OK, sorry for the delay. I've tried to present a few new charges
rather than the same old talking points, but I can't ignore the
genocide charges.
The Prosecution indicts God, aka Yahweh, aka The LORD, aka "The
Bearded One", aka Hughie, aka 'im Upstairs, of last known address the
heavens above, on the following charges.
All humanity, bar four males and four females, murdered. Exact numbers
unknown but in percentage terms greater than 99.99%
ii) The Israelite conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)
Here are the orders issued by God to his adherents, dictating ethnic
cleansing.
16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give
thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
CHARGE: Accessory to Murder
- Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30-40)
God accepts payment in the form of human sacrifice for a debt.
CHARGE: Culpable Negligence
- Establishing competing Jewish and Arabian tribes (Genesis 17:19-20)
God appears to have established two nations, and then informed both
that they were entitled to "Most Favoured Nation" status, laying the
grounds for future wars. The Prosecution contends that God must have
made false representation to at least one party.
Not strictly a crime, but the Prosecution wants an injunction
preventing any material citing this deity as an authority banned for
all eternity from any academy of science.
CHARGE: Artistic Desecration
- make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 98:4)
This instruction has inspired such cultural atrocities as Stryper. The
Prosecution contends negligence on the part of the defendant. The
instruction should have been "make a TUNEFUL noise unto the Lord."
CHARGE: Indecent Exposure
-Exodus 33:17-23
In willful contravention of then prevailing community standards, the
defendant presented his uncovered buttocks to the gaze of his prophet
Moses. Witnesses were later to record that Mr Moses' face was seen to
"shine" from accumulated exposure to the divine mooning.
While the Court may be inclined to dismiss this indictment as trifling
in comparison to the more heinous charges, the Prosecution contends
that it is important that this charge proceeds, given that a
successful conviction will levy the sole effective penalty that can be
exerted against an omnipotent deity, namely loss of dignity.
Civil Actions
---------------
Balaam vs. God
The Plaintiff alleges Unconscionable Conduct and Breach of Promise,
resulting in loss of livelihood, reputation, family and eventually the
plaintiff's life.
This occurred despite the Plaintiff honouring all terms of the verbal
contract in full. (Numbers 23-24, Numbers 31:7-9)
As compensation, the Plaintiff requests the asses of the Defendant and
his firstborn son. Said compensation to be rendered bereft of the
power of speech prior to delivery.
Onan vs. God
The Plaintiff alleges unreasonable conditions and unreasonable
invasion of privacy. Although I may have to declare a personal
interest at this point.
(Genesis 38:7-10)
Lucifer vs. God
Plaintiff alleges Illegal dispossession of habitat
- Isiah 14:12-20, Revelation 12:7-9
Esau vs. God
Plaintiff alleges complicity by the defendant in the sanctioning of a
fraudulent disinheritance
(Genesis 25:29-34)
- END OF CHARGES -
At this point I think defense counsel should indicate whether they
intend to contest the charges, and cite any evidence they plan to
present. In legal terminology, I think this is the discovery process.
You may petition the Court to have the charges dismissed, but you do
have to provide grounds.
===== WIKIPEDIA =====
In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in
which each party through the law of civil procedure can request
documents and other evidence from other parties and can compel the
production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery
devices, such as requests for production of documents, and
depositions. In other words, discovery includes (1) interrogatories;
(2) motions or requests for production of documents; (3) requests for
admissions; and (4) depositions.
I have not watched enough court room drama since the Perry Mason days,
so may get this 'discovery process' not quite right. But anyway ...
The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
1:13-20.
A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
A more detailed defense will follow.
On Oct 20, 6:15 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> OK, sorry for the delay. I've tried to present a few new charges
> rather than the same old talking points, but I can't ignore the
> genocide charges.
> The Prosecution indicts God, aka Yahweh, aka The LORD, aka "The
> Bearded One", aka Hughie, aka 'im Upstairs, of last known address the
> heavens above, on the following charges.
> All humanity, bar four males and four females, murdered. Exact numbers
> unknown but in percentage terms greater than 99.99%
> ii) The Israelite conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)
> Here are the orders issued by God to his adherents, dictating ethnic
> cleansing.
> 16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give
> thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
> 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
> Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
> Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
> CHARGE: Accessory to Murder
> - Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30-40)
> God accepts payment in the form of human sacrifice for a debt.
> CHARGE: Culpable Negligence
> - Establishing competing Jewish and Arabian tribes (Genesis 17:19-20)
> God appears to have established two nations, and then informed both
> that they were entitled to "Most Favoured Nation" status, laying the
> grounds for future wars. The Prosecution contends that God must have
> made false representation to at least one party.
> Not strictly a crime, but the Prosecution wants an injunction
> preventing any material citing this deity as an authority banned for
> all eternity from any academy of science.
> CHARGE: Artistic Desecration
> - make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 98:4)
> This instruction has inspired such cultural atrocities as Stryper. The
> Prosecution contends negligence on the part of the defendant. The
> instruction should have been "make a TUNEFUL noise unto the Lord."
> CHARGE: Indecent Exposure
> -Exodus 33:17-23
> In willful contravention of then prevailing community standards, the
> defendant presented his uncovered buttocks to the gaze of his prophet
> Moses. Witnesses were later to record that Mr Moses' face was seen to
> "shine" from accumulated exposure to the divine mooning.
> While the Court may be inclined to dismiss this indictment as trifling
> in comparison to the more heinous charges, the Prosecution contends
> that it is important that this charge proceeds, given that a
> successful conviction will levy the sole effective penalty that can be
> exerted against an omnipotent deity, namely loss of dignity.
> Civil Actions
> ---------------
> Balaam vs. God
> The Plaintiff alleges Unconscionable Conduct and Breach of Promise,
> resulting in loss of livelihood, reputation, family and eventually the
> plaintiff's life.
> This occurred despite the Plaintiff honouring all terms of the verbal
> contract in full. (Numbers 23-24, Numbers 31:7-9)
> As compensation, the Plaintiff requests the asses of the Defendant and
> his firstborn son. Said compensation to be rendered bereft of the
> power of speech prior to delivery.
> Onan vs. God
> The Plaintiff alleges unreasonable conditions and unreasonable
> invasion of privacy. Although I may have to declare a personal
> interest at this point.
> (Genesis 38:7-10)
> Lucifer vs. God
> Plaintiff alleges Illegal dispossession of habitat
> - Isiah 14:12-20, Revelation 12:7-9
> Esau vs. God
> Plaintiff alleges complicity by the defendant in the sanctioning of a
> fraudulent disinheritance
> (Genesis 25:29-34)
> - END OF CHARGES -
> At this point I think defense counsel should indicate whether they
> intend to contest the charges, and cite any evidence they plan to
> present. In legal terminology, I think this is the discovery process.
> You may petition the Court to have the charges dismissed, but you do
> have to provide grounds.
> ===== WIKIPEDIA =====
> In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in
> which each party through the law of civil procedure can request
> documents and other evidence from other parties and can compel the
> production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery
> devices, such as requests for production of documents, and
> depositions. In other words, discovery includes (1) interrogatories;
> (2) motions or requests for production of documents; (3) requests for
> admissions; and (4) depositions.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:29 PM, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> I have not watched enough court room drama since the Perry Mason days,
> so may get this 'discovery process' not quite right. But anyway ...
> The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> 1:13-20.
> A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
> A more detailed defense will follow.
> On Oct 20, 6:15 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > OK, sorry for the delay. I've tried to present a few new charges
> > rather than the same old talking points, but I can't ignore the
> > genocide charges.
