The Court is now in SessioN!

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2003-07-03 03:33am

Great to see he's finally in for all that Genocide. We didn't call him Great Shotgun in the Sky for nothing back in the old days.

Also, has he been apprehended already and will he appear before the court?

Edit: missed a word

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-03 10:28am

Glocksman wrote:What nation's laws are you trying him under?

Hate speech is not a crime in the USA

Pornography isn't illegal for the most part (outside of areas such as Cincinnati Ohio) either.

I believe that speech that directly incites or encourages acts of an illegal nature are a crime in the US.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-07-03 11:36am

It's a murky area of the law, but I believe the deciding factor has to do with whether or not the speech is aimed at motivating people to go and harm someone directly.

Me standing up in front of a crowd and screaming 'Jews deserve death' wouldn't be prohibited.
Standing up and yelling 'Let's go kill some Jews' would be considered incitement, as it's 'explicit language likely to cause imminent lawless action.'

Even then, the proper charge isn't hate speech, but incitement or intimidation.

I question the Pornography charge as well.

Pornography isn't illegal. Obscenity is.

Part of the legal definition of obscenity is 'the matter or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.'

Now some prudes think that all porn is obscene, but we know better.

Taken as a whole, the Bible certainly does have 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value' based on the influence that it's had over the centuries on many millions of people.
With all of the other more serious offenses that the accused is charged with, why muck about with more ambiguous charges of 'hate speech' and pornography?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-03 11:36am

neoolong wrote:
Glocksman wrote:What nation's laws are you trying him under?

Hate speech is not a crime in the USA

Pornography isn't illegal for the most part (outside of areas such as Cincinnati Ohio) either.
I believe that speech that directly incites or encourages acts of an illegal nature are a crime in the US.

Incitement to riot, more famously known as "shouting fire in a crowded theater". But the standards are very strict--they have to be words that will IMMEDIATELY lead to violence, not merely advocating violence.

Is it too late to get in on this? Pending Hemlock's permission, I'd like to get in as council for the defense.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-07-03 12:56pm

I don't think we'd win:

Where is he being procecuted? The american legal system wouldn't apply to crimes committed in biblical times. I suppose Biblical places, like Sodom, could have charged him with murder, but they don't exist.

Another problem is that God wouldn't be human, the defense could try to stall saying that you can't procecute God, anymore than you could procecute a man-eating shark. This would probably have to go all the way to the supreme court, arguing the applicability of current laws.

Finally, since God isn't required to testify, wouldn't the procecution's case be based on here-say, ie. the bible?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 01:31pm

The hate speach will be thrown out when we do the trial.

The porn charges are distrtributing porn to minors...think of all the children...using his wn blue laws against him

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-07-03 02:04pm

Zoink wrote:I don't think we'd win:

Where is he being procecuted? The american legal system wouldn't apply to crimes committed in biblical times. I suppose Biblical places, like Sodom, could have charged him with murder, but they don't exist.

If I remember correctly, murder doesn't have a statue of limitations.

Another problem is that God wouldn't be human, the defense could try to stall saying that you can't procecute God, anymore than you could procecute a man-eating shark. This would probably have to go all the way to the supreme court, arguing the applicability of current laws.

Actually, I don't remember any of the applicable laws only applying to humans specifically. God is a person and he is also sapient. That should be sufficient.

Finally, since God isn't required to testify, wouldn't the procecution's case be based on here-say, ie. the bible?

The Bible is considered his word divinely inspired meaning he put down everything as he did it. God's testimony would be in the form of the Bible.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 03:10pm

Using someone autobiography against them in court essentially...

The trial itself will be done in my Yahoo group...so all those interested lease list a yahoo address here...

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2003-07-03 04:25pm

I have to support the dismissal of the pornography charges against God. It's much, much less racy than even a Harliquien romance novel, and I believe those are available to minors.

However, I do think we can nail him on adultery charges. Virginal birth, my foot!

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-07-03 04:48pm

Don't forget gross sexual discrimination and imprisonment without just cause or hearing (hell) and unfair dismissal of an employee (Lucifer).

I propose that should the defendant be found guilty he be sentanced to reside in a pocket universe for the next 2.3e+999999 years. Fortunately no suicide watch shall be needed. This pocket universe shall be an infinite plane, with thousands of automated iorn chariots chasing err... guarding him.

Damm, I need a yahoo account? I'm sure I have one somewhere.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-03 04:52pm

Hasn't this been done before?

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-07-03 04:59pm

I think we did one months back, but it was smaller scale.

MORE CHARGES:

Abuse of child - Jesus. While technically about 33, in the lifespan of dieties, said Jesus was still very young indeed. 'god' is known to have been responsible or an accessory to the crucifixion of said child. I reccommnend this child be made a ward of the state.

Violation of state secrets. The defendant is known to know all state secrets. A seperate millitary trial must be arranged.

