Administrative Center in Russia and at least 385 local religious organizations committed some extremist actions, why did the court recognize them as extremist and liquidate? "

 

13:08

From the record of the court session it follows that the court of first instance asked the plaintiff clear legal issues that are important for the proper resolution of the case. The court received replies that extremism is the specific actions enumerated in the law, and that the Management Center and more than 300 local religious organizations did not do such actions. But the court decision in this case the court ruled for some reason directly the opposite - to recognize all 396 organizations as extremist and liquidate them. "How come, dear court? Exclaims Zhenkov. "Do not you, like the judges' collegium, have to raise questions?" If there are no extremist actions, then why should they be considered extremist ?! "

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Jahleadsme]

As a human, what I'm seeing here coupled with the way the judge reacts makes me sad. But no matter what, Jehovah is always in charge. WHAT CAN MERE MAN DO TO US?

Sent from my TECNO_P5_PLUS using Tapatalk

[Beggar for the Spirit]

Wow, a big change! 

The Court is now finally asking questions to the Ministry of Justice based on certain petitions our lawyers gave before the break. There must have been something in the judges break time "coffee"!   

 

12:58p

The court: "How is it confirmed that the organization carried out extremist activity?".  The Ministry of Justice: "The religious organization has not taken any effective measures aimed at suppressing this activity ".    The court also asked the administrative plaintiff whether the adoption of insufficient measures, or even inaction, could be a sign of extremism?  The Ministry of Justice, with reference to the law, was forced to admit - no, only intentional actions can be extremism.

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Beggar for the Spirit

[Omoyeme]

13:10

Zhenkov gives an example. He says that in the court session we found that in the Crimea Jehovah's Witnesses peacefully carried out their religious activities for dozens of years. Caught in Russia and carrying out Russian legislation, Jehovah's Witnesses in Crimea were asked by the Ministry of Justice to register 22 of their local religious organizations. And the Ministry of Justice, recognizing the legality of their existence and the validity of their doctrine, in 2015 registered them. Thus, the state recognized that on the Crimean peninsula one can believe in God Jehovah, and therefore a religion called Jehovah's Witnesses has the right to exist and act on a lawful basis. And what's next? In less than two years, without the establishment of signs of extremism in their actions, only on the instructions of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, the same Ministry of Justice, which registered them, appealed to the court demanding that they be recognized as extremist organizations and take all their property from them. And the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation even without the participation of these legal entities declared them extremist and liquidated, and also allowed them to take away all their property. "In this regard, questions arise simultaneously and legal and universal," says Zhenkov: "For what is the punishment for believers in the Crimea?" For what specific actions? The answers to these questions are not in the court's decision. But can such a decision be legal? "

 

13:15

The second thesis of Zhenkov is that the conclusions of the court of first instance do not correspond to the circumstances of the administrative case. For example, the court's decision says: "According to the materials of the case, during the past seven years, facts of extremist activities of the Organization have been established annually in the manner prescribed by law ..." However, the court has established the exact opposite. Lawyer Zhenkov: "The administrative plaintiff in court admitted that the actions of the administrative center directly did not establish the facts of extremist activity, and the court wrote - established."

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Omoyeme]

13:20

	The third thesis of Zhenkov: the court of first instance incorrectly determined the circumstances that are important for the administrative case. Zhenkov lists a number of examples.

[Omoyeme]

1:30p

Zhenkov cites an excerpt from the document of the Ministry of Justice: "Recognition of information materials of the confessional identity of Jehovah's Witnesses is extremist ... confirms ... the fact that they have inadmissible ways of expressing the conviction of the truth of their religious beliefs, But in the interpretation of the institutions contained in the Bible. " This characteristic is not true. Zhenkov draws attention to the fact that the overwhelming majority of publications of Jehovah's Witnesses were recognized as "extremist" 8 years ago. And at that time there was still no ruling No. 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, in which explanations were given that the courts should be understood as inciting hatred or enmity. Until 2011, some courts erroneously believed that if the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is named in literature as the only true one, then this is a sign of inciting hatred, since this is an insult to other religions. And if in the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses it is said that the Trinity is not a biblical teaching, then such an interpretation of the Bible, especially in the opinion of some judges, aroused hatred. But this was until 2011, until the Supreme Court explained that criticism of religious associations, religious beliefs, religious customs should not be seen as an act aimed at inciting hatred or enmity. It took years for everyone to finally understand that to consider only their religion as true is not an extremism, but a norm for a believer.

[Omoyeme]

13:45

Zhenkov draws attention to the fact that the Administrative Center was denied participation in court cases on the recognition of printed materials as extremist. In some cases, believers do not even know, and for what reason this or that book is considered extremist, because the court considered that Jehovah's Witnesses have nothing to do with it.The same position was consistently taken up by the Supreme Court of Russia, as a result of which the Administrative Center had no right to participate in the trial, nor to bring its arguments to court, nor to appeal against the court's decisions. And now, for some reason, the court of first instance applied the opposite approach. Now the court considers that on the basis of these decisions the Management Center can be liquidated. "Dear court," says Zhenkov, "you have the opportunity to correct this injustice. It is important for the Supreme Court to be consistent, it is a model for all Russian courts. "

 

13:50

The fourth thesis of Zhenkov is the disproportion of the court decision. Females cite an excerpt from the court's decision: "Contrary to the arguments of the Organization's objection, such interference is proportionate and necessary ... since it ensures the elimination of violations of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of an indefinite circle of persons, the real threat of harm to the individual, the health of citizens, public order, public security, society And the state. "

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Omoyeme]

13:52

"But, dear Court, let's turn to the facts and see who threatens and who harms whom," says Zhenkov. "The court of first instance established that in 26 years of official activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, no damage was done either to the state , Nor morality in society. There are no acts of vandalism on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is no violence. Yes there is violence, there are not even acts of protest! It turns out that the threat, which the court writes in its decision, is imaginary, far-fetched. If it was real, then for 26 years of official existence in Russia and for 100 years of unofficial, it would have come true. But the court's decision does not contain any facts of harm from their activities. What kind of threat to society and the state can there be, if only recently, on May 31, 2017, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin presented the Order of Parental Glory to the family of Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

Yesssss!