> > The Prosecution indicts God, aka Yahweh, aka The LORD, aka "The
> > Bearded One", aka Hughie, aka 'im Upstairs, of last known address the
> > heavens above, on the following charges.
> > All humanity, bar four males and four females, murdered. Exact numbers
> > unknown but in percentage terms greater than 99.99%
> > ii) The Israelite conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)
> > Here are the orders issued by God to his adherents, dictating ethnic
> > cleansing.
> > 16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give
> > thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
> > 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
> > Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
> > Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
> > CHARGE: Accessory to Murder
> > - Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30-40)
> > God accepts payment in the form of human sacrifice for a debt.
> > CHARGE: Culpable Negligence
> > - Establishing competing Jewish and Arabian tribes (Genesis 17:19-20)
> > God appears to have established two nations, and then informed both
> > that they were entitled to "Most Favoured Nation" status, laying the
> > grounds for future wars. The Prosecution contends that God must have
> > made false representation to at least one party.
> > Not strictly a crime, but the Prosecution wants an injunction
> > preventing any material citing this deity as an authority banned for
> > all eternity from any academy of science.
> > CHARGE: Artistic Desecration
> > - make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 98:4)
> > This instruction has inspired such cultural atrocities as Stryper. The
> > Prosecution contends negligence on the part of the defendant. The
> > instruction should have been "make a TUNEFUL noise unto the Lord."
> > In willful contravention of then prevailing community standards, the
> > defendant presented his uncovered buttocks to the gaze of his prophet
> > Moses. Witnesses were later to record that Mr Moses' face was seen to
> > "shine" from accumulated exposure to the divine mooning.
> > While the Court may be inclined to dismiss this indictment as trifling
> > in comparison to the more heinous charges, the Prosecution contends
> > that it is important that this charge proceeds, given that a
> > successful conviction will levy the sole effective penalty that can be
> > exerted against an omnipotent deity, namely loss of dignity.
> > Civil Actions
> > ---------------
> > Balaam vs. God
> > The Plaintiff alleges Unconscionable Conduct and Breach of Promise,
> > resulting in loss of livelihood, reputation, family and eventually the
> > plaintiff's life.
> > This occurred despite the Plaintiff honouring all terms of the verbal
> > contract in full. (Numbers 23-24, Numbers 31:7-9)
> > As compensation, the Plaintiff requests the asses of the Defendant and
> > his firstborn son. Said compensation to be rendered bereft of the
> > power of speech prior to delivery.
> > Onan vs. God
> > The Plaintiff alleges unreasonable conditions and unreasonable
> > invasion of privacy. Although I may have to declare a personal
> > interest at this point.
> > (Genesis 38:7-10)
> > Lucifer vs. God
> > Plaintiff alleges Illegal dispossession of habitat
> > - Isiah 14:12-20, Revelation 12:7-9
> > Esau vs. God
> > Plaintiff alleges complicity by the defendant in the sanctioning of a
> > fraudulent disinheritance
> > (Genesis 25:29-34)
> > - END OF CHARGES -
> > At this point I think defense counsel should indicate whether they
> > intend to contest the charges, and cite any evidence they plan to
> > present. In legal terminology, I think this is the discovery process.
> > You may petition the Court to have the charges dismissed, but you do
> > have to provide grounds.
> > ===== WIKIPEDIA =====
> > In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in
> > which each party through the law of civil procedure can request
> > documents and other evidence from other parties and can compel the
> > production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery
> > devices, such as requests for production of documents, and
> > depositions. In other words, discovery includes (1) interrogatories;
> > (2) motions or requests for production of documents; (3) requests for
> > admissions; and (4) depositions.
On Oct 20, 5:32 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do either the Prosecution or Defense have a Witness List?
The defense is prepared to call the following to the witness stand:
- Paul of Tarsus
- Apollos (or whoever authored the book of Hebrews)
- Jesus of Nazareth
Depositions from each of these have been taken and are a part of the
public record. Additional witnesses may be called as deemed relevant.
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:29 PM, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > I have not watched enough court room drama since the Perry Mason days,
> > so may get this 'discovery process' not quite right. But anyway ...
> > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > 1:13-20.
> > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
> > A more detailed defense will follow.
> > On Oct 20, 6:15 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > OK, sorry for the delay. I've tried to present a few new charges
> > > rather than the same old talking points, but I can't ignore the
> > > genocide charges.
> > > The Prosecution indicts God, aka Yahweh, aka The LORD, aka "The
> > > Bearded One", aka Hughie, aka 'im Upstairs, of last known address the
> > > heavens above, on the following charges.
> > > All humanity, bar four males and four females, murdered. Exact numbers
> > > unknown but in percentage terms greater than 99.99%
> > > ii) The Israelite conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)
> > > Here are the orders issued by God to his adherents, dictating ethnic
> > > cleansing.
> > > 16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give
> > > thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
> > > 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
> > > Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
> > > Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
> > > CHARGE: Accessory to Murder
> > > - Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30-40)
> > > God accepts payment in the form of human sacrifice for a debt.
> > > CHARGE: Culpable Negligence
> > > - Establishing competing Jewish and Arabian tribes (Genesis 17:19-20)
> > > God appears to have established two nations, and then informed both
> > > that they were entitled to "Most Favoured Nation" status, laying the
> > > grounds for future wars. The Prosecution contends that God must have
> > > made false representation to at least one party.
> > > Not strictly a crime, but the Prosecution wants an injunction
> > > preventing any material citing this deity as an authority banned for
> > > all eternity from any academy of science.
> > > CHARGE: Artistic Desecration
> > > - make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 98:4)
> > > This instruction has inspired such cultural atrocities as Stryper. The
> > > Prosecution contends negligence on the part of the defendant. The
> > > instruction should have been "make a TUNEFUL noise unto the Lord."
> > > In willful contravention of then prevailing community standards, the
> > > defendant presented his uncovered buttocks to the gaze of his prophet
> > > Moses. Witnesses were later to record that Mr Moses' face was seen to
> > > "shine" from accumulated exposure to the divine mooning.
> > > While the Court may be inclined to dismiss this indictment as trifling
> > > in comparison to the more heinous charges, the Prosecution contends
> > > that it is important that this charge proceeds, given that a
> > > successful conviction will levy the sole effective penalty that can be
> > > exerted against an omnipotent deity, namely loss of dignity.
> > > Civil Actions
> > > ---------------
> > > Balaam vs. God
> > > The Plaintiff alleges Unconscionable Conduct and Breach of Promise,
> > > resulting in loss of livelihood, reputation, family and eventually the
> > > plaintiff's life.
> > > This occurred despite the Plaintiff honouring all terms of the verbal
> > > contract in full. (Numbers 23-24, Numbers 31:7-9)
> > > As compensation, the Plaintiff requests the asses of the Defendant and
> > > his firstborn son. Said compensation to be rendered bereft of the
> > > power of speech prior to delivery.
> > > Onan vs. God
> > > The Plaintiff alleges unreasonable conditions and unreasonable
> > > invasion of privacy. Although I may have to declare a personal
> > > interest at this point.
> > > (Genesis 38:7-10)
> > > Lucifer vs. God
> > > Plaintiff alleges Illegal dispossession of habitat
> > > - Isiah 14:12-20, Revelation 12:7-9
> > > Esau vs. God
> > > Plaintiff alleges complicity by the defendant in the sanctioning of a
> > > fraudulent disinheritance
> > > (Genesis 25:29-34)
> > > - END OF CHARGES -
> > > At this point I think defense counsel should indicate whether they
> > > intend to contest the charges, and cite any evidence they plan to
> > > present. In legal terminology, I think this is the discovery process.
