Topic

religious freedom

20 petitions

Update posted 4 days ago

Petition to Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Chris Smith, Theresa May MP, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Conaway, Sam Brownback, Matthew Pottinger, David Campanale

Reading Pilgrim's Progress is not an Evil Cult Activity

Christians in China’s southern Yunnan province are under attack, facing long prison sentences as Chinese authorities try to eradicate their religion under the guise of cracking down on “evil cults.” In 2016, Yunnan officials formed an investigative team dedicated to wiping out the Three Grades of Servants religious sect, which China regards as a dangerous cult, and launched systematic attack against them. Only they didn’t just target Three Grades of Servants members but rather conducted mass arrests of more than 200 Christians across the province. About 40 of them are still in custody, their lawyers under official review just for defending them, and face long sentences in China’s cruel prisons. Ignoring their denials that they never belonged to the cult, Chinese officials sentenced six of these imprisoned Christians—Ju Dianhong (46 years old), Liang Qin (30 years old), Zhang Hongyan (34 years old), Zi Huimei (30 years old), Yang Shunxiang (29 years old), and Zhang Shaocai (42 years old)—to 4-13 years in prison. Even though Ju Dianhong and Liang Qin said they were never involved with the sect, they were accused of leading, recruiting members, doing missionary work, and spreading news of the apocalypse on behalf of the cult. In the court’s formal verdict, it outlined such broad parameters for what constituted an “evil cult” that some speculated Christianity could fall under the definition. It also said that the authorities found the accused in possession of Christian books such as Pilgrim’s Progress and Streams in the Desert, which they labeled “evil cult” materials. Another Christian, Tu Yan, has spent nearly a year in jail for the same allegations, awaiting her trial. She and her fellow Christian, Su Min, were running a hotel in Dali, Yunnan, when they were both arrested and handed cult charges. Tu Yan says she has never even heard of the Three Grades of Servants before, and her sister and father stoutly maintain that she only practiced Christianity. If they are not freed, these Christians face many perils in prison. The Chinese government infamously persecutes those it deems “enemies of the state,” many of whom are Christians, and Christian prisoners often suffer torture, beatings, and even death at the hands of prison officials. Others leave their cells in extremely poor physical and mental health from subjection to inhumane practices and medical neglect. However, because of you, hope is not lost. By signing this petition, you are taking a firm stand against these atrocities and asking President Trump and other world leaders to speak out and press China to release these innocent Christians unconditionally and immediately. Because China prefers to maintain an untarnished international image, its authorities have been known to free wrongly imprisoned individuals after experiencing international pressure. As a result, your intervention is tantamount. Sign this petition in order to tell China “enough” and urge President Trump to do everything in his power to free these innocent Christians!

ChinaAid Association
4,226 supporters
Update posted 3 weeks ago

Petition to U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Donald Trump, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Department of Justice, American Association of Retired Persons, New York Times, FOX News

