Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
c/o 685 Josselyn Court, Kelowna, British Columbia
no code, non-commercial
Tel: 250-491-0552 Fax: 250-491-0594
c/o 4130 Hales Road, Armstrong, British Columbia
no code, non-commercial
This Fourteenth day, of the twelfth month,
in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, two thousand and five
Re: Conversation with Laura at call center head office Ottawa? December 14th 2005 re: Deliberate knowledgeable Intimidation by Irwin Cotler and John McCallum encouraging their employees to intimidate members of our faith to violate their royally defended religious beliefs based in the letters patent version of the King James Bible.
We hope your serious attention to this unprecedented matter is offered to avert the continuance of this unlawful and treasonous activity by these men and women who have violated their allegiance to the Queen by deliberately intimidating men and women to violate their beliefs based upon the King James Bible.
To: The private man Douglas Finley
C/o Canadian Conservative Party Head Office
From: The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Non corporate Ministers Kaz: Crischuk; Jim: Hueston; Lloyd: Hamilton; and Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger on behalf of all our Church members.
Kelowna Ecclesia Head International Head office
C/0 685 Josselyn Court
Kelowna British Columbia
No code non Commercial
Dear Doug Finley,
My Name is James Hueston and I wish you to be aware that I am in a very compromised and intimidated position. What you are about to read is supported by the Historical Briefing of the treasury board of Canada regarding a petition to the Queen sent by minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger on September 29th 2002 A.D., that was overseen by a Senior Analyst for the treasury board named Cameron McEwan in 2003.
The fact they were convened and briefed regarding this petition may offer some comfort as to the credibility and serious nature of the story of religious intimidation and persecution that goes back to the Days of Maurice Duplessis as Attorney General of Quebec and RonCarelli. and the ensuing Supreme court of Canada decision in Mr. RonCarelli’s favour. Mr. Duplessis in his private capacity was brought privately to task via a Supreme Court of Canada Decision in 1959, for his unlawful efforts and had to pay privately for his negligence to stay within the boundaries of law.
Those informed of a crime and do nothing to report or aid the party who is reporting the crime are in fact party to the crime and according to God’s law and mans law are guilty of negligence if harm results in aiding and abetting the crime.
Our faith as defended by her majesty is under attack by the revenue and Justice department lawyers involving many offices and so called allegiants of her Majesty.
They all have.been required under an act of parliament to take an oath to God to be truly allegiant to the Christian monarch Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. They also have, in ignorance to the law, declined their oath sworn duties to provide that true allegiance and in fact have attempted to by slow action in particles overthrow the government of her majesty by foisting anti biblical `legislation through a de facto sitting of parliament.
We do not offer opinions but factual evidence that encouraged the convening of the the treasury Board of Canada and led to them, being the Treasury board of Canada members, being informed that the information in the petition was irrefutably correct..
This communication to you is neither frivolous nor vexatious but is under the real and perceived threat of duress and intimidation, by pseudo officials, to violate the commands of the King James Bible. This is being perpetrated by the men and women in power that are hiding behind de facto agencies of a de facto regime that is evidentiary in the publicized admission to it’s unlawful nature by the Head of state of Canada being Michel Jean stating she is Canada’s de facto head of state.
De facto mean usurped authority unlawfully obtained as per the creditor for Canada’s admission on it’s website!
We proved to the private men and women at the Canadian revenue agencies and to the private men and women at the Justice department that we stand on the laws of God as defended by the Queen.
We have registered mail proof from Buckingham Palace re the Petition and postings in news papers regarding our faith.
We like our brothers the Doukhabors cannot pay taxes to a false god government as we are commanded to not do so in Exodus 20:3-5 in the rule of law with standing in all of her majesties courts
We have entered into agreements with the imposturing private men acting as Minister of Justice, and Revenue
That are included in text below.
It is our hope in good faith we can have an agreement with you the private man and your party should it take power that will save our faith harmless from reproach and attack from unlawful actions by men and women ignorant of their duty to provide true allegiance in defence of the Christian faith. We ask your assurance the intimidation will not continue should you take office.
