Yet Another Group Wants Its Own Law

[Madeline]

Monroe Beachy made a big mistake losing $17 million that fellow members of the Plain Community trusted him to invest.

More than 2,000 members of the Amish and Mennonite churches concentrated northeast of Columbus gave him more than $33 million over a quarter-century. Somehow, half of it vanished. Federal authorities suspect fraud.

But, to the Amish, brother Beachy made a bigger mistake by rejecting “Godly counsel” in favor of legal counsel and going to court to declare bankruptcy.

In court filings, Amish leaders write that they don’t believe in the “force and fear” of government-created courts. The use of courts is forbidden by the Bible, classified as the stuff of the Kingdom of This World.

The Amish believe in a higher court — the Kingdom of Heaven. Brothers are to be judged by brothers, disputes and debts settled in an atmosphere of love, trust and mutual aid.

With Beachy’s blessing, the Amish are asking a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to dismiss his case and allow them to handle both the matter and the millions to be divided among cash-crunched creditors.

The case constitutes a clash between God’s law and man’s law. The Amish believe there’s no doubt which prevails. This is their problem, they say. They will handle it.

The federal trustee appointed to protect the interests of the creditors and the remaining cash portrays Monroe Beachy as a rarity — an Amish con man.

Amish demand to judge their own | The Columbus Dispatch

The entire article is interesting...please read it. I was struck by the creditors' interest in forgiveness for the man who squandered half their wealth.

I was also struck by the contrast between what the Amish want and what some believe Muslim Americans may want -- the right to settle disputes on their own, under their religious principles, without a civil court. Is this really such a bad thing, if all parties agree?

What're your thoughts?

 

[martybegan]

Monroe Beachy made a big mistake losing $17 million that fellow members of the Plain Community trusted him to invest.

More than 2,000 members of the Amish and Mennonite churches concentrated northeast of Columbus gave him more than $33 million over a quarter-century. Somehow, half of it vanished. Federal authorities suspect fraud.

But, to the Amish, brother Beachy made a bigger mistake by rejecting “Godly counsel” in favor of legal counsel and going to court to declare bankruptcy.

In court filings, Amish leaders write that they don’t believe in the “force and fear” of government-created courts. The use of courts is forbidden by the Bible, classified as the stuff of the Kingdom of This World.

The Amish believe in a higher court — the Kingdom of Heaven. Brothers are to be judged by brothers, disputes and debts settled in an atmosphere of love, trust and mutual aid.

With Beachy’s blessing, the Amish are asking a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to dismiss his case and allow them to handle both the matter and the millions to be divided among cash-crunched creditors.

The case constitutes a clash between God’s law and man’s law. The Amish believe there’s no doubt which prevails. This is their problem, they say. They will handle it.

The federal trustee appointed to protect the interests of the creditors and the remaining cash portrays Monroe Beachy as a rarity — an Amish con man.

Amish demand to judge their own | The Columbus Dispatch

The entire article is interesting...please read it. I was struck by the creditors' interest in forgiveness for the man who squandered half their wealth.

I was also struck by the contrast between what the Amish want and what some believe Muslim Americans may want -- the right to settle disputes on their own, under their religious principles, without a civil court. Is this really such a bad thing, if all parties agree?

What're your thoughts?

For civil issues, this is acceptable, as long as all parties agree willingly. There is no juristiction from a civil court unless 1 party or both bring the matter before a judge. All civil courts provide is redress when two parties cannot come to a settlement on thier own.

The issue seen with sharia law is that the proponents at times also want to have thier own courts handle criminal matters as well, which since crimes are against both individuals and the people (i.e. the state) at the same time, would then create a second tier of justice, which I would oppose.

There is also the issue of coersion. Most sharia proponents want it to handle mostly family law. In a religon such as some forms of Islam, where womens rights are at best given only a passing recognition, the concept of both parties agreeing to the shaira court is dubious at best.

What the amish are doing is pretty much arbitration. The only caveat I would add is that both parties should retain the right to bring this to court if they so feel it.

 

[Si modo]

I rarely trust a fundie, if ever.

 

[High_Gravity]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man. Shariah is incompatible with American law, point blank period. If I moved to Iran and faced a legal dispute and asked them to handle it under American law they would laugh in my face.

 

[Madeline]

Monroe Beachy made a big mistake losing $17 million that fellow members of the Plain Community trusted him to invest.

More than 2,000 members of the Amish and Mennonite churches concentrated northeast of Columbus gave him more than $33 million over a quarter-century. Somehow, half of it vanished. Federal authorities suspect fraud.

But, to the Amish, brother Beachy made a bigger mistake by rejecting “Godly counsel” in favor of legal counsel and going to court to declare bankruptcy.

In court filings, Amish leaders write that they don’t believe in the “force and fear” of government-created courts. The use of courts is forbidden by the Bible, classified as the stuff of the Kingdom of This World.

The Amish believe in a higher court — the Kingdom of Heaven. Brothers are to be judged by brothers, disputes and debts settled in an atmosphere of love, trust and mutual aid.

With Beachy’s blessing, the Amish are asking a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to dismiss his case and allow them to handle both the matter and the millions to be divided among cash-crunched creditors.

The case constitutes a clash between God’s law and man’s law. The Amish believe there’s no doubt which prevails. This is their problem, they say. They will handle it.

The federal trustee appointed to protect the interests of the creditors and the remaining cash portrays Monroe Beachy as a rarity — an Amish con man.

Amish demand to judge their own | The Columbus Dispatch

The entire article is interesting...please read it. I was struck by the creditors' interest in forgiveness for the man who squandered half their wealth.

I was also struck by the contrast between what the Amish want and what some believe Muslim Americans may want -- the right to settle disputes on their own, under their religious principles, without a civil court. Is this really such a bad thing, if all parties agree?

What're your thoughts?

For civil issues, this is acceptable, as long as all parties agree willingly. There is no juristiction from a civil court unless 1 party or both bring the matter before a judge. All civil courts provide is redress when two parties cannot come to a settlement on thier own.

The issue seen with sharia law is that the proponents at times also want to have thier own courts handle criminal matters as well, which since crimes are against both individuals and the people (i.e. the state) at the same time, would then create a second tier of justice, which I would oppose.

There is also the issue of coersion. Most sharia proponents want it to handle mostly family law. In a religon such as some forms of Islam, where womens rights are at best given only a passing recognition, the concept of both parties agreeing to the shaira court is dubious at best.

What the amish are doing is pretty much arbitration. The only caveat I would add is that both parties should retain the right to bring this to court if they so feel it.

The Amish are certainly not "doing arbitration", marty. I dun know if one could even call what they have in mind "alternative dispute resolution"; sounds as if they want to hold a prayer meeting and be done. And yes, coercion is a possibility...imagine the pressure that'd be applied if one Amish creditor resisted the request to handle this out of court? I dun know how such a risk could ever be managed.

There is zero chance that criminal matters will ever be heard in religious courts in the US regardless of the religion. Small property matters, yes...but every day, DAs all over the country accede to a complainant's wishes and dismiss such matters in exchange for restitution, etc. But not major property crimes or crimes against persons, no. In this case, the man who "lost" the money is under SEC investigation; if they develop evidence of a crime, nobody is going agree to let the Amish handle that one.

 

[martybegan]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man. Shariah is incompatible with American law, point blank period. If I moved to Iran and faced a legal dispute and asked them to handle it under American law they would laugh in my face.

That is the main concern, as I noted above.

 

[martybegan]

Amish demand to judge their own | The Columbus Dispatch

The entire article is interesting...please read it. I was struck by the creditors' interest in forgiveness for the man who squandered half their wealth.

I was also struck by the contrast between what the Amish want and what some believe Muslim Americans may want -- the right to settle disputes on their own, under their religious principles, without a civil court. Is this really such a bad thing, if all parties agree?

What're your thoughts?

For civil issues, this is acceptable, as long as all parties agree willingly. There is no juristiction from a civil court unless 1 party or both bring the matter before a judge. All civil courts provide is redress when two parties cannot come to a settlement on thier own.

The issue seen with sharia law is that the proponents at times also want to have thier own courts handle criminal matters as well, which since crimes are against both individuals and the people (i.e. the state) at the same time, would then create a second tier of justice, which I would oppose.

There is also the issue of coersion. Most sharia proponents want it to handle mostly family law. In a religon such as some forms of Islam, where womens rights are at best given only a passing recognition, the concept of both parties agreeing to the shaira court is dubious at best.

What the amish are doing is pretty much arbitration. The only caveat I would add is that both parties should retain the right to bring this to court if they so feel it.

The Amish are certainly not "doing arbitration", marty. I dun know if one could even call what they have in mind "alternative dispute resolution"; sounds as if they want to hold a prayer meeting and be done. And yes, coercion is a possibility...imagine the pressure that'd be applied if one Amish creditor resisted the request to handle this out of court? I dun know how such a risk could ever be managed.

There is zero chance that criminal matters will ever be heard in religious courts in the US regardless of the religion. Small property matters, yes...but every day, DAs all over the country accede to a complainant's wishes and dismiss such matters in exchange for restitution, etc. But not major property crimes or crimes against persons, no. In this case, the man who "lost" the money is under SEC investigation; if they develop evidence of a crime, nobody is going agree to let the Amish handle that one.

If the SEC finds violations, as opposed to just stupidity (it does exist), then yes, the courts have to become involved as now the finacial process becomes an injured party.

If, however no malice or rule breaking was found, and all injured parties consent to letting them handle it themselves, there is no real legal standing to force them to use the courts. Once they decide to handle the matter on thier own, it basically becomes a contract negotiation.

 

[Si modo]

As far as I know, the Constitution declares that we are all equal under the law. So, because I am not a member of some religious group, I have only ONE option for civil cases - the courts. Tough shit for the Muslims and Amish/Mennonites - they can have the same options as I.

If the courts feel arbitration is acceptable, then the courts can assign that arbitration, as they would for any non-religious person.

 

[Madeline]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man. Shariah is incompatible with American law, point blank period. If I moved to Iran and faced a legal dispute and asked them to handle it under American law they would laugh in my face.

Apparently you are none too familiar with the Amish, High Gravity. Ladies dun fare all that much better under their beliefs, either. In fact, most religious dispute resolution processes in the US -- Catholic, Jewish, Native American, etc. -- can all be faulted in that way to one degree or another, as most or all arise from the oldest, most orthodox teachings of the sect/tribe.

Again, in the US, any alternative dispute resolution, religious or not, has to be limited to civil matters. The provisions of Sharia Law bearing on criminal matters, inheritance, child custody and divorce, etc. are more or less moot here. I suppose they might could be relevant in a US court as to a question of intent, but that's all.....you cannot deprive a US court of exclusive jurisdiction of its power over a case.

I have no idea how Iranian law views alternative dispute resolution processes, and I am confused as to how that's relevant. The issue is not can Americans in foreign lands rely on the US constitution (and I'd expect, most times, the answer is "no") but rather, what constitutional limits are there on Americans who wish to use ADR processes in the US?

 

[Madeline]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man. Shariah is incompatible with American law, point blank period. If I moved to Iran and faced a legal dispute and asked them to handle it under American law they would laugh in my face.

That is the main concern, as I noted above.

I agree, but it is also a concern with respect to any other ADR -- a Catholic parent might feel tremendous pressure to dismiss a lawsuit over her child's sex abuse; a Jewish woman might feel a tremendous pressure to dismiss a property dispute with her former spouse; etc.

There likely are one or more Amish creditors in this bankruptcy none too pleased to be kissing off any chance at a recovery.

How can such duress be measured? At what point is it "undue"?

 

[Sunni Man]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man.

Incorrect

Muslim women want to go before a Sharia Court just the same as muslim men do.

And Sharia Courts do not favor either the man or the woman in making judgments.

 

[Si modo]

I rarely trust a fundie, if ever.

Ugliness. Just pure ugliness.

How's that 'ignoring' me, going, my little blue whackjob?



God, you're insane.

 

[High_Gravity]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man.

Incorrect

Muslim women want to go before a Sharia Court just the same as muslim men do.

And Sharia Courts do not favor either the man or the woman in making judgments.

I thought under Islamic law in divorce cases the children were always awarded to the man, and in cases where property is involved the men are always entitled to more?

 

[Madeline]

As far as I know, the Constitution declares that we are all equal under the law. So, because I am not a member of some religious group, I have only ONE option for civil cases - the courts. Tough shit for the Muslims and Amish/Mennonites - they can have the same options as I.

If the courts feel arbitration is acceptable, then the courts can assign that arbitration, as they would for any non-religious person.

Courts cannot assign arbitration, Si. If there is a contractual provision requiring any dispute be handled in an arbitration proceeding, they can uphold it by granting a motion to dismiss, but that's all. I think you mean courts can refer parties to mediation -- this is true, and many do, but mediation is not binding.

You have all the same options for resolving disputes as any other person. Not being Native American, Amish, Jewish, Catholic, etc. you likely could not appeal to these groups to have your matter heard by them. Presumably, you would not want to. However, anyone can agree (before or after a contract dispute arises) to submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association for resolution. This is done only rarely because, under AAA rules, the losing party pays the arbitrator's expenses, and they can be steep.

And of course, every time a settlement is reached out of court, the parties used an informal ADR process to form that agreement.

 

[Si modo]

As far as I know, the Constitution declares that we are all equal under the law. So, because I am not a member of some religious group, I have only ONE option for civil cases - the courts. Tough shit for the Muslims and Amish/Mennonites - they can have the same options as I.

If the courts feel arbitration is acceptable, then the courts can assign that arbitration, as they would for any non-religious person.

Courts cannot assign arbitration, Si. If there is a contractual provision requiring any dispute be handled in an arbitration proceeding, they can uphold it by granting a motion to dismiss, but that's all. I think you mean courts can refer parties to mediation -- this is true, and many do, but mediation is not binding.

You have all the same options for resolving disputes as any other person. Not being Native American, Amish, Jewish, Catholic, etc. you likely could not appeal to these groups to have your matter heard by them. Presumably, you would not want to. However, anyone can agree (before or after a contract dispute arises) to submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association for resolution. This is done only rarely because, under AAA rules, the losing party pays the arbitrator's expenses, and they can be steep.

And of course, every time a settlement is reached out of court, the parties used an informal ADR process to form that agreement.

Wait, aren't you ignoring me, moron?

Or, it looks like you are just practicing your trademark lying again.



OK. Mediation. Leave to the insane to see a tree when the rest see a forest.

 

[Madeline]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man.

Incorrect

Muslim women want to go before a Sharia Court just the same as muslim men do.

And Sharia Courts do not favor either the man or the woman in making judgments.

I thought under Islamic law in divorce cases the children were always awarded to the man, and in cases where property is involved the men are always entitled to more?

High Gravity, the provisions of Sharia Law regarding divorce, property and child custody cannot be applied to any Americans divorcing in the US. Only a US court of competent jurisdiction can alter these rights. The parties could come to court with an agreement -- but the court has to accept it, and likely would not if it were so one-sided as to shock the conscience. In short, American Muslims are beholden to the family law courts just as any other Americans are.

The most American Muslims, or members of any other faith, could expect would be that the courts might consider an agreement to raise the children in one faith or another binding on both parties. But there's not even any guarantee of this.

 

[editec]

Monroe Beachy made a big mistake losing $17 million that fellow members of the Plain Community trusted him to invest.

More than 2,000 members of the Amish and Mennonite churches concentrated northeast of Columbus gave him more than $33 million over a quarter-century. Somehow, half of it vanished. Federal authorities suspect fraud.

But, to the Amish, brother Beachy made a bigger mistake by rejecting “Godly counsel” in favor of legal counsel and going to court to declare bankruptcy.

In court filings, Amish leaders write that they don’t believe in the “force and fear” of government-created courts. The use of courts is forbidden by the Bible, classified as the stuff of the Kingdom of This World.

The Amish believe in a higher court — the Kingdom of Heaven. Brothers are to be judged by brothers, disputes and debts settled in an atmosphere of love, trust and mutual aid.

With Beachy’s blessing, the Amish are asking a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge to dismiss his case and allow them to handle both the matter and the millions to be divided among cash-crunched creditors.

The case constitutes a clash between God’s law and man’s law. The Amish believe there’s no doubt which prevails. This is their problem, they say. They will handle it.

The federal trustee appointed to protect the interests of the creditors and the remaining cash portrays Monroe Beachy as a rarity — an Amish con man.

Amish demand to judge their own | The Columbus Dispatch

The entire article is interesting...please read it. I was struck by the creditors' interest in forgiveness for the man who squandered half their wealth.

I was also struck by the contrast between what the Amish want and what some believe Muslim Americans may want -- the right to settle disputes on their own, under their religious principles, without a civil court. Is this really such a bad thing, if all parties agree?

What're your thoughts?

I think the guy filed his petition in the counts of the land and so the Amish are stuck with it.

Had the guy wanted he could have gone with their brand of justice, but he choose to go with the laws of the greater society.

 

[High_Gravity]

Incorrect

Muslim women want to go before a Sharia Court just the same as muslim men do.

And Sharia Courts do not favor either the man or the woman in making judgments.

I thought under Islamic law in divorce cases the children were always awarded to the man, and in cases where property is involved the men are always entitled to more?

High Gravity, the provisions of Sharia Law regarding divorce, property and child custody cannot be applied to any Americans divorcing in the US. Only a US court of competent jurisdiction can alter these rights. The parties could come to court with an agreement -- but the court has to accept it, and likely would not if it were so one-sided as to shock the conscience. In short, American Muslims are beholden to the family law courts just as any other Americans are.

The most American Muslims, or members of any other faith, could expect would be that the courts might consider an agreement to raise the children in one faith or another binding on both parties. But there's not even any guarantee of this.

Well whats the point of having Shariah if Muslims cannot use it for things like divorce cases, property cases etc?

 

[Sunni Man]

The thing about Shariah law is the Muslim woman will feel under enormous pressue to agree to let the case be handled by Shariah, and in turn will end up getting fucked because Shariah always goes on the side of the man.

Incorrect

Muslim women want to go before a Sharia Court just the same as muslim men do.

And Sharia Courts do not favor either the man or the woman in making judgments.

I thought under Islamic law in divorce cases the children were always awarded to the man, and in cases where property is involved the men are always entitled to more?

In Islamic law young children are given to the mother because that's when they need their mother more that their father.

But around the time of the children reach puberty; custody is switched to the father. Because it is more beneficial to the child's socialization process to be around the father during the teenage years.


In Islamic culture, the divorced man has to not only take care of his children.

He is also responsible in financially helping his parents and any other relative in need.

Whereas, the woman only has to take care of herself in a divorce.

So that's why men are awarded more that the woman in divorce cases.

 

[High_Gravity]

Incorrect

Muslim women want to go before a Sharia Court just the same as muslim men do.

And Sharia Courts do not favor either the man or the woman in making judgments.

I thought under Islamic law in divorce cases the children were always awarded to the man, and in cases where property is involved the men are always entitled to more?

In Islamic law young children are given to the mother because that's when they need their mother more that their father.

But around the time of the children reach puberty; custody is switched to the father. Because it is more beneficial to the child's socialization process to be around the father during those years.


In Islamic culture, the divorced man has to not only take care of his children.

He is also responsible in financially helping his parents and any other relative in need.

Whereas, the woman only has to take care of herself in a divorce.

So that's why men are awarded more that the woman in divorce cases.

Does the woman have to pay the man child support when he gets the kids?