ርእስ አድባራት ደብረ ሰላም ቅድስት ማርያም ቤተክርስቲያን- ፍርድቤት ሂደት
መስከረም ፪ ቀን ፳፻፱ ዓ/ም
የርእስ አድባራት ደብረ ሰላም ቅድስት ማርያም ቤተክርስቲያን -ፍርድቤት ሂደት
አንድ ዓመት ያስቆጠረው የርእስ አድባራት ደብረ ሰላም ቅድስት ማርያም ቤተክርስቲያን የፍርድቤት ጉዳይ አሁንም አልተቋጨም። ከአሁን ቀደም መጋቤ ሃይማኖት ቀሲስ ተስፋዬ ወደ አባ ማትያስ ሲኖዶስ እንግባ ብሎ የተናገረውን አብዛኛውም ምዕመን ስላጉረመረመ ጉዳዩን የፍርድ ቤት ዉሳኔ እየጠበቀ እንደነበር የሚታወስ ነው።
ቤተክርስቲያኑን በጉልበት ተቆጣጥረው በመገልገል ላይ የሚገኙት በዶ/ር አክሊሉ ሀብቴና በቀሲስ ተስፋዬ መቆያ የሚመራው ወገን የመጨረሻው የፍርድ ዉሳኔ ይሰጣል ብለው ለምዕመናን ተናግረውና ብዙ ምዕመን ሰብስበው ፍርድ ቤት SEPTEMBER 9, 2016 ተኝተው ነበር። ሆኖም የፍርድ ቤቱ የደረሰበት የርፍድ ሂደት የሚቀጥለውን የድረገፅ ሰንሰለት በመጫን ያንብቡ።
The same in Atlanta, it is a shame. If we are divided on one faith, how can we be united in our struggle against the Woyane? Let us blame our opportunistic behavior before we blame others. We surely have a lot of ” ሆዳሞች” in our Ethiopian church and politics.
ትክክለኛ አባባል ነው እንደነ አቡነ ፋኑኤል አይነቱ የቀን ጅብ እያለ ምን አንድነት ይመጣል ተስፋዬንስ ሹመት የሰጡት እኝው አባት ተብዬም አይደሉም ግን የማያስተውለው ተከታያቸው ዝምብሎ የሚነዳው ነው የሚገርመው እውነት እንደሆን አትደበቅም ትወጣታለች።
When Dr. Aklilu Habtie was the president of Haile Selassie Ist University, he used to head a clandestine jail in the university. He used to work with the government security agents to oppress students. University students of the time took him as one of the archaic servers of the feudal system as compared to all others without mentioning the so called Professor Endrias that is the agent of the Mafia Weyane. Now, do not be surprised if you find him collaborating with reactionaries.
አንተ የመረጃ ዘጋቢ እንዳተ የይነት አልቅላቂ የለም ትልቅ ሰው እይደለህም ማገናዘብ አትችልም ምድረ አዛባ እድሜ ለአሜሪካ ቅድም አያት በመሆኛህ ሰአት የውሸት ወሬ ልክ እንደወያኔ ሰው ለማደናገር 15 የማትሞሉ ሰዎች ልባችሁ እይወቀ ስትቀዳደዱ አታፍሩም ቦርዴ እንደሆነ እስካሁን አልገባችሁም ጉርጓድ ትገቧታላችሁ እንጂ ቦርዴ አማረ መለፍለፍ እይደክምህም በቃ ገንዘብ መረፍ ሲቆም አሳበደህ በሳምንት 12ሺ ሲገባ እንደ እብድ ውሻ እክለፈለፋችሁ አታድክሙን አታስመስል እራስህን እንጂ ለማንም ጉዳይ እንደሌለህ ይታወቀ ነው ግም ለግም አብረህ አዝግም
It is so sad you guys are still lying to your teeth. You already ask for priliminary injuction and you are denied that because you could not satisfy the requirements for the judge to grant the injunction. He told you “good luck” with your appeal. And he schedule a year worth milestones for you to follow to just proof again how stupid bunches you are. Go ahead with your fantacy and appeal but what there to appeal? How long you try to cheat your few followers? Wuleta (Mercedes). and et al stop day dreaming and smell the coffee. No more free ride. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me
The September 30, 2015 vote to file this lawsuit also was invalid because proper notice was not provided to all members of the BOT. The 1996 Bylaws require a 24-hour notice of special or emergency meetings. DE10 Art. VIII(3); Tr. 81:25 (10-28-15). District of Columbia law further requires proper notice to all BOT members for any meeting of the BOT. D.C. Non-profit Corporation Act, Public Law 87-569, Sect. 23.
The individuals who organized the September 30th conference call failed to provide proper notice to all BOT members and excluded those who were likely to oppose the lawsuit. Tr. 84-85 (10-28-15). Notice was not provided to Father Workeneh Haile, the Church’s father figure priest; Kehali Wondeaferew Tenfie, the Church’s founder; Father Hailu Zeleke Lebu, the trustee elected by the clergy; and Mengesha Achamyeleh, the trustee elected by the Sunday School. PE11; PE32 ¶ 18. On the evening of September 30, no one attempted to call these individuals to provide an opportunity to participate in the BOT meeting. Tr. 85:1-18 (10-2815).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the elements required to obtain temporary injunctive relief, and the TRO Application shall be denied. See Wieck, 350 A.2d at 387.
ENTERED this 29th of August 2016.
Judge Maurice A. Ross
District of Columbia Superior Court
Mr. Bekele and Mr. Kebede were not valid BOT members because the March 29, 2015 meeting in which they purportedly were elected failed to achieve a proper one-third quorum and was not held in October as required by the Bylaws. PE10; DE10 Art. VIII. The March 29th election report does not specify how many members belonged to the Church, but meeting minutes from March 7th state that the Church had 564 members, which would require a quorum of 188 members. DE8. The March 29th election report indicates that the top candidate received only 130 votes. PE10. Once again, several months into the hearing, Plaintiff produced a new English-only report of the March 29th election that states the Church had only 532 members (with no explanation for the sudden loss of 32 members), of which 178 were present. PE26. Both sets of minutes also contain inaccuracies, however, including a mistake regarding the total number of members and the number required to
Mr. Michel, Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela also were not valid BOT members because the July 27, 2014 meeting in which they purportedly were elected failed to achieve a proper one-third quorum of Church members and was not held in October as required by the 1996 Bylaws. PE9; DE10 Art. VIII. Minutes of GA meetings taken within a few months of the July 2014 election (from May 18, 2014 and January 8, 2015) indicate the Church had between 515 and 518 members during this period, which would require approximately 172 members to achieve a one-third quorum. PE7, PE8, Tr. 335:17-19,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“The decision to grant or deny preliminary injunction relief is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Stamenich v. Markovic, 462 A.2d 452, 456 (D.C. 1983) (citation omitted). Courts must deny motions seeking the injunctive relief requested where the moving party has failed to demonstrate “(1) that there is a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits; (2) that he is in danger of suffering irreparable harm during the pendency of the action; (3) that more harm will result to him from the denial of the injunction than will result to the defendant from its grant; and in appropriate cases, (4) that the public interest will not be disserved by the issuance of the requested order.” Wieck v. Sterenbuch, 350 A.2d 384, 387-8 (D.C. 1976). “An injunction should not be issued unless the threat of injury is imminent and well-founded, and unless the injury itself would be incapable of being redressed after a final hearing on the merits.” Id. (emphasis added).
Plaintiff failed to establish that the Church is in any danger of suffering irreparable harm during the pendency of this action or any likelihood that its accusations of violence or harmful disruption will prevail on the merits. See Stamenich, 462 A.2d at 456. Inde
Zenebech and all the mad dogs you will never set foot again in that church. God is giving you the punishment for your arrogance and underestimating the people. Repent God is merciful.
