Case number 13/2016:

Avishai Abrahami (Wix.com) – David Rusenko (Weebly.com)

 

HONORABLE JURY OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST ETHICS COMMITTEE (IBEC) AND BUDDHIST TRIBUNAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS (BTHR)

P R E S E N T. –

In the presence of the President and Spiritual Guide of IBEC-BTHR Buddhist Master Maitreya and the Executive Secretary of IBEC-BTHR Master Yan Maitri-Shi, it is addressed the case denounced by the World Association of Buddhism (WBA) against Avishai Abrahami (Wix.com) – David Rusenko (Weebly.com) on charges of: CENSORSHIP, VIOLATION ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, VIOLATION ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY,  VIOLATION ON HUMAN RIGHT TO PEACE, DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.-

I, Sekka Dhamma, as Prosecutor of IBEC and BTHR, recognize the arduous and organized work that was carried out for the broad compilation of Evidence in this case, likewise, I appreciate the contribution of them for analysis concerning the part I represent. That said, with all due respect I appear to exhibit:

Being received the list of digital media that were collected, sorted and confirmed in their order and context as Evidences by the Executive Secretary of IBEC and BTHR Master Yan Maitri-Shi, I give way to the Fourth Stage of the Procedure called “EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE “, which is established in the Constitutive Act of IBEC and BTHR in order to know, establish, dictate and determine the Responsibility of the Accused ones for committing the charges against them. This Accusation was made by the WORLD ASSOCIATION OF BUDDHISM in the field of Buddhist Ethics, an act that follows below:

FIRST EVALUATION.- By being the core of this procedural part, it is necessary to point out the Means of Proof offered by the Executive Secretary of IBEC and BTHR Master Yan Maitri-Shi, and formally present them to the Jury for their knowledge. These Means of Proof are composed of 7 charges and 11 Evidences that validate the motivating Accusation of the current process. The above, reported from the field of Buddhist Ethics. These evidences come from audiovisual digital media in the public domain (mass media), which are listed below along with the aforementioned Charges:

 

EVIDENCES

EVIDENCE 1: CENSORSHIP AND VIOLATION TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

EVIDENCE 2: REJECTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

EVIDENCE 3: VIOLATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS

EVIDENCE 4: ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY

EVIDENCE 5: VIOLATION ON THE HUMAN RIGHT TO PEACE (Rights of the victims)

EVIDENCE 6: VIOLATION ON THE HUMAN RIGHT TO PEACE (Freedom of thought, opinion, expression, conscience and religion)

EVIDENCE 7: VIOLATION ON UNITAD STATES LAW (according to US Supreme Court of Justice)

EVIDENCE 8: DISCRIMINATION

EVIDENCE 9: International jurisprudence for Freedom of Expression

EVIDENCE 10: PENAL CODE OF ARGENTINA

EVIDENCE 11: VIOLATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

 

 

 

Evidences:

 

 

EVIDENCE 1: CENSORSHIP AND VIOLATION TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Agata – Wix Team: “Dear worldbuddhistassoc, We received the attached complaint related to your site: worldbuddhistassoc.wix.com/committee. After reviewing it we decided to remove the site due to alleged breach of out Wix Terms of Use. Please note that according to Terms of Use, Wix users are not allowed to (…) submit, transmit or display any User Content, or use Licensed Content in a context, which may be deemed as defamatory, libelous, obscene, harassing, threatening, incendiary, abusive, racist, offensive, deceptive or fraudulent, encouraging criminal or harmful conduct, or which otherwise violates the rights of Wix or any third party (including any intellectual property rights, privacy rights, contractual or fiduciary rights), or otherwise shows any person, entity or brand in a bad or disparaging light, without their prior explicit approval; (…) We will be happy reinstate the site, if you agree to have the content addressed in the complaint removed.” (November 4,2015)
The Weebly Team: “Hi tribunal@protonmail.com, We recently removed your websites and disabled your Weebly account because of a violation of our Terms of Service, available at http://www.weebly.com/tos.html  If you feel like we have made this judgment in error, please reply to this email with any specific evidence supporting your claim.” (February 16, 2016)

Jeff G (Weebly): “Hi, The website was closed due to the detection of written content that incites violence or prejudicial action against a certain individual or group. As a result of these findings, we cite the content is in direct violation of our Terms of Services, and therefore has been removed. I apologize for the inconvenience this causes as I know it will not leave you very happy.” Feb 17, 07:57.