Religious, Political and Poverty Persecution by a Tampa Florida Federal Judge

STOP FEDERAL COURT'S PREJUDICE AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS (CIVIL) Increase Appeal Time From 30 Days to One Year for Pro se Litigants Who Can't Afford Legal Representation in Civil Federal Cases Did you know the US Congress whom most are lawyers had created the Federal Rules of Civil Procedural (FRCP) at a great disadvantage, discriminates against pro se litigants? Someday you may find yourself, an acquaintance, a friend or dear family member in a Federal Civil Court, where cases can be especially complex, not having the funds to afford an attorney. Where then you must defend yourself as pro se, all alone in a figurative sense extremely handicapped in legal affairs. This is where opposing attorneys can easily out maneuver and in a figurative sense tie you up through their extensive knowledge of FRCP requirements upon you. This is where I found myself and even worst it was found out the judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich Middle district Tampa Bay, in my case had been described previous by her own religious leader's blog as religiously extremely pious and proud, visited most shines around the world, attends religious services daily. That's just the tip of it, her religious activities she is a director of a guild of similar religious judges and lawyers. Also she spearheaded in Tampa Florida a certain yearly religious special service, that goes back in time beginning and has association with the inquisition against bible readers. Well documented the persecution in: Foxe's Book of Martyrs Wikipedia Where in the case the primary target of the suit was towards my religious (bible reader's perspective) and political website, which happened to of pointed out over a hundred times in statements against a particular religion, that just so happened unbeknown to me to be the Judge's religion. Where even I have on my website an ebook its main theme over 30 years of research work. Since 12 years old been contemplating and researching since 18 years old, which had also just so happened unbeknown to me to be in stark contrast, against religiously and politically an old statement of the judge. That the judge claimed her statement in a 1989 news article, contributed to her becoming a judge. The Judge's statement had even caused Florida University students to protest the capital of Florida, against her statement before she became a judge. The Judge kept hidden from me her many religious and political biases, didn't even offer to once acknowledge them and at least offer to recuse herself from the case. Who this same Judge in her ruling had already denied, two affidavits and a motion for change of venue, when I earned below the poverty level, and being forced pro se in a figurative sense was severely handicapped in legal affairs, needed at least ease of access to the court to have any chance of a fair trial. The judge kept the case 1200 miles from where I lived. When the consequences of such prejudicial action against the poor and a pro se litigant manifested, that I couldn't possibility afford to travel to Florida three times in only few weeks, and also stay for each trip multiple days in motels. I decided to skip the pre trial hearing greatly worried I would become stranded far from home without any money, and couldn't even attend my trial. The Judge sent out an order to show cause. I sent in my answer on the day that it was requested by over night mail, basically explaining lack of funds. This is when the Judge blatantly stated falsely that I didn't respond to her court order to show cause, to cover up her prejudicial ruling that failed to give change of venue to a poor pro se litigant and its consequences. Her court recorded my paper was received by mail Friday, she issued her ruling on Monday found me guilty in Summary Judgment and her court filed my paper on the docket on Tuesday. Which even shows the docket number of her ruling Doc 91 (entered 07/02/2012) on Monday and my paper was docketed as (entered) Doc 92 on Tuesday (7/03/2012). In the left hand of the docket sheet shows my paper was received 6/29/2012. The judge used her false statement as her basis to find me guilty in summary judgment, that took away seven days later my jury trial, to keep from the public view her failure to perceive my poor state, needed change of venue. Where in a sense I was robbed by a Federal extremely religiously pious and proud Judge, found guilty when I was innocent. Amounts to a Florida Federal Judge's religious and even political persecution of another religious citizen. Violating the Constitution and First Amendment rights of not only me but in a sense all citizens. Nevertheless the time for an appeal was before me, already greatly harmed, broke from the long legal fight and the incredible other harm done to me by the multimillionaire plaintiff, again overwhelmed by the process of FRCP, the same extremely pious, proud religious judge ignores the intent and mischaracterizes my pro se's first attempt of an appeal court document 64 pages. In effect would make any future appeal untimely very convenient for the judge. Even so I tried my best the following year to appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and even the submitted a Petition of Writ of Certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court. Neither higher courts were concern about the very short window of time for an appeal for pro se litigants, who are very limited in legal affairs, some not even finishing high school. Even while recently the U.S. Supreme court increased the time limit for prisoners on death row up to one year to appeal. After years of the unjust legal action of harm against me, everything in my life is stolen from me, while researching for my U.S Supreme Court Cert, I found out further the extreme religious biases of the judge and again gather up enough courage and strength to motion the judge. That she should recuse herself and the other lower magistrate judge on the case to vacate her rulings. The judge then pulls a switcharoo by switching the motion's basis from a 60(b) 6 that has no time limit to a 60 (b) 3 has  a one year time limit to deny it as untimely, to cover up, protect herself. I informed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals fo the judge's switcharoo in a Petition of Rehearing, and they again denied my petition. In a sense simply ignores a fellow corrupt judge's religious and political persecution of another religious citizen. A federal Judge using her federal court for a religion on religion persecution. Pro se litigants have made notable contributions to the basic structure of American law. A pro se petition filed by Clarence Gideon resulted in the landmark holding in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys. (Wikipedia) There was MUCH INCENTIVE in the Supreme court Judges for the unanimous decision would employ many more lawyers on the government pay role, increase the lawyers turf figuratively speaking, would receive praise from other lawyers, colleagues, whom the judges are 99 percent ex lawyers. However the State paid legal representation is only for criminal litigants. Fact many Americans who are a poor civil litigants are treated worst then criminals, they have no representation. There is no incentive for judges or even congressmen whom many are x lawyers to propose and advance sufficient relief in at least additional time for pro se civil litigants in the appeal process. A last ditch effort at times to reverse a great injustice. The legal profession, judges and congress should be partly ashamed that they allowed this great inequity to occur for so long, to hedge themselves against competition. Similarly as it was found to be a form of discrimination when a handicap persons weren't allowed timely access to buildings they were afforded a suitable ramp, there also needs be pre-position suitable ramp of time for pro se litigants to navigate the great difficulty of an appeal. Who pro se litigants in a figuratively speaking sense are handicapped in legal affairs. Handicapped citizens (literal) when were afforded an adequate ramp to enter all government buildings, was not seen as prejudicing healthy citizens, based on the same principle it isn't prejudicing lawyers and their clients must be afforded an adequate ramp of time to pro se ligants also are handicapped (figuratively speaking) some severely (figuratively speaking). This is not much to ask. The literal ramp uses an UNBIASED NATURAL STANDARD contained in the disability act of a minimum 1-12 ratio. That is for every 1 inch height there is 12 inches of ramp. There are 30 days to make an appeal, when applied the unbiased natural observed standard 1-12 ratio of a literal ramp to a figuratively ramp of time 30 days, would equate to 360 days, one year of time for pro se litigants to perfect an appeal. Even a year's time for an appeal can be an exceedingly difficult process for pro se litigants who are not trained and seasoned for years as a lawyer, but at least there would be a long over due recognition of the discrimination and some proper, just equitable relief is given. A last hope of an appeal when all else has failed pro se litigants, especially if they been steamrolled by the complex legal process of FRCP that can easily overwhelm them. Thank you so much for your time, please sign the petition and share.

