Alyrium Denryle wrote:This is a court of humanity, and brings these offenses to trial without a need for national jurisdiction.
Ahem. With all due repsect, your honor, if there is no national jurisdiction, then by which laws will this trial be conducted? There is no legally recognized "court of humanity" anywhere on Earth, and any verdict rendered by such a body would have no force in law whatsoever. My client* will not be legally compelled to abide by any judgement passed by this court.
*Hemlock has agreed to allow me to help represent the defense.
Hearsay!? His cnfession was WRITTEN! by himself.
The defense objects to the characterization of the written testimony in the Bible as a "confession". It was not obtained by a representative of the legal system and has not been signed by the defendant. At the time of its writing, the defendant was not charged with any crime and was certainly not made aware of his rights.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Alyrium Denryle wrote:This is a court of humanity, and brings these offenses to trial without a need for national jurisdiction.
Ahem. With all due repsect, your honor, if there is no national jurisdiction, then by which laws will this trial be conducted? There is no legally recognized "court of humanity" anywhere on Earth, and any verdict rendered by such a body would have no force in law whatsoever. My client* will not be legally compelled to abide by any judgement passed by this court.
*Hemlock has agreed to allow me to help represent the defense.
Hearsay!? His cnfession was WRITTEN! by himself.
The defense objects to the characterization of the written testimony in the Bible as a "confession". It was not obtained by a representative of the legal system and has not been signed by the defendant. At the time of its writing, the defendant was not charged with any crime and was certainly not made aware of his rights.
Note: Court of humanity being a hypothetical entity. Whos laws are based on ethical principles.
Second: The bible is akin to finding someones autobiography or diary while they are still alive, and seeing that they commited all the unsolved murders in the last 20 years. It is admissable.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Note: Court of humanity being a hypothetical entity. Whos laws are based on ethical principles.
OOC: Alright, but for convenience's sake, we ought to pick one country's laws and use them as a basis for legal procedure, or else this is going to be a debate, not a trial. Naturarlly, I suggest the United States, since that's what I think most people will be familiar with.
Second: The bible is akin to finding someones autobiography or diary while they are still alive, and seeing that they commited all the unsolved murders in the last 20 years. It is admissable.
OOC: That's what I figured--the same as if I murdered a man and then bragged about it in a bar. That would be admissable (and not subject to fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination, either), but at the same time, it isn't a confession in the legal sense of the word. It's evidence, but not on the same order as a confession--especially since the defendent is obviously pleading not guilty.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
neoolong wrote:Considering that the defendant is omniscient, he is already aware of his rights. There is nothing he doesn't know, so ignorance isn't a valid defense.
Totally irrevelant. The defendant is entitled to the same legal protections as anyone else, unless you care to argue that equal protection does not apply to those who may have prior knowledge of their rights. The statements MAY be admissable, but they are NOT a confession. And while we're on the subject, council for the state has NOT proven the defendant's omniscience and the defense objects to the state's assumption of such.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
neoolong wrote:Considering that the defendant is omniscient, he is already aware of his rights. There is nothing he doesn't know, so ignorance isn't a valid defense.
Totally irrevelant. The defendant is entitled to the same legal protections as anyone else, unless you care to argue that equal protection does not apply to those who may have prior knowledge of their rights. The statements MAY be admissable, but they are NOT a confession. And while we're on the subject, council for the state has NOT proven the defendant's omniscience and the defense objects to the state's assumption of such.
I never said that they would be considered a confession.
Only that saying that he is ignorant of some aspect of the law, like say murdering someone being illegal, isn't valid.
Edit: I meant it as a general point on thinking about what was written, not as a direct response. Which is why I didn't quote the applicable part.
neoolong wrote:Considering that the defendant is omniscient, he is already aware of his rights. There is nothing he doesn't know, so ignorance isn't a valid defense.
Totally irrevelant. The defendant is entitled to the same legal protections as anyone else, unless you care to argue that equal protection does not apply to those who may have prior knowledge of their rights. The statements MAY be admissable, but they are NOT a confession. And while we're on the subject, council for the state has NOT proven the defendant's omniscience and the defense objects to the state's assumption of such.
Impy please post yoour yahoo adress so I can add you to the yahoo group for the trial...that is where the actual proceedings will take place
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
The Bible is NOT written by the defendant, and the writers are not available to cross examination. Inadmissable. At best you have a third person transcription of an interpitation.The only known specimen of the aledged writing of god, is two stone tablets, lost long ago.
More importantly, you have no jurisdiction, for no international law, treaty, or informal agreement exsists between the respective governments of Earth, reguarding supernatural, extraterestrial, or extradimentional NON HUMANS.
Criminal law, be it local, state, country, or planetary, only applies to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. My client can no more be prosicuted than a shark, a plant, a wave, a celestial bodie, or force of nature, like gravity.