 

 

EVIDENCE 2: REJECTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Master Yan Maitri-Shi: “Dear Director of Wix.com, Attached we are sending you two files about your complaint. One document is called Notification to Wix, which is the official position of the Board of Administration of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee. The other document is called Evidences…, which is the list of evidences about Mr. Lama Ole Nydahl. Please read with Mindfulness the texts, specially the Notification, because Wix.com is making a serious mistake. Although you are not aware, you are violating US law and international law. We expect an immediate solution to this attack that we are suffering.” (November 6, 2015)

 

Aner Rabinovitz (Wix.com Legal Department, 40 Namal Tel Aviv St., Tel Aviv, Israel): “Hello, As you have already been informed, the website worldbuddhistassoc.wix.com/committee was removed due to clear violations of the Wix.com Terms of Use. Wix.com is a website building platform, serving over 73 million users from 190 countries. We welcome users of all faiths, viewpoints and opinions – so long as they use our services in accordance with our Terms of Use. In your particular case, even following your clear violations of said Terms, you have been given the option to amend the website and remove the violating content. As you have clearly waived this option and instead proceeded to make false legal threats and accusations against us, the website will remain offline indefinitely, and we reserve our rights to determine the same regarding any other user accounts or websites maintained by you on our platform. For the removal of the doubt, we reject any and all of the legal claims and accusations you have made against us, and reserve our rights to take any steps and use any measures at our disposal in order to protect our company’s and employees’ interests.” (November 11, 2015)

 

The Weebly Team: “Hi tribunal@protonmail.com, We recently removed your websites and disabled your Weebly account because of a violation of our Terms of Service, available at http://www.weebly.com/tos.html  If you feel like we have made this judgment in error, please reply to this email with any specific evidence supporting your claim.” (February 16, 2016)

Jeff G (Weebly): “Hi, The website was closed due to the detection of written content that incites violence or prejudicial action against a certain individual or group. As a result of these findings, we cite the content is in direct violation of our Terms of Services, and therefore has been removed. I apologize for the inconvenience this causes as I know it will not leave you very happy.” Feb 17, 07:57

 

 

EVIDENCE 3: VIOLATION TO HUMAN RIGHTS

International Buddhist Ethics Committee: “Notification to Wix: (…) What happened with Wix is a complete incongruence that violates all kinds of jurisprudence on religious non-discrimination and freedom of expression, being an act of full censorship. The rights affected by Wix censorship are essentially as follows (each article mentioned below refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights mentioned are also included in the covenants of the United nations on December 16, 1966): the right to education (Article 26); the right to benefit from scientific progress (Article 27); the right to freely participate in cultural life (Article 27); the right to information, including freedom of opinion and expression (Article 19). These rights imply the exercise of another, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, (Article 18); the right to seek, receive and impart, regardless of frontiers, information and ideas by any means possible (Article 19); the right to protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production (Article 27); the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 20) for activities related to education, science, culture and information.”

Equipo Nizkor (Human Rights): “Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments – and even human rights groups – all over the world constantly trying to curtail it. (…) The United States, probably like no other nation, has recognized the importance of freedom of expression to safeguard democracy and grow as a nation. However, this does not mean there are no efforts to try to curtail it. The internet has often been the target of these efforts, as it provides practically everyone with the ability to communicate their ideas to wide audiences and escapes the ability of the state to control it. (…) we hope to provide you with thorough information about what freedom of speech means, why it is important to protect it and what are the attempts to curtail it”  http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/speech/

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 19. “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Article 19. 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

 

American Convention on Human Rights: “Article 13. 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice.  2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall be not subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights or reputation of others, or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation ideas and opinions. . 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence. 5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punish by law.”

 

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man: “Article 4. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.”

 

Sofia Declaration 1997: (About press freedom on internet) “The access to and the use of these new media should be afforded the same freedom of expression protections as traditional media.”

 

 

EVIDENCE 4: ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY

INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER – Article 4: “Transparency in government activities, probity, responsible public administration on the part of governments, respect for social rights, and freedom of expression and of the press are essential components of the exercise of democracy.”

 

Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression: “AWARE that consolidation and development of democracy depends upon the existence of freedom of expression; PERSUADED that the right to freedom of expression is essential for the development of knowledge and understanding among peoples, that will lead to a true tolerance and cooperation among the nations of the hemisphere; CONVINCED that any obstacle to the free discussion of ideas and opinions limits freedom of expression and the effective development of a democratic process; (…) RECALLING that freedom of expression is a fundamental right recognized in  (…) the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in other international documents and national constitutions  (…)  REAFFIRMING that the principles of the Declaration of Chapultepec constitute a basic document that contemplates the protection and defense of freedom of expression, freedom and independence of the press and the right to information; (…)PRINCIPLES. 1. Freedom of expression in all its forms and manifestations is a fundamental and inalienable right of all individuals. Additionally, it is an indispensable requirement for the very existence of a democratic society. 2. Every person has the right to seek, receive and impart information and opinions freely under terms set forth in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. All people should be afforded equal opportunities to receive, seek and impart information by any means of communication without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, economic status, birth or any other social condition. (…) 5. Prior censorship, direct or indirect interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression, opinion or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law. Restrictions to the free circulation of ideas and opinions, as well as the arbitrary imposition of information and the imposition of obstacles to the free flow of information violate the right to freedom of expression. (…) 10. Privacy laws should not inhibit or restrict investigation and dissemination of information of public interest. The protection of a person’s reputation should only be guaranteed through civil sanctions in those cases in which the person offended is a public official, a public person or a private person who has voluntarily become involved in matters of public interest. In addition, in these cases, it must be proven that in disseminating the news, the social communicator had the specific intent to inflict harm, was fully aware that false news was disseminated, or acted with gross negligence in efforts to determine the truth or falsity of such news.”
EVIDENCE 5: VIOLATION ON THE HUMAN RIGHT TO PEACE (Rights of the victims)

Santiago Declaration on the Human Right to Peace: “Article 11. Rights of all Victims. (…) 4.- Every victim of a human rights violation has the right, in accordance with international human rights law, to the restoration of the violated rights; to obtain effective and complete redress, including the right to rehabilitation and compensation; measures of symbolic redress or reparation as well as guarantees that the violation will not be repeated. Such redress shall not preclude recourse to popular courts or tribunals of conscience and to institutions, methods, traditions or local customs of peaceful settlement of disputes, which may be acceptable to the victim as adequate reparation.” (December 2010)

 

 

EVIDENCE 6: VIOLATION ON THE HUMAN RIGHT TO PEACE (Freedom of thought, opinion, expression, conscience and religion)

Santiago Declaration on the Human Right to Peace: “Article 8 Freedom of thought, opinion, expression, conscience and religion. 1.- All peoples and individuals have the right to access and to receive information from diverse sources without censorship, in accordance with international human rights law, in order to be protected from manipulation in favor of warlike or aggressive objectives.. 2.- All peoples and individuals have the right to denounce any event that threatens or violates the human right to peace, and to freely participate in peaceful political, social and cultural activities or initiatives for the defence and promotion of the human right to peace, without interference by governments or by the private sector.. 3.- All peoples and individuals have the right to be protected against any form of cultural violence. To this end, persons should fully enjoy their freedom of thought, conscience, expression and religion, in conformity with international human rights law.”(December 2010)

 

 

EVIDENCE 7: VIOLATION ON UNITAD STATES LAW (according to US Supreme Court of Justice)

1. A) “In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (…) The State’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury (…) At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. (…) We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.” (HUSTLER MAGAZINE INC. FALWELL).
2. B) “[T]he [p51] freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503-504 (1984).
3. C) The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a “false” idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974)
4. D) “when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. . . .” Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)
5. E) The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are “intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.” Associated Press v. Walker, decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967)
6. F) “[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944)
7. G) “[T]he candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry “Foul!” when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts [p52] to demonstrate the contrary.” Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 274 (1971).
8. H) A public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
9. I) “‘Freedoms of expression require “breathing space”.’” Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 772 (1986)
10. J) “This breathing space is provided by a constitutional rule that allows public figures to recover for libel or defamation only when they can prove both that the statement was false and that the statement was made with the requisite level of culpability.(…) Thus, while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures. (…) we held that, even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will, his expression was protected by the First Amendment” (HUSTLER MAGAZINE INC. FALWELL).
11. K) “Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)
12. L) “Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action”. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982)
13. M) “[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [p56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.” FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
14. N) “It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers”. See also Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969)

 

 

