The Preliminary Injunction ruling created some critical questions which we need to find answers to before the Jury Trial. By all means, do feel free to add to the following list of questions, and any input from our participants who are law literate would be appreciated:
1) Why didn’t the Assyrian Church of the East (ACOE)’s attorneys file their request for injunction against the Western Diocese, the corporation created by Soro for the ACOE Western Diocese properties “without” the knowledge and authority of the ACOE leadership? Why are only the individual person of Mr. Soro and Antar mentioned as defendants? We understand no financial records were available to the ACOE attorneys, but how about a simple county assessor’s records and title company search to prove those properties were taken away from the ACOE authority? There must be some ways to obtain corporate registration records.
2) Why didn’t the ACOE attorneys show evidence that would prove to the court how Soro and his supporters attempted to prevent the ACOE parishioners to practice their religious beliefs? There were a number of things that happened: Zowaa’s thugs blocking access to the church by surrounding the church. Chains and locks placed on the church gates to prevent free entry. The letter Soro himself wrote to the Holy Synod threatening them not to even think to come close to the properties under “his” administration. The letter posted on the church door by Soro’s attorney warning people to stay away.
3) Why didn’t the ACOE attorneys present evidence and witnesses testifying to the fact that during the Synod meeting Soro confessed about giving $50,000 collected by his parishioners for the poor in Iraq to Assyrian Democratic Movement (ADM) also known and Zowaa?
4) If the hierarchy system of the ACOE is acknowledged by the Judge, why did he give access to “any” church to Soro during this pendency period?
5) Is the judge’s determination of no misappropriation of the funds by Mr. Soro and Antar a final decision? Will this matter be looked at again during the Jury Trial?
6) Is former bishop Soro’s false claim of vindication on his website and intentional misrepresentation of the court ruling an illegal act?
7) Why didn’t the ACOE attorneys request a gag order in order to prevent chaos as the judge seemed so concerned about?
Why didn’t the ACOE attorneys also request a specified amount for the defendants to pay if and when they lose the case?
9) Why isn’t there any time line specified for the parties to provide each other with the financial records and documents? What are the ramifications of failing to comply with that order? To the best of our knowledge no records have been submitted to the ACOE yet.
10) Considering the magnitude of this case, why did the ACOE attorneys not provide essential evidence in the court, while the public was repeatedly assured how strong this case against Bawai Soro is? The judge repeatedly mentioned in his ruling that not enough evidence was provided by the ACOE attorneys.
11) There were indications that Soro’s attorneys were quitting on him before the end of the preliminary hearing because they felt they did not have a strong enough case. Is he maintaining the same attorney he had for the up coming Jury Trial?
12) Considering the uniqueness of this case, will the court select jury members that are Assyrians or will a percentage of them be of Assyrian identity?
These are the questions swirling in my mind over and over again. My questions are not intended to discredit the ACOE attorneys. But, nevertheless considering what is at stake here I think they must answer these and other questions our people have.
Khaya Atour
Shamiram