እውነቱ ይህ ነው። እላይ ያለው አይደለም፤ በአማርኛም በእንግሊዘኛም አለላችሁና አንባችሁ ራሳችሁ ፍረዱ። እነ ፍሬው፤ እውነቱን ለህዝቡ ሊገልፁ አልፈለጉም፤ ምክንያቱም ዳኛው ሙልጭ አድርጎ ነው ያዋረዳቸው። እስቲ አንብቡት።
የዲሲ ሱፒርየር ፍርድ ቤት ይፋ ካደረገው ውሳኔ እና
የውሳኔው መሠረት ከሆነው ሕጋዊ አስተያየት የተውጣጣ ነፃ ትርጉም፤
(Excerpts – Unofficial)
“የሕግ አስተያየት፤
ርእሰ አድባራት ደብረ ሰላም ቅድስት ማርያም ቤተ ክርስቲያንና ሌሎች፡ ከሣሾች
አክሊሉ ሀብቴና ሌሎች፡ ተከሣሾች፤
ከሣሽ ርእሰ አድባራት ደብረ ሰላም ቅድስት ማርያም የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተ ክርስቲያን በዲስትሪክት ኦፍ ኮሎምቢያ ውስጥ የተደራጀች የአባላት የበጎ አድራጎት ድርጅት ስትሆን የምትመራውም በመተዳደሪያ ደንብ መሠረት በሚያገለግል በአባላት በተመረጠ የባለአደራዎች ቦርድ ነው። ተከሣሾች 23 የቤተ ክርስቲያኗ አባላትና የቀድሞ አባላት ናቸው። ከሣሽ የሚጠይቀው በተከሣሾች ላይ አስቸኳይ የእገዳ ትእዛዝ እንዲተላለፍ ነው። ተከሣሾች በሌሎች ላይ የኃይል ሥራ ፈጽመዋል ወይም ለመፈጸም ዝተዋል፤ የቤተ ክርስቲያን አገልግሎት እንዳይካሄድ አደናቅፈዋል፤ ቤተ ክርስቲያኗን በቁጥጥር ስር አውለዋታል፤ በተጨማሪም የቤተ ክርስቲያኗንና የሕዝቡን ደህንነት ለአስቸኳይ አደጋ የሚያጋልጡ ሁኔታዎችን መቆጠጠር ተስኗቸዋል በማለት ከሣሽ ያመለክታል። ከሣሽ ፍርድ ቤቱን የሚጠይቀው ተከሣሾች በእጃቸው የሚገኘውን ማናቸውንም የቤተ ክርስቲያን ንብረት እንዲያስረክቡ፣ ቤተ ክርስቲያኗን ከቁጥጥራቸው ውጭ እንዲያደርጉ፣ እና በቤተ ክርስቲያን አግልግሎት ከመሳተፍ እንዲታገዱ ትእዛዝ እንዲተላላፍ ነው። አስር ቀን ከፈጀ የማስረጃ ማሰባሰብ በኋላ ፍርድ በቱ የደረሰበት የፍሬ ነገርና የሕግ መደምደሚያ ዝቅ ብሎ ተመልክቷል።
የፍሬ ነገር መደምደሚያ፤
• ከተከሣሾች መካከል ዛቻ ያደረገ፣ የተደባደበ ወይም ሌላ የኃይል ሥራ በሌላ ግለሰብ ላይ የፈጸመ የለም።
• ከተከሣሾች መካከል ከቤተ ክርስቲያን ውስጥ ማንንም አስገድዶ ያስወጣ ወይም ወደ ቤተ ክርስቲያን ሰዎች እንዳይገቡ ያገደ ወይም አምልኮተ እግዚአብሔር እንዳይፈጽሙ የከለከለ የለም።
• ከተከሣሾች መካከል የኃይል ሥራ እንዲፈጸምና አምባ ጓሮ እንዲፈጠር ሕዝቡን ያነሳሳ የለም።
• ከተከሣሾች መካከል የቤተ ክርስቲያን አገልግሎት እንዲደናቀፍ በተፈጸመ ድርጊት ውስጥ የተሳተፈ የለም። ከቅርብ ጊዜ በፊት በመጨረሻ ላይ ተፈጸመ የሚባለው እንዲህ ያለ ድርጊት ኖቬምበር 15 ቀን 2015 የተፈጸመው ድርጊት ነው። በዚሁ ዕለት በቤተ ክርስቲያኒቱ ውስጥ ተገኝቶ የነበረው ሳርጀንት ሊኦ ስከሊ የተባለው የፖሊስ ባልደረባ፣ በሰዎች መካከል መገፋፋትና መጐሻሸም የተመለከተም ቢሆን፣ ከተከሣሾች መካከል አንዳቸውም በዚህ ድርጊት እንዳልተሳተፉና እንዲያውም በግርግሩ አካባቢ አንዳቸውንም እንዳላየ በምስክርነት አረጋግጧል።……..
7. ኦገስት 4 ቀን 1996 የቤተ ክርስቲያኗ የአባል ምእመናን ጠቅላላ ጉባኤ የቤተ ክርስቲያኗን መተዳደሪያ ደንብ ማውጣቱ ተረጋግጧል።
8. የ1996ቱ መተዳደሪያ ደንብ ሕጋዊ ስለመሆኑ አላከራከረም።
9. የ1996ቱ መተዳደሪያ ደንብ “ይህ መተዳደሪያ ደንብ ከጠቅላላ ጉባኤው አባላት ከሁለት ሦስተኛ ባላነሰ የይሁንታ ድምጽ ሊሻሻል ይችላል” ይላል። በተጨማሪም “ደንቡን ለማሻሻል በሚጠራ ስብሰባ ምልዓተ ጉባኤ የሚኖረው ከጠቅላላ ጉባኤው አባላት ቁጥር ሁለት ሦስተኛው የተገኙ እንደሆነ ብቻ ነው።” ይላል።
10. ጁን 10 ቀን 2012 በጊዜው የነበረው ቦርድ የ1966ቱን ደንብ የሚያሻሽል የደንብ ረቂቅ ለጠቅላላ ጉባኤው አቀረበ። በወቅቱ ቤተ ክርስቲያኒቱ 390 አባላት የነበሯት ሲሆን በጁን 10 ስብሰባ ላይ የተገኙት 204 አባላት ነበሩ። የጁን 10 ቀን 2012 ስብሰባ የ1996 ቱን ደንብ የሁለት ሦስተኛ የምልዓተ ጉባኤ የሚያሟላ ስብሰባ አልነበረም። በተጨማሪም፣ የ2012 ደንብ ማሻሻያው ከጠቅላላ ጉባኤ አባላት ከሁለት ሦስተኛ ባላነሰ የአባላት የይሁንታ ድምጽ አልጸደቀም።
11. ሴፕቴምበር 30 ቀን 2015 ዶክተር ጌታቸው መታፈሪያ፣ አቶ ሺመልስ አረጋ፣ ወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ ደበላ፣አቶ ፍሬሕይወት በቀለ፣ ወይዘሪት ትጓደድ ከበደ፣ አቶ መላኩ ሚሼልና ዶክተር አማረ ካሣዬ ከምሽቱ 1000 ፒኤም ላይ የቦርድ የስልክ ኮንፈረንስ ጠርተው ነበር። በዚሁ ስብሰባ እነዚህ ሰባት ግለሰቦች ይህን ክስ በቤተ
ክርስቲያኗ ስም ክስ ለመመስረትና ለዚህም ማስፈጸሚያ እንዲሆን ከቤተ ክርስቲያኗ ተቀማጭ ገንዘብ $300000 ወጭ እንዲደረግ ወስነዋል።
12. እነዚህ ግለሰቦች፣ ለቦርዱ ቋሚ አባላትና በቦርዱ ውስጥ የካህናት ተወካዮች ለሆኑት ግለሰቦች ማለትም፣ለአባት ወርቅነህ ኃይሌ የቤተ ክርስቲያኗ የበላይ ጠባቂ ካህን፣ ለከሐሊ ወንዳፈረው የቤተ ክርስቲያኗ መሥራች፣ ለአባት ኃይሉ ዘለቀ የካህናት ተወካይና ለመንገሻ አቻምየለህ ለሰንበት ትምህርት ቤቱ ተወካይ ስለስብሰባው አላስታወቋቸውም። በዚያች የሴፕቴምበር 30 ምሽት ለእነዚህ አባላት የስልክ ጥሪ አድርጎ ግለሰቦቹ በስብሰባው እንዲሳተፉ ዕድል ለመስጠት የሞከረም የለም። ወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ፣ እነዚህ ግለሰቦች “መፈንቅለ መንግሥት ስለፈጸሙና ” “ከዚያኛው ወገን ” ስለሆኑ አልተጠሩም ስትል መስክራለች።
16. ይህ ክስ እንዲቀርብ ከወሰኑት መካከል ሦስቱ ሰዎች ማለትም ዶክተር ጌታቸው መታፈሪያ፣ አቶ ሺመልስ አረጋና ወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ ደበላ በቦርድ አባልነት የተመረጡት ኦገስት 5 ቀን 2009 ነበር። ሴፕቴምበር 30 ቀን 2015 ላይ በቦርድ አባልነት ከተመረጡ ስድስት ዓመት አልፏቸው ነበር።