EVIDENCE 8: DISCRIMINATION

International Buddhist Ethics Committee: “Dear Wix (…) Lama Ole Nydahl was analyzed in an Ethical Judgment, where, at that time, he was given the opportunity to have a right of reply before an investigation we have conducted about his discriminatory, racist, xenophobic and homophobic behavior. (…) Wix Team has no moral authority to take positions about our Ethical Judgment because this procedure is a spiritual practice that is part of the codes of conduct of Buddhism. We have not violated the Terms of use of Wix, because our practices are not defamatory, libelous, obscene, harassing, threatening, inflammatory, abusive, racist, offensive, misleading or fraudulent, nor these ones encourage a criminal or harmful behavior. In fact, we conducted the ethical judgment based on an investigation that shows that Mr. Nydahl is perpetrating those same bad conducts within Buddhism. Incredibly, Wix Team accuses us of something that is actually doing this person. We have not damaged the name and integrity of Mr. Lama Nydahl, but we have criticized him for discrimination, which is an evident fact in the light of his own public statements, such as our investigation demonstrates. Our Ethics Committee sends you a file attached to this email with a list of evidences about the investigation. (…) About the ethical content published about Nydahl, which involves only saying that Lama Ole Nydahl committed Discrimination, this cannot be removed. Wix Team has no judicial authority to request it, because it is censorship. There is no court of justice which has condemned us for any defamation. (…) Note that on her complaint, the attacks of Mrs. Prado (Nydahl´s lawyer) against the Maitreya Buddhist University constitute a direct evidence of Discrimination for political reasons. In fact, this document of Ms. Prado constitutes an element of political persecution, which is a much more serious fact. Precisely, this usage of Discrimination has been what we have published about Lama Nydahl, who commits discriminatory acts over and over again. To say this is a Defense of the Human Rights and is not defamation or libel aimed to perform harm. (…) If Wix commits this kind of actions, it leaves a serious precedent that violates the Human Rights to freedom of expression, which are sacred in the United States, because in accordance with that criterion, any human rights activist, environmental activist or political opponent who criticizes the behavior of individuals, governments or institutions would be committing defamations. Faced with this same criterion, for example, journalism could never work, because every news story that is published could be denounced as a libel. (…) During our investigation we have found that Lama Ole Nydahl was publicly accused of sexual offenses on several Internet websites. However, since it did not constitute truthful evidence we decide not to include it in our research, which explicitly demonstrates that we have never had defamatory or libelous intentions. Our organization has a higher reputation than Ole Nydahl’s and we have never participated in any kind of discriminatory comments towards anyone. Instead, for Mr. Nydahl, discrimination becomes a lifestyle. We want to express that Wix Company said in its rules that its criterion for removing a website is based on its investigation. Yet, it is clear that there was no such investigation regarding neither our actions nor on Ole Nydahl’s behavior and his public discriminatory statements.”

(See file attached which was sent to Wix with the discriminatory complaint from Nydahl´s lawyer)

 

 

EVIDENCE 9: International jurisprudence for Freedom of Expression

Ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights:  Ruling of IACHR on the “The Last Temptation of Christ” https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/C/73-ing.html  (English version) http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/doc/tentacion.html (Spanish)

Ruling of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Case Verbitsky vs Argentina https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/22-94-argentina.htm (English version) http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/S-22-94-argentina.htm (Spanish)

Ruling of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Case Martorell vs Chile  https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/1996/chile11-96.htm  (English version)  http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/1996/Schile11-96.htm  (Spanish)

 

 

EVIDENCE 10: ARGENTINE CRIMINAL CODE

Argentine Criminal Code: “[o]pinions should not be subject to sanctions, especially when the matter at hand is an opinion about the performance of a public official.” [The Law was adopted after a 2008 decision by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) that ordered the Argentine government, in the case of the journalist Eduardo Kimel, to adjust its domestic law to prevent the use of these legal concepts to hinder the exercise of freedom of expression. In 1991, Kimel published a book, La Masacre de San Patricio, which investigated the murder of three priests and two students in Argentina in 1976 during the military junta regime. Kimel concludes in his book that the judge in charge of the case did not properly investigate the suspects because they were members of the armed forces.] http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/argentina-law-decriminalizing-libel-and-slander-passed/

 

 

EVIDENCE 11: VIOLATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: “Article 5. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State. (…) Article 34. Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards. (…) Article 40. Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions, rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and international human rights.”

 

 

 

SECOND EVALUATION.- Of the evidence provided there is no doubt about its authenticity considering its origin. Regarding the proofs offered which support the aforementioned Charges (case that does not occupy nor is within our competence to know nor jurisdictionally decide in this matter on our Part), there is no objection, disqualification or invalidation of the digital content by the Part I represent, by virtue of which they are digital media that come from reliable sources and that were declared and published at that time formally and openly, which are full, genuine and truthful evidence.-

THIRD EVALUATION.- Because of what was exhibited, published and declared and that are now presented as digital Evidence to this Case by the Executive Secretary of IBEC and BTHR Master Yan Maitri-Shi, such proofs are determined by the Part I represent as Prosecutor of IBEC and BTHR as LEGITIMATE and VALID, which support and confirm the Accusation presented by the World Association of Buddhism against Avishai Abrahami (Wix.com) – David Rusenko (Weebly.com) regarding the 7 charges against them.-

In such a situation, it is started the Fifth Stage of the Procedure denominated “JUDGMENT”, in which is set the term of 5 five days to jurors to decide whether the accused are “Innocent” or “Responsible” for the Charges against them regarding the Evidence provided, accepted and evaluated in this writing.-

Sekkha Dhamma

Prosecutor of IBEC & BTHR

 

Mexico, February, 2016 two thousand sixteen.-