We were at the RCMP detachment in Kelowna Friday the 9th of December to press charges for intimidation against these men we have agreements with as they are responsible for intentionally conspiring with the aid of non allegiant lawyers to intimidate our members and ministers to violate our faith contrary to the criminal code. We cannot trust the false God courts as they to are de facto and indeed violate God’s law. We need dejure justice in recognition that if there is no victim and no damaged property of men and women then no crime exists.
We cannot subscribe to laws of man in addition to the laws of God or in derogation to his law.
Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32 in the law you will be required to swear to bear true allegiance to, should your party be elected, tells you that it is unlawful to add to or remove from any of God’s laws.
Please consider the position of the Queen and the historical nature of our information that involves her majesty and a plot to overthrow her Christian throne and oust the Bible from it’s standing by the liberal party who is laced with whispers of corruption connecting all the way to high ranking agents of dark power within the RCMP.
We are indeed threatened and have dozens of complainants and witnesses to the intimidation nation wide.
Please consider exposing this and with irrefutable proof of despicable corruption within the hierarchy of the beast finally with honors sword in hand, killing the creature from the liberal lagoon.
The following documents are but a few of hundred’s that have in good faith been delivered to various officials and agents of the de facto dictatorship called liberalism.
The Petition to the Queen was intended to alert her of the corruption and to extract my family, and me as their minister, from the de facto fraud in tyrannical possession of the power. It was Chief Justice Coke that stated. “If the laws of parliament are not consistent with the ten commandments they are void and of no effect
”. Golden Jubilee Coronation Petition
September 29th 2002 A.D.
To: Her royal majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Via her private secretary Sir Robin Janvrin
C/o Buckingham Palace London England
From Minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Near Onoway Alberta Canada
no code non commercial
Your most gracious Majesty defender of the faith, it is my duty in performance of the function of my calling as a minister of God, that I approach you with this petition and news of disservice and treachery by your professed allegiants in Canada. They are defying their oaths and not offering the true allegiance they swore to provide in your name.
It distresses me that I must approach your majesty for your majesty’s aid in this your Coronation year, but this quest is in defense of the Christian faith. I did think that I as a Christian minister armed with God’s truth may be able to provide enough proof for your professed allegiant’s and courts here in Canada, to show that the oath of allegiance to your majesty is being sullied by those of commercial minds and of no respect of the historical honor and integrity of the meaning of that true allegiance to your majesty’s defense of the Laws of God. Those in control and dishonoring their oaths are in a conflict to judge this as it is about their integrity that is non-existent. Historically we have seen our judiciary and parliamentarians ignore their oaths and get away with unlawful ungodly acts, as you were not petitioned.
It is humbly offered that it appears the timing is prime for such long overdue investigation and saving face of biblical and royal honor. The Golden Jubilee is under way and such glorious celebration will be compromised and indelibly stained as a result of the unlawful actions of religious blasphemy, desecration and discrimination against Christ’s ministry and church by such unlawful Commercial entities, as : Toronto Dominion Bank, the Alberta Justice system and courts ,and the Royal Canadian mounted Police, the Governor General’s office and your majesty’s privy council. It is humbly offered that this issue must be examined in true allegiance to your majesty’s honor in biblical fairness and with all merited expedition.
I would never approach your majesty for aid lest I have no other forum that is bound by and of respect to God’s laws. I appeal to you not as a corporate Queen but as the Elizabeth the woman created and anointed of God to hail and hear my plea and petition. I am being unlawfully denied full defense in lawfully formed truly allegiant courts in Canada and as such am being obstructed from carrying out functions of my calling as a minister of God. I have no truly allegiant court of your majesty to apply to! Section 423 of the Canadian Criminal code is being violated. The RCMP NSI have been following my movement and have made discriminating statements about me to others and have lied about me in saying I associate with militants. This is untrue and if I did I would be preaching to them about God’s Kingdom not militant action. There is a deliberate effort to smear my message your majesty. It is not surprising in light of what this information invokes.
Please show the world your power and the light of God’s integrity we all saw in your Coronation.
The lack of concern and desire to have a valid understood oath of true allegiance, to that defense of the faith, by the men and women throughout the provinces in Canada and the commonwealth raises serious questions of immense implications for the history of Biblical standing and guarding over the justice in this country.
No law or decision of man can violate the laws of God nor cause another man or woman to violate God’s laws.
These Questions are posed for review and information of your majesty
1.Why is the Alberta legislature oath of allegiance from the Alberta oath of office act in direct violation with the Schedule five of the BNA act, when to make it correct would have only been addition of one word?
