Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By overturning the judge's decision, the Appllate Court ruled that there was a legitimate reason for the final restraining order.
Well, no. The Appellate Court Judges ruled that the restraining order should have been granted by the judge (they reversed his decision) AND condemned the judge's use of the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) in ruling a lack of criminal intent.
Quote:
What part of not a rape trial are you not getting?????
Where did I say it was a rape trial? I didn't.
We're discussing the reason the judge refused to grant a restraining order and the Appellate Court Judges' rejection of a belief in Islamic Sharia law as a reason to refuse the action.
"We are also concerned that the judge's view of the facts of the matter may have been colored by his perception that, although defendant's sexual acts violated applicable criminal statutes, they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable — a view that we have soundly rejected." - NJ Appellate Court Judges, on overturning the judge's decision that was based on the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law)
...do you not understand?
In overturning the judge's decision, the NJ Appellate Court Judges ruled against the creeping of Sharia law into the NJ court system.
No, in overturning the judge's decision they noted that his personal bias ("THE JUDGE'S VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE MATTER MAY HAVE BEEN COLORED BY HIS PERCEPTION") skewed his ruling.
No, in overturning the judge's decision they noted that his personal bias ("THE JUDGE'S VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE MATTER MAY HAVE BEEN COLORED BY HIS PERCEPTION") skewed his ruling.
...complete the quote:
"We are also concerned that the judge's view of the facts of the matter may have been colored by his perception that, although defendant's sexual acts violated applicable criminal statutes, they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable — a view that we have soundly rejected."
Culturally acceptable according to what? The man's belief in Islamic Sharia law.
This law banning the use/consideration of Muslim Law or any International Law in the Oklahoma Courts was recently passed with 70% of Oklahoma voter approval. Now the Muslim Group, CARE is suing to have it repealed.
Seems to me that in America, our courts should continue to base decisions on the laws of our country, not religion or other country's law. Britain, apparently is already using the Sharia Law in 85 Courts. When does a country stop being its own country?
There are a lot of posts here and someone may have already mentioned it but the Muslim group is CAIR not CARE (which is actually a poverty organization).
...complete the quote:
"We are also concerned that the judge's view of the facts of the matter may have been colored by his perception that, although defendant's sexual acts violated applicable criminal statutes, they were culturally acceptable and thus not actionable — a view that we have soundly rejected."
Culturally acceptable according to what? The man's belief in Islamic Sharia law.
And still, no matter how you try to get around it, it is the judge's perception that is faulty. The judge, who was not a Muslim, who was not trying to apply Sharia law. The judge exercised bad judgment. The appeals court noted it and overruled him.
Actually, you should be agreeing with the Constitution of the United States which establishes that our system of government, which would include the judicial branch, is prohibited from incorporating religion.
Oklahoma's law, which explicitly identifies the Muslim faith, actually defies that prohibition.
Well, no. The Appellate Court Judges ruled that the restraining order should have been granted by the judge (they reversed his decision) AND condemned the judge's use of the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) in ruling a lack of criminal intent.
Where did I say it was a rape trial? I didn't.
We're discussing the reason the judge refused to grant a restraining order and the Appellate Court Judges' rejection of a belief in Islamic Sharia law as a reason to refuse the action.
Why are you so confused on this?
I have repeatedly given you the information on why it was overturned and the reasoning. As well as the reason Judge Charles refused to grant a final restraining order. He did not see a future threat. Why is this hard for you?
And still, no matter how you try to get around it, it is the judges perception that is faulty.
You're cutting the reasoning short. All judge's rule (in absence of a jury trial) on their perception of the facts. This judge ruled there was a lack of criminal intent based on the fact of the man's belief in Islamic Sharia law.
Quote:
The judge exercised bad judgment. The appeals court noted it and overruled him.
Yes. the bad judgment was allowing Sharia law to influence a ruling meted out in the NJ court system. Hence... Oklahoma's ballot measure.
Why even let it get to the point of having to have a decision based on Sharia law overturned on appeal if that can be prevented at the outset.
You're cutting the reasoning short. All judge's rule (in absence of a jury trial) on their perception of the facts. This judge ruled there was a lack of criminal intent based on the fact of the man's belief in Islamic Sharia law.
Yes. the bad judgment was allowing Sharia law to influence a ruling meted out in the NJ court system. Hence... Oklahoma's ballot measure.
Why even let it get to the point of having to have a decision based on Sharia law overturned on appeal if that can be prevented at the outset.
Don't matter if you kill someone as a hate crime, or as a love crime based on your faith, you're still going down in MY country.
I have repeatedly given you the information on why it was overturned and the reasoning. As well as the reason Judge Charles refused to grant a final restraining order. He did not see a future threat.
You're still not getting it. I'll quote the Appeals Court Judges, citing the overturned judge, again:
Quote:
the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:
Quote:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
Clearly, the Appeals Court could not let that legal precedent stand. That ruling would allow Muslims to get away with criminal acts as long as they believed they were entitled to commit them under Sharia law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
