Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Judge sentences East Texas man to get married or face jail time

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judge sentences East Texas man to get married or face jail time

    "In July, a Smith County judge sentenced Josten Bundy to get married to his 19-year-old girlfriend as part of his probation, which also included writing Bible verses and getting counseling."

    I can't imagine there would actually be any debate about the absurdity of this. I file it under "OMG WTF". I do wonder what the options are now for the newlyweds, but I'm guessing none. I lived in East Texas for a number of years and the police, judges, city government...crooked - if there was a good one, I never met them (I worked for a city that is the county seat...not this particualr one, but close and that put me in contact with quite a few peeps drunk on power...shady, shady and you can't trust anyone). If this judge was removed from the bench over this I'd be shocked.
    An East Texas couple says their choice to marry when they wanted was taken away by a criminal court judge. In July, a Smith County judge sentenced Josten Bundy to get married to his 19 year old gir...

  • #2
    Why on earth should he be removed? He hasn't done anything wrong...

    So in that sense, i guess i would be kind of shocked, too.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by Chloe View Post
      Why on earth should he be removed? He hasn't done anything wrong...

      So in that sense, i guess i would be kind of shocked, too.

      Are you serious? Hasn't done anything wrong? Seriously? You can't be serious. Really? I'm trying to figure you out here.

      But in case you really are serious, the ruling is illegal. The most obvious issue is this woman can be forced to marry him as part of his probation. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting people that you can't be forced into. Are you familiar with the word "Duress" and how it relates to contract law? You also can't say "You're not going to be criminally punished if you get married". Write bible verses or you violate probation? Also, illegal. Other then obtaining counselling, the ruling is illegal.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        He had a choice. If he (or she) said no, then he could go to jail for 15 days.

        He had a choice, the sentence was 15 days in jail. The mitigation of that was this probationary condition, which the defendant agreed to. His (now) spouse, said yes, too. Had she not, it is no different to a guarantor / trustee of an estate refusing to release funds / monies for a beneficiary to pay a fine / child support etc. It is still the person being served / sued / charged / tried etc who is the party at response / responsible.

        There is nothing illegal about the ruling (which was 15 days in jail from what i read from the article). the judge was willing to lessen that to probation with those criteria if the defendant agreed, which he did. If he didn't, he could go to jail. No issue.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Btw if it is part of a sentence to avoid jail then usually the defendant does agree - whilst Jail is the other alternate for people who do not take the probationary agreement then it usually the defendant who decides to agree to the partial clause of the judge. Their choice though, as was this. (Feel free to look at the case law in which Mike Norman sentenced Tyler Alred to 10 years of going to church every weekend, all with the agreement of Tyler, the prosecution and the victim's family etc).

          Though if this is causing you so much angst please don't start looking at the sentencing of Judge Michael Cicconetti...that might send you over the top.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            His sentences rather, not his sentencing (otherwise it implies he was being sentenced).

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Sounds good to me. If the woman didn't want to marry him she could let him sit in jail. Obviously, they both consented to the conditions. It's not like 15 days in jail is going to kill the guy. If it was 15 years, I might have some sympathy. In this case, they could get married, fulfill the sentence, and get the marriage annulled the next day if they wanted.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Gross overreach of judicial power. Chloe by your logic above (it was a condition he didn't have to agree to but did so nothing bad happened) that judge could've demanded he do pretty much anything, such as mow his damn lawn for a month or go on a mission trip or participate in ramadan, or get circumsized, stick his hands in ant gloves, or any of numerous other religious or cultural traditions. Methinks your tune would be different if he was forced to abide by the tenets of islam or hinduism rather than christianity.

                Look at it this way: You're against child labor laws and for a minimum wage. Even if the parties involved consent to the lower wage you want it to be illegal to employ someone that way.
                But you're ok with this coercive bullshit?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by reality View Post
                  Gross overreach of judicial power. Chloe by your logic above (it was a condition he didn't have to agree to but did so nothing bad happened) that judge could've demanded he do pretty much anything, such as mow his damn lawn for a month or go on a mission trip or participate in ramadan, or get circumsized, stick his hands in ant gloves, or any of numerous other religious or cultural traditions. Methinks your tune would be different if he was forced to abide by the tenets of islam or hinduism rather than christianity.

                  Look at it this way: You're against child labor laws and for a minimum wage. Even if the parties involved consent to the lower wage you want it to be illegal to employ someone that way.
                  But you're ok with this coercive bullshit?