> > > You may petition the Court to have the charges dismissed, but you do
> > > have to provide grounds.
> > > ===== WIKIPEDIA =====
> > > In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in
> > > which each party through the law of civil procedure can request
> > > documents and other evidence from other parties and can compel the
> > > production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery
> > > devices, such as requests for production of documents, and
> > > depositions. In other words, discovery includes (1) interrogatories;
> > > (2) motions or requests for production of documents; (3) requests for
> > > admissions; and (4) depositions.
> The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> 1:13-20.
The prosecution concurs with your assessment of the Old Testament, but
contends that this statement is equally applicable to the New
Testament. The burden of proof must rest with the defense to show why
the NT should be given greater evidential weight than the OT. Simply
arguing that the NT presents your client in a more favorable light
won't cut it.
> A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
The prosecution will argue right back at you that there is no legal
precedent, in any jurisdiction in the world, for granting such
extraordinary rights to any being. The court may have to establish a
new precedent here, but the prosecution will argue that the court
should seek guidance in ethical philosophy, not religious edicts.
> I have not watched enough court room drama since the Perry Mason days,
> so may get this 'discovery process' not quite right. But anyway ...
> The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> 1:13-20.
> A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
> A more detailed defense will follow.
> On Oct 20, 6:15 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > OK, sorry for the delay. I've tried to present a few new charges
> > rather than the same old talking points, but I can't ignore the
> > genocide charges.
> > The Prosecution indicts God, aka Yahweh, aka The LORD, aka "The
> > Bearded One", aka Hughie, aka 'im Upstairs, of last known address the
> > heavens above, on the following charges.
> > All humanity, bar four males and four females, murdered. Exact numbers
> > unknown but in percentage terms greater than 99.99%
> > ii) The Israelite conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)
> > Here are the orders issued by God to his adherents, dictating ethnic
> > cleansing.
> > 16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give
> > thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
> > 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
> > Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
> > Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
> > CHARGE: Accessory to Murder
> > - Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30-40)
> > God accepts payment in the form of human sacrifice for a debt.
> > CHARGE: Culpable Negligence
> > - Establishing competing Jewish and Arabian tribes (Genesis 17:19-20)
> > God appears to have established two nations, and then informed both
> > that they were entitled to "Most Favoured Nation" status, laying the
> > grounds for future wars. The Prosecution contends that God must have
> > made false representation to at least one party.
> > Not strictly a crime, but the Prosecution wants an injunction
> > preventing any material citing this deity as an authority banned for
> > all eternity from any academy of science.
> > CHARGE: Artistic Desecration
> > - make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 98:4)
> > This instruction has inspired such cultural atrocities as Stryper. The
> > Prosecution contends negligence on the part of the defendant. The
> > instruction should have been "make a TUNEFUL noise unto the Lord."
> > In willful contravention of then prevailing community standards, the
> > defendant presented his uncovered buttocks to the gaze of his prophet
> > Moses. Witnesses were later to record that Mr Moses' face was seen to
> > "shine" from accumulated exposure to the divine mooning.
> > While the Court may be inclined to dismiss this indictment as trifling
> > in comparison to the more heinous charges, the Prosecution contends
> > that it is important that this charge proceeds, given that a
> > successful conviction will levy the sole effective penalty that can be
> > exerted against an omnipotent deity, namely loss of dignity.
> > Civil Actions
> > ---------------
> > Balaam vs. God
> > The Plaintiff alleges Unconscionable Conduct and Breach of Promise,
> > resulting in loss of livelihood, reputation, family and eventually the
> > plaintiff's life.
> > This occurred despite the Plaintiff honouring all terms of the verbal
> > contract in full. (Numbers 23-24, Numbers 31:7-9)
> > As compensation, the Plaintiff requests the asses of the Defendant and
> > his firstborn son. Said compensation to be rendered bereft of the
> > power of speech prior to delivery.
> > Onan vs. God
> > The Plaintiff alleges unreasonable conditions and unreasonable
> > invasion of privacy. Although I may have to declare a personal
> > interest at this point.
> > (Genesis 38:7-10)
> > Lucifer vs. God
> > Plaintiff alleges Illegal dispossession of habitat
> > - Isiah 14:12-20, Revelation 12:7-9
> > Esau vs. God
> > Plaintiff alleges complicity by the defendant in the sanctioning of a
> > fraudulent disinheritance
> > (Genesis 25:29-34)
> > - END OF CHARGES -
> > At this point I think defense counsel should indicate whether they
> > intend to contest the charges, and cite any evidence they plan to
> > present. In legal terminology, I think this is the discovery process.
> > You may petition the Court to have the charges dismissed, but you do
> > have to provide grounds.
> > ===== WIKIPEDIA =====
> > In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in
> > which each party through the law of civil procedure can request
> > documents and other evidence from other parties and can compel the
> > production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery
> > devices, such as requests for production of documents, and
> > depositions. In other words, discovery includes (1) interrogatories;
> > (2) motions or requests for production of documents; (3) requests for
> > admissions; and (4) depositions.
A quick note on how I'll be making decisions here:
- I will only be looking at the logical conclusions of the presented
prosecution and defense. I will not be making my own arguments, but
will examine the logical consequences of the arguments presented.
- I will also be examining the self-consistency of each argument
individually, without making note of whether the veracity of the
sources is established (the Bible, any expert testimony, scientific
analysis, etc). That falls to the attorneys ;).
Now on to my rulings ;).
On Oct 21, 6:07 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > 1:13-20.
> The prosecution concurs with your assessment of the Old Testament, but
> contends that this statement is equally applicable to the New
> Testament. The burden of proof must rest with the defense to show why
> the NT should be given greater evidential weight than the OT. Simply
> arguing that the NT presents your client in a more favorable light
> won't cut it.
Overruled.
According to Hebrews 1:1-3, the "prophets" are described as agents of
hearsay evidence, whereas the document describes that Jesus has been
given "legal authority" to speak on the behalf of the Defendant. I
will consider this contract to be binding for the duration of this
trial.
As such, all evidence in the Old Testament that ascribes actions,
opinions, processes, thoughts, capabilities, instructions, or
attributes to the Defendant that are not *DIRECTLY* and *UNIQUELY*
supported by Jesus are considered hearsay evidence, with appropriate
weight taken into account in light of other evidence, as per the
argument of the Defense.
(This ruling does not make a position on the truth of the document in
question... the Bible... but is commenting on its internal
consistency. The Bible is making it very clear that when there is a
contradiction, to impose self-consistency is to take the word of Jesus
as binding over those of any other agent).
> > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
> The prosecution will argue right back at you that there is no legal
> precedent, in any jurisdiction in the world, for granting such
> extraordinary rights to any being. The court may have to establish a
> new precedent here, but the prosecution will argue that the court
> should seek guidance in ethical philosophy, not religious edicts.
Sustained.
There is no evidence of any contract amongst the "created" and the
Defendant that they are "given" existence on the understanding that
their lives can be forfeit without their explicit consent.
Thus, the bench agrees with the Prosecution that a defense must be
mounted to justify this "freedom" of the Defendant to do with "his
creation" as he would.
> A quick note on how I'll be making decisions here:
> - I will only be looking at the logical conclusions of the presented
> prosecution and defense. I will not be making my own arguments, but
> will examine the logical consequences of the arguments presented.
