Opinion ID: 179728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Marangella, Schlatter, and the Provisional National Council

Text: Although it rejected Merriam, the district court's findings are sufficiently detailed and supported by the record that we can affirm the court's no-privity finding without a remand. Of particular importance are the court's findings regarding the dissimilarities between the Hereditary Guardianship and the Provisional National Council, and the break between Remey and his followers on the one hand and Marangella, Schlatter, and their coreligionists on the other. It is true that Marangella and Schlatter occupied key positions in the Hereditary Guardianship, and both participated in varying degrees in the underlying trademark litigation. In other circumstances we might require more detailed fact-finding regarding the precise role each nonparty alleged contemnor played in the enjoined organization and in the underlying injunction litigation. For reasons we will explain, however, we can dispense with that here. The district court concluded that the Provisional National Council, which represents those who accept Marangella as the Third Guardian, is substantially dissimilar to the Hereditary Guardianship; the record supports this conclusion. Although Marangella, Schlatter, and other members of the Provisional National Council were actively involved in the Hereditary Guardianship in the 1960s, the record reflects that after the injunction was issued and the Hereditary Guardianship dissolved, the remnants of this dissident group scattered. After a two-year period of dormancy, Marangella announced his own Guardianship and broke with Remey on matters of successorship, doctrine, and governance. Schlatter followed him, and a new religious organization was established, albeit (eventually) operating in the same place and with some of the same people as were involved in the Hereditary Guardianship. The new group, in due course, took the name Provisional National Council, The district court specifically found that the vast weight of the record evidence establishes that the [Provisional National Council] was not formed for the purpose of escaping the confines of the injunction. The court also found that its membershipnumbering about 40 peopledid not in fact encompass all of the same individuals that comprised the [Hereditary Guardianship]. Based on these facts, the court concluded that on a defining point of organizational purpose, there existed a robust doctrinal divide between the Hereditary Guardianship and the Provisional National Council. The court also concluded that the latter was not operating in effect as the former, nor did there otherwise [exist] a substantial continuity between the two groups. These findings and conclusions are sufficient to defeat any claim that Marangella, Schlatter, and the Provisional National Council are legally identified with the Hereditary Guardianship and therefore in privity with it and bound by the 1966 injunction. This is so even assuming Marangella and Schlatter could be considered key officers or agents of the Hereditary Guardianship. The doctrinal differences especially when combined with the passage of timemake it clear as a matter of law that the Provisional National Council and its principals cannot be considered legally identified with the Hereditary Guardianship or Remey. To take note of these differences is not to decide a religious dispute; the district court's findings and conclusions do not transgress Presbyterian Church. Accordingly, even when Merriam is taken into account, the district court's no-privity conclusion as to this group of alleged contemnors was correct.