The court has still as of yet proved the exsistence of the defendant, which must, legaly and logicaly preceed the juristdictional question.Only then can the preliminary hearing, to show cause, as to the prosicutions vaidity in proceeding on the criminal matter.
In short, until you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that God exsists, you may not proceed any further.
I eagerly await ther prosicutions arguements.
You will then have to serve the defendant with the appropriate paperwork, and or arrest him.
I want to watch from a safe distance.
By the way, if you are going to produce some BS fictitious "court of humanity" out of your ass, I invoke the rule of symmetry.
Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.You must answer to my court. I can at the very least prove YOU are real.You should be human.
If local law must be trumped by state, state by national, and you argue human over nation, I propose Divine law supercedes ALL human law.There is only one court you can argue your case in, and you must first be dead to testify or agrue before.
I propose to press charges against you, and all it's members, on the heinous crime of endangering humanity, due to hubris, as a species.
Should you succeeed in even getting the attention of this supernatural being, the pain, death, and suffering you will cause will likely result in the extiction of humanity.
The charge, is reckless endangerment, and actions that could easily leed to the extinction of humanity, AKA GENOCIDE by criminal negligence.
Should there be no god, you are ,at best, wasting time and money.
If there is such a being, it is not only beyond your ability to punish, but said effort is most likely to result in pointless death, and suffering of innocent humans for your PREVENTABLE ACTS of bad judgement.
Hmmmmmm.
"It is happening now, It has happened before, It will surely happen again."
Oldest member of SD.net, not most mature.
Brotherhood of the Monkey
EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:More importantly, you have no jurisdiction, for no international law, treaty, or informal agreement exsists between the respective governments of Earth, reguarding supernatural, extraterestrial, or extradimentional NON HUMANS.
Criminal law, be it local, state, country, or planetary, only applies to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. My client can no more be prosicuted than a shark, a plant, a wave, a celestial bodie, or force of nature, like gravity.
Assuming US or UN courts, cite your precedent for law only applying to humans. If you cannot, present an argument for why a sentient being cannot be tried by the US or UN laws, in absentia, considering that the victims or a considerable portion of them reside within US or UN jurisdiction.
The court has still as of yet proved the exsistence of the defendant, which must, legaly and logicaly preceed the juristdictional question.Only then can the preliminary hearing, to show cause, as to the prosicutions vaidity in proceeding on the criminal matter.
Debates over the defendant's existence are irrelevant. The defendant's existence is an implied condition of this thread.
In short, until you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that God exsists, you may not proceed any further.
I eagerly await ther prosicutions arguements.
You will then have to serve the defendant with the appropriate paperwork, and or arrest him.
I want to watch from a safe distance.
You do not have the right to being present when the defendant is arrested or served a notice to appear in court. You DO have the right to provide council once the defendant is in custody.
Assuming this trial is in absentia, there is a standing warrant for the defendant's arrest.
By the way, if you are going to produce some BS fictitious "court of humanity" out of your ass, I invoke the rule of symmetry.
Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.You must answer to my court. I can at the very least prove YOU are real.You should be human.
If local law must be trumped by state, state by national, and you argue human over nation, I propose Divine law supercedes ALL human law.There is only one court you can argue your case in, and you must first be dead to testify or agrue before.
I propose to press charges against you, and all it's members, on the heinous crime of endangering humanity, due to hubris, as a species.
Should you succeeed in even getting the attention of this supernatural being, the pain, death, and suffering you will cause will likely result in the extiction of humanity.
Should there be no god, you are ,at best, wasting time and money.
If there is such a being, it is not only beyond your ability to punish, but said effort is most likely to result in pointless death, and suffering of innocent humans for your PREVENTABLE ACTS of bad judgement.
Though the defendant may well be beyond our jurisdiction or punishment, the defendant can still be convicted in absentia.
As an omnipresent being, the entity known as Yahweh is in fact present, and is able to confront witnesses against him...
Note on trial: We are assuming he exists, and that witnesses relevant(Historical figures) can be called as witness in the trial.
You have provided o legal precedent for the charging of non0 humans. And because said defendant created us in his image, it would be logical( LOL ) to assume he is sapient.
The argument of jurisdiction is irrelevant to this case.
And if no arrest is possible, we will prove that this deity is an evil being. Which is the primary focus of these proceedings. We do however have an army ready to storm the gates of his heavenly fortress and arrest him. This army shall be led by Yahwehs arch-nemisis, and the antagonist of hs diary, known as Lucifer. These armies will of course be riding chariots made of iron.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
"And on that day, on the horizon, I shall be. And I shall point at them and say unto them HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!" -- Ravenwing
RedImperator: "Yeah, and there were little Jesus-bits everywhere."
Crimsonraine: "Jesus-bits?!"
As chief justice of the lunatic fictitious Uber court of pan dimension everthingness, I summarily rule for the defendand, the prosecution never being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that such things as the supernatural exsist, much less the exsistance of said God.