John Nowak
199 supporters
Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to Doylestown Station Condominium Association Board of Directors

Hate Has No Home at Doylestown Station

Dear Neighbors, Please take the time to read this very important message, and please consider showing your support by signing this petition. In May 2017, I put up a 12” x 8” red, white and blue garden nylon garden flag in the front flower bed of my home. The flag read, Hate Has No Home Here and showed translation of this phrase in Arabic, Korean, Hebrew, Spanish and English. Before I put up the flag, I checked Doylestown Station’s regulations, which stated clearly, “Freestanding, small, decorative or commemorative flags, not to exceed 1-square foot, may be placed in front beds of all units.” This decorative garden flag met those specifications. Six months later, on November 6, 2017 I received a violation notice from our condominium association management, requesting that the flag be taken down because it was deemed not “decorative.” In response, I (along with another neighbor who also received a violation for the same flag) went to the next board meeting to appeal the violation, and to ask why this flag was not deemed “decorative.” At this meeting, I explained the meaning behind the Hate Has No Home Here message, and I explained the origin of the Hate Has No Home Here project (go to hatehasnohomehere.org). I explained that, even though the flags first made their  appearance after the 2016 election, the flags are not political (a message that says “vote for X” would be political). I explained that, similar to someone’s garden flag that says “Love Thy Neighbor,” the Hate Has No Home Here garden flag is a very tasteful and discreet way for my family to express a heartfelt concern that our community (large and small) is moving in the wrong direction regarding embracing racial and religious diversity. The fact that this sentiment is being interpreted as a political statement is both troubling and terrifying. Opposing bigotry has become controversial? What does that say about where we are as a community? I believe the reason why we received the initial violation had absolutely nothing to do with the flag not being “decorative.” I believe it has everything to do with the fact that the majority of our board simply didn’t like the message of encouraging racial and cultural diversity. Could this possibly reflect concern about attracting people to the neighborhood who don’t look, speak, pray or decorate their homes the same way as they do? The board realized that, in fact, they couldn’t be the arbiter of what “decorative” means, so they instead decided to change the regulations and ban all garden flags. Here are the reasons the board provided: 1.     The board has to make difficult decisions in an “effort to preserve the aesthetic standards of the community.” The garden flag that caused this controversy was smaller than the maximum size allowed for garden flags. The message on the flag is one of kindness and acceptance. I could almost understand the “aesthetic standards” argument if someone wanted to hang a Nazi flag, but we’re talking about a flag that literally says “Hate Has No Home Here.” 2.     The board has to make difficult decisions to “ensure property values remain whole.” By that logic, the board is saying that a message welcoming people of all races/faiths can have an adverse effect on property values. This is unacceptable. 3.     The Board’s decisions are made “in the best interest of the overall community, not just a few.” This argument would have far more merit had the board actually asked members what they thought. They didn’t.   Why this should concern you: The board went through a lot of trouble (legal counsel paid for with association funds, drafting new regulations, etc.) for one reason: to silence a message that essentially says “people are welcome here regardless of race or religion.” This should concern every homeowner in the community who cares about making our community welcoming to people of all races and religions. Please consider signing to show your support. Sincerely, Cindy Rosenfeld (66 Cornerstone, CindyGRosenfeld@gmail.com) * * * WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, feel that the Doylestown Station Condominium Association’s recent decision to ban all garden flags was a deliberate, focused effort to ban one particular flag with the message “Hate Has No Home Here.” This action, which happened behind closed doors, without community dialogue, contradicts our shared belief that Doylestown Station welcomes all people to our community, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. We request that the Board abandon the recent changes to the regulations (10.4 and 10.5) and revert to the previously existing regulation that states:  10.4     “Freestanding, small decorative or commemorative flags, not to exceed 1-square foot, may be discreetly placed in front beds of all units.”    

Cindy Rosenfeld
509 supporters