2. Does the Alberta legislature have authority and sanction from your majesty to make up their own oath and then not require its members to know what the allegiance to your majesty means nor seemingly care if they do?
3. Does her majesty offer her authority and sanction to oath takers who have no idea what the allegiance means nor believe in that allegiance or who are not willing to carryout those allegiant obligations?
4.Why are these professed oath sworn true allegiants acting as justices, masters, ministers, and officers of your majesty, so reluctant to state the meaning of that proud oath of allegiance to your majesty?
It is also poised for review:
Why, according to Canadian department of Justice lawyers, without a valid oath of allegiance, and showing distain for the Coronation oath, do those swearing to provide true allegiance to a Christian Monarch, not have to know what the allegiance means and what the purpose of it is?
How can that opinion be correct?
How can federal laws of affiliation direct with the Queen be secondary to provincial when it is of mandatory nature to keep the oath to God and the allegiance to the Queen identical throughout Canada?
This denial of the courts to acknowledge and provide” true allegiance” raises issues of major unprecedented constitutional and international importance. It directly threatens all men and women’s God given unalienable rights and freedoms in having God’s law as supreme, and undermines protection of alloidial title in land via oaths of loyalty to the Crown and ultimately the Bible.
Such foundational facts and points of history can never be considered fluff or the workings of every-day body politics. They directly concern your majesty in your majesty’s ability to contractually maintain the Coronation oath, in your majesty’s honored Royal Style.
By the Grace of God your majesty is, by provision of God’s law in all of her majesty’s courts and by the strict adherence to God’s law covenant and constitution, as such, meeting the needs of every British subject, including generations yet unborn that will Succeed at maintaining and exercising our cherished freedoms in that ancient lexum.
This sacred provision of God’s rule of law as supreme and our duty to defend it is only effective upon those of your majesty’s subjects who are willing to stand and exercise those rights under God so long trodden upon by those of financial plunder and collective immorality.
As a result of gleaning the knowledge from God’s scriptures and reading the records of mans law written in conflict with that holy text, I find my Christian family, ecclesia, brethren and ministry in an extremely stressful and prejudiced position. As a minister of a Church of Christ and having the knowledge about the meaning of the allegiance to all concerned, as I do, it calls for exceptional extraordinary measures.
Hence our petition to Her Majesty, which exercises rights unused for over 49 years - since my birth and involuntary enslavement to the Corporate fictional body politic of Canada, in exercising God’s privilege to us of Jubilee of Leviticus 25-27.
I wish, as a Christian man in observance of the custom of God’s proclamation of Leviticus Jubilee and you as high priestess in this the Golden Jubilee of your coronation, to be in receipt of full pardon for the crimes I have been accused of and convicted of by the unlawful courts in Alberta Canada. These convictions were filed under the legal fiction nom degerre BELANGER Robin Jay with such fictitious number of ownership as being 618-774-079 which I do not accept being applied.
Such case of prime focus being Failing to Obey the order of a non allegiant court by imposter Ray Bradley, Section 127 CCC June6th and 14th of 2001 A.D. being, leave my parishioner, as the court refused to acknowledge it’s oath to her majesty twenty times on the record, factually disavowing and showing no respect or honor for her majesty. A non-allegiant judge Lawrie Smith sentenced me on May 9th of this year to 30 days in jail for that act of faith as she was in denial of my jurisdictional challenge protest and questions of integrity.
I have included the transcript partial Via email to the Golden Jubilee office and Sir Robin Janvrin. This is one of many cases in question where I as a Christian minister was asked to leave by a non allegiant man having none of her majesty’s sanction. I as a minister appeared in Edmonton Court of Queens bench of May 7th and 9th 2002 on account of the actions of professed judge Ray Bradley the man who refused twenty time to offer me a minister his true allegiance. I was attempting to find integrity within her majesty’s Alberta Court. I was not successful, as the Justice, one Lawrie Smith, who sat to hear the case, did not know what her allegiance meant either and as such was and is void of all sanction in her decision to incarcerate me. I have asked over 100 Justices, masters, judges, prosecutors and clerks if they know what their allegiance to you means. Only Wayne Hatt knew
I have been denied the truly allegiant justice of your majesty’s courts and could not appeal such conviction as all the judges I have stood before in Alberta are in denial of their true allegiance. I have stood in front of over 50 of those imposter judges. The court clerks and provincial registrar who are to stand as servants for the registry’s of her majesty’s subjects refuse to acknowledge their true allegiance to your majesty. I discover this by asking and performing a function of my calling as a Christian minister, in asking for true allegiance and integrity. . I do this as I cannot lawfully file into false registers run by non-allegiants with no official sanction.