                  He wasn't coerced into doing anything. Would you marry someone you didn't want to just to avoid 15 days of three hots and a cot?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by reality View Post
                    Gross overreach of judicial power. Chloe by your logic above (it was a condition he didn't have to agree to but did so nothing bad happened) that judge could've demanded he do pretty much anything, such as mow his damn lawn for a month or go on a mission trip or participate in ramadan, or get circumsized, stick his hands in ant gloves, or any of numerous other religious or cultural traditions. Methinks your tune would be different if he was forced to abide by the tenets of islam or hinduism rather than christianity.
                    Demanded? As a plea agreement to avoid jail, sure they could have thrown that as a lesser alternative, but not demanded. It would likely be a violation of various statures / federal law if enforced as a Sentence so the option was the defendant's. He chose to get wed. Good decision. Didn't want to? Take the sentence, not the lesser agreed option granted to him. an the sentence was 15 days in jail.

                    Would i be opposed to it if it was say the tenets of Islam? No, if he was a Muslim i am sure the judge would have given him that as the lesser option for sentencing if he were so inclined. And again, if he refused, take the sentence.

                    Ultimately, this would just lead to more trials, more time and taxpayer cost, more power in the hands of prosecutors (ironically a thing i would think that you are opposed to), less chance for forgiveness and or mitigation, less power in the hands of judges etc, if judges were not allowed to offer options to avoid incarceration ; another thing which you are would like to see less of. (All be it for non violent crime, even though his was).

                    Look at it this way: You're against child labor laws and for a minimum wage. Even if the parties involved consent to the lower wage you want it to be illegal to employ someone that way.
                    But you're ok with this coercive bullshit?
                    There is a difference between Employ and serve as part of a probationary agreement. Employment covers employment law / statues including the David Bacon act etc ; all "rights". When convicted of a crime you lose certain rights. There are guidelines when it comes to sentencing, certain aspects of which have settled and assumed by courts and appealed and upheld or dismissed ; those are sentences. This was not. The sentence was 15 days in jail - which was relatively light to begin with i might add and he chose an option the judge presented him, to avoid that.

                    Not coercive at all - all he had to say was "no", and then he could have served his time.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                      He wasn't coerced into doing anything. Would you marry someone you didn't want to just to avoid 15 days of three hots and a cot?
                      I might so I could get differred adjudication rather than an assault conviction on my record. The judge has no business offering this deal. As stated: If he'd said "I want you to observe ramadan and copy these verses from the koran. There will be a mullah observing you and ensuring your compliance. " you'd have a different opinion of this whole deal.

                      How is it coercive? Agree to X or I will do Y to you.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Chloe View Post

                        Demanded? As a plea agreement to avoid jail, sure they could have thrown that as a lesser alternative, but not demanded. It would likely be a violation of various statures / federal law if enforced as a Sentence so the option was the defendant's. He chose to get wed. Good decision. Didn't want to? Take the sentence, not the lesser agreed option granted to him. an the sentence was 15 days in jail.

                        Would i be opposed to it if it was say the tenets of Islam? No, if he was a Muslim i am sure the judge would have given him that as the lesser option for sentencing if he were so inclined. And again, if he refused, take the sentence.

                        Ultimately, this would just lead to more trials, more time and taxpayer cost, more power in the hands of prosecutors (ironically a thing i would think that you are opposed to), less chance for forgiveness and or mitigation, less power in the hands of judges etc, if judges were not allowed to offer options to avoid incarceration ; another thing which you are would like to see less of. (All be it for non violent crime, even though his was).



                        There is a difference between Employ and serve as part of a probationary agreement. Employment covers employment law / statues including the David Bacon act etc ; all "rights". When convicted of a crime you lose certain rights. There are guidelines when it comes to sentencing, certain aspects of which have settled and assumed by courts and appealed and upheld or dismissed ; those are sentences. This was not. The sentence was 15 days in jail - which was relatively light to begin with i might add and he chose an option the judge presented him, to avoid that.

                        Not coercive at all - all he had to say was "no", and then he could have served his time.

                        Hey you agreed to be my slave for life. Sure I had a gun to your head but its not like YOU didn't CHOOSE. You could've CHOSEN differently.

                        ^^ That is the form of your logic.

                        Offering options to avoid incarceration such as attending rehab, anger managment, child support agreements, community service, stiff fines, outreach in the form of making speeches at schools etc or standing on a street corner on new years eve day with a sign that says "I drove DWI and now I have to stand on this corner every holiday for the next 20 yrs with this sign"? All fine legal penalties. Having the "option" of binding yourself, your life, your property (and to a religious person, YOUR SOUL, to a VERY religious person YOUR SOUL FOREVER WITH NO TAKEBACKS essentially) etc to another person or getting an assault conviction on your record? Not so much. Binding yourself to community property laws (Texas is a community property state) binding yourself to pay alimony for an indefinite period no matter if she eventually lives with someone else so long as they don't marry? Etc? No.

                        He's requiring you either go to jail with a conviction for assault OR bind yourself to another person in a way that is not easily gotten out of and NEVER gotten out of without extreme consequences. Also to write bible verses.

