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.
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...
No, Informed. The problem is that it wasn't a sharia law case and it wasn't a criminal court case.
The only 'problem' is that you and DC insist on framing the NJ case as such. The Appellate Court Judges make it quite clear that the overturned judge's ruling of 'lack of criminal intent' was erroneously based on the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law). Sharia law influenced a NJ court decision when it shouldn't have. The Appellate Court Judges confirmed that.
The only 'problem' is that you and DC insist on framing the NJ case as such. The Appellate Court Judges make it quite clear that the overturned judge's ruling of 'lack of criminal intent' was erroneously based on the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law). Sharia law influenced a NJ court decision when it shouldn't have. The Appellate Court Judges confirmed that.
Actually, no. The appeals judges confirmed that the judge's ruling was faulty. They never said it was faulty because the judge based his decision on Sharia Law. He didn't. In fact, he couldn't. Because Sharia Law excuses the criminality of this man's actions. And this WAS NOT the court where the criminality of the man's actions was determined. This was a family court, not a criminal court.
You are completely missing the point. The judge refused to grant a restraining order, citing the man's belief (Islamic Sharia Law) as proof of lack of criminal intent.
No, you are completely missing the point. No pattern. A belief that the no contact order was in place. No contact order. He saw no reason for them to have anything to do with each other again. Meanwhile admitting that there would be future litigation.
The only 'problem' is that you and DC insist on framing the NJ case as such. The Appellate Court Judges make it quite clear that the overturned judge's ruling of 'lack of criminal intent' was erroneously based on the man's belief (Islamic Sharia law). Sharia law influenced a NJ court decision when it shouldn't have. The Appellate Court Judges confirmed that.
You are the one who is expecting it to be a criminal court case. It is not.
I don't think you are aware of it, it is a different legal matter.
What part of...
"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.
You are the one who is expecting it to be a criminal court case.
You are mistaken. I never said that. I have been quite clear in the info I have provided, including the NJ Appellate Court Judges' statements on overturning the decision.
"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.
By overturning the judge's decision, the Appllate Court ruled that there was a legitimate reason for the final restraining order.
What part of not a rape trial are you not getting?????The whole damn thing.
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.
The whole damn thing.