17. የዶክተር ጌታቸው መታፈሪያ፣ የአቶ ሺመልስ አረጋና የወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ ደበላ የሁለት ዓመት የአገልግሎት የተፈጸመው በኦገስት 2011 ቢሆንም ግለሰቦቹ የቦርድ አባላት እንደሆኑ በመምሰል ልዩ ልዩ ተግባራትን ማከናውን ቀጥለዋል።
18. ቦርዱ በ2011 ምርጫ ሳያካሂድ ቀርቷል። የአባላት ጠቅላላ ጉባኤም ምርጫ እንዳይካሄድ ወይም ምርጫው ለሌላ ጊዜ እንዲተላለፍ የወሰነው ነገር አልነበረም።
19. ቦርዱ በ2012ም ምርጫ ሳያካሂድ ቀርቷል። በዚህም ጊዜ ዶክተር ጌታቸው፣ አቶ ሺመልስና ወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ
ከሦስት ዓመት በላይ የቦርድ አባላት እንደሆኑ በመምሰል ልዩ ልዩ ተግባራትን ማከናውን ቀጥለዋል።
20. ጁላይ 7 ቀን 2012 የአባላት ጠቅላላ ጉባኤ የቦርድ ምርጫ ለሌላ ጊዜ እንዲተላለፍ የወሰነ ይመስላል። ዶክተር ጌታቸው እንደ ቦርድ ሊቀ መንበር በመሆን የ2012 ምርጫ እንዲሰረዝና የሱ የአቶ ሺመልስና የወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ የአገልግሎት ዘመን ለተጨማሪ ሁለት ዓመታት በጉባኤው እንዲራዘም ይፈቅዳል። የ1966 ደንብ
የምርጫ ድንጋጌዎች ከሚያዙት ውጭ እንዲሠራ የሚፈቀደው ደንቡ ራሱ በሁለት ሦስተኛ የጠቅላላ ጉባኤ አባላት የአዎንታ ድምጽ ሲሻሻልና ማሻሻያውም ምርጫ መራዘምን ሲፈቅድ ብቻ ነው። በዚህ ወቅት ደንቡን ለማሻሻል የተደረገ ጥረት የለም።
21. ቦርዱ በ2013 ምርጫ እንዲካሄድ አላደረገም። የአባላት ጠቅላላ ጉባኤም ምርጫ እንዳይካሄድ ወይም ምርጫው ለሌላ ጊዜ እንዲተላለፍ የወሰነው ነገር አልነበረም።
22. በጁላይ 27 ቀን 2014 እና በማርች 29 ቀን 2015 ቦርዱ ምርጫ ለማድረግ ተንቀሳቅሷል። እነዚህ ምርጫዎች ግን ሕጋዊ አይደሉም ምክንያቱም ምርጫዎቹ የተካሄዱት በአባላት ጠቅላላ ጉባኤ ባልጸደቀውና የአባልነትን መመዘኛዎች በለዋወጠው በ2012 ደንብ መሠረት በመሆኑ ነው። ……………
23. የጁላይ 27 ቀን 2014 ምርጫዎች፣ የአባላት ጠቅላላ ጉባኤዎች በኦክቶበር ወር ይካሄዳሉ የሚለውን የ1996 ደንብም ይጥሳሉ። ……………
25. በጁላይ 27 ቀን 2014 ቦርዱ ሕጋዊ ምርጫ ያላካሄደ ቢሆንም ይህ ክስ እንዲመሠረት ድምጽ ከሰጡት አንዱ አቶ መላኩ ሚሼል የተመረጥሁት በዚያን ቀን ነው ይላል። ዶክተር ጌታቸው፣ አቶ ሺመልስና ወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽም ከተመረጡበት ከ 2009 ጀምሮ ለአምስት ዓመታት ያህል መደዳውን በቦርዱ ውስጥ ካገለገሉ በኋላ ለመጀመሪያ ጊዜ በዚሁ ዕለት በድጋሚ ተመርጠናል ይላሉ።
26. ቦርዱ የማርች 29 ቀን 2015 ምርጫዎችም ምልዓተ ጉባኤ ባለበት ሁኔታ የተከናወኑ መሆናቸውን በማስረጃ አላረጋገጠም። ……….
27. ቦርዱ በማርች 29 ቀን 2015 ሕጋዊ ምርጫ ያላካሄደ ቢሆንም ይህ ክስ እንዲመሠረት ድምጽ የሰጡት አቶ ፍሬሕይወት በቀለና ወይዘሪት ትጓደድ ከበደ የተመረጥነው በዚሁ ቀን ነው ይላሉ።
28. ከሣሽ፣ በማርች 29 ቀን 2015 በተካሄዱት ምርጫዎች የተሳተፉት መራጮች የ1996ቱን መተደሪያ ደንብ መመዘኛዎች የሚያሟሉ አባላት እንደነበሩና ምርጫም ለማካሄድ የሚያስችል ምልዓተ ጉባዔ ስለመኖሩ የሚያረጋግጥ አንድም የምርጫ ሰነድ በማስረጃነት አላቀረበም።
29. የ 2012 የደንብ ማሻሻያ በአግባቡ የጸደቀ ነው ቢባልም እንኳ የዶክተር ጌታቸው፣ የአቶ ሺመልስና የወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ የቦርድ የአገልግሎት ዘመን ይህ ክስ እንዲመሠረት ድምጽ ከመስጠታቸው በፊት አብቅቷል ምክንያቱም ለቦርድ አባልነት ከተመረጡ ስድስት ዓመት አልፏቸዋልና። የ 2012 የደንብ ማሻሻያ አንድ
ግለሰብ በቦርዱ ውስጥ እስከ ሦስት ጊዜ ድረስ በመመረጥ ሁለት ሁለት ዓመት (ማለትም በጠቅላላው ስድስት ዓመት ）እንዲያገለግል ይፈቅዳል። የ1996ቱ ደንብ የቦርድ የአገልግሎት ዘመንን በሁለት ዓመት ይወስነዋል። የተጠቀሱት ግለሰቦች ይህን ገደብ ካንድ ጊዜ በላይ ጥሰዋል።
30. ዶክተር አማረ ካሣዬን የቤተ ክርስቲያን አስተዳዳሪ አድርጎ ያቆያቸው ቦርድ፣ ወይ አለአግባብ ማለትም ከደንብ ውጭ የተመረጡ አለበለዚያም የአገልግሎት ዘመናቸው ካለቀም በኋላ ቦርዱ ውስጥ የቆዩ አባሎች ጥርቅም ነበር። ይህ ክስ እንዲመሠረት ድምጽ የሰጡት ዶክተር አማረ በያዙት መደበኛ ኃላፊነት መነሾ የቦርድ
አባል ነበሩ።
31. ይህ ክስ እንዲመሠረት ደግፈው ድምጽ የሰጡት የቦርድ አባላት ሕጋዊ በሆን መንገድ ከተመረጡት የቦርድ አባላት ውስጥ በቁጥር አነስተኞቹ ናቸው።
የሕግ መደምደሚያ፤
ጊዜያዊ የእገዳ ትእዛዝ መስጠት ወይም አለመስጠት ጉዳዩን ለሚመለከተው የመጀመሪያ ፍርድ ቤት ሙሉ ሥልጣንና ሚዛናዊ አስተያየት የተተወ ነው። ፍርድ ቤቶች እንዲህ ያሉ የእገዳ ትእዛዞች የሚጠይቅ ከሳሽ
（1） ባቀረበው ክስ ፍሬ ነገር ቢገፋበት ሊረታ እንደሚችል ፍንጭ የሚሰጡ ምክንያቶች መኖራቸውን ካላመኑበት፤
（2）ክርክሩ እየተካሄደ እያለ ባለበት ወቅት ጊዜያዊ የእገዳ ትእዛዝ ባለመሰጠቱ ከሳሽ የማይጠገን ጉዳት ይደርስበታል ብለው ማመን ካልቻሉ፤
（3）ጊዜያዊ እገዳ ትእዛዝ ባለመሰጠቱ በከሳሽ ላይ የሚደርሰው ጉዳት ትእዛዙ ቢሰጥ በተከሳሽ ላይ ከሚደርሰው ጉዳት ይልቅ የሚያመዝን መሆኑን ካላመኑበት፣ እና እንደ አግባብነቱ
(4) የተጠየቀው ትእዛዝ ቢሰጥ ማኅበራዊ ጠቀሜታ የሌለው መሆኑን ሲገነዘቡ፣ የእገዳውን ጥያቄ ውድቅ ያደርጉታል። ………..
