Beware the judge who rules with his faith...

Users who are viewing this thread

Sim

Active Member
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
30.11z
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/20/update_on_subgenius_.html

Monday, March 20, 2006
Update on SubGenius child custody case

Here's the latest news about performance artist Rachel Bevilacqua (AKA Rev. Magdalen), a SubGenius reverend who lost custody of her 10-year-son after a pink judge saw photos of a SubGenius convention she participated in. (Disclosure: I have been a card-carrying SubGenius reverend for 22 years and take the word of JR "Bob" Dobbs to be the literal truth. I have also contributed to Rachel's legal fund.)

From Rachel (AKA Rev Magdalen's blog):
On February 3, 2006, Judge Punch heard testimony in the case. Jeff entered into evidence 16 exhibits taken from the Internet, 12 of which are photographs of the SubGenius event, X-Day. Kohl has never attended X-Day and is not in any of the pictures. Rachel is depicted in many of these photos, often wearing skimpy costumes or completely nude, while participating in X-Day and Detroit Devival events.

The judge, allegedly a very strict Catholic, became outraged at the photos of the X-Day parody of Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ — especially the photo where Jesus [Steve Bevilacqua] is wearing clown makeup and carrying a crucifix with a pool-noodle dollar sign on it while being beaten by a crowd of SubGenii, including a topless woman with a “dildo”.

His Honor also strongly disapproved of the photos of Mary Magdalen [Rachel Bevilacqua] in a bondage dress and papier maché goat’s head. The judge repeatedly asked, “Why a goat? What’s so significant about a goat’s head?” When Rachel replied, “I just thought the word ‘goat’ was funny,” Judge Punch lost his temper completely, and began to shout abuse at Rachel, calling her a “pervert,” “mentally ill,” “lying,” and a participant in “sex orgies.” The judge ordered that Rachel is to have absolutely no contact with her son, not even in writing, because he felt the pictures of X-Day performance art were evidence enough to suspect “severe mental illness”. Rachel has had no contact with Kohl since that day, February 3, 2006.

Modemmac of The High Weirdness Project, who has been following the case closely, says:
Since the news of Reverend Magdalen's legal proceedings broke, people have been asking Magdalen to post the actual transcripts of the court proceedings, so that they can read Judge Punch's words for themselves and verify that she was speaking the truth. The transcripts of the case were to become available by March 6th. However, for the entire week since March 3rd, Magdalen has been absent from the Internet, and she has not been able to make the transcripts available.

The reason for Magdalen's absence (and the lack of the transcripts) became clear as of Thursday, March 9. On that day, I learned that the judge had ordered Magdalen to cease all communication on the Internet regarding her son. This was not a written statement – the judge had verbally ordered her to remain offline, and no written order was available. Magdalen stated that even though the order was verbal, the court considered it to be an official order from the judge, and so she has had to remain offline since then.

However, as of March 15th, Magdalen had obtained legal reputation from none other than the law firm of Lipsitz Green Fahringer Roll Salisbury & Cambria, LLP. (This firm includes Larry Flynt and Marilyn Manson among their clients.) Magdalen's legal team is challenging this order. When the order is overturned and she is online again, she will have quite a story to tell.

IMPORTANT: Because Magdalen has a new legal team, donations to her legal fund are to be sent to a new address. Paypal donations can still be sent to magdalen@subgenius.com. Checks or other payments can be mailed to the attention of:

Christopher S. Mattingly
Lipsitz Green LLP
42 Delaware Avenue
Suite 300
Buffalo, New York 14202-3857

Since Rachel Bevilacqua isn't allowed to update her blog, I've got a summary of the case with updates at this page.

Rev. Ivan Stang has a page with more of a history of the custody case (before it took a twist and we all became involved).
 
  • 13
    Replies
  • 700
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
Sim...are you serious??? I'm not even sure what to say....I hope that's not a real religion...they worship "BOB"...http://www.subgenius.com/...that's gotta be some kind of parody of religion, right?????...which makes me wonder why this is posted...never mind the obvious false statements in the story, I'll mention those later if you're serious...are you just fucking with my mind???
 

