Judge Overturns 75% Voter Approved

[Metaldoc]

Here we go again..... a renegade judge ignoring and overturning the will of the people. :angry:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California Judge Lets Her Decision Stand on La Jolla Cross
Overturns Vote of 197,125 San Diegans
By James L. Lambert
October 10, 2005

SAN DIEGO (AgapePress) - A San Diego Superior Court judge has let stand her August ruling that invalidated a July ballot initiative that would have transferred city land, a war memorial, and the historic cross in La Jolla to the U.S. Department of Interior. Judge Patricia Yim Cowett ruled the transfer as unconstitutional. In her 35-page position paper, Cowett made only a one sentence reference to the vote that was approved by 76 percent of San Diego voters. (See earlier article)


Judge Patricia Yim Cowett (Photo by San Diego Union-Tribune)
The vote took place on July 26 after President Bush signed legislation in December authorizing transfer of the historic site to the federal government. Judge Cowett's decision is the latest in a long battle between the City of San Diego and a lawyer representing atheist Philip Paulson.

Both sides embroiled in the debate are not particularly surprised by the judge's action. However, on Friday during his regular weekday radio talk show, Roger Hedgecock indicated he is interested in seeing Judge Cowett recalled from her elected position as Superior Court judge. Besides his local week day show on KOGO, Hedgecock can be heard on Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated show as a periodical fill-in for the host.

Charles LiMandri, the attorney who wants to see the cross preserved in its present state, intends on filing an action to vacate so that he can privately appeal the decision. It is generally expected that San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre, elected in November 2004, will not allow the city to appeal the decision. He has privately expressed agreement with Judge Cowett's ruling.

On Sunday, a spokesman for San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial said the group is presently considering all of their legal options available to them at this time.

[Metaldoc]

Here is an article that predates the one above and gives a little more background. It is pretty obvious that the only issue here is to get the cross removed from one atheist's sight in spite of an overwhelming approval of the public to let it stand.

CAUTION - THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CONTAINS STATEMENTS THAT ARE EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE TO FOLLOWERS OF JESUS CHRIST !!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By James L. Lambert
October 7, 2005

SAN DIEGO (AgapePress) - Attorney Charles LiMandri presented arguments Monday in a San Diego Superior Court to appeal a decision by Judge Patricia Yim Cowett regarding a July city-wide vote that determined the fate of the Mt. Soledad Cross in La Jolla, California. In her August decision, Cowett invalidated the vote of 197,125 San Diegans who wanted to transfer the city land where the Mt. Soledad Cross is located to the federal government.

That vote (Proposition A) effectively sanctioned the transfer of the 51-year-old cross, the war memorial, and the land where it stands to the U.S. Department of the Interior to become a national war memorial. The Mt. Soledad Cross was constructed at its present site in 1954 to commemorate veterans of the Korean War. The proposition won by a 76% plurality.

As West Coast Director of the Thomas More Law Center, LiMandri was recently hired by the City to represent its cause, pro-bono, as a Special Deputy City Attorney in the case. LiMandri argued in court on Monday that Cowett’s ruling contradicts a past Supreme Court decision that indicates the party in question (the City of San Diego) has to be “entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion.”

In his arguments LiMandri stated that “this court would have to find the entire California Constitution itself to be unconstitutional . That is because the preamble of the California constitution states: ‘We the people of the state of California, grateful to almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetrate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.’”

The lawyer also contends that if Judge Cowett “is inclined to consider evidence of statements made by individual lawmakers and private citizens to determine the constitutional purpose … then the Court should also consider the motives of those seeking to compel the City to remove the cross from the Mt. Soledad Memorial.”

In his Court-submitted brief LiMandri said that “it is only fair and reasonable for the Court to be apprised of the anti-Christian motives of [the] Plaintiff” (Philip Paulson). Paulson along with attorney James McElroy have been seeking the removal of the historic Cross for over 16 years. McElroy has close ties to the American Civil Liberties Union and serves as director of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

LiMandri's brief provides a quote from Paulson given on May 3, 2005: “[W]e need to make a full attack on Jesus… ‘A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord …’ Well according to the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ was a bastard and a rape baby. After all, the christian god the father raped the Virgin Mary when she was only 13 years of age, and then the all-knowing and all-powerful god became a dead-beat dad who later set up his own bastard son’s execution.”

The brief further notes that “such hateful statements attacking the most sacred and profoundly held beliefs of a great many people in this county, reveal the Plaintiff’s deep hostility towards Christianity.” LiMandri summarizes by saying that this case “represents a classic example of the tyranny of a tiny minority, whereby those few decidedly anti-Christian and Anti-American purposes are trying to use the courts to promote overt hostility toward religion.”

All sides believe the Judge will not change her July decision that effectively nullified the vote of over 197,000 voters. The decision is expected soon, and once it is finalized, LiMandri is planning further appeals. Ultimately, the Thomas More Center lawyer says he believes the case of the Mt. Soledad Cross is headed for the Supreme Court.

[Swordslinger]

Your right. It is hate of the people they (the "theys") like to call haters. One of the reasons Christ came was to save us from these who hate Him, and us.


Luke1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

This hatred (emnity) goes all the way back to the Garden.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Folks may say, "Yeah but that is referring to Satan, the devil ect..." But we have to realize he has children.

John 8:44* Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Matthew 13:38* The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

We are at that time where in the above Scripture context speaks. The time when the "Tares" are raising thier evil heads as to be shown for who they are. They have been concealed to most for thousands of years, but now thier actions are revealing them for who they are for all of His (the "Wheat") to see.

The SPLC (Southern Pervert's Law Center) is run by this fellow (http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/dees1.htm). His divorce records are made public, and have been posted online. It dosnt take alot of reading to figure him out.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=morri...G=Google+Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=morris+dees+divorce&btnG=Google+Search)

[Swordslinger]

Hmmmmm.....Christ a bastard. Wonder where he came up with that one? <_<


Jewish Encyclopedia 1901-06 page 170.
The earliest authenticated passage ascribing illegitimate birth to Jesus is that in Yeb. iv. 3 (Talmud). The mysterious phrase ("that man") cited in this passage as occurring in a family register which B. Simeon ben Azza is said to have found seems to indicate that it refers to Jesus (see Derenbourg in “R.E. J.” i. 293), and here occur also the two expressions so often applied to Jesus in later literature—[Hebr.] (= "that anonymous one,"the name of Jesus being avoided) and [Hebr.] (= “bastard”: for which in later times [Hebr.] was used).

The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106a. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and "played the harlot with carpenters"

Talmud, Gittim 57a Speaking of Jesus Christ. "He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.1 He then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: With "boiling hot semen.""

I'll stop there, because it gets sicker than this.

[Dorkface]

:samurai:

[IVM]

It is one thing to foster the seperation of Church and State as dictated by constitutional law, it is entirely another thing to take action and words that are clearly anti-Christian such as the words spoken in the article.

I can see no reason why transferring the memorial to the Department of the Interior should be halted by a Superior Court judge in San Diego, and I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court will overturn the decision of this judge.

[Metaldoc]

The judges behavior confused me, but on further thought, I wonder if this judge isn't a rampant liberal ( it is in Kalifornia) that saw a chance to kick sand in the face of President Bush. The article stated that the referendum was held just after the prez signed legislation authorizing the transfer of the memorial to the federal government.