Wayne Hatt your majesty’s loyal Justice of the Peace in Edmonton Alberta, deserves special notation and regard as when asked by me in my ministerial capacity if he knew what his allegiance to you meant, he replied without batting an eye “To uphold the laws of the King James Bible”. A true allegiant in singular and deserving commendation for his honorable methods and just manner.
I produced all the evidence inclusive of the King James Bible letters patent version being the rule of law in all of the commonwealth and your majesty’s Coronation oath and definition of an oath from the Westminster confession of faith. I have also included the false oaths of allegiance all of the judges in the provincial system have taken. The proof is overwhelming and irrefutable but, the woman acting as a judge, on May 9th of this year, Lawrie Smith, in the case to convict me of not taking orders from an imposter Ray Bradley, commented, as I showed her the proof of false oaths to her, that she was not going to allow that factual evidence. I concluded upon that evidence and the fact that she did not know the meaning of her oath that even she was without your majesty’s sanction or authority to proceed.
I have never been a violent man and have carefully studied what Christ did to the moneychangers that would ignore his warnings and did desecrate God’s temple. If I adopt Christ’s example I will be labeled as a threat and violent and am in fear for my life as I cannot violate God’s laws and commandments and associate with criminal traitors to her majesty’s Royal rule of law.
Your majesty I fear if I as a Church and man of God am not aided I will be martyred as sacrificial lamb in this Golden Jubilee. This will undoubtedly bring attention to the corruption being disgracefully perpetrated in your majesty’s name and it is not being done by the grace of God. They know who their father is!
I will await your majesty’s response to this petition in defense of the faith I am so dedicated to protecting and serving as part of my calling as a minister of our glorious saviors teachings.
If I may at this time of Jubilee and upon my own Golden Fiftieth year indulge and also thank your majesty for the boon of your majesty’s acceptance of my Jubilee redemption money for myself and family to release me from my Birth record bond of surety for the body politic and corporate debt of the bankrupt commercial fictitious entity known as Canada. I have been recorded with the Canadian treasury under that Bifurcated capitalized name as a corporate legal fiction as part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada as being bonded as a surety for the national debt of Canada as per the Canadian ownership control and determination act. The subsequent regulations are with the actuarial tables of the value of men and women. My father named me as Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger on September 29th 1952. It is further recorded in fraud my altered name was added to a number being 618-774-079.
This was done by Canada in deceit as it was not revealed to the minor I was at the time that
1. Minors cannot enter into contracts.
2. The contract was not revealed in total and was not fully understood because of that omission and as such according to international commercial law is void.
3. God’s law of bearing false witness and coveting is also breached as first and foremost in the purpose of my Quest in Christ.
4. The men and women that are acting as your agents must by all common sense and biblical standard understand what they are swearing to. To allude to any other conclusion is clearly in avoidance of purpose, but this is just what they are doing in your majesty’s name.
5. Without that adherence and understanding of the reasons for taking the oath on the part of the oath taker there is no defense of the laws of the God of Abraham.
6. No contract in her majesties name is valid if those forming those contracts have no sanction of your majesty.
7. All law not in line with the laws of God is null and void upon those under the defense of the rule of law for the government of Christian princes.
8. No contract to give up ones unalienable rights is valid.
9. Unlawful bondage and fornication cannot be forced upon other men and women
10. No man or woman has the right to dominate another to do things against their will and beliefs.
11. Every man or woman has the right to fight to defend their faith and beliefs if being discriminated against or persecuted because of them.