Now that a ruling has been issued, the matter is settled.
Given the arbitrary and capricious nature of conflicting rulings from other courts, this court claims jurisdiction. No other fictictious court may claim higher superceding jurisdiction, due to the law of symmetry. At best any other court can claim EQUAL claim, but subordinate in precedant. This ruling, being the first, can not be apealed, for lack of higher level.
You will need a new case.
Stalemate is the best you can hope for. There might be a higher court, but you need to die to file any papers there.
Equally valid jurisdictional claims are always defered to exsisting preceedant.
Hmmmmmm.
"It is happening now, It has happened before, It will surely happen again."
Oldest member of SD.net, not most mature.
Brotherhood of the Monkey
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.
The dude's weapon is an Iorn rod, a spoilt rich kid (Moses) was able to wrestle him to a standstill, he flees from Iorn chariots and finally bluffs about having a warehouse full of hailstones for wartime. He fears humans being able to communicate with each other, or there would be nothing they could not do, including destroy him (Tower of Babel) If he attacks me a berretta should stop him nicely.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
I would like to remind the court that Yahweh most definitely did NOT have a son named "Jesus". Yahweh, being the Hebrew name for the Hebrew God, has sired no "son" and the Hebrew prophesy has remained unfulfilled.
Only in Christian Tradition has there been a so-called "son of God" called Jesus "the Christ", "Christ" being a Anglicized form of the ancient Greek title "Crestus" meaning "Messiah". Anyone calling Jesus the "son of God" is clearly not anyone who would also address God as Yahweh, for Yahweh has not yet sent his Messiah or "Crestus".
The court is on shaky ground, for almost all actions of barbarity and cruelty carried out on Earth against Humans in the name of God were in fact carried out by other humans, who may have been wrongfully or erroneously carrying out deeds and attributing them to Divine orders. Such orders may have been hallucinated or imgined, or even made up entirely to justify unjust acts.
The case against God is based entirely on heresay evidence; as it is known and admitted that the Bible is flawed and has passed throught the hands of many corrupt priests and suffered many editions and rewrites (more for the Christian and Muslim Traditions than the original Hebrew) and was written after events had taken place-- so that natural events or phenomena may well have been attributed or blamed on God when in fact they were the result of ordinary fate.
At no place in any Hebrew Biblical inscriptions did God make a direct promise to safeguard all people or keep them safe from harm; rather, he invented natural processes and Physics and gave Humanity the tools to circumnavigate them or master them-- failure to do so represents a breach of contract on the part of humanity rather than God.
God in fact may be innocent of all charges and in fact ignorant of them, and held accountable for natural phenomena that were outside his area of interest. In fact, by providing Humanity with tools (hands and brains) and the resources to develop (natural resources, minerals) within a stable framework (a predictable set of Physical Laws) God has in fact seen to the needs of Humanity in a benevolent if aloof manner.
The evidence presented against him, the Bible, is a known collection of suspicious superstition written by Humans; there is sufficient Reasonable Doubt present to clear God of these charges, which could in fact be nothing more thna malicious slander.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
The court is using the christian protestant "100% accurate" autobiography, which names him as Yahweh also, though if you wish, we could call him Jehovah, and claims he has a son.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
NecronLord wrote:The court is using the christian protestant "100% accurate" autobiography, which names him as Yahweh also, though if you wish, we could call him Jehovah, and claims he has a son.
It doesn't matter if the bible is 100% accurate. The court can't assume it is.
God didn’t write the King James Bible, that's fact. Neither is any version that we'd be able to produce. If the truth is that these were divinely inspired, the prosecution has no way of proving that.
They could bring some priest on the stand to say *"This bible the word of God"*. The defence would counter <"How do you know this is the word of God, did my client ever speak with you?"> *"Um, No, I kinda just assumed"* <"I see so you have no proof it is"> *"Well, my teacher said so also"* <"That's here-say">
God isn't required to testify. We can't produce *any* witnesses to any of the events, we can't even produce victims, or evidence of God's actions.
If the judge is omniscient then a court case isn’t required.
Fuck you yourself.
My court has all the legitamacy of yours.
Which is none.
To grant yourself legitimacy, is to grant me, under the law of symmatry.
I made a prior ruling, establishing preceedant. If you don't know how the law works, that is not my fault.
I don't for one moment believe this will change "God's" mind.
The very idea of your trial is to rant.
Go and bell the cat, will you mouse?
Good luck finding the fictitious "cat."
PS: You have, as yet, to prove you even HAVE someone to prosecute.
Perhaps the scope of your trial can be expanded incude Moloch, Baal, Quetzalcoatl, Satan, and the invisible pinbk dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.
What are you REALY mad about, that you rail against a non exsistant entity?
Hmmmmmm.
"It is happening now, It has happened before, It will surely happen again."
Oldest member of SD.net, not most mature.
Brotherhood of the Monkey