> - I will also be examining the self-consistency of each argument
> individually, without making note of whether the veracity of the
> sources is established (the Bible, any expert testimony, scientific
> analysis, etc). That falls to the attorneys ;).
> Now on to my rulings ;).
> On Oct 21, 6:07 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 11:29 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > I have not watched enough court room drama since the Perry Mason days,
> > > so may get this 'discovery process' not quite right. But anyway ...
> > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > 1:13-20.
> > The prosecution concurs with your assessment of the Old Testament, but
> > contends that this statement is equally applicable to the New
> > Testament. The burden of proof must rest with the defense to show why
> > the NT should be given greater evidential weight than the OT. Simply
> > arguing that the NT presents your client in a more favorable light
> > won't cut it.
> Overruled.
> According to Hebrews 1:1-3, the "prophets" are described as agents of
> hearsay evidence, whereas the document describes that Jesus has been
> given "legal authority" to speak on the behalf of the Defendant. I
> will consider this contract to be binding for the duration of this
> trial.
> As such, all evidence in the Old Testament that ascribes actions,
> opinions, processes, thoughts, capabilities, instructions, or
> attributes to the Defendant that are not *DIRECTLY* and *UNIQUELY*
> supported by Jesus are considered hearsay evidence, with appropriate
> weight taken into account in light of other evidence, as per the
> argument of the Defense.
> (This ruling does not make a position on the truth of the document in
> question... the Bible... but is commenting on its internal
> consistency. The Bible is making it very clear that when there is a
> contradiction, to impose self-consistency is to take the word of Jesus
> as binding over those of any other agent).
> > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
> > The prosecution will argue right back at you that there is no legal
> > precedent, in any jurisdiction in the world, for granting such
> > extraordinary rights to any being. The court may have to establish a
> > new precedent here, but the prosecution will argue that the court
> > should seek guidance in ethical philosophy, not religious edicts.
> Sustained.
> There is no evidence of any contract amongst the "created" and the
> Defendant that they are "given" existence on the understanding that
> their lives can be forfeit without their explicit consent.
There is no plan on my part to advance any kind oaf argument based on
contract or consent.
> Thus, the bench agrees with the Prosecution that a defense must be
> mounted to justify this "freedom" of the Defendant to do with "his
> creation" as he would.
On Oct 21, 12:38 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll take this as a "Not Guilty on all charges".
The defense will not take the stance that the defendant, God, has not
taken actions that are contrary to our sense of right or wrong. Nor
does the defense claim that God does not want us to make a 'joyful
noise' before him. The defense will claim that most of the specific
charges brought by the prosecution are without merit and, according to
your earlier ruling, not based on the best evidence available.
> On Oct 20, 8:29 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > I have not watched enough court room drama since the Perry Mason days,
> > so may get this 'discovery process' not quite right. But anyway ...
> > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > 1:13-20.
> > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
> > A more detailed defense will follow.
> > On Oct 20, 6:15 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > OK, sorry for the delay. I've tried to present a few new charges
> > > rather than the same old talking points, but I can't ignore the
> > > genocide charges.
> > > The Prosecution indicts God, aka Yahweh, aka The LORD, aka "The
> > > Bearded One", aka Hughie, aka 'im Upstairs, of last known address the
> > > heavens above, on the following charges.
> > > All humanity, bar four males and four females, murdered. Exact numbers
> > > unknown but in percentage terms greater than 99.99%
> > > ii) The Israelite conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)
> > > Here are the orders issued by God to his adherents, dictating ethnic
> > > cleansing.
> > > 16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give
> > > thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
> > > 17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the
> > > Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
> > > Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
> > > CHARGE: Accessory to Murder
> > > - Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11:30-40)
> > > God accepts payment in the form of human sacrifice for a debt.
> > > CHARGE: Culpable Negligence
> > > - Establishing competing Jewish and Arabian tribes (Genesis 17:19-20)
> > > God appears to have established two nations, and then informed both
> > > that they were entitled to "Most Favoured Nation" status, laying the
> > > grounds for future wars. The Prosecution contends that God must have
> > > made false representation to at least one party.
> > > Not strictly a crime, but the Prosecution wants an injunction
> > > preventing any material citing this deity as an authority banned for
> > > all eternity from any academy of science.
> > > CHARGE: Artistic Desecration
> > > - make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 98:4)
> > > This instruction has inspired such cultural atrocities as Stryper. The
> > > Prosecution contends negligence on the part of the defendant. The
> > > instruction should have been "make a TUNEFUL noise unto the Lord."
> > > In willful contravention of then prevailing community standards, the
> > > defendant presented his uncovered buttocks to the gaze of his prophet
> > > Moses. Witnesses were later to record that Mr Moses' face was seen to
> > > "shine" from accumulated exposure to the divine mooning.
> > > While the Court may be inclined to dismiss this indictment as trifling
> > > in comparison to the more heinous charges, the Prosecution contends
> > > that it is important that this charge proceeds, given that a
> > > successful conviction will levy the sole effective penalty that can be
> > > exerted against an omnipotent deity, namely loss of dignity.
> > > Civil Actions
> > > ---------------
> > > Balaam vs. God
> > > The Plaintiff alleges Unconscionable Conduct and Breach of Promise,
> > > resulting in loss of livelihood, reputation, family and eventually the
> > > plaintiff's life.
> > > This occurred despite the Plaintiff honouring all terms of the verbal
> > > contract in full. (Numbers 23-24, Numbers 31:7-9)
> > > As compensation, the Plaintiff requests the asses of the Defendant and
> > > his firstborn son. Said compensation to be rendered bereft of the
> > > power of speech prior to delivery.
> > > Onan vs. God
> > > The Plaintiff alleges unreasonable conditions and unreasonable
> > > invasion of privacy. Although I may have to declare a personal
> > > interest at this point.
> > > (Genesis 38:7-10)
> > > Lucifer vs. God
> > > Plaintiff alleges Illegal dispossession of habitat
> > > - Isiah 14:12-20, Revelation 12:7-9
> > > Esau vs. God
> > > Plaintiff alleges complicity by the defendant in the sanctioning of a
> > > fraudulent disinheritance
> > > (Genesis 25:29-34)
> > > - END OF CHARGES -
> > > At this point I think defense counsel should indicate whether they
> > > intend to contest the charges, and cite any evidence they plan to
> > > present. In legal terminology, I think this is the discovery process.
> > > You may petition the Court to have the charges dismissed, but you do
> > > have to provide grounds.
> > > ===== WIKIPEDIA =====
> > > In American law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in
> > > which each party through the law of civil procedure can request
> > > documents and other evidence from other parties and can compel the
> > > production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery
> > > devices, such as requests for production of documents, and
> > > depositions. In other words, discovery includes (1) interrogatories;
> > > (2) motions or requests for production of documents; (3) requests for
> > > admissions; and (4) depositions.
> On Oct 21, 12:59 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A quick note on how I'll be making decisions here:
> > - I will only be looking at the logical conclusions of the presented
> > prosecution and defense. I will not be making my own arguments, but
> > will examine the logical consequences of the arguments presented.
> > - I will also be examining the self-consistency of each argument
> > individually, without making note of whether the veracity of the
> > sources is established (the Bible, any expert testimony, scientific
> > analysis, etc). That falls to the attorneys ;).
> > Now on to my rulings ;).
> > On Oct 21, 6:07 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Oct 21, 11:29 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > > I have not watched enough court room drama since the Perry Mason days,
> > > > so may get this 'discovery process' not quite right. But anyway ...