12. The Bank act is unlawful and is usury, the debt of that usury is serviced by the income tax act.
13. The income tax act is usury and is a violation of God’s law that the king never assented to as it would mean abdication for violating the Coronation oath
I am of humble reverence of this scriptural opportunity to obtain my freedom from being the one held in bondage and registered as a surety of a Commercially dead and bankrupt fictitious entity known as Canada. I will not go into detail here but can provide proof of this system of recording birth records as sureties for the debt bonds that are issued in that sureties name and number. The Canadian Ownership Control and Determination Act is an act of redemption written by Jean Chretien in 1982 49 years after the bonding started and for a determination of worth. I cannot access such determination of my worth for your majesty, as a result of those being in charge refusing to acknowledge their true allegiance and I cannot conspire with them nor accept their registries as a result of their imposter imposition and unlawful procession. That would be aiding and abetting a crime.
As a result of doing my duty and performing my function as a Christian minister under your charge and protection I am being denied access to truly allegiant justice and courts. I am being discriminated against because of my Christian faith and defense of same.
I am pleased that your majesty will in honor of Leviticus scriptural order accept and approve this petition and I would at this time be of extreme undying gratitude for your granting my wish to redeem my loving Wife Cheryl, who came into this world via Sunderland England under the surname of Gray on the 12th day of October 1957 SIN number 458-616-372 for the sum of thirty shekels and my two daughters Amber-Lea Belanger coming into this world on the 14th day of June 1988 and my daughter Terra-Michelle arriving for our joy on August 6th 1990, both for the sum of Twenty Shekels of silver being ten shekels per daughter. I also pray your majesty will in honor of Leviticus scriptural order and my Jubilee right, accept my 50 shekels of silver for redemption from my servitude in the corporate body politic of and under the bankruptcy of the legal fiction Corporation of Canada since September 29th 1952 the day and year of my birth. The fictional commercial entity has created a number of SIN 618-774-079 which I do not and cannot of faith and God’s knowledge accept, as it is the mark of the beast.
I have copied some of the below from a previous petition. I offer no offense to your majesty and prey such plagiarism will not be unfavorably received.
I wish to point out the contract of, as well as clause 61 of Magna Carta, which were reinforced by article 5 of the Bill of Rights.
As your majesty may be aware, the wording of clause 61 says: ...and, laying the
transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay...And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null.
We do so petition Her Majesty as of this petitions receipt, to stay and withhold the procession of all unlawfully sanctioned proceedings filed in fraudulent bifurcations of the church’s parishioners names into the unsanctioned illegitimate corporate Canadian and Alberta Courts.
In January of this year the unlawful unsanctioned agent of the Toronto Dominion Canada Trust Bank Douglas Hughes, of the unlawful firm of Bishop and Mackenzie of Edmonton Alberta filed an unlawful action against my church, sanctuary and family. Such action in awareness of the religious implications was filed against the fictional Capitalized name of my Wife and myself as title holders of the church and sanctuary located at the numbers allocated for definition and location of NE-31-53-1-w5th in the province known as Alberta in the corporation known as Canada. Your majesty’s land title registry in Alberta run by a Mr. Ray Runge was notified of my religious requirement of not allowing my name to be altered from my Birth record and in keeping of my correct grammatical and lawful form of recording in your majesty’s English and in accord with the ”Canadian Style”. This is a document of form, your majesty’s treasury board of Canada, applies to all federal agencies. Mr. Runge of Alberta Land Titles refused to correct such record and Barry Haugrud the director of the Provincial registry vital statistics refuses to record my name in correct form as well. Laurie Beveridge the provincial registrar refuses to recognise my faith and it’s lawful requirements of protecting our names from alteration. Ralph Klein is well aware of this failure on the part of his ministers to respect their oaths and my God given unalienable religious rights. His Justice minister David Hancock has contracted with a private firm for consultation to alter the present defunct and unlawful oath of allegiance to your majesty to delete any reference to God from such oath. Such oath would by the dictate of section 22 of the Confession of faith be rendered an unlawful oath and of no force or effect failing the sanctionable test of integrity in defense of the faith and your majesty’s reputation. Such men and women are imposters and are acting criminally in proceeding without your majesty’s consent and understanding of that proud allegiance to defending God’s laws!