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Daniela]

"But, dear Court, let's turn to the facts and see who threatens whom and who harms whom," says Zhenkov. 

Bravo, Brothers!!!!!

[Skye]

5 minutes ago, Omo_Yeme said:

13:52

"But, dear Court, let's turn to the facts and see who threatens and who harms whom," says Zhenkov. "The court of first instance established that in 26 years of official activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, no damage was done either to the state , Nor morality in society. There are no acts of vandalism on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is no violence. Yes there is violence, there are not even acts of protest! It turns out that the threat, which the court writes in its decision, is imaginary, far-fetched. If it was real, then for 26 years of official existence in Russia and for 100 years of unofficial, it would have come true. But the court's decision does not contain any facts of harm from their activities. What kind of threat to society and the state can there be, if only recently, on May 31, 2017, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin presented the Order of Parental Glory to the family of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Yesssss!

3

YES! Please, we beseech you, dear Court, let's see who has been burning down homes and disrupting peaceful meetings, and throwing Molotov cocktails and and and....! Let the FACTS speak for themselves. 

[Jahleadsme]

13:52

"But, dear Court, let's turn to the facts and see who threatens and who harms whom," says Zhenkov. "The court of first instance established that in 26 years of official activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, no damage was done either to the state , Nor morality in society. There are no acts of vandalism on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is no violence. Yes there is violence, there are not even acts of protest! It turns out that the threat, which the court writes in its decision, is imaginary, far-fetched. If it was real, then for 26 years of official existence in Russia and for 100 years of unofficial, it would have come true. But the court's decision does not contain any facts of harm from their activities. What kind of threat to society and the state can there be, if only recently, on May 31, 2017, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin presented the Order of Parental Glory to the family of Jehovah's Witnesses?

 
Yesssss!
 
[/quot
I love that last point. Reasonable argument. I give our lawyer 100 points.

Sent from my TECNO_P5_PLUS using Tapatalk

[Omoyeme]

13:55

On the other hand, because of the court decision, the believers themselves are subject to a substantial violation of their rights. Femin leads various facts that confirm this. For example, the facts of refusing to believers to replace military service with an alternative civilian service on the basis of a court decision. Concluding his speech, Zhenkov attached to the case copies of the protocols of conscription commissions and summonses from the military commissariat.

 

13:56

	The queue gives explanations to the representative Toporov. The first thesis of his speech is focused on Article 310 of the CAS RF, according to which "the decisions of the court of first instance are subject to unconditional cancellation if the court decides on the rights and obligations of persons not involved in administrative matters".

 

14:00

 

	The court decision eliminated the religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" and its local religious organizations. All these local religious organizations are clearly listed in the decision of the court of first instance, and this transfer takes half the text of the entire decision. However, 395 organizations were not involved in the trial.

[Omoyeme]

14:20

The conclusions of the court of first instance contradict the entire long-standing judicial practice of considering cases against local religious organizations, Toporov said. As evidence, he cites the definition of the Supreme Court of Russia in its December 8, 2009: "The management center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and the local religious organization" Taganrog "Jehovah's Witnesses are independent organizations, which is also confirmed by evidence accepted by the court of cassation, including the scheme on the structure of religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses" Taganrog. " The question of the rights and duties of the Administrative Center of the Rostov Regional Court in the consideration of the above-mentioned application of the prosecutor of the Rostov region was not allowed, the decision of the Rostov Regional Court of September 11, 2009 was recognized as extremist and the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Taganrog" was liquidated. " At the same time, this ruling of the court has a prejudicial significance for the present case, since it was rendered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with respect to the administrative respondent. It establishes the fact that the liquidation of the local religious association that was part of the structure of the Management Center does not affect the rights and obligations of the latter, since this local religious association and the Management Center are independent organizations. The Court of First Instance ignored this evidence, which led to its incorrect application of substantive law in making the decision.

 

14:24

The above argument supports the second thesis of Toporov: the court decision is subject to cancellation in connection with the incorrect application of substantive law. In trying to justify the recognition of the MRO by the structural subdivisions of the administrative defendant for whose actions he must answer, the court allowed the incorrect application of substantive law by applying laws that are not applicable, namely the laws "On political parties", "On public associations". The court gave an incorrect interpretation of the law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", "On Countering Extremist Activity", CAS RF, including without taking into account the legal positions contained in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme

[Omoyeme]

14:32

	The third thesis of Toporov's speech is that the court decision is subject to cancellation due to the lack of evidence of the circumstances established by the court of first instance.

 

14:35

As an example of the lack of evidence of the circumstances specified in the court decision, Toporov quotes an extract from the decision that the Management Center participated in financing MROs that are considered extremist. This fact is given in order to prove the extremist nature of the activities of the Management Center. However, the Ministry of Justice did not submit to the court (according to Toporov, intentionally!) The corresponding donation agreements and the decisions of the Management Center on donations, from which it follows that the donation of money to these organizations was carried out, first, a few years before their recognition as extremist and, in the first place Second, for clearly defined purposes: construction of liturgical buildings, assistance to victims of natural disasters, payment of utility bills and other obligations to the state. All these contracts and decisions were transferred by the Management

Edited July 17, 2017 by Omo_Yeme