Sim

Active Member
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
30.11z
Oh come now...I have minions who think that I'm their God. It's nothing new to have goofy spin-off religions. Look at Scientology. All hail Xenu! *coughs* You want another simple way to get ordained? Check out http://ulc.net and get yourself your own religion and title as religious leader. This is in the politics area to discuss the politics behind the judge's orders. I would have posted it in the debate/philosophy section otherwise. *shakes head*

I actually researched the case, and it is ongoing. The judge did use discriminatory religious beliefs of his own to take her child. This is in violation of separation of church and state. She is a performance artist. Her child does not go to the expos. Not to mention, the child has been taught that the naked human form is just that. It isn't something dirty, after all...it's just another body.

The point is not to look at the religion, dt3, but to look at how the judge is pushing his weight around.
 

lemon

Member
Messages
7,916
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.01z
separation of church and state is not law. so the judge did not violate that aspect.

however, he did violate the facts/opinion law of justice ( whatever the fsck you want to call it.. )
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
I just can't imagine a judge actually saying those things. And little things don't make sense, like the transcripts. Those are public record, the defendent doesn't have to be the one to obtain them, so why does it say the reason for not having transcripts is because she can't go online? And the judge can't tell her to stay off the internet. During the case, things like that are at the judge's discretion (gag orders, etc), but after the case he has no power over her 1st Amendment rights. Show me the transcripts that prove this story, then I'll comment on the judge. Until then, all we have is the word of these religious nuts that it actually happened.
 

Sim

Active Member
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
30.11z
They're not religious nuts. They are making fun of organized religion. The site is a spoof. They are performance artists. This is the way they make their opinion known...and have for years.

Why would you call them nuts anyway? Because what you thought were their beliefs were different from your own?

A judge can order a person to stay off the internet if the reason behind their being in court in the first place comes from the fact that there were pictures she posted from one of their events which he doesn't believe are befitting of a mother...which is his excuse for taking her child.

I cannot show you transcripts as it is still an ongoing case. The only reason I can see some of what is going on is simply due to my having contacts in the wonderful world of law. And I'm not getting my family name into trouble to satisfy anyone's requests.

Hey lemon...you'll kill me for getting you to read the rest of this:

In the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather derives from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.”

The Danbury Baptist Association wrote President Jefferson in an attempt to persuade him to use his Executive Powers as President to intervene in their behalf. In his letter of reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson argued that the U.S. Constitution forbade any interference from the Federal government with a Connecticut law which required membership in a particular church in order to hold public office.

Jefferson's point in the letter was that the Federal or State governments had no Constitutional authority to prohibit the practice of any religion. Jefferson refused their plea on the grounds cited in his letter. Thus, with the adoption of the Jeffersonian phrase '...wall of separation between church and state...', by those who seek to use Federal power to remove from the public square any religiosity of any sort, the inversion of the meaning intended by Jefferson as he wrote it.

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

The belief that religious and state institutions should be separate covers a wide spectrum, ranging between one extreme which would secularize or eliminate the church, and theocracy, in which the government is an affiliate of the church. Some secularists believe that the state should be kept entirely separate from religion, and that the institutions of religion should be entirely free from governmental interference. Churches that exercise their authority completely apart from government endorsement, whose foundations are not in the state, are conventionally called "Free" churches.

A secular government does not cite a specific religious institution for the justification of its authority. However, some secular governments claim quasi-religious justifications for their powers, emphasizing the relationship mainly for ceremonial and rhetorical purposes. This is done for the general welfare and the benefit of the state, does not necessarily favor any specific religious group, and the state does not conform to any doctrine other than its own. This arrangement is called civil religion. Some secularists would allow the state to encourage religion (such as by providing exemptions from taxation, or providing funds for education and charities, including those that are "faith based"), but insist the state should not establish one religion as the state religion, require religious observance, or legislate dogma.

Some countries embrace a middle position, a compromise between secular and religious government. In these countries the state uses the powers of government to directly support a specific religious institution or established church. Turkey, for example, despite being an officially secular country (the Preamble of the Constitution states that “There shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics”), pays imams' wages, provides religious education in public schools (article 24 of the Constitution) and has a Department of Religious Affairs (article 136 of the Constitution) that organizes the Muslim religion.

A theocracy exists when a religion establishes the government and religious law is applied to state policy under the direct authority of the religious institution. In a theocracy, the courts or officials of the religion direct policies of the civil government.

The separation of church and state is similar to the concept of freedom of religion, but the two concepts are not the same. For example, the citizens in a country with a state church may have complete freedom of religion. And citizens in a country without a state church may or may not enjoy the freedom to practice their religion. In the United States, the structure and wording of the First Amendment with both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, demonstrates this difference. Both clauses have evolved an important body of case law from the U.S. Supreme Court as well as lower federal courts.

