OK, I know this is old news .....

=======================================================



"Nebraska's Sylvia Driskell will represent herself in Driskell v. Homosexuals


A Nebraska woman is suing every gay person on Earth and asking a federal judge to rule on whether homosexuality is a sin.

Sylvia Driskell, 66, describes herself as an ambassador of “God, And His, Son Jesus Christ [sic]” and will serve as her own lawyer in Driskell v. Homosexuals, NBC News reports. In her seven-page petition, written entirely in cursive, Driskell doesn’t reference any case laws for U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard to consider, but she does quote the Bible and Webster’s Dictionary.

“I never thought that I would see a day in which our great nation or our own great state of Nebraska would become so compliant to the complicity of some people[’s] lewd behavior,” writes Driskell, who says “that homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in the closet.”




http://time.com/3848666/nebraska-woman-sues-gays/

I suppose she intends to serve by publication...

That's going to be a lot of newspapers!!

Shades of Tom Phillips, asking a Court to rule on a matter of religious belief, and then having your ass handed to you on a platter by a judge. This woman clearly must be some relative of his.

actually, Tom Phillips asked a court to rule on whether some of the claims of Mormon Church leaders constituted fraud under British law. More than a few of us here feel like we were deliberately lied to to get money and labor from us, so it is not an empty claim.

Round one lost, but as long as they continue to lie, people will continue to try and hold them accountable. They know they have a problem and they are dodging and weaving.

Actually, BOJ, you couldn't be more wrong. Tom Phillips wanted the Judiciary of England and Wales to rule that the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS of the Mormon Church constituted criminal fraud because Mormons tithe based on their beliefs. Chief Magistrate Riddle, in what merely constituted a preliminary hearing, unceremoniously threw the Phillips case out of court for failure to even establish probable cause for a prima facie case.

Furthermore, Judge Riddle was not the least bit impressed with Phillips' attempt to misuse the English courts for his own private religious purposes. In other words, the much vaunted "October Surprise" had all the impact of a "March Wet Fart." The case that was going to "bring down the Mormon Church" embarrassingly never even made it out of the starting gate.

You need to carefully read Judge Riddle's ruling on the matter, perhaps with the aid of an experienced courtroom attorney, instead of merely accepting what you read in the screeching monkey cages that constitute Internet bulletin boards:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/thomas-phillips-v-thomas-monson.pdf

And here is what the BBC, one of the world major news outlets, had to say about Tom Phillips' antics:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26666144

Sylvia Driskell's attempted civil suit against homosexuals was an attempt at civil law to impose her religious BELIEFS on others. Tom Phillips' private criminal prosecution against Mormons was an attempt at criminal law to attack religious the BELIEFS of others. Neither case was shown to have any legal merit and both were summarily thrown out, and properly so.

Why did you suggest we read Judge Riddle's ruling, then link us to the church attorney's appeal of the Monson summons -- which contains no rulings whatsoever from Judge Riddle?

Why do you think one judge's opinion is the be-all and end-all, when another judge saw enough in the complaint to issue the summons, and continue the case?

Why did you misrepresent Tom's case as being claimed to be the case that would "take down the church," when Tom never made any such representation?

And why care about a newspaper's opinion -- it's not involved in legal decisions?

I think you're the one who needs to do some reading. Seriously.

Your post makes no sense.

The first link is to the Judiciary of England and Wales website. It is the ruling of Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle throwing out the Phillips case. Perhaps your confusion lies in your lack of ability to read a legal document. Seriously.

The second link is to a BBC news release, reporting on Judge Riddle's action and quoting a BBC religion editor, who was not the least bit impressed with Phillips' attempted criminal prosecution. What about that is hard to understand, and why shouldn't one be informed about what news outlets are saying? Again, your post makes no sense.

Finally, in the months leading up to what was supposed to be the October Surprise in 2013, Tom Phillips was indeed all over ex-mo BB's and podcasts claiming that he would bring the LDS Church down in a legal action from which it would never recover. He even collected money from exmo's to support him in this effort, on this BB and other websites. You will find all of this with just minimal research.

You need to hie yourself to a library and learn how to read a legal document and thoroughly research an issue. Seriously.

Burke's Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your post makes no sense.
>
> The first link is to the Judiciary of England and
> Wales website. It is the ruling of Chief
> Magistrate Howard Riddle throwing out the Phillips
> case. Perhaps your confusion lies in your lack of
> ability to read a legal document. Seriously.

Perhaps you should read your own links. Your link goes to an opinion that rules out the summons of Monson. Rather than toss out juvenile insults, maybe YOU should read it. It ends with, "For the reasons given above, these summonses are withdrawn."
It does not "throw out the Phillips case."

> The second link is to a BBC news release,
> reporting on Judge Riddle's action and quoting a
> BBC religion editor, who was not the least bit
> impressed with Phillips' attempted criminal
> prosecution.

Gee, what a surprise, a religion editor doesn't like a religious case. And his opinion, not being a legal one, matters because...?

> What about that is hard to
> understand, and why shouldn't one be informed
> about what news outlets are saying?

Nothing hard to understand, just pap from the religious. Informed is fine. Disagreeing with the religious pap is fine, especially since it's religious pap with no legal implications whatsoever.

> Again, your
> post makes no sense.

That's YOUR issue, not mine.

> Finally, in the months leading up to what was
> supposed to be the October Surprise in 2013, Tom
> Phillips was indeed all over ex-mo BB's and
> podcasts claiming that he would bring the LDS
> Church down in a legal action from which it would
> never recover.

Provide a quote to that effect. Go right ahead.

> He even collected money from exmo's
> to support him in this effort, on this BB and
> other websites. You will find all of this with
> just minimal research.

So? That doesn't support your claim. Provide a quote.

> You need to hie yourself to a library and learn
> how to read a legal document and thoroughly
> research an issue. Seriously.

You need to stop using ad-hominems, and address issues instead. Try it.

<<< Tom Phillips' private criminal prosecution against Mormons was an attempt at criminal law to attack religious the BELIEFS of others.>>>

Right on! Just like the SEC's prosecution of Bernie Madoff was an attempt to attack the BELIEFS of his investors. Namely, the BELIEF that they would get a good return-on-investment. They've got a right to their BELIEFS too. Set Bernie free!

This type of action screams "mental health issues".

Thats exactly what I was thinking.

Or taking her religion too seriously.

Or using religion to back up her views.



I'd like to sue all religious preachers who perpetuate this stuff from the pulpits on the grounds that it is a sin. :-)

I'm guessing she and "Kim denim jumper woman Kansas clerk" exchange Christmas cards. Snork.

I am impressed that she wrote her petition entirely in cursive.

For her sake, however, let's hope she used a quill pen. Those ball points and felt tips are tools of the Adversary.

This should be interesting. I wonder if what she says in court will be considered hate speech if she steps into that relm?

RB

Top.

The petition/complaint to the court is a fun, easy read...

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/150505-lawsuit-against-all-gays.pdf

From what I could see, her only question to the court was, "Is being homosexual a sin?"

The petition/complaint was dismissed and this explanation was offered as to why:

"Typically, when you sue, you’re asking for something: either you’re seeking money damages, or asking the court to strike down a law, or issue an injunction or temporary restraining order. The complaint didn’t ask the court to do anything or grant the woman any kind of relief against all gay people."

I wonder if she'll refile?

Thanks for the link. I am on the floor over this one:

" . . .I Sylvia Ann Driscoll contend that they the homosexuals know that homosexuality is a sin and that they the homosexuals know it is a sin to live a life of homosexuality. Why else would they have been hiding in a closet."

Hahaha ha. Why else in deed, Sylvia? Why else in deed.

All gay people heave a sigh of relief.




Not. :)

Is sin under the purview of the court system in the U.S.?

No, we have this little thing in the Constitution called "Separation of Church and State." In the First Amendment, it's made clear that the government cannot establish a state-sanctioned religion. Therefore, no. It is not the US government's purview to determine (based on which religion, exactly?) what is and isn't a sin.

If that was not in place, I like to think about how the government might handle such a case. Very interesting. Would the government go with the most ubiquitous Christian sect? Or sort of average together the dogma of all the Christian sects? What about Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, etc.? Because if you asked the UU church, there probably wouldn't be a declaration of gay being a sin. But if you asked the Baptists or the mormons (or most of the others)...

Someone forgot to educate the old fool that morality cannot be legislated.

Hers or theirs. She lacked any grounds or standing to bring a lawsuit.

The case was thrown out on May 7, 2015 by a Federal Appeals Court. Part of the reasoning that went into the decision was that, "A federal court is not a forum for debate or discourse on theological matters," wrote U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard in his dismissal of the case, filed as Driskell v. Homosexuals. "This is a court of law, and 'The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.'"

Indeed, Driskell didn't ask for any legal or injunctive relief in her filing. "To the extent that she asks for anything from the Court, it is a declaration that homosexuality is sinful — a question that the Court cannot answer," noted Gerrard. "The Court may decide what is lawful, not what is sinful."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/05/07/dismissed-federal-suit-against-all-homosexuals

I'd like to sue them all! For taking all the good over-60 guys out of the dating pool.

I mean ALL of the good looking, fit, intelligent, charming, interesting, stable men over 60 are gay. EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE OF THEM! Course, many of them come out of heterosexual marriages after their kids are grown and they don't stay single long. They find each other. I've attended 3 gay marriages in the last year where I have to admit, I couldn't have been more happy for them, but bummed to see it take not one, but 2 really perfect guys out of the over-60 singles pool. I know, I know, they're gay. They wouldn't have been dating women anyway. But jeez! Could there at least be a few straight metrosexuals hanging around?

At its heart, isn't a law declaring murder a crime an attempt to legislate against sin?

Too radical? Okay, how about a law against having sex with a dead body? Or a law against shopping on Sunday? Or a law against 'building' an alcoholic drink within view of the general public? Or a law against drinking alcohol at all. How about the sodomy laws and all the anti-gay laws?

The gas shortage spawned the 55 mph speed limit mostly because 'wasting' gas was seen as a sin...

I think the old lady believed the law was behind her. 70 years ago she probably would have had many, many allies.

Since she's only "suing" homosexuals does that get me off the hook since I'm bisexual? By her terminology it would sound as if those who ONLY like the same sex are liable for her phony lawsuit and since I happen to enjoy both isn't that a loophole?

I am guessing a few counter suits might be coming her way.

I assume this is a pro se case, as any competent attorney would kick her out of the office.

She might be in way over her head when the counter suits start.

FacePlant