Terrorism. Under the alius Allah, the defendant has been responsible for all activities of Al-Quaeda.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 05:29pm

This court will take into consideration these new charges.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-07-03 06:25pm

Yahoo ID: redbaron_94014. What's the group name? Also, is this for participants, spectators, or both?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 06:48pm

Participants... We have a couple spots for witnesses....

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-03 07:07pm

I have several objections to the new charges, on the grounds that 1) Jesus acquiesed willingly to the crucifixation, 2) 'Violation of state secrets' is a fucking stupid charge for a trial based on the morality of religion/defendant has not divulged any such secrets, 3) Jahweh has never claimed any responsibility for acts done in the name of Allah

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-07-03 07:08pm

True, but he hasn't done anything to stop them, either. As an omnipotent being, that counts as tacit endorsement or worse.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 07:27pm

It is true that jesus as killed by his own free will..

Violation of state secrets doesnt work as he has not revealed the info.

If I am not mistaken, both Yahweh and Allah are the same entity.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-03 07:43pm

It is highly debateable as to whether Allah and Yahweh are the same entity. For instance, Allah is described as not having a son; Yahweh clearly had one.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 07:48pm

This is of course because of the dogma of each religion. IIRC the Muslims use the old testament, and view Jesus as a prophet, rather than the son of god. They are still waiting on their savior

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2003-07-03 08:57pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Participants... We have a couple spots for witnesses....

In Leviticus, there are many passages that discuss that a woman was considered as dirty and "unclean" as a leper after childbirth, for I believe a week at a time. I believe this is emotional abuse.

Also, women were not treated equally as men. They were not even permitted to speak at synogogues; they were to ask their husbands afterwords. They were to never speak up to their husbands, and the only room for divorce was adultery. Meaning, any other kind of abuse has no grounds for divorce. I see an equal rights.

Or I'm just babbling endlessly.

Crimson Raine

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 08:58pm

would you like to present a woman's testimony?

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-07-03 09:08pm

The defence presents a petition to dismiss, based on these facts.

Ex post facto prosecution.
All exsising countries neither exsisted, nor had laws against said aledged acts at the time of aledged occuances. (Retroactive laws are not constitutional.)
Hearsay inadmisability.
There are no living witnesses to the aledged acts, only documentation of dubious nature, uncorroborated by other evidence. UNVETTED BY THIS COURT.
Jurisdiction. Nothing outside of the country of the court has any legal jurisdiction. The Defendant has never been proven to have been in said jurisdiction, much less commited crimes in said jurisdiction.

In addition, stipulating these charges are not summarily dismissed for the above reasons, the Defendant named in said indightment is not a homo sapies, and thus not subect to criminal law, any more than a shark, a fire, a plant, or a celestial body. Any law retroactively changing said jurisdiction to non humans is ex post facto, and therefore non applicable.
Defendant can not, in fact, be provent to exsist, much less be subject to this jurisdiction.There must be an exsisting defendant to prosecute before charges may be brought.

If said Prosecutors are further willing to stipulate the exsistence, and alledged nature of defendant, then you would well be advised God can change the very rules of physics, and causality, and thus is beyond the scope, or enforcability, of this court's jurisdiction.
I may remind the court of the perilous nature of opposing God, and the infinite amount of agony endured after death for daring to bring such a case before HIM.

In short, dismiss this case, or face the wrath of God, for a futile matter of principal.Should said defendant deem it needed to actualy show up in this kangaroo court, you will all go to hell, and suffer eternal damnation.

Come on guys, if you swollow the premise of God exsisting, and creating the whole universe thing, you are pissing into the wind, prior to having hot sex with meatgrinder.

Would YOU serve HIM papers?
If you say yes, you are a fool. God doesn't suffer fools, but fools suffer from God! Be a "hero,"and stick your dick in a light socket. Engaging in single combat against a windmill make more sence.

Most of you brave souls wouldn't talk back to a criminal with a sawed off shotgun, yet you think you have the stones to confront a "Q+++" class uberbeing.
Destroy galaxies on a whim > Shotgun= more possible bad.
Piss yourself at shotgun, yet finger wag God?
If the Gou'ald can torture you to death, and revive you, rinse, repeat,....
You DON'T want to know.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-03 09:38pm

Ex post facto prosecution.
All exsising countries neither exsisted, nor had laws against said aledged acts at the time of aledged occuances. (Retroactive laws are not constitutional.)
Hearsay inadmisability.
There are no living witnesses to the aledged acts, only documentation of dubious nature, uncorroborated by other evidence. UNVETTED BY THIS COURT.
Jurisdiction. Nothing outside of the country of the court has any legal jurisdiction. The Defendant has never been proven to have been in said jurisdiction, much less commited crimes in said jurisdiction.

This is a court of humanity, and brings these offenses to trial without a need for national jurisdiction.

Hearsay!? His cnfession was WRITTEN! by himself.

And threatening this court with the wrath of the defendant does not endear you to this court. Motion to dismiss denied.

Yuri Prime · Post by **Yuri Prime** » 2003-07-03 09:44pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Hearsay!? His cnfession was WRITTEN! by himself.

Transcribed actually, but a confession nonetheless...