በዚህ የክስ ሂደት ቤተ ክርስቲያኗ የማይጠገን ጉዳት ሊደርስባት እንደሚችል ወይም ሌላ የኃይል ሥራ እንደሚፈጸምባት ወይም በቤተ ክርስቲያኗ አገልግሎት ላይ በኃይል የማደናቀፍ ድርጊት ሊፈጸም እንደሚችል ከሣሽ አላረጋገጠም። እንዲያውም ፍርድ ቤቱ 10 ቀን ሙሉ ማስረጃ በሰማበት ወቅት አብዛኞቹ ተከሳሾች በስም እንኳ ያልተጠቀሱ ሲሆን አንዳች ዛቻ ወይም የኃይል ሥራ ለመፈጸማቸው ከሳሽ ማስረጃ አቅርቦ አላረጋገጠም። በተቃራኒው፣ የቤተ ክርስቲያኗ አገልግሎት ሰላማዊ በሆነ ሁኔታ የቀጠለ ሲሆን ደጆቿም በሰላም አምልኮተ እግዚአብሔር ለመፈጸም ለመጡ ሁሉ ክፍት ሆነው ቆይተዋል።
የከሳሽ ምስክሮች፣ ዛቻ ወይም የኃይል ድርጊት የፈጸመ ወይም አንድ ሰው በሌላ ሰው ላይ የኃይል ሥራ እንዲፈጽም ያበረታታ ወይም ያነሳሳ አንድም ተከሳሽ እንደሌለ በተመሳሳይ ቃል አረጋግጠዋል። “ከተከሳሾች ጋር ያበሩ ግለሰቦች” በኃይል ሥራ ተሳትፈዋል የሚለው የከሳሽ አነጋገር ክሱን የሚያፈርስ ጅምላ አነጋገር ሲሆን ከሳሽ በነዚህ በስም ባልተጠቀሱት ግለሰቦችና በአንድም ተከሳሽ መካካል ያለውን ግንኙነት አላስረዳም።
በተጨማሪም አንድም ተከሳሽ የቤተ ክርስቲያን አገልግሎት በማደናቀፍ ድርጊት ስለመሳተፉ ማስረጃ አልቀረበም። በቅርቡ ተፈጸመ የተባለ እንዲህ ያለው ድርጊት ከዘጠኝ ወር በፊት ኖቬምበር 15፣ 2015 የተፈጸመው ድርጊት ነው። ሳርጀንት ሊኦ ስከሊ፣ በዚሁ ዕለት በቤተ ክርስቲያኒቱ ውስጥ ተገኝቶ የነበረው የፖሊስ ባልደረባ፣ በሰዎች መካከል መገፋፋትና መጐሻሸም የተመለከተም ቢሆን፣ የኃይል ድርጊት ስለመፈጸሙ ሪፖርት አላቀረበም፤ ከተከሣሾች መካከል አንዳቸውም በዚህ ድርጊት እንዳልተሳተፉና እንዲያውም በግርግሩ አካባቢ አንዳቸውም እንዳልነበሩ በምስክርነት አረጋግጧል። ……በተቃራኒው የከሳሽ ምስክሮች፣ ጳውሎስ አማረንና ዓለም እሸት ሙሉነህን ጨምሮ ደጋፊዎቻቸው ሜጋፎን፣ የድምጽ ማጉያና ሳይረኖችን በመያዝ የቤተ ክርስቲያኗን አገልግሎት ለማደናቀፍ እንደሞከሩ፣ የዶክተር አማረ ካሳዬ ዘመድ የሆነ ግለሰብ የድምጽ ማጉያ በሕፃን ልጅ ስትሮለር ውስጥ ደብቆ ለማስገባት እንደሞከረ አምነዋል። ተከሳሽ ያልሆኑ የቤተ ክርስቲያኒቱ አባላት በዚህ መልክ የቤተ ክርስቲያን አገለግሎት ለማደናቀፍ የሞከሩ ግለሰቦች ቤተ ክርስቲያን እንዳይገቡ ያገዱ ሲሆን ሰላማዊ በሆነ መንገድ አምልኮተ እግዚአብሔር ለመፈጸም የመጡ ሁሉ ግን በቤት ክርስቲያኗ ውስጥ ተስተናግደዋል። በተጨማሪም ከተከሳሾች መካከል አገልግሎት ለማደናቀፍ የመጡ ግለሰቦችን አትገቡም በሚል የመከላከል ድርጊት የተሳተፈ የለም።
ከዘጠኝ ወራት በላይ በቤተ ክርስቲያን ውስጥ የአገልግሎት መደናቀፍ አልተፈጠረም። በተጨማሪም በዚህ ወቅት በቤተ ክርስቲያን ውስጥ ምንም ዓይነት ግጭት አለመታየቱ የጊዜያዊ እገዳ ትእዛዝ መሰጠቱን አስፈላጊ የሚያደርግ አሳሳቢና ሊደርስ የሚችል አደጋ እንዳልነበረ ያሳያል። ክሱ በተካሄደበት ወቅት ሁሉ ቤተ ክርስቲያኗ ሰላማዊ የሆነ ሃይማኖታዊ አገልግሎት ስታቀርብ ቆይታልች። ……
ከሳሽ ያቀረበውና በመፍትሔነት የጠየቀው የእገዳ ትእዛዝ ተከሳሾችን የሚጎዳና ማኅበራዊ ጠቀሜታን የሚቃረን ነው። ተከሳሾች ወደ ቤተ ክርስቲያን ከመግባት እንዲታገዱ ከሳሽ ያቀረበው ጥያቄ ተከሳሾች በአምልኮተ እግዚአብሔር አገልግሎት ተሳታፊ እንዳይሆኑና የሃይማኖት መብታቸው ተጠቃሚ እንዳይሆኑ ያግዳቸዋል። በተጨማሪም አስተዳደርን ጨምሮ ተከሳሾችን ከሌሎች የቤተ ክርስቲያን ተግባራት ማገድ እነሱንም ማኅበራዊ ጠቀሜታንም ይጎዳል።
ከሳሽ በክሱ ቢገፋበት በፍሬ ነገር የመርታት ዕድል እንዳለው አላስረዳም። ዶክተር ጌታቸው መታፈሪያ፣ ሺመልስ አረጋ፣ ወሰንየለሽ ደበላ፣ ትጓደድ ከበደ፣ መላኩ ሚሼል፣ ፍሬሕይወት በቀለና ዶክተር አማረ ካሳዬ ይህ ክስ እንዲመሠረት ደግፈው ድምጽ ሰጥተዋል። እነዚህ ግለሰቦች ሕጋዊ በሆነ መንገድ ለቦርድ አባልነት ባላመመረጣቸው እና ወይም የአገልግሎት ዘመን ገደባቸው ካለፈ በኋላም በቦርዱ ውስጥ በመቆየታቸው በቤተ ክርስቲያን ስም ይህን እርምጃ ለመውሰድ ሥልጣን አልነበራቸውም። ዶክተር ጌታቸው መታፈሪያ፣ ሺመልስ አረጋና ወሰንየለሽ ደበላ በ 1996 ቱም ይሁን በ 2012ቱ መተዳደሪያ ደንቦች መሰረት የተደነገገውን የሁለት ዓመት የአገልግሎት የጊዜ ገደብ አሳልፈው በቦርዱ ውስጥ በመቆየታቸው
ሕጋዊ የቦርድ አባላት አልነበሩም። የሁለት ዓመት የጊዜ ገደባቸው ያከተመው በ ኦገስት 2011 ቢሆንም ምርጫ እንዲካሄድ አላደረጉም። ዶክተር ጌታቸው መታፈሪያ፣ ሺመልስ አረጋና ወሰንየለሽ ደበላ የ 2012 ቱን ምርጫ ሰርዘው የአገልግሎት ዘመናቸውን ለሁለት ተጨማሪ ዓመታት ጁላይ 22 ቀን 2012 አራዝመዋል።
የ1996 ቱ መተዳደሪያ ደንብም ይሁን የ 2012 ቱ ደንብ የቦርድ ምርጫ ለሌላ ጊዜ እንዲተላላፍ አይፈቅድም። በ ጁላይ 22 ቀን 2012 ምርጫም ወቅት ከቤተ ክርስቲያኒቱ አባላት ውስጥ ሁለት ሦስተኛው አባላት በስብሰባው ላይ አልተገኙም ነበር። መተዳደሪያ ደንቡን በማሻሻል ምርጫ ለማስተላለፍ ይህን ያህል አባላት መገኘት ነበረባቸው። በተጨማሪም ዶክተር ጌታቸው መታፈሪያ፣ ሺመልስ አረጋና ወሰንየለሽ ደበላ እያንዳንዳቸው የተመረጡት በ ኦገስት 2009 ሲሆን ይህን ክስ ለመመስረት ድምጽ በሰጡበት ጊዜ በቦርዱ ውስጥ በተከታታይ ከስድስት ዓመት በላይ በማስመሰል ቆይተዋል፣ እንከተለዋለን የሚሉት የ 2012 ማሻሻያ ደንብም ከሚፈቅደው ከከፍተኛው የጊዜ ገደብ በላይም ቆይተዋል።
አቶ መላኩ፣ዶክተር ጌታቸው፣ አቶ አረጋና ወይዘሮ ወሰንየለሽ በተጨማሪም፣ ተመረጡ የተባሉበት የ ጁላይ 27፣ 2014 ስብሰባ ከቤተ ክርስቲያኒቱ አባላት አንድ ሦስተኛው ያልተገኙበትና ምልዓተ ጉባኤ ያልነበረበት ስብሰባ በመሆኑና ምርጫውም የ1996 ቱ ደንብ በሚደነግገው መሰረት በ ኦክቶበር ወር ባለመካሄዱ ሕጋዊ የቦርድ አባላት አልነበሩም። ……….
