Over the course of several hours, [Mullet] described the challenges of adjusting to prison, his perspective on the beard-cutting attacks and life inside the breakaway Amish sect where he was accused of sexually preying on women and tormenting men with harsh punishments.
On the matter of the beard cuttings, Mullet told The Daily that he was wrongly convicted — that a group of his followers, including several of his children, hatched the scheme on their own.
the decision to remove Appellant from the courtroom, the contempt citations, and the decision to order Appellant’s forcible shaving in the absence of any command action to do the same, could lead an objective observer to conclude that the military judge was not impartial towards Appellant.... [I]t could reasonably appear to an objective observer that the military judge had allowed the proceedings to become a duel of wills between himself and Appellant rather than an adjudication of the serious offenses with which Appellant is charged. Moreover, we are cognizant that the military judge and his family were present at Fort Hood on the day of the shootings.The court also vacated Hasan's contempt convictions and the judge's order to forcibly shave him. It said: "We need not and do not decide if and how RFRA might apply to Appellant’s beard. Should the next military judge find it necessary to address Appellant’s beard, such issues should be addressed and litigated
The factual assertion or implication that Klingenschmitt’s 2009 prayers somehow incited or caused unidentified others to commit acts of vandalism including “a swastika emblazoned on their home in New Mexico, animal carcasses left on their doorstep and feces thrown at the house,” is demonstrably false in that both Mikey and Bonnie Weinstein have admitted these acts of vandalism occurred in 2006, 2007 or 2008, and therefore could not have been caused by Klingenschmitt’s 2009 prayers....
Upon information and belief, the primary motive for Weinstein and Bonnie L. Weinstein to file the lawsuit against Klingenschmitt was an illegitimate end, specifically to cause Klingenschmitt or his interests financial difficulties, to prevent Klingenschmitt from promoting his philosophy or his religious beliefs, to marginalize Klingenschmitt’s influence, goals, and impact, and to subject Klingenschmitt to the expense, delay, and distraction of protracted litigation.In a Dec. 2 press release, Klingenschmitt announced that Weinstein had been served in the lawsuit. God and Country blog reports on the lawsuit.
The presiding judge whose disqualification is sought has the surname "Levy". The "Papa" of the person in this case Miss X (...) had been prosecuted for the offence of taking away a minor under 18, is named Moses (Moïse). The first page of reference for the word "Lévy" on Wikipedia says that the word is, “according to tradition, the founder of the Jewish religion, Judaism, which is sometimes called, for this reason, Mosaic, that is to say, the religion of Moses. The materiality of these findings is incontestable.The court denied Dubrel's motion and fined him 750 Euros. According to The Algemeiner, in an earlier hearing a client of Dubruel's felt she was unfairly treated and attributed it to Levy's bias in favor of a Jewish defendant. Judge Levy has previously been the subject of anti-Semitic attacks, including threats when he investigated the far-right Front National Party and his being placed under police protection when an Islamist group threatened him.
Here, there is no indication of any intent to maintain any notion of male or female superiority, but rather, at most, of heterosexual superiority or “heteronormativity” by relegating (mainly) homosexual legal unions to a lesser status....
The States are currently in the midst of an intense democratic debate about the novel concept of same-sex marriage, and homosexuals have meaningful political power to protect their interests. At the state level, homosexuals recently prevailed during the 2012 general elections on same-sex marriage ballot measures in the States of Maine, Maryland, and Washington, and they prevailed against a fourth ballot measure that would have prohibited same sex marriage under the Minnesota Constitution. It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate.Applying rational basis scrutiny, the court concluded that "the protection of the traditional institution of marriage, which is a conceivable basis for the distinction drawn in this case, is a legitimate state interest." The court also held that protection of Nevada's public policy is a valid reason for it to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. AP reporting on the decision says that plaintiffs plan an appeal.
The honor and reputation of the entire leadership of a recognized worldwide religious movement has been intentionally defamed based on a manipulation of the facts by Judge Bratza of the European Court of Human Rights in a case involving Switzerland’s refusal to permit the inoffensive poster above to be displayed in public. Underlying this betrayal of justice by Judge Bratza was a conspiracy by Switzerland and the Vatican to bizarrely label the Raelian Movement leadership as pedophiles in retaliation for its stand against clerical pedophilia worldwide and in particular in francophone countries.The European Court decision about which the Raelians complain is attached as an appendix to their petition. The Raelian Movement also issued a press release announcing the filing of their petition.
We conclude that the Solemnization Statute is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of alleviating significant governmental interference with pre-existing religious beliefs about marriage. Additionally, the statute bears a rational relation to the equally reasonable purpose of allowing the government to assume responsibility for the marriage regulation function without ostracizing its religious constituents. For these and all of the reasons explicated above, we find that Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim-whether grounded in Free Exercise Clause or Establishment Clause jurisprudence-does not succeed on the merits.The court likewise rejected plaintiffs' equal protection claim. In reaching its conclusions, the court pointed out:
there are several readily available avenues by which a Secular Celebrant may facilitate a marriage ceremony in Indiana: she may (1) preside at a wedding and then instruct the couple to go before one of the individuals listed in the Solemnization Statute to have the marriage solemnized; (2) become a member of the "clergy" by seeking immediate Internet ordination from the Universal Life Church; or (3) seek certification to solemnize marriages from the Humanist Society.
Article 43 on freedom of religion limits the right to practice religion and to establish places of worship to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Previous drafts had provided for a general right to practice religion but limited the establishment of places of worship to adherents of these three Abrahamic religions. Article 43 discriminates against and excludes followers of other religions, including Egyptian Bahais. Under former President Hosni Mubarak, security forces would frequently arrest religious minorities including Shia, Ahmadis, Bahais, and Quranists because of their beliefs....
One positive development is that the final draft no longer includes what had been article 68 in earlier drafts on women’s rights, which stipulated that equality for women would be subject to conformity with rulings of Islamic law, a provision strongly promoted by Salafi members of the assembly. However, the draft no longer lists “sex” as one of the grounds for prohibiting discrimination, as no grounds are named. Article 30 now states that, “Citizens are equal before the law and equal in rights and obligations without discrimination,” without specifying whom this provision covers.