> > > > The defense, as you should expect, will take the approach that the Old
> > > > Testament, from which come all of your charges, is but a dim
> > > > reflection of who God is, and is heavily influenced by human
> > > > interpretation of events. The defense will hold that the best picture
> > > > we have of who God is, is based on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
> > > > This defense will rest on passages like Hebrews 1:1-3 and Colossians
> > > > 1:13-20.
> > > The prosecution concurs with your assessment of the Old Testament, but
> > > contends that this statement is equally applicable to the New
> > > Testament. The burden of proof must rest with the defense to show why
> > > the NT should be given greater evidential weight than the OT. Simply
> > > arguing that the NT presents your client in a more favorable light
> > > won't cut it.
> > Overruled.
> > According to Hebrews 1:1-3, the "prophets" are described as agents of
> > hearsay evidence, whereas the document describes that Jesus has been
> > given "legal authority" to speak on the behalf of the Defendant. I
> > will consider this contract to be binding for the duration of this
> > trial.
> > As such, all evidence in the Old Testament that ascribes actions,
> > opinions, processes, thoughts, capabilities, instructions, or
> > attributes to the Defendant that are not *DIRECTLY* and *UNIQUELY*
> > supported by Jesus are considered hearsay evidence, with appropriate
> > weight taken into account in light of other evidence, as per the
> > argument of the Defense.
> Thank you your honor.
> > (This ruling does not make a position on the truth of the document in
> > question... the Bible... but is commenting on its internal
> > consistency. The Bible is making it very clear that when there is a
> > contradiction, to impose self-consistency is to take the word of Jesus
> > as binding over those of any other agent).
> > > > A secondary argument that the defense will make is that a creator
> > > > should have the complete freedom to do with his creation as he would.
> > > > This defense will be based on Romans 9:6-24.
> > > The prosecution will argue right back at you that there is no legal
> > > precedent, in any jurisdiction in the world, for granting such
> > > extraordinary rights to any being. The court may have to establish a
> > > new precedent here, but the prosecution will argue that the court
> > > should seek guidance in ethical philosophy, not religious edicts.
> > Sustained.
> > There is no evidence of any contract amongst the "created" and the
> > Defendant that they are "given" existence on the understanding that
> > their lives can be forfeit without their explicit consent.
> There is no plan on my part to advance any kind oaf argument based on
> contract or consent.
> > Thus, the bench agrees with the Prosecution that a defense must be
> > mounted to justify this "freedom" of the Defendant to do with "his
> > creation" as he would.
On Oct 22, 6:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll take this as a "Not Guilty on all charges".
M'lud, I believe my learned colleague is seeking to have the charges
dismissed on grounds of lack of merit, without his client being
required to enter a plea.
Before you issue a ruling on this, I seek an additional 24 hours leave
to present further evidence, in compliance with Hebrews 1:1-3, for the
purposes of establishing a prima facie case against the accused.
On Oct 21, 7:09 pm, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 6:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll take this as a "Not Guilty on all charges".
> M'lud, I believe my learned colleague is seeking to have the charges
> dismissed on grounds of lack of merit, without his client being
> required to enter a plea.
> Before you issue a ruling on this, I seek an additional 24 hours leave
> to present further evidence, in compliance with Hebrews 1:1-3, for the
> purposes of establishing a prima facie case against the accused.
I am willing to grant the request of the prosecution. ;-)
< Prosecutions charges clipped for brevity. They can be read in full
above>
Just what rights does a creator have over his creation? Does the
creator have the right to do whatever they want in regards to the
creation, without the consent of the creation? Let’s take a look at a
simple example. A potter sits at the wheel with a lump of clay. As
the wheel turns the potter works the lump of clay, shaping it into
some form of his choosing. The potter has the right to form the clay
into whatever shape he desires with no input from the clay. And once
the clay is formed, the potter has the right to start over with the
clay, discard it, or use it for whatever purpose he desires; again
without the consent of the clay. The rights of the potter over his
clay are complete, so long as he maintains possession of the clay (or
the product produced by the clay).
Now you might argue that this example is flawed, because the clay has
no life or consciousness of its own, unlike humanity. And I would
have to agree that the clay is lifeless. But what happens someday
when life is successfully produced in a lab? Will the scientist
responsible for this breakthrough be unable to terminate the
experiment? Will they have to continue to tend to the organism,
keeping it alive even when it has accomplished its purpose? Will the
scientist be unable to conduct further experiments on the organism for
fear of harming it? I would venture to guess than few in the jury
would find in favor of the organism if the creating scientist
terminates the experiment. Why; because (1) the rights of the creator
supersede that of the creation, and (2) the created organism is of
such a primitive state.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your honor, I submit to you that the
creator of the universe is similar to the scientist who creates life
in his lab. As offensive as we may find the idea, the creator of
something is of necessity of a higher order that his creation and is
not answerable to his creation. God is the creator. We are his
creation. I submit to you that God is under no obligation to us in
any way. He can ignore us, destroy us, torment us or exalt us at his
choosing and completely independently of any consideration for our
desires. Nor is he under any obligation to conform in the slightest
to our sense of morality or fair play.
Your honor, in no way should this argument be construed as agreement
with the claims of the prosecution. Rather it is an attempt to argue
that God, the creator, is free to act in any way he chooses,
regardless of how we may feel about it. If God were to choose to
destroy nearly all life on the earth via a flood, that is his right.
If he were to choose to kill someone who would not produce children
for his dead brother, that is his right. If God were to chose some
for a future paradise, and others for an eternal torment; that is his
right. And while we may not like it, that’s just too bad. In all of
these, the creator is no more guilty of a crime than is the potter
forming his clay or the scientist conducting experiments on his
‘creation’.
This argument is based on Paul’s similar argument in the 9th chapter
of Romans. In fact, Romans 9:6-24 could be construed as Paul’s
‘expert’ testimony in this matter.
Your honor. While this argument is directed at the charges brought by
the prosecutor, I might note that it also serves as a response to your
earlier objection to my line of reasoning concerning the right of the
creator.
<quoting the judge>
Sustained.
There is no evidence of any contract amongst the "created" and the
Defendant that they are "given" existence on the understanding that
their lives can be forfeit without their explicit consent.
Thus, the bench agrees with the Prosecution that a defense must be
mounted to justify this "freedom" of the Defendant to do with "his
creation" as he would.
<end quote>
> < Prosecutions charges clipped for brevity. They can be read in full
> above>
> Just what rights does a creator have over his creation? Does the
> creator have the right to do whatever they want in regards to the
> creation, without the consent of the creation? Let’s take a look at a
> simple example. A potter sits at the wheel with a lump of clay. As
> the wheel turns the potter works the lump of clay, shaping it into
> some form of his choosing. The potter has the right to form the clay
> into whatever shape he desires with no input from the clay. And once
> the clay is formed, the potter has the right to start over with the
> clay, discard it, or use it for whatever purpose he desires; again
> without the consent of the clay. The rights of the potter over his
> clay are complete, so long as he maintains possession of the clay (or
> the product produced by the clay).
> Now you might argue that this example is flawed, because the clay has
> no life or consciousness of its own, unlike humanity. And I would
> have to agree that the clay is lifeless. But what happens someday
> when life is successfully produced in a lab? Will the scientist
> responsible for this breakthrough be unable to terminate the
> experiment? Will they have to continue to tend to the organism,
> keeping it alive even when it has accomplished its purpose? Will the
> scientist be unable to conduct further experiments on the organism for
> fear of harming it? I would venture to guess than few in the jury
> would find in favor of the organism if the creating scientist
> terminates the experiment. Why; because (1) the rights of the creator
> supersede that of the creatiorn, and (2) the created organism is of
> such a primitive state.