አቶ ፍሬሕይወት እና ወይዘሪት ትጓደድም ተመረጡ የተባለበት የ ማርች 29 ፣ 2015 ስብሰባ ከቤተ ክርስቲያኒቱ አባላት አንድ ሦስተኛው ያልተገኙበትና ምልዓተ ጉባኤ ያልነበረበት ስብሰባ በመሆኑና ምርጫውም የ1996 ቱ ደንብ በሚደነግገው መሰረት በ ኦክቶበር ወር ባለመካሄዱ ሕጋዊ የቦርድ አባላት አልነበሩም። ……….
በነዚህ ሁሉ ምክንያቶች ከቦርዱ ሕጋዊ አባላት አብዛኞቹ ይህን ክስ አላጸደቁትም።
የስብሰባ ጥሪ በአግባቡ ለሁሉም የቦርድ አባላት ባለመተላለፉ፣ ሴፕቴምበር 30፣ 2015 በተደረው ስብሰባ ይህን ክስ ለመመስረት የተሰጠው ውሳኔ በተጨማሪም ሕገ ወጥ ነው። የ1996 ቱ ደንብ ለተለዩ ወይም ለአስቸኳይ ስብሰባዎች የ 24 ሰዓት የሰብሰባ ጥሪ እንዲተላለፍ ያዛል። የ ዲሲ ሕግም ለማናቸውም የቦርድ ስብሰባ፣ ለቦርድ አባላት በሙሉ በአግባቡ ጥሪ እንዲተላለፍ ያዛል።
የሴፕቴምበር 30፣ 2015 ን ቴለኮንፈረንስ ያዘጋጁ ግለሰቦች ለቦርድ አባላት በሙሉ በአግባቡ ጥሪ ካለማድረጋቸውም በላይ የክሱን መመስረት ሊቃወሙ ይችላሉ ያሏቸውንም ግለሰቦች አግልለዋቸዋል። ለአባት ወርቅነህ ኃይሌ የቤተ ክርስቲያኗ የበላይ ጠባቂ ካህን፣ ለከሐሊ ወንዳፈረው የቤተ ክርስቲያኗ መሥራች፣ ለአባት ኃይሉ ዘለቀ የካህናት ተወካይና ለመንገሻ አቻምየለህ ለሰንበት ትምህርት ቤቱ ተወካይ የስብሰባው ጥሪ አልተላለፈላቸውም። በዚያች የሴፕቴምበር 30 ምሽት ለእነዚህ አባላት የስልክ ጥሪ አድርጎ ግለሰቦቹ በቦርዱ ስብሰባ እንዲሳተፉ ዕድል ለመስጠት የሞከረም የለም።
በመሆኑም፣ ጊዜያዊ የእገዳ ትእዛዝ እንዲሰጥ መሟላት ካለባቸው ሕጋዊ ሁኔታዎች ከሳሽ አንዳቸውንም ማሟላት ባለመቻሉ፣ ጊዜያዊ እገዳ እንዲሰጥ የቀረበው ማመልከቻ ተቀባይነት የለውም።
ፍርዱ ዛሬ ኦገስት 29፣ 2016 ተመዝግቧል።
ዳኛ ሞሪስ ሮስ
ዲስትሪክት ኦፍ ኮሎምቢያ ሱፒርየር ኮርት
*****************************
To anyone who wants to read the original english version:
Page 1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
RE’ESE ADBARAT DEBRE SELAM )
KIDEST MARIAM ETHIOPIAN, et al. ))
Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2015 CA 007574 B
) Judge Maurice Ross
v. ))
HABTE, AKLILU, et al. ))
Defendants. )
_______________________________________________ )
OPINION
Plaintiff Re’ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidest Mariam Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Church, Inc. (“Church”) is a District of Columbia non-profit member corporation, Tr. 264 (1-
12-16), governed by an elected Board of Trustees (“Board” or “BOT”) acting under the
Bylaws of the Church. Defendants are twenty-three members and/or former members of
the Church. Plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief against the Defendants. Plaintiff
claims Defendants have threatened or committed acts of violence, disrupted Church
services, taken physical control of the Church, and failed to remedy conditions which
present an immediate threat to the safety and well-being of the Church and the public.
Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to relinquish any Church property, surrender
control of the Church, and desist from attending Church services. After ten days of
evidentiary hearings, the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. None of the Defendants have threatened or committed any assault or act of
violence. Tr. 27-28 (2-16-16); Tr. 32 (5-12-16); Tr. 73-74 (2-11-16).
Page 2
2. None of the Defendants have forcibly removed any person from the Church or prevented any person from entering the Church or worshiping. Tr. 31-32 (5-12-16).
3. None of the Defendants have incited others to commit acts of violence. Tr.40-41 (5-12-16).
4. None of the Defendants participated in any disruption at the Church, the most recent of which is alleged to have occurred more than nine months ago on November
15, 2015. Tr. 40-41 (5-12-16). Sergeant Leo Scully, the police officer who was at the Church on that date, testified that while he observed some pushing and shoving, he did not
identify any Defendant as being involved or even present during the altercation. Tr. 31-32(11-23-15).