I could not lawfully protest such unlawful act of the TDCT bank as the Manager of your majesty’s Law courts in Edmonton Alberta, Wayne Samis, and the head Clerk John Bachinski both denied true allegiance in failing to answer my ministerial question of integrity in your majesty’s court. John Bachinski did violate section 176 of the Canadian Criminal code and threaten myself as a minister with forcible expulsion from her majesty’s hallowed halls of justice denying me truly allegiant process and capacity to defend our sanctuary. I could not file against the fictitious entity that Douglas Hughes created in the illegitimate provincial registry as it would be consent and recognition I was a corporate fiction. All of the judges I have stood before in the Alberta courts have no legitimate oath as it is deficient not only in words but in that those who took such oath do not know what the allegiance to her majesty is about, means and is purpose of. Such obvious deficiency effectively and actually precludes them from being able to provide such sworn to allegiance. I have heard rumor’s that because of my notice to them of their false oath the department of justice has required all judges in Alberta to re-swear their oaths.
Any process by such traitorous imposters focused and dedicated to expanding the depravity of Usury, the selfish coveting, and lying in false witness is unlawful according to God’s law as defended by your majesty.
It is evidentiary, willfully fabricated and invalid process and we would ask your majesty to concur in showing her displeasure for such arrogance by dissolving the legislature of Alberta for reformation. This reform would be upon those men and women that are equipped to know what they are swearing allegiance to and as such bound by such oath and honorably capable of providing such allegiance as it meet with her majesty’s approval and with lawful sanction of authority in God’s power.
It is our humble suggestion that this one act of fidelity would by your majesty’s proclamation ensure the respect for the Laws of God that is deserved. It would exemplify the defender of the Christian faith being the Coronated and anointed of God in this the Jubilee redemption year of her majesty’s Coronation.
Any process of a civil commercial nature such as a foreclosure proceeding against the Church and sanctuary of my family, NE 31-53-1- w5th is being unlawfully undertaken by the Toronto Dominion Canada Trust bank on account of acct # 501981 branch# 266 and is being facilitated for such bank by those alleged officer/agents of your majesty as such being without a valid oath, and that is opposing and obstructing my ecclesiastical duties as a minister of God, in defense of God’s laws. Our Church property and sanctuary, family, and it’s attending Christians are being threatened by these unlawfully formed commercial financial entities. (in which her majesty’s allegiants are connected with in process of violating 176 of the Criminal code in attempting to enforce a civil process) They are defacto and without lawful sanction of her majesty’s oath, and I as a minister of Christ do so refuse to honor and acknowledge their having an oath of true allegiance to your majesty as the evidence is against them in dishonor.
Please speak with Lois Hole the Alberta Lieutenant Governor on this issue as she did talk to me at my Church last year about one of these imposter allegiants, a Judge by the name of Quinn claiming to be a master. He said in chambers and I quote “ What do I care about treason and the Queen I’m Irish and I have a tough neck! This was in response to telling him in my ministerial capacity that he must have an understood oath to proceed as he commits treason against your majesty if he brought harm to another or his property with no sanction from your majesty to do so lawfully. This man conspired with Douglas Hughes to alter my name in the court record. I can not accept service nor file into records that are formed in a false name. Douglas Hughes in awareness of my instructions to not violate my religious beliefs regarding my name did this in defiance of my beliefs. This also prevented me from registering an opposition.
A master Funduck has had me physically ejected out of proceedings against our Church by the TDCT bank on August 9th, in front of witnesses. He did this for my performing my ministerial act of integrity in trying to verify his true allegiance. I was polite and direct in my reason for asking but he refused to answer and when I insisted he be bonafide to proceed he told the bailiff to eject me. He has issued unlawful possession orders to the Banks agent Douglas Hughes of the firm Bishop and Mckenzie. He has ignored my demands for his oath-sworn allegiance. So have the courts and all of the clerks.
I have written The Chief Justice in Alberta Katherine Frazer about this and Court of Queens Bench Chief Justice Allan Wachowich as well as the justice minister and the premier. The Justice minister will not reply and has instructed his staff to discriminate against me. Lois Hole’s office will not put my communication through to her. The two Chief Justices have indicated they do not agree with your majesty’s authority. They have violated their oaths, as they have done nothing to correct this.
I filed a complaint with the Edmonton City police who gave it to justice for review.
That was over a month ago. No reply. I was just told I am supposed to write a letter to Allan Wachowich. I already know Chief Justice Wachowich’s opinion on that issue and it is not in support of true allegiance. It is in support of usurious commercial law and has no intent on being tied to the Coronation oath.