The analogy still fails. The law does grant certain rights to the
scientist in this illustration, but only to the intellectual property
insofar as the scientist is responsible for generating new scientific
knowledge. On the question of the rights the scientist would possess
concerning the specimen itself, the law is generally silent when it
comes to single-celled organisms, on the principle of de minimis non
curat lex. (Always wanted to slip that phrase into a conversation!)
Where laws do exist to protect the rights of laboratory specimens, the
ethical principles that parliaments and courts have sought to enshrine
in the law have been based solely on considerations of the organism's
capacities for sentience and/or suffering, and the value of the
research in alleviating human suffering. The prosecution contends that
these principles should be granted primacy in this case too, on
grounds both of precedence and natural justice.
> Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your honor, I submit to you that the
> creator of the universe is similar to the scientist who creates life
> in his lab. As offensive as we may find the idea, the creator of
> something is of necessity of a higher order that his creation and is
> not answerable to his creation. God is the creator. We are his
> creation. I submit to you that God is under no obligation to us in
> any way. He can ignore us, destroy us, torment us or exalt us at his
> choosing and completely independently of any consideration for our
> desires. Nor is he under any obligation to conform in the slightest
> to our sense of morality or fair play.
To grant this claim by the defence would be the equivalent of the
Court denying the possibility of justice. The prosecution cites
Parliament vs. Charles I as precedent. The defendant cannot seek to
have the case dismissed on the grounds he is only answerable to a
higher authority; the Court has sovereignty over the dispensation of
justice, and cannot abdicate that authority.
> Your honor, in no way should this argument be construed as agreement
> with the claims of the prosecution. Rather it is an attempt to argue
> that God, the creator, is free to act in any way he chooses,
> regardless of how we may feel about it. If God were to choose to
> destroy nearly all life on the earth via a flood, that is his right.
> If he were to choose to kill someone who would not produce children
> for his dead brother, that is his right. If God were to chose some
> for a future paradise, and others for an eternal torment; that is his
> right. And while we may not like it, that’s just too bad. In all of
> these, the creator is no more guilty of a crime than is the potter
> forming his clay or the scientist conducting experiments on his
> ‘creation’.
> This argument is based on Paul’s similar argument in the 9th chapter
> of Romans. In fact, Romans 9:6-24 could be construed as Paul’s
> ‘expert’ testimony in this matter.
In Magna Carta, 1215, the law rescinded the divine right of God's
earthly representative to absolute power of life and death over the
monarch's subjects. Those legal reforms were to become the basis of
the principle of habeas corpus, an individual's recognised right to
his or her own life. Later legal principles, not least amongst them
the poetic espousal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" (US Declaration of Independance) would further extend the
rights automatically afforded to humans under the rule of law. Today
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates some 27 articles
of rights considered properly basic to any legal system.
The "right" of a creator to absolute authority over his or her
creation cannot be considered a legal right. No parliament has ever
enacted it in law, no court has ever appealed to such a principle, and
as seen above there has been a longstanding and continuous trend to
recognise certain rights as "inalienable"; that is, beyond the power
of government and judiciary, or even the sovereign authority, to
rescind. Similarly there has been a longstanding trend to revoke
rights claimed to derive from divine authority, such as droight de
seigneur. The prosecution humbly submits that the Court should not
concern itself with extralegal rights that may be conferred upon the
defendant in metaphysical realms beyond our understanding, but instead
follow the vast body of legal precedent and refuse to recognise this
"right of the Creator".
On Oct 22, 1:25 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 7:09 pm, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 6:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'll take this as a "Not Guilty on all charges".
> > M'lud, I believe my learned colleague is seeking to have the charges
> > dismissed on grounds of lack of merit, without his client being
> > required to enter a plea.
> > Before you issue a ruling on this, I seek an additional 24 hours leave
> > to present further evidence, in compliance with Hebrews 1:1-3, for the
> > purposes of establishing a prima facie case against the accused.
> I am willing to grant the request of the prosecution. ;-)
PSST! A friendly whisper in your learned ear, counsel old buddy; only
the bench is allowed to grant requests around here. Your part is
simply to murmur "Defence raises no objection to opposing counsel's
request."
> On Oct 22, 1:25 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 7:09 pm, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 6:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'll take this as a "Not Guilty on all charges".
> > > M'lud, I believe my learned colleague is seeking to have the charges
> > > dismissed on grounds of lack of merit, without his client being
> > > required to enter a plea.
> > > Before you issue a ruling on this, I seek an additional 24 hours leave
> > > to present further evidence, in compliance with Hebrews 1:1-3, for the
> > > purposes of establishing a prima facie case against the accused.
> > I am willing to grant the request of the prosecution. ;-)
> PSST! A friendly whisper in your learned ear, counsel old buddy; only
> the bench is allowed to grant requests around here. Your part is
> simply to murmur "Defence raises no objection to opposing counsel's
> request."
So granted. The court will reconvene in 24 hrs time.
> Your honor. While this argument is directed at the charges brought by
> the prosecutor, I might note that it also serves as a response to your
> earlier objection to my line of reasoning concerning the right of the
> creator.
> <quoting the judge>
> Sustained.
> There is no evidence of any contract amongst the "created" and the
> Defendant that they are "given" existence on the understanding that
> their lives can be forfeit without their explicit consent.
> Thus, the bench agrees with the Prosecution that a defense must be
> mounted to justify this "freedom" of the Defendant to do with "his
> creation" as he would.
> <end quote>
> On Oct 22, 1:27 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > < Prosecutions charges clipped for brevity. They can be read in full
> > above>
> > Just what rights does a creator have over his creation? Does the
> > creator have the right to do whatever they want in regards to the
> > creation, without the consent of the creation? Let’s take a look at a
> > simple example. A potter sits at the wheel with a lump of clay. As
> > the wheel turns the potter works the lump of clay, shaping it into
> > some form of his choosing. The potter has the right to form the clay
> > into whatever shape he desires with no input from the clay. And once
> > the clay is formed, the potter has the right to start over with the
> > clay, discard it, or use it for whatever purpose he desires; again
> > without the consent of the clay. The rights of the potter over his
> > clay are complete, so long as he maintains possession of the clay (or
> > the product produced by the clay).
> > Now you might argue that this example is flawed, because the clay has
> > no life or consciousness of its own, unlike humanity. And I would
> > have to agree that the clay is lifeless. But what happens someday
> > when life is successfully produced in a lab? Will the scientist
> > responsible for this breakthrough be unable to terminate the
> > experiment? Will they have to continue to tend to the organism,
> > keeping it alive even when it has accomplished its purpose? Will the
> > scientist be unable to conduct further experiments on the organism for
> > fear of harming it? I would venture to guess than few in the jury
> > would find in favor of the organism if the creating scientist
> > terminates the experiment. Why; because (1) the rights of the creator
> > supersede that of the creatiorn, and (2) the created organism is of
> > such a primitive state.
> The analogy still fails. The law does grant certain rights to the
> scientist in this illustration, but only to the intellectual property
> insofar as the scientist is responsible for generating new scientific
> knowledge. On the question of the rights the scientist would possess
> concerning the specimen itself, the law is generally silent when it
> comes to single-celled organisms, on the principle of de minimis non
> curat lex. (Always wanted to slip that phrase into a conversation!)
> Where laws do exist to protect the rights of laboratory specimens, the
> ethical principles that parliaments and courts have sought to enshrine
> in the law have been based solely on considerations of the organism's
> capacities for sentience and/or suffering, and the value of the
> research in alleviating human suffering. The prosecution contends that
> these principles should be granted primacy in this case too, on
> grounds both of precedence and natural justice.
> > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your honor, I submit to you that the
> > creator of the universe is similar to the scientist who creates life
> > in his lab. As offensive as we may find the idea, the creator of
> > something is of necessity of a higher order that his creation and is
> > not answerable to his creation. God is the creator. We are his
> > creation. I submit to you that God is under no obligation to us in
> > any way. He can ignore us, destroy us, torment us or exalt us at his
> > choosing and completely independently of any consideration for our
> > desires. Nor is he under any obligation to conform in the slightest
> > to our sense of morality or fair play.
> To grant this claim by the defence would be the equivalent of the
> Court denying the possibility of justice. The prosecution cites
> Parliament vs. Charles I as precedent. The defendant cannot seek to
> have the case dismissed on the grounds he is only answerable to a
> higher authority; the Court has sovereignty over the dispensation of
> justice, and cannot abdicate that authority.
> > Your honor, in no way should this argument be construed as agreement
> > with the claims of the prosecution. Rather it is an attempt to argue
> > that God, the creator, is free to act in any way he chooses,
> > regardless of how we may feel about it. If God were to choose to
> > destroy nearly all life on the earth via a flood, that is his right.
> > If he were to choose to kill someone who would not produce children
> > for his dead brother, that is his right. If God were to chose some
> > for a future paradise, and others for an eternal torment; that is his
> > right. And while we may not like it, that’s just too bad. In all of
> > these, the creator is no more guilty of a crime than is the potter
> > forming his clay or the scientist conducting experiments on his
> > ‘creation’.
> > This argument is based on Paul’s similar argument in the 9th chapter
> > of Romans. In fact, Romans 9:6-24 could be construed as Paul’s
> > ‘expert’ testimony in this matter.
> In Magna Carta, 1215, the law rescinded the divine right of God's
> earthly representative to absolute power of life and death over the
> monarch's subjects. Those legal reforms were to become the basis of
> the principle of habeas corpus, an individual's recognised right to
> his or her own life. Later legal principles, not least amongst them
> the poetic espousal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness" (US Declaration of Independance) would further extend the
> rights automatically afforded to humans under the rule of law. Today
> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates some 27 articles
> of rights considered properly basic to any legal system.
> The "right" of a creator to absolute authority over his or her
> creation cannot be considered a legal right. No parliament has ever
> enacted it in law, no court has ever appealed to such a principle, and
> as seen above there has been a longstanding and continuous trend to
> recognise certain rights as "inalienable"; that is, beyond the power
> of government and judiciary, or even the sovereign authority, to
> rescind. Similarly there has been a longstanding trend to revoke
> rights claimed to derive from divine authority, such as droight de
> seigneur. The prosecution humbly submits that the Court should not
> concern itself with extralegal rights that may be conferred upon the
> defendant in metaphysical realms beyond our understanding, but instead
> follow the vast body of legal precedent and refuse to recognise this
> "right of the Creator".
So noted.
The bench concurs with the Prosecution, current legal precedent does
not recognize the rights of a sovereign to be superior or "above" the
rights of the governed without an explicit contractual agreement.
Furthermore, the bench also concurs with the Prosecution that current
legal precedent does grant certain legal rights to subjects in
scientific experiments, concordant with their individual legal status.
Involuntary or coerced experimentation of persons with legal rights is
considered a crime (and an especially heinous one), subject to strict
and harsh penalty. The law does not concern itself with where such
persons originate, only that once they are present, they do have
rights available.
However, the bench concurs with the Defense that current legal
precedent also recognizes a hierarchy of legal stature, with "persons"
being defined at the top. "Persons" have legal rights that are not
bestowed upon "non-persons", however "non-persons" are recognized to
have a subset of the rights of "persons". It is recognized by law that
the rights of "persons" take precedence over the rights of "non-
persons" when conflicts of interest arise. The law does consider case-
by-case bases where the rights of "non-persons" are violated to
respect the rights of "persons" without punitive actions, subject to
prosecutorial discretion and individual legislature of the region of
interest. That being said, a hierarchical structure that allows "super-
persons" (such as the Defendant) to have their rights take precedence
over the rights of "persons" has not been established by judicial
precedent.
In light of the arguments from Learned Counsel, the bench is forced to
conclude that the charges against the Defendant stand as stated.
The Prosecution is now free to present their case.
> On Oct 22, 1:25 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 7:09 pm, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 6:38 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'll take this as a "Not Guilty on all charges".
> > > M'lud, I believe my learned colleague is seeking to have the charges
> > > dismissed on grounds of lack of merit, without his client being
> > > required to enter a plea.
> > > Before you issue a ruling on this, I seek an additional 24 hours leave
> > > to present further evidence, in compliance with Hebrews 1:1-3, for the
> > > purposes of establishing a prima facie case against the accused.
> > I am willing to grant the request of the prosecution. ;-)
> PSST! A friendly whisper in your learned ear, counsel old buddy; only
> the bench is allowed to grant requests around here. Your part is
> simply to murmur "Defence raises no objection to opposing counsel's
> request."
Your honor. I would be amiss as defense counsel if I did not point
out that it is the right of the accused to be tried by a jury of his
peers. It is hard to fathom how the members of AvC could be
considered as peers of God. Therefore I request either a change of
venue (when a jury of peers is available) or a dismissal of all
charges.
On Oct 19, 4:26 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 9:46 am, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 1:27 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> > > < Prosecutions charges clipped for brevity. They can be read in full
> > > above>
> > > Just what rights does a creator have over his creation? Does the
> > > creator have the right to do whatever they want in regards to the
> > > creation, without the consent of the creation? Let’s take a look at a
> > > simple example. A potter sits at the wheel with a lump of clay. As
> > > the wheel turns the potter works the lump of clay, shaping it into
> > > some form of his choosing. The potter has the right to form the clay
> > > into whatever shape he desires with no input from the clay. And once
> > > the clay is formed, the potter has the right to start over with the
> > > clay, discard it, or use it for whatever purpose he desires; again
> > > without the consent of the clay. The rights of the potter over his
> > > clay are complete, so long as he maintains possession of the clay (or
> > > the product produced by the clay).
> > > Now you might argue that this example is flawed, because the clay has
> > > no life or consciousness of its own, unlike humanity. And I would
> > > have to agree that the clay is lifeless. But what happens someday
> > > when life is successfully produced in a lab? Will the scientist
> > > responsible for this breakthrough be unable to terminate the
> > > experiment? Will they have to continue to tend to the organism,
> > > keeping it alive even when it has accomplished its purpose? Will the
> > > scientist be unable to conduct further experiments on the organism for
> > > fear of harming it? I would venture to guess than few in the jury
> > > would find in favor of the organism if the creating scientist
> > > terminates the experiment. Why; because (1) the rights of the creator
> > > supersede that of the creatiorn, and (2) the created organism is of
> > > such a primitive state.
> > The analogy still fails. The law does grant certain rights to the
> > scientist in this illustration, but only to the intellectual property
> > insofar as the scientist is responsible for generating new scientific
> > knowledge. On the question of the rights the scientist would possess
> > concerning the specimen itself, the law is generally silent when it
> > comes to single-celled organisms, on the principle of de minimis non
> > curat lex. (Always wanted to slip that phrase into a conversation!)