5. The Church regularly has continued to hold religious services since the lawsuit was filed in October 2015. Tr. 32 (5-12-16). Since January 2016, spiritual services have been “very peaceful,” and the Church has been a “very nice place to worship.” Tr. 35
(5-12-16). Church services have been described as “going beautifully.” Tr. 33 (5-12-16).
6. Church members have invested money and labor into revitalizing the Church by painting the interior for the first time in twenty-seven years, and by planting flowers and grass. Tr. 33 (5-12-16).
7. On August 4, 1996, the General Assembly of Church members (“GA”) adopted a set of bylaws to govern the Church (“1996 Bylaws”). DE101
8. The validity of the 1996 Bylaws is not disputed. Tr. 42:1-6 (2-16-16).
9. The 1996 Bylaws require that “[t]hese by-laws may be amended by an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the member of the General Assembly.” DE10
1 Defendant’s Exhibit 10.
Page 3
Art. XVIII. Additionally, “a quorum of two-thirds of the members shall be required for a meeting called to amend these by-laws.” Id. ; Tr. 59:10-13 (10-28-15).
10. On June 10, 2012, the BOT presented a set of amendments (“2012 Amendments”) to the 1996 Bylaws during a GA meeting. PE36.2 The Church had 390 members at the time and 204 members attended the June 10th meeting. PE36. The June 10,
2012 meeting failed to satisfy the 1996 Bylaws two-thirds quorum requirement. PE36.
The 2012 Amendments were never approved by an affirmative vote of not less than two thirds of GA members. PE36.
11. On September 30, 2015, Dr. Getachew Metaferia, Mr. Shemeles Arega, Ms.Wessenyelesh Debela, Mr. Frehiwot Bekele, Mr. Tegudede Kebede, Mr. Melaku Michel and Dr. Amare Kassaye convened a phone conference of the Board at 10:00 p.m. During this meeting, these seven individuals voted to initiate this lawsuit in the name of the Church and to use $300,000 of the Church funds to fund the litigation. PE11.
12. These individuals did not provide notice of this meeting to the permanent members of the BOT and those elected by the clergy, including Father Workeneh Haile, the Church’s father figure priest; Kehali Wondaferew, the Church’s founder; Father Hailu
Zeleke Lebu, the trustee elected by the clergy; and Mengesah Achamyeleh, the trustee elected by the Youth Sunday School Association (“YSSA”). PE11; PE32 ¶ 18. On the evening
of September 30th, no one attempted to call these individuals to provide an opportunity to participate in the meeting. Tr. 85:1-18 (10-28-15). Ms. Debela testified that these individuals were not called because they had “done a coup d’état” and were “on the other
side.” Tr. 84.9, 24 (10-28-15). 2 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 36.
Page 4
13. The BOT shall consist of not more than eleven members, eight of which are elected by the GA. DE10 Art. XI.
14. The BOT term of office is two years. DE10 Art. XII.
15. Elections are staggered to elect half of the elected BOT members each year. DE10. Art. XII.
16. Three people who initiated this lawsuit, Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela, were elected to the BOT on August 5, 2009. PE20; Tr. 11:20-12:8 (2-16-16). By September 30, 2015, over six years had passed since they were elected to the BOT. Tr. 51:2-15 (11-23-15); Tr. 12 & 17 (2-16-16).
17. The two-year terms of Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega and Ms. Debela expired in August 2011, but all three continued to act as if they were BOT members. Tr. 12, 17, and 57
(2-16-16).
18. The BOT failed to hold elections in 2011. Tr. 12 and 57 (2-16-16). The GA did not vote to cancel or postpone these elections. Tr. 14:1-16 (2-16-16).
19. The BOT failed to hold elections in 2012. Tr. 46:3-24 (11-23-15). Tr. 59:15- 25 (2-16-16). By this time, Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela had continued to act as if they were BOT members for over three years.
20. On July 7, 2012, the GA apparently agreed to postpone BOT elections. Tr. 59:21-25 (2-16-16). Dr. Metaferia, acting as the BOT Chairman, permitted the cancelation of the 2012 elections and the extension of his term and the terms of Mr. Arega and Ms.
Debela for an additional two years. Tr. 136:23-139:10, 142:25-144:8 (1-11-16). The 1996 Bylaws did not permit deviations from the election requirements unless two-thirds of the GA members voted to amend the Bylaws, which did not happen. DE10 Art. XVIII.
Page 5
21. The BOT did not hold elections in 2013. Tr. 57:12-18 (2-16-16). The GA did not vote to cancel or postpone these elections.
22. The BOT purported to hold elections on July 27, 2014, and March 29, 2015. PE9, PE10. These elections were invalid because the BOT applied membership requirements under the 2012 Amendments that were never approved by the GA. Tr. 51:7-
54:25 (2-16-16); DE2, Decl. G Metaferia ¶ 6.3 To qualify as a member under the 1996 Bylaws, a person must “pay tithes to the Church.” DE10 Art. V. The 2012 Amendments
place greater restrictions on membership, including the requirement of a monthly “membership fee.” PE19 Art. 5.1. The 1996 Bylaws further grant all members the right to vote in elections of BOT members, provided they “have been financial contributors of
record for at least six months preceding any such elections.” DE Art. VI. The 2012 Amendments, however, state that a member may only vote in elections if he/she has been “a member for 6 months and fulfill[ed] his/her membership obligations.” PE19 Art. 8. By
3 Plaintiff concedes that two-thirds of the GA did not vote to approve the 2012 Amendments, and therefore, the 1996 Bylaws remain the Church’s governing authority. Pl. PFC 2. Plaintiff’s citation to the D.C. Code as support for the BOT’s improper ratification of the 2012 Amendments is misplaced because the Code does not
apply where, as here, the organization’s bylaws define specific criteria for amendment. Id. at 2-3. D.C. Code §29-405.24(e) provides that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in the bylaws, when a meeting that has been adjourned for lack of a quorum is reconvened, those members present . . . constitute a quorum.” Id. (emphasis added). This provision is inapplicable here because Article XVIII of the 1996 Bylaws expressly requires that
they may only be amended (i) where a two-thirds quorum of the GA is present to conduct the vote and (ii) at least two-thirds of the GA members vote to amend the Bylaws. DE10 Art. XVIII. Article XVIII also expressly prohibits the application of less restrictive quorum requirements for the purpose of amending the Bylaws. Id.
While Article VIII(4)—which concerns general meetings only requiring a quorum of one-third of the members and makes no reference to amending the Bylaws—mirrors the more relaxed quorum requirements of §29-405.24(e), Article XVIII expressly supersedes the less restrictive quorum requirement stated in Article
VIII: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article X(3)3 hereof, a quorum of two-thirds of the members shall be required for a meeting called to amend these Bylaws.” DE10 Art. VIII, XVIII. The more stringent measures specifically required for amending the Bylaws under Article XVIII trump the general meeting standards under
Article VIII or §29-405.24(e). Id. Art. XVIII.
Plaintiff’s focus on the quorum requirement is a diversionary tactic. Regardless of the quorum provisions or their interpretation, the Bylaws also explicitly provide that they may only be amended “by an
affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the members in a General Assembly.” Id. Plaintiff concedes that did not happen. Pl. PFC 2. Because Plaintiff’s concessions establish that the 2012 Amendments were not ratified in accordance with Article XVIII, the 1996 Bylaws remain the Church’s governing authority.
Page 6
applying the invalid 2012 definition of membership, the BOT did not hold proper elections and excluded members who paid tithes and other financial contributions (including funds to construct a new Church building), even when those amounts frequently exceeded the nominal $20 membership fee. Tr. 52:7-10 (2-11-16).
23. The elections on July 27, 2014, and March 29, 2015, also violated the requirement in the 1996 Bylaws to hold GA meetings in October. PE9; DE10 Art. VIII.
24. Even if the BOT could have used the 2012 definition of membership to determine whether there was a quorum, the BOT failed to establish that a proper quorum was achieved on July 27, 2014, because the election report fails to identify the number of
members in the Church. PE9. The BOT’s records also reflect that it failed to accurately account for the number of members. The BOT identified that there were 515 members in May 2014 (PE7; Tr. 335:17-19 (2-4-16)) and 518 members on January 8, 2015 (PE8; Tr.
