PDA

View Full Version : And the defendant is


mimartin
09-18-2007, 08:52 PM
I do not know if I should laugh or cry.
AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqCsP7OChy5Q8AFcTeiB58cfy6Uw)
I do believe this makes his point, although Iím sure some of you would agree with this suit.

Fredi
09-18-2007, 09:17 PM
... Jesus ...:wornout:

John Galt
09-18-2007, 09:30 PM
so who are they going to have in court, Morgan Freeman?!?

Fredi
09-18-2007, 10:08 PM
Provably a Cross or a figure of Ö Jesus?

Web Rider
09-19-2007, 01:17 AM
I read about this and just kinda snickered to myself. I thought it was a royal kick. Personally, I hope he wins, just out of the sheer hilarity of proving that our courts will award anything to anyone for just about any reason.

SilentScope001
09-19-2007, 12:09 PM
If a guy was making a point about lawsuits being filed against anyone, it seems his strawman argument failed.

The dispute is over wheter to use the word "rape" in a courtroom or not. To use it will go and harm the defendant in the case over the rape, meaning it is okay for the judge to ban it. However, the prosecution has a good reason to use the term "rape", for that VERY REASON, to go and make the defendant look bad. And it is "rape", so why can't the prosecution say it. It's a question between Freedom of Speech and Fair Trial here. That case is not a frivilous lawsuit, and therefore, I am upset.

There is only ONE reason why this current case over the use of the word "rape" should be rejected, but that has nothing to do with the argument that he is making:

Chambers said Bowen's lawsuit is inappropriate because the Nebraska Supreme Court has already considered the case and federal courts follow the decisions of state supreme courts on state matters.

Basically, it was already decided in court. People actually sued and settled the issue in favor of Fair Trial here. So, arguing that this case has no merit is silly, because the Courts has already heard the case, they already decided on what to do. (Strange, I'd assume people would be screaming at the prosecution for protecting the right of the defendants from hearing the word "rape".)

Also, God is not a citizen of the United States of America. He was not born here. You can't sue people who are not citizens in the USA, and who live in other nations (God lives in the US, but he also lives in Turkey, China, India, etc.) . People even doubt if he exist. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that God has ever done any of those crimes, except God was alleged to have said so. Please, dismiss this annoying strawman case.

mimartin
09-19-2007, 12:35 PM
The dispute is over wheter to use the word "rape" in a courtroom or not. To use it will go and harm the defendant in the case over the rape, meaning it is okay for the judge to ban it. However, the prosecution has a good reason to use the term "rape", for that VERY REASON, to go and make the defendant look bad. And it is "rape", so why can't the prosecution say it.
Very compelling argument SilentScope001, Iíll admit I really did not look very deep into this. On the surface it looks more of a tongue and check case, but your passionate argument has convinced me that it is much deeper than I gave it credit for.

On the issue of using the word rape Iím split. On one had if someone has committed such a degrading and disgusting act Iím not for given that person any breaks. Then again, as the Duke Lacrosse case proves not everyone charged with rape is actually guilty of rape. With the concept of innocent until proven guilty in mind, I guess I would error of the side of not using it in the court room. However, we would have to change the charge to sexual assault instead of rape. No use giving those convicted another loophole for appeal.

Jae Onasi
09-20-2007, 12:48 AM
Oh, goody. Our tax dollars at work. Thank goodness I don't live in NE where he's wasting mine, unless it ends up for some bizarre reason going to the Supreme Court. What a waste of time and money with such a frivolous suit. I suppose God could countersue. Right. Like with wars, famine, and poverty, God really cares about his stupid little suit.

PoiuyWired
09-20-2007, 07:01 AM
Oh, goody. Our tax dollars at work. Thank goodness I don't live in NE where he's wasting mine, unless it ends up for some bizarre reason going to the Supreme Court. What a waste of time and money with such a frivolous suit. I suppose God could countersue. Right. Like with wars, famine, and poverty, God really cares about his stupid little suit.

Gives me a good idea... next stop: Four horsemen!!! And Santa would be the next, then Easter Bunny.

I mean, even if you can win the case what can you do with it? Obviously you can't really throw God in jail... and I don't think he got a bank account that we know of.

mimartin
09-20-2007, 09:14 AM
God knows the law.
God's Response? (http://action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7100749)

SilentScope001
09-20-2007, 05:57 PM
He says he wasn't served a summons by a deputy...so the suit should be thrown out.

Judging from the fact that you could just use the intercessory means of prayer to serve the summons, it isn't that big of an issue.

I mean, even if you can win the case what can you do with it? Obviously you can't really throw God in jail... and I don't think he got a bank account that we know of.

Freezing God's "assets", aka, the bank account of all his religious groups, might be rewarding.

Jae Onasi
09-20-2007, 11:24 PM
Freezing God's "assets", aka, the bank account of all his religious groups, might be rewarding.

Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and to God the things that are God....

mimartin
09-20-2007, 11:28 PM
Judging from the fact that you could just use the intercessory means of prayer to serve the summons, it isn't that big of an issue.
Maybe the can't find a deputy to pray.

Freezing God's "assets", aka, the bank account of all his religious groups, might be rewarding.
LOL. I was thinking the same thing. After all as they take my money the are always saying it is "God's money" or it is for "God's work."