> > Where laws do exist to protect the rights of laboratory specimens, the
> > ethical principles that parliaments and courts have sought to enshrine
> > in the law have been based solely on considerations of the organism's
> > capacities for sentience and/or suffering, and the value of the
> > research in alleviating human suffering. The prosecution contends that
> > these principles should be granted primacy in this case too, on
> > grounds both of precedence and natural justice.
> > > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, your honor, I submit to you that the
> > > creator of the universe is similar to the scientist who creates life
> > > in his lab. As offensive as we may find the idea, the creator of
> > > something is of necessity of a higher order that his creation and is
> > > not answerable to his creation. God is the creator. We are his
> > > creation. I submit to you that God is under no obligation to us in
> > > any way. He can ignore us, destroy us, torment us or exalt us at his
> > > choosing and completely independently of any consideration for our
> > > desires. Nor is he under any obligation to conform in the slightest
> > > to our sense of morality or fair play.
> > To grant this claim by the defence would be the equivalent of the
> > Court denying the possibility of justice. The prosecution cites
> > Parliament vs. Charles I as precedent. The defendant cannot seek to
> > have the case dismissed on the grounds he is only answerable to a
> > higher authority; the Court has sovereignty over the dispensation of
> > justice, and cannot abdicate that authority.
> > > Your honor, in no way should this argument be construed as agreement
> > > with the claims of the prosecution. Rather it is an attempt to argue
> > > that God, the creator, is free to act in any way he chooses,
> > > regardless of how we may feel about it. If God were to choose to
> > > destroy nearly all life on the earth via a flood, that is his right.
> > > If he were to choose to kill someone who would not produce children
> > > for his dead brother, that is his right. If God were to chose some
> > > for a future paradise, and others for an eternal torment; that is his
> > > right. And while we may not like it, that’s just too bad. In all of
> > > these, the creator is no more guilty of a crime than is the potter
> > > forming his clay or the scientist conducting experiments on his
> > > ‘creation’.
> > > This argument is based on Paul’s similar argument in the 9th chapter
> > > of Romans. In fact, Romans 9:6-24 could be construed as Paul’s
> > > ‘expert’ testimony in this matter.
> > In Magna Carta, 1215, the law rescinded the divine right of God's
> > earthly representative to absolute power of life and death over the
> > monarch's subjects. Those legal reforms were to become the basis of
> > the principle of habeas corpus, an individual's recognised right to
> > his or her own life. Later legal principles, not least amongst them
> > the poetic espousal of "life, liberty and the pursuit of
> > happiness" (US Declaration of Independance) would further extend the
> > rights automatically afforded to humans under the rule of law. Today
> > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates some 27 articles
> > of rights considered properly basic to any legal system.
> > The "right" of a creator to absolute authority over his or her
> > creation cannot be considered a legal right. No parliament has ever
> > enacted it in law, no court has ever appealed to such a principle, and
> > as seen above there has been a longstanding and continuous trend to
> > recognise certain rights as "inalienable"; that is, beyond the power
> > of government and judiciary, or even the sovereign authority, to
> > rescind. Similarly there has been a longstanding trend to revoke
> > rights claimed to derive from divine authority, such as droight de
> > seigneur. The prosecution humbly submits that the Court should not
> > concern itself with extralegal rights that may be conferred upon the
> > defendant in metaphysical realms beyond our understanding, but instead
> > follow the vast body of legal precedent and refuse to recognise this
> > "right of the Creator".
> So noted.
> The bench concurs with the Prosecution, current legal precedent does
> not recognize the rights of a sovereign to be superior or "above" the
> rights of the governed without an explicit contractual agreement.
> Furthermore, the bench also concurs with the Prosecution that current
> legal precedent does grant certain legal rights to subjects in
> scientific experiments, concordant with their individual legal status.
> Involuntary or coerced experimentation of persons with legal rights is
> considered a crime (and an especially heinous one), subject to strict
> and harsh penalty. The law does not concern itself with where such
> persons originate, only that once they are present, they do have
> rights available.
Your honor, and esteemed prosecutor. Has any precedence whatsoever
been established concerning the legal rights of a creator for his
creation, so long as that creation remains in his possession?
> However, the bench concurs with the Defense that current legal
> precedent also recognizes a hierarchy of legal stature, with "persons"
> being defined at the top. "Persons" have legal rights that are not
> bestowed upon "non-persons", however "non-persons" are recognized to
> have a subset of the rights of "persons". It is recognized by law that
> the rights of "persons" take precedence over the rights of "non-
> persons" when conflicts of interest arise. The law does consider case-
> by-case bases where the rights of "non-persons" are violated to
> respect the rights of "persons" without punitive actions, subject to
> prosecutorial discretion and individual legislature of the region of
> interest. That being said, a hierarchical structure that allows "super-
> persons" (such as the Defendant) to have their rights take precedence
> over the rights of "persons" has not been established by judicial
> precedent.
If a jury of chimpanzees convicted a poacher of murder, what legal
standing would that have in a human court of law. In other words, is
the human guilty because the chimpanzee jury convicted him, or would
he require trial before a jury of his peers?
On Oct 23, 11:28 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Your honor, and esteemed prosecutor. Has any precedence whatsoever
> been established concerning the legal rights of a creator for his
> creation, so long as that creation remains in his possession?
With respect, counselor, that's your job to establish. If I knew of
such a precedent, it would be my duty as an officer of the court to at
least mention it, but I don't. The only remotely applicable areas of
law I can think of would be intellectual property, or if we go back
far enough, laws regulating slavery. Neither one would help your case,
I do believe. Even Roman law two millennia ago recognised that slaves
had a right to life, and no one has ever tried to assert IP rights
over a human being.
> > However, the bench concurs with the Defense that current legal
> > precedent also recognizes a hierarchy of legal stature, with "persons"
> > being defined at the top. "Persons" have legal rights that are not
> > bestowed upon "non-persons", however "non-persons" are recognized to
> > have a subset of the rights of "persons". It is recognized by law that
> > the rights of "persons" take precedence over the rights of "non-
> > persons" when conflicts of interest arise. The law does consider case-
> > by-case bases where the rights of "non-persons" are violated to
> > respect the rights of "persons" without punitive actions, subject to
> > prosecutorial discretion and individual legislature of the region of
> > interest. That being said, a hierarchical structure that allows "super-
> > persons" (such as the Defendant) to have their rights take precedence
> > over the rights of "persons" has not been established by judicial
> > precedent.
> If a jury of chimpanzees convicted a poacher of murder, what legal
> standing would that have in a human court of law. In other words, is
> the human guilty because the chimpanzee jury convicted him, or would
> he require trial before a jury of his peers?
I must protest, m'lud. Counsel is attempting to cast doubt on the
Court's impartiality, simply because the judicial process is a purely
human institution. The fact that all the judicial precedent admissible
is the result of humans sitting in judgement over other humans does
not automatically preclude the possibility that a human court could
justly try and sentence a non-human or even superhuman defendant. If
counsel for the defence observes any speciest bias during proceedings,
there will be ample opportunity to bring it to the Court's attention.
The bench has ruled, Ed, and you lost this argument. Wear it.
On Oct 23, 11:20 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Your honor. I would be amiss as defense counsel if I did not point
> out that it is the right of the accused to be tried by a jury of his
> peers. It is hard to fathom how the members of AvC could be
> considered as peers of God. Therefore I request either a change of
> venue (when a jury of peers is available) or a dismissal of all
> charges.
Objection, your honour. Contrary to the published assertions of the
defendant, there are a multitude of omnipotent creator gods known to
humanity available for empanelment. Since they are as likely to appear
in a cyberspace forum as any other venue, a change appears
superflouous.
|