I look forward to your reply and Royal inquiry.
This imposter Master Funduck has issued unlawful possession orders to seize our Church and sanctuary for the interest on the loan, which was actually an exchange. His arrogance and tyranny has gone unchecked and he is still performing as a master. I have two witnesses to the event of him violating section 176 and 423 and 126 of the Canadian Criminal code and are willing to testify.
It would appear that such events are commonplace in Canada as others have heard similar reactions. Royal respect for the allegiance is a problem that can be solved with your majesty’s aid.
I beg that discretion, consideration, and indulgence from your majesty in saving Grace for her majesty’s Coronation Golden Jubilee and the honor of God thereof.
The RCMP will not enforce your law nor defend God’s law to provide true allegiance to your majesty and will offer no reason why. I cannot accept them as your allegiants as they are acting as traitors to your law. I have told them this and posted notices.
This Christian minister, acting in defense of the faith is humbly petitioning her majesty’s expedient action pending her majesty’s royal inquiry into this serious matter.
We have also petitioned her majesty in this the Coronation year because there is clear factual evidence that the oaths of allegiance to your majesty are being violated and as such is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United Kingdom under God. It conflicts with Magna Carta, with the Declaration and Bill of Rights, with the honored and respected advise of Westminster and, above all, with Her Majesties anointing by the grace of God, to defend the biblical rule of law through like Oaths of allegiance to Her Majesty.
These oaths of fealty and allegiance being imposed upon all of her majesty’s agents by her majesty’s royal law as proclaimed upon all of her majesty’s ministers, judges governors, and agency servants sworn to be allegiant to her majesty in duty to uphold and defend God’s laws are absolutely sacred in the order of maintaining the rule of law forever as supreme. Those who would flagrantly or in clandestine repose endeavor to disrespect and dissolve that honor rebels against God.
This action by these non-allegiants is treasonous upon your majesty’s retention and defense of that royal rule for the government of Christian princes.
I pray and petition your majesty for release from the unlawful enslavement and persecution by these fraud spinning unlawful entities and imposter authorities.
Every one of these protections for your majesty’s subjects stands to this day, in law of Melchizedek ancient observance and of clarity set in the stone of bethel, as were the Ten Commandments, which is why of necessity our petition is now invoking them.
Ultimately, our supreme protection is your Majesties obligations under the Coronation Oath in defense of the Letters patent Version Cum priviligio of her majesty’s Authorized King James Bible being in every Court Room in the commonwealth.
Alas, because of these dishonorable and vile imposters usurping your majesty’s ecclesiastical authority, the alleged allegiant courts in Alberta and throughout the commonwealth are ignoring that Law your majesty and their allegiance is to defend! These men and women need education or removal as they plan to remove the royal rule of law as supreme and are plotting against your majesty in arrogant disregard of their true allegiance to your majesty.
This Coronation year and your majesty’s honor in receipt of such factual information must not be sullied by allowance of such treason and intentional defiance to God’s rule of law. As such inaction to honor that sacred oath is factually and unlawfully transpiring as I write, my unprecedented petitions is in defense of the Christian faith and based in truth with honorable motive and need.
The Queen has solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of which Canada is according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on and according to their laws and customs not being contrary to their God’s.
Her Majesty also swore to preserve all rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to any of them.
From the spiritual and my own single eye’s point of view, it is unimaginable that Her Majesty would seek, in effect, a divorce from her duty. From a secular point of view, the Coronation Oath is a signed contract with God and the men and women she is to rule over in duty to protect them from usurpers and violations of God’s law.
Recent statements by Various of her majesty’s sworn allegiant commonwealth ministers, confirm that they would not advise any measure which might tend to Breach the Coronation Oath nor betray Her Majesties promise to her loyal subjects. Her Majesty accepts the advice of her ministers and the Lord’s Spiritual and it is noted for good faith and factual communication that conversely, it is their sworn duty to advise in accordance with the Coronation Oath and defense of the Christian faith. No sworn allegiant of her majesty can lawfully advise a breach of her majesty’s oath. Nor can they gain royal sanction or remain in power without swearing solemnly in understanding what that true allegiance is to the Christian Crown. Yet the Alberta oath of Allegiance within the oath of office acts mandatory for judges and lawyers in the provincial court act, and legal profