"A U.S. judge in Texas dismissed Pope Benedict XVI from a civil lawsuit accusing him of conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse of minors by a seminarian, ruling Thursday that the pontiff has immunity as a head of state."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/23/ap/world/mainD8ELK6H00.shtml

What a surprise. (Not really.) A judge from George W. Bush's home state, no less.

It was the British House of Lords judicial committee, i.e. the Law Lords, who ruled against Augusto Pinoche several years back now that he be stripped of his diplomatic immunity as a former head of state. He was on British soil for medical treatment at the time, and was arrested under a British arrest warrant applied for by Chileans in the UK, for crimes against humanity or charge with some such wording.

Chile has agreed with the British decision, in its own judicial process, following extradition.

The Texan plaintiffs in this case need to nab the Pope while he's on American soil; and they definitely should appeal this ruling: then you'll see the sparks fly.

But...,looks like the US government is trying to defer to Catholicism's ecclesiastical constitution that its church buildings are sovereign territories within any sovereign country it has property in, and so its immunity from prosecution for conspiracies behind or covering up offences committed on such property is impenetrable in that land's courts.

Still, the American Supreme Court should follow Common Law as it's supposed to. Our, British Declaration- and Bill of Rights of 1689 should have been followed by theirs in that no foreign power or potentate's jurisdiction is to be recognised within our shores by our Monarch or the Queen's Parliament - in using her regal powers, or by her judges.....So, whether the American Bill of Rights is as well drafted or not, the British version is available.

Incidentally, that's just one of several doctrines of the UK constitution which renders the late Sir Edward Heath as well as the current Tony Blair guilty of treason against their Queen, for stealing British sovereignty from her subjects when sharing it with Brussels, ie. the EU. Thatcher and Major have both personally recanted their support for the EU.

The treasonous house of cards of statutes setting up and perpetuating that membership is about to come crashing down, over a parking ticket !!........

...See www.bwmaonline.com and the legal challenge to vindicate the Metric Martyrs' legal defence, which failed on appeal against their conviction for selling bananas solely by lb&oz's - first picture on the homepage: The "Lord Justice Laws' ruling" wrongly avoids another constitutional rule preventing Britain's EU membership.

That "Laws" ruling hasn't been tested in court yet, and, with the "official advice" (against it) to MP's link on that homepage, if the House of Lords refuse to hear it challenged, again, there shall be civil disobedience.

[ December 23, 2005, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Colin ]

Thanks John and Colin for those posts. I hope you'll continue giving us the legal analysis Colin. I agree that we should be raising the national sovereignty issue more than we do, and that our appeals to the people's sense of nationhood could be one of our most effective tools when the New World Order is agitated.

Thanks, Mark, but you know, well, how long it'll take for me to report on this possible legal development .

Your point on the new world order may well extend to countering the mark of beast, as an additional point to defending God's truth.

Trusting to nationalism as a defence against the devils shemes? Thats an interesting tought..

/Thomas