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.
He DID NOT RULE on the criminal proceedings. He was a civil courts judge, and he could not rule on the criminal proceedings.
I'm not going to keep arguing this with you. You don't understand what happened, that's clear.
I DO understand what happened. The judge referenced the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) in ruling a lack of criminal intent, vacating temporary restraints, and dismissing the plaintiff's domestic violence action.
The Muslim woman had to appeal that judge's decision, and won on appeal.
The appeal would not have been necessary had the prior judge not based his ruling on the Sharia law beliefs of the Muslim man.
I DO understand what happened. The judge referenced the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) in ruling a lack of criminal intent, vacating temporary restraints, and dismissing the plaintiff's domestic violence action.
The Muslim woman had to appeal that judge's decision, and won on appeal.
The appeal would not have been necessary had the prior judge not based his ruling on the Sharia law beliefs of the Muslim man.
You are arguing with someone who just loves to argue for the sake of it, whether it be fact based or not.
I DO understand what happened. The judge referenced the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) in ruling a lack of criminal intent, vacating temporary restraints, and dismissing the plaintiff's domestic violence action.
The Muslim woman had to appeal that judge's decision, and won on appeal.
The appeal would not have been necessary had the prior judge not based his ruling on the Sharia law beliefs of the Muslim man.
No, you don't understand.
Because you don't understand that the criminal court proceedings on the rape charges were never affected by this judge's rulings. The criminal action was a wholly separate matter.
You seem to think that this judge had the power to dismiss the criminal charges. He didn't.
You seem to think that the appeal reinstated the criminal charges. It didn't. Because the criminal charges were NEVER dismissed.
Yes, I do understand. I've posted the overturned judge's ruling and actions on the case. They are such: the judgereferenced the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) in ruling a lack of criminal intent, vacating temporary restraints, and dismissing the plaintiff's domestic violence action.
The judge was reversed on appeal.
Read the Superior Court Appellate Division case. Those are the facts, and they're all in there:
a6107-08.opn.html (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html - broken link)
Yes, I do understand. I've posted the overturned judge's ruling and actions on the case. They are such: the judgereferenced the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law) in ruling a lack of criminal intent, vacating temporary restraints, and dismissing the plaintiff's domestic violence action.
The judge was reversed on appeal.
Read the Superior Court Appellate Division case. Those are the facts, and they're all in there:
a6107-08.opn.html (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html - broken link)
You are posting a link to an appellate decision overturning the civil court judge's ruling regarding a restraining order.
Yes, I am aware of that. Note the REASON why the judge ruled a lack of criminal intent, vacated temporary restraints, and dismissed the plaintiff's domestic violence action.
...the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law).
Let's see what the Appellate Judges have to say...
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.
Yes, I am aware of that. Note the REASON why the judge ruled a lack of criminal intent, vacated temporary restraints, and dismissed the plaintiff's domestic violence action.
...the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law).
Let's see what the Appellate Judges have to say...
Maybe you ought to read the parts in your appellate decision that discuss that SEPARATE matter of the criminal proceedings. You know, like when they talk about the FAMILY COURT JUDGE'S assumption of a no-contact order being issued by the CRIMINAL COURT handling the RAPE CHARGES.
Perhaps then, you will realize that this man is still facing criminal charges and will most likely go to jail for his actions. Maybe then, you will realize that the only thing this FAMILY COURT judge could rule on was a RESTRAINING ORDER.
Religious law should not be practiced in our country. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist whatever. It has no place here and I agree with Oklahoma.
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.