                        That's highly improper because of the NATURE of the things presented. This isn't service, report to a po, pay a fine, attend anger managment. This is "bind yourself to this woman under the law, and participate in this religion and I'll let you go. Otherwise you're getting a conviction on your record and sitting in the pokey for 15 days."

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Chloe: No one got coerced into taking that .25 cent an hour job. But we have to have a minimum wage. Right?

                          In the economic example at least there IS choice, other options to pursue. This was a dichotomy: Take the conviction or get married and participate in this religion.

                          Why does one REQUIRE government intervention and why is the other not a big deal, to you?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by reality View Post

                            I might so I could get differred adjudication rather than an assault conviction on my record. The judge has no business offering this deal.
                            That is precisely his job - under Texas (small court / family court and local court) law, he has that power and both defense and prosecution have the ability to table motions and offers to avoid trial. He also waived his right to a trial by Jury, which he has. But if you did it and got the deferred sentence / expunged record that can be retrospectively invalidated as per the the original sentence being enforced, per a probation violation if intent is determined by a probation officer and upheld by a court.

                            As stated: If he'd said "I want you to observe ramadan and copy these verses from the koran. There will be a mullah observing you and ensuring your compliance. " you'd have a different opinion of this whole deal.
                            If he were not a Muslim then all he could do is say no. The individual has no issue with the aspect of writing biblical versus, he was the one who used his Christian faith as part of a character reference to show good behavior to begin with, he invoked it. This judge seems more than reasonable so had he not invoked it, i doubt the judge would have mentioned it. But also, he could have asked the judge for something different but he didn't even quibble over this aspect of the deal.

                            How is it coercive? Agree to X or I will do Y to you.
                            I know it may seem like a distinction without a difference but the judge said that he would sentence the defendant to "Y" [/i]first[/i]. Which is kind of crucial. He then offered "x" to avoid that, to which the defendant agreed, voluntarily. (Thus not coercion in nature, as it was of his own free will). That is the basic bread and butter of the plea agreement / lesser included charges being plead to and more severe ones waived / lesser sentencing etc, and has been upheld numerous times by the court system. It is our entire judicial thinking / way of enforcement and upholding of law. And it is always on the basis that the defendant is choosing the option afforded to him to avoid the sentence the judge would hand down.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by reality View Post
                              Hey you agreed to be my slave for life. Sure I had a gun to your head but its not like YOU didn't CHOOSE. You could've CHOSEN differently.
                              I didn't agree to it of my own free will then. This individual did, and if not, could have asked for advice of counsel / requested representation etc. they are not even complaining about it - just wish they could have invited someone etc. Which would have swayed the judge into allowing it, were it not for the fact everyone in both their families hates them both.

                              Offering options to avoid incarceration such as attending rehab, anger managment, child support agreements, community service, stiff fines, outreach in the form of making speeches at schools etc or standing on a street corner on new years eve day with a sign that says "I drove DWI and now I have to stand on this corner every holiday for the next 20 yrs with this sign"? All fine legal penalties.
                              So is this one, thus far. Nobody has appealed and or has said that anything was done contrary to the views of someone in the ceremony so what is the issue? Now if they were to appeal and some revocation of issues were to ensue, that is a different matter. For now though, there is nothing illegal about this decision either.

                              Having the "option" of binding yourself, your life, your property (and to a religious person, YOUR SOUL, to a VERY religious person YOUR SOUL FOREVER WITH NO TAKEBACKS essentially) etc to another person or getting an assault conviction on your record? Not so much. Binding yourself to community property laws (Texas is a community property state) binding yourself to pay alimony for an indefinite period no matter if she eventually lives with someone else so long as they don't marry? Etc? No.
                              So why didn't he do just that - say no? The 15 days in jail is hardly something he can quake in his boots over - that would never be seen as unfair so he chose to turn down a very lenient sentence, took an offer to avoid even that much, got married out of it and says he would have done so in time anyway,

                              He's requiring you either go to jail with a conviction for assault OR bind yourself to another person in a way that is not easily gotten out of and NEVER gotten out of without extreme consequences. Also to write bible verses.

                              That's highly improper because of the NATURE of the things presented. This isn't service, report to a po, pay a fine, attend anger managment. This is "bind yourself to this woman under the law, and participate in this religion and I'll let you go. Otherwise you're getting a conviction on your record and sitting in the pokey for 15 days."
                              Then why didn't he refuse the agreement?

                              Also, this is assuming he didn't have advice of counsel ; who could have advised him that he could be looking at jail but could refuse to marry. (Neither party apparently has issue with either part of the agreement, Bible versus or marriage, just the timing) and not all sentencing / agreements involve any form of service or restitution to the state or parties owed. Some, like this can be for the betterment of the individual / discretion of the judge etc, and thus involve a religious invocation / agreement etc, as is the case here.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X