336:10-12 (2-4-16)). However, the translated copy of minutes from a July 13, 2014 meeting contains inaccuracies4 concerning the total number of members and inexplicably indicates that there were only 414 members—approximately 100 members fewer than just
before and just after the election. PE25; Tr. 334-35 (2-4-16); Tr. 15:11-16:9 (2-16-16). Therefore, the BOT held the July 2014 election on the incorrect assumption that there were
fewer members requiring a smaller quorum than was in fact the case.
25. Despite the BOT’s failure to hold a proper election on July 27, 2014, Mr. Michel who voted to initiate this suit, claims to have been elected on that date. PE9. Dr. 4 The translated copy of the July 13, 2014 minutes states that the Church had 460 members (PE25), but Ms.Debela testified that this is a typo and the original Amharic minutes indicate the correct number is 414members (PE27).
Page 7
Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela also claim to have been re-elected for the first time after having served on the BOT continuously for five years following their election in 2009.
26. The BOT also failed to establish that a proper quorum was achieved to hold the March 29, 2015 election. The election report does not specify how many members belonged to the Church. PE10. However, the March 29th election report indicates that only
130 votes were cast for the top vote getter, Legesse Tessema. PE10. Minutes from a March 7, 2015 meeting state that the Church had 564 members, which would require a quorum of
188 members. DE8. The translated copy of a second, conflicting set of minutes from the March 29, 2015 meeting indicate there were 532 members, which would require a quorum of at least 178 members, and this second set of minutes inaccurately states that 175 members were required to achieve a quorum. PE26; Tr. 338:5-18 (2-4-16). Ms. Debela explained this inaccuracy was a “typo” but could not confirm whether there were actually 178 members present or whether that was also a typo. Tr. 338:5-18 (2-4-16).
27. Despite the BOT’s failure to hold a proper election on March 29, 2015, Mr. Bekele and Mr. Kebede, who voted to initiate this suit, claim to have been elected on that date. PE10; PE26.
28. Plaintiff did not introduce into evidence any written ballots to establish that the persons who voted at elections were members under the 1996 Bylaws criteria and that there was a quorum to hold the elections. DE10 Art. IX.4.
29. Even if the 2012 Amendments had been properly approved, Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela’s terms on the BOT expired before they voted to file this lawsuit
because over six years had passed since they were elected to the BOT. Tr. 17:22-25 (2-16-
16). The 2012 Amendments permit an individual to serve on the BOT only for up to three consecutive two-year terms, and the 1996 Bylaws limit BOT terms to two years, which they had exceeded more than once. PE19 Art. 11.3; DE10 Art. XII.
Page 8
30. The BOT, comprised of members who either had been improperly elected or had remained on the BOT beyond the limits of their terms, retained Dr. Kassaye as Church Administrator. Dr. Kassaye, who voted to initiate this lawsuit, was an ex officio member of the BOT. DE10 Art. XI; Tr. 155:17-18 (1-18-16).
31. Less than a majority of validly elected BOT members voted to file this lawsuit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“The decision to grant or deny preliminary injunction relief is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Stamenich v. Markovic, 462 A.2d 452, 456 (D.C. 1983) (citation omitted). Courts must deny motions seeking the injunctive relief requested where
the moving party has failed to demonstrate “(1) that there is a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits; (2) that he is in danger of suffering irreparable harm during the pendency of the action; (3) that more harm will result to him from the denial of the injunction than will result to the defendant from its grant; and in appropriate cases, (4) that the public interest will not be disserved by the issuance of the requested order.” Wieck
v. Sterenbuch, 350 A.2d 384, 387-8 (D.C. 1976). “An injunction should not be issued unless the threat of injury is imminent and well-founded, and unless the injury itself would be incapable of being redressed after a final hearing on the merits.” Id. (emphasis added).
Plaintiff failed to establish that the Church is in any danger of suffering irreparable harm during the pendency of this action or any likelihood that its accusations of violence or harmful disruption will prevail on the merits. See Stamenich, 462 A.2d at 456. Indeed,
Page 9
throughout ten days of hearing testimony, most of the Defendants were not even mentioned by name, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a single threat or act of violence by any of the Defendants. See Tr. 73-74(2-11-16); Tr. 27-28 (2-16-16); Tr. 32 (5-12-16). To the contrary, Church services continue to be peaceful and remain open to all who wish to worship in peace. Tr. 32 & 35 (5-12-16). Plaintiff’s witnesses consistently affirmed that no Defendant has threatened or committed any act of violence, and no Defendant has encouraged or incited violence by any
other person. Tr. 73:16-74:23 (2-11-16); Tr. 27:21-28:2 (2-16-16); Tr. 19:3-6 (1-5-16). Plaintiff’s allegations that “persons affiliated with Defendants” had engaged in violence are fatally nonspecific, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any connection between these unnamed persons and any Defendant. Tr. 20 & 26 (1-5-16). There also is no evidence that any Defendant participated in any disruption at the Church, the most recent of which is alleged to have occurred more than nine months ago on November 15, 2015. Tr. 20:13-21:8, 62:5-15 (1-5-16); Tr. 35:5-10 (5-12-16). Sergeant Leo Scully, the police officer who was at the Church on that date, testified that while he observed some pushing and shoving, he did not report any acts of violence and did not identify any Defendant as being involved or even present during the altercation. Tr. 31-32 (11-23-16). To the contrary, Plaintiff’s witnesses conceded that its supporters, including Paulos Amare and Alemeshet Muluneh, had disrupted Church services with megaphones, speakers, and sirens, and a relative of Dr. Amare Kassaye had attempted to enter the
Church with a speaker concealed in a child’s stroller. Tr. 26-29, 31-32, 43-44 (1-5-16). Non-Defendant members of the Church refused entry to persons who tried to disrupt services in this way, but all people were welcomed to worship peacefully inside the Church.
Page 10
Tr. 32 (11-23-15). Additionally, none of the Defendants participated in preventing disruptive persons from entering the Church. Tr. 35:11-22 (5-12-16). There have been no disruptions at the Church for more than nine months, and the complete absence of conflict at the Church demonstrates that no imminent threat exists, as
would be required to grant a TRO. Tr. 35:5-10 (5-12-16); see Wieck, 350 A.2d at 387-8. Throughout this entire proceeding, the Church has continued to hold peaceful religious services. Tr. 32-33 (5-12-16). Services have remained open to all, and attendance has
more than doubled since the lawsuit was filed. Tr. 32:24-33:2 (5-12-16). Supporters of the Plaintiff also have attended services and were welcomed by the Church. Tr. 35:11-22 (5-12-16). All Church functions have continued to operate efficiently, including the priesthood, Sunday School education, and so forth. Tr. 33:17-20 (5-12-16). Therefore, Plaintiff failed to justify the extraordinary relief it seeks. Plaintiff’s TRO Application seeks relief that would harm Defendants and would be contrary to the public interest. See Stamenich, 462 A.2d at 456. Plaintiff’s request to bar Defendants from entering the Church would preclude Defendants from attending worship services and from exercising their right of religious expression. In addition, excluding the Defendants from other Church activities, including management, would harm them and the
public interest. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of this lawsuit. Dr. Getachew Metaferia, Shemeles Arega, Wessenyelesh Debela, Tegudede Kebede,
Melaku Michel, Frehiwot Bekele, and Dr. Amare Kassaye voted to file this lawsuit. PE11. These individuals lacked authority to take this action on behalf of the Church because they were not properly elected to the BOT and/or had remained on the BOT beyond the limits of their terms.
Page 11
Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela also were not proper BOT members because each had remained on the BOT beyond the two-year term limits required by both the 1996 Bylaws and the 2012 Amendments. DE10 Art. XII; PE19 Art. 11.3. Their two-year
terms expired in August 2011, but they failed to hold elections in 2011. Tr. 12:19-20 (2-16-16). Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela then canceled the 2012 election and extended their terms for an additional two years on July 22, 2012. PE2; Tr. 40:19-24, 51:7-12 (11-23-15).
Neither the 1996 Bylaws nor the 2012 Amendments authorize skipping elections, and there was not a two-thirds majority of Church members present at the July 22, 2012 meeting, which would have been required to modify the Bylaws’ election requirements.