While many states or nations permit freedom of religious belief, no country allows completely unrestricted freedom of religious practice. National laws, when they reflect important or fundamental governmental interests, may prohibit certain acts which some citizens may claim represent the free exercise of their religious belief.

In the United States, state laws can prohibit practices such as bigamy, sex with children, human sacrifice, use of drugs, or other criminal acts, even if citizens claims the practices are part of their religious belief system. However, the federal courts give close scrutiny to any state or local laws that impinge upon the bona fide exercise of religious practices. The courts ensure that genuine and important religious rights are not impeded, and that questionable practices are limited only to the extent necessary. The courts usually demand that any laws restricting religious practices must demonstrate a fundamental or "compelling" state interest, such as protecting citizens from bodily harm. See Free Exercise Clause for further discussion.
 

TheRook

New Member
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Re: RE: Beware the judge who rules with his faith...

Sim said:
Oh come now...I have minions who think that I'm their God.

Seriously??sweet...Ima try to get something like that going...



Ive got to say there are parts of this story that have been left out. Someone would have caught this and stopped the judge. I would hope anyway.
 

TheRook

New Member
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
My comment wasnt political in nature. It was on the accuracy of "Internet News"
I once had a common cold and looked my symptoms up on the internet. The internet would have me belive that I had 6 months to live.

And you may be surprised but there are very little politics at play in my job (or at least at my level) Although I do see the after effects of alot of it but I dont think of my job in political terms. If I did It might piss me off. lol.
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
Orleans county only has a population of 44,000 (http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=22492)so you would think this would be big local news

Funny there's nothing about it here
http://www.topix.net/county/orleans-ny

Or you can try searching these archives, but there's nothing there
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/westernnewyork.asp

Is there any news on here about it?
http://www.wgrz.com/

Or here?
http://www.wivb.com/

How about here?
www.wkbw.com



If you show me one story about it from a reputable source, then I'll talk about the politics of it. Until you can do that, I'm calling this whole story bullshit. Hell, I'll even call it a scam to dupe people out of money. Don't worry, if you manage to prove me wrong, I'll admit it. Then we can have an intelligent conversation about the politics of the whole thing.
 

Sim

Active Member
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
30.11z
Uh...yeah. Because gag orders are really easy to circumvent just to satisfy two strangers I'll never even meet...not going to go to jail for you two.

If you refuse to discuss the politics of it, then stay out of the thread. Otherwise, you're just whoring it up with nonsense.
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
Re: RE: Beware the judge who rules with his faith...

Sim said:
If you refuse to discuss the politics of it, then stay out of the thread. Otherwise, you're just whoring it up with nonsense.

This story is nonsense. You're lucky anybody even responded after this bullshit story. You say you have law connections, get a transcript from the case in 1997. There's no gag order on that. If it wasn't for us there would be 1 reply in your thread. If you tell a story, you should be prepared to discuss all aspects of it, not just the ones that you want to discuss.

Have you ever seen a headline that said "Judge issues gag order in such and such case?" Why isn't there even a story about that? Let's discuss the politics of a group making up a story to make them sound oppressed.
 

TheRook

New Member
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Re: RE: Beware the judge who rules with his faith...

Sim said:
Uh...yeah. Because gag orders are really easy to circumvent just to satisfy two strangers I'll never even meet...not going to go to jail for you two.

If you refuse to discuss the politics of it, then stay out of the thread. Otherwise, you're just whoring it up with nonsense.

Hey...all I said is that there had to be something missing from this story. And you said there is a gag order. That means that there is something missing from the story. So dont get all "E-mad" at me. And your right....I have been known to "whore it up" every now and again
7d334729dbea837e519452cb55ecc4f5.gif
 

lemon

Member
Messages
7,916
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.01z
hmm... interesting read there sim. however, i do not believe you wrote that. although you could have. but it seems too... wordy :lol


separation of church and state* is possible. but only if the people who make up the state are under no religious influence whatsoever. reguarding that, i say that is impossible.

the real reason of the practice ( not law ) of socas* is to provide a more equalitive sense of law. it makes it seem that it is fair to all peoples that the law governs. unfortunately, most laws that are in effect today, usually have roots in some religious mindset.

so while the practice seems like it works, it is doomed to fail under our current set of laws.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top