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.
No, not hedging. The facts are quite clear. It's a mystery why you continue to argue against them.
Quote:
Let's see, a legal precedent would be a case that establishes a rule that other judges could use when deciding future cases with similar facts and issues.
The issue was a restraining order.
The NJ judge ruled the defendant's acts against his wife not actionable. That would have been the legal precedent.
Quote:
The facts were that a Moroccon man who was a Muslim attacked his wife. Such an attack was not considered criminal both in his home country or according to his religious traditions. Hence, he did not intend to break the law.
You may believe that but if you had read the Appellate Court's decision, you would have seen the citations of the statutes that contradict your opinion.
Quote:
The judge found that he did not intend to break the law as relevant to whether he would in the future attack his wife. That's tenuous reasoning which is why the appeals court overruled him.
You left out the part about the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) being a prominent factor in the NJ judge's ruling.
Quote:
But it's not exactly precedent. Can you find a copy of his actual ruling, where he established a new rule that would be followed as precedent?
Study up a little on stare decisis and res judicata.
No, not hedging. The facts are quite clear. It's a mystery why you continue to argue against them.
Hedging. You don't answer questions, you hedge instead. I can list the questions you refuse to answer. Would you like me to do that for you?
The NJ judge ruled the defendant's acts against his wife not actionable. That would have been the legal precedent.
Not actionable for the purposes of a restraining order. Unless you're arguing that the criminal proceedings against the defendant were suspended? And you're not arguing that, are you? Because that would be contradicted by the FACTS.
You may believe that but if you had read the Appellate Court's decision, you would have seen the citations of the statutes that contradict your opinion.
You left out the part about the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) being a prominent factor in the NJ judge's ruling.
Study up a little on stare decisis and res judicata.
Stare decisis would only apply if you have this judge establishing a precedent. He didn't. People have always been able to argue in hearings regarding restraining orders that the situation has changed. People have always been able to argue in courts like this that when they committed the crime they didn't know their actions comprised a crime. NO NEW PRECEDENT was established. So stare decisis is moot.
Stare decisis would only apply if you have this judge establishing a precedent. He didn't.
Yes, that ruling would have established a precedent. That's why the Appellate Court Judges expressed concern over the ruling in their decision, stated that they soundly rejected it, and promptly overturned it.
Yes, that ruling would have established a precedent. That's why the Appellate Court Judges expressed concern over the ruling in their decision, stated that they soundly rejected it, and promptly overturned it.
The precedent of what? What's the precedent again?
The precedent of what? What's the precedent again?
The answer is in the Appellate Court Judges' decision statement:
Quote:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ...FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION
The answer is in the Appellate Court Judges' decision statement:
Can you do anything but link to that quote? Can you actually explain what it means? Can you answer in your own words? I've been very kind about explaining in my own words what I think these things mean. You don't seem to be able to explain anything.
Can you do anything but link to that quote? Can you actually explain what it means?
Why is that necessary? Do you not understand the Appellate Court Judges' decision, why they specifically stated what they did, and the implication of such?
Quote:
Can you answer in your own words? I've been very kind about explaining in my own words what I think these things mean. You don't seem to be able to explain anything.
My own words are irrelevant. The Appellate Court decision is quite clear.
I have no idea why you insist on believing the NJ judge's ruling means what you want it to or what you think it does, even though the Appellate Court Judges' decision has made it quite clear that your interpretation is incorrect.
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.
