Talk:Criminal appeals denied for American Evangelists
This article could probably be improved if the first paragraph contained information on what they were charged with (see WN:SG#The_first_paragraph). The title also needs improvement, as it doesn't really tell me anything (there are alot of Evangelists in the world). Bawolff ☺☻ 07:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe rename to "Kent Hovind's 2008 criminal appeal denied by circuit court." Jesuslovesu (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The article claims original reporting, yet there are no notes as required by WN:OR. --SVTCobra 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Get stuffed. We can work out he read the damn thing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Review[edit]
 |
Revision 747684 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Normally two sources needed, but an exception made as working from original court document The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 747684 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Normally two sources needed, but an exception made as working from original court document The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Kangaroo Gestapo court?[edit]
Based on this article, I'm convinced that the line of "sufficient evidence" is a complete lie; and that this whole thing is the result of someone in a high position of power trying to shut down a ministry just because they don't like it. That the judge would order new instructions to a jury AFTER closings is very telling of just how cooked up this whole thing is.
I do hope the Supreme Court not only overturns all this nonsense, but that they forcefully remove from the bench that worthless judge who "convicted" the couple in the first place. If this isn't stopped, it's very possible that anyone with an evangelical view may be arrested just for having a bank account.
I may not agree with everything every evangelical says, but I think it's quite obvious that when a biased judge finds a crime where numerous bank tellers and lawyers find none, and then strong-arms a jury in an illegal manner, that it's tyranny all the same.161.57.231.45 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)