PART 2:
He also did not  specify  that  his  proposed  suit  involved  any
claims  under  Federal civil rights legislation.  He did not claim
that the church infringed his civil rights under, say,  the  Civil
Rights  Act  of  1964.  Etc.  In the United States, a violation of
federal civil rights law is punishable both at criminal  law,  and
actionable under civil law.
Therefore,  the  matter  he proposes is one of tortious liability.
And only state courts have original jurisdiction in such matters.
I believe Mr. Rigor wrote his message from the United States.
BE:
-But all the significant action on his suit would have  nothing  to
-do  with  the jury, since it would be at the appellate level.  The
-arguments would be solely about the Constitution.
>And you demand that personal religious beliefs play absolutely  no
>role  at  all?   Be  realistic,  your country's system is not that
>perfect.
It's  not  my  country.   I am not claiming that religious beliefs
play  absolutely  no   role.    I'm   merely   saying   that   the
constitutional  jurisprudence  of  the  United States is so stable
through many changes in court composition and changes in  politics
that  the  religious beliefs of judges and justices would not make
any significant difference to  the  ultimate  outcome  of  Rigor's
lawsuit.
I may say there are many grey  areas  in  American  constitutional
law,   such   as  how  to  adjudicate  state  voter  redistricting
decisions.  This is an area where the composition of  the  Supreme
Court  HAS seriously affected gerrymandering decisions.  THESE are
the kinds of areas where you might reasonably expect the  personal
beliefs of judges and justices to play a significant role.
Unfortunately  for  Mr.   Rigor,  however,  the  area  in which he
proposes a lawsuit is not one of these grey areas.  If  the  trial
court  found  $1 million damages in favour of Rigor's "class", the
church would immediately appeal.  And my prediction  is  that  the
decision of the trial court would be reversed at the circuit court
level  and  the  Supreme  Court  would affirm the circuit court or
refuse to hear Rigor's appeal from  the  circuit  court.   I  also
confidently predict that this result would be the same, regardless
of  any credible changes in the religious/nonreligious composition
of either legislators, judges, justices or citizens in the general
population in the United States.
The  only  way  you  can  argue  that "human nature" and "personal
beliefs" play a role in  adjudicating  cases,  especially  at  the
appeal  level,  is  to  argue  that  the constitutional law of the
country is  so  unstable  that  the  positions  taken  by  appeals
courts  in  most  matters  is reversed by courts at each change in
the  political  wind,  so  that, in fact, constitutional law plays
almost no role at all.
Especially at the appeal level, this kind of  argument  cannot  be
defended  for  American  judicial behaviour.  The United States is
not a banana republic.
Bob
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------