DE10 Art. XII; PE19 Art. 11.3; Tr. 58:10-12 (11-23-16). Additionally, Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela each was first elected in August 2009 and had, by the time they voted to file this lawsuit, purported to remain on the BOT continuously for more than six
years, the maximum time permitted by the 2012 Amendments they claimed to follow. PE20; PE19 Art. 11.3.
Mr. Michel, Dr. Metaferia, Mr. Arega, and Ms. Debela also were not valid BOT members because the July 27, 2014 meeting in which they purportedly were elected failed to achieve a proper one-third quorum of Church members and was not held in October as
required by the 1996 Bylaws. PE9; DE10 Art. VIII. Minutes of GA meetings taken within a few months of the July 2014 election (from May 18, 2014 and January 8, 2015) indicate the Church had between 515 and 518 members during this period, which would require approximately 172 members to achieve a one-third quorum. PE7, PE8, Tr. 335:17-19,
Page 12
336:10-12 (2-4-16). The minutes of the July 27, 2014 meeting indicate that only 155 members were present for the election, well short of the required quorum. PE9. Several months into the TRO hearing, Plaintiff produced minutes from a meeting on
July 13, 2014, that inexplicably show a significant temporary drop in membership only at the time of election to merely 460 members, which not coincidentally requires a quorum of
154 members. PE25. Confusing matters further, Ms. Debela testified that this was a typo, and the original Amharic document indicated the Church had only 414 members—but Plaintiff’s witnesses had no personal recollection of how many members belonged to the
Church or were present at these meetings. PE25; PE27; Tr. 334-35 (2-4-16); Tr. 15:11- 16:9(2-16-16). The inaccuracies in these documents and the unexplained temporary drop of nearly 100 members preclude any finding that the 2014 election was valid.
Mr. Bekele and Mr. Kebede were not valid BOT members because the March 29, 2015 meeting in which they purportedly were elected failed to achieve a proper one-third quorum and was not held in October as required by the Bylaws. PE10; DE10 Art. VIII. The
March 29th election report does not specify how many members belonged to the Church, but meeting minutes from March 7th state that the Church had 564 members, which would require a quorum of 188 members. DE8. The March 29th election report indicates that the top candidate received only 130 votes. PE10. Once again, several months into the hearing, Plaintiff produced a new English-only report of the March 29th election that states the
Church had only 532 members (with no explanation for the sudden loss of 32 members), of which 178 were present. PE26. Both sets of minutes also contain inaccuracies, however, including a mistake regarding the total number of members and the number required to
Page 13
achieve a quorum. PE25; PE26; Tr. 338:5-18 (2-4-16). Accordingly, a majority of the BOT failed to approve the lawsuit.
The September 30, 2015 vote to file this lawsuit also was invalid because proper notice was not provided to all members of the BOT. The 1996 Bylaws require a 24-hour notice of special or emergency meetings. DE10 Art. VIII(3); Tr. 81:25 (10-28-15). District
of Columbia law further requires proper notice to all BOT members for any meeting of the BOT. D.C. Non-profit Corporation Act, Public Law 87-569, Sect. 23. The individuals who organized the September 30th conference call failed to provide proper notice to all BOT members and excluded those who were likely to oppose the
lawsuit. Tr. 84-85 (10-28-15). Notice was not provided to Father Workeneh Haile, the Church’s father figure priest; Kehali Wondeaferew Tenfie, the Church’s founder; Father Hailu Zeleke Lebu, the trustee elected by the clergy; and Mengesha Achamyeleh, the trustee elected by the Sunday School. PE11; PE32 ¶ 18. On the evening of September 30, no one attempted to call these individuals to provide an opportunity to participate in the BOT meeting. Tr. 85:1-18 (10-2815).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the elements required to obtain temporary injunctive relief, and the TRO Application shall be denied. See Wieck, 350 A.2d at 387.
ENTERED this 29th of August 2016.
Judge Maurice A. Ross
District of Columbia Superior Court
Page 14
Copies to:
Ryan Spiegel, Esquire
PALEY, ROTHMAN, GOLDSTEIN,
ROSENBERG, EIG & COOPER, CHARTERED
4800 Hampden Lane
6th Floor
Bethesda, MD 20814
Counsel for Interpleader Plaintiff Eagle Bank
George L. Lyon, Esquire
BERGSTROM & TAYLOR
3925 Chain Bridge Road
Suite 403
Fairfax, VA 22030
Counsel for Plaintiffs
T. Michael Guiffre, Esquire
Joshua M. Lindsay, Esquire
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Counsel for Defendants
ምነው አረባካችሁ ልብ ግዙ ዳኛው አስረግጦ ነገራችሁ ከዚህ በላይ ምን ትፍልጋላችሁ አሁንም ስው ለማወናበድ የምትጥሩትን ማንም አይስማችሁም ሁሉም ታዘባችሁ ማን እንደሆናችሁ መታችሁ እንደማንኛውም ምእምናን መገልገል ትችላላችሁ እንጂ እንደበፊቱ ገብተን እንስራለን ብላችሁ ከሆነ ይግባኝ ያላችሁት እሱማ እንደማይሆን ዳኛው አስረግጦ ነግሮአችሓል ከነ ስራችሁ ነው የተነቀላችሁት ማን ያሰበ ነበር ትወጣላችሁ ያለ በገዛ እጃችሁ የመቤቴን በር ቆለፍችሁ እዛው በወጣችሁበት አውጥታ አስቀረቻችሁ አቤት የመቤቴ ስራ ለትንሽ ደቂቃ ቆማችሁ አስቡ ሕሊና ካላሽሁ ወደራሳችሁ ተመለሱ
TO THE ALMOT BY TEGADAY FORMER BOARD MEMBERS:
Once you get denied on preliminary injunction there is no such a thing winning on permanent injunction. The reason is both injunctions call for the same requirements and since you failed to meet those requirements on the preliminary injunction the probability of success on permanent injunction is ZERO. Don’t waste your money and sanity on this silly endeavors of yours. See below for further:
Types of Injunctions
There are three main types of injunctions:
1.Temporary restraining orders (TRO): A TRO is granted in an ex-parte proceeding, a one-sided proceeding done without the other person’s knowledge. This is an emergency remedy that ensures the person or entity subject to the TRO will not be able to frustrate the actions of the person seeking the injunction. Though a TRO still must meet the same standards as other injunctions, it is the easiest type of injunction to obtain. For this reason, the TRO is usually very temporary, lasting a maximum of 10 to 20 days, depending on state law. During this period of time, an Order to Show Cause will be scheduled, in which a court meeting will be held to allow both parties to speak their sides. After the Order to Show Cause, the court will either determine that further injunctive relief is not necessary, or will issue an injunction to cover a longer period of time – sometimes forever (a permanent injunction). Sometimes a TRO will lead the court to issue a preliminary injunction, which is an injunction that lasts throughout the duration of any other court proceedings on the matter.
2.Preliminary injunctions: Unlike a TRO hearing, a preliminary injunction hearing requires that both parties receive notice and appear before the judge. Preliminary injunctions are orders that basically stop the other party’s actions until all litigation is over, and the judgment has become final. A preliminary injunction can also be terminated during the litigation by a special court order. Many times a court will require a bond to be posted by the party seeking the injunction to ensure the enjoined party is compensated if the injunction is eventually found to be unnecessary.
3.Permanent injunctions: If the court determines that an injunction should be part of the final judgment, then the preliminary injunction will become a permanent injunction. A permanent injunction lasts for the life of the enjoined individual or entity, unless a modification is obtained down the road.
Requirements
All three types of injunctions must meet the same legal requirements to be granted. An injunction is an equitable remedy granted by a court. Since an equitable remedy can be granted in many areas of law, a court will use the same factors to determine whether to grant an injunction regardless of the action or category of law involved. While many legal tests are created in order to find fault, the decision whether to grant an injunction is based on a balancing test
Read more: http://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/legal_remedies/refuse-injunction-relief.htm#ixzz4KM34iJFz
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @FreeAdviceNews on Twitter | freeadvice on Facebook
https://youtu.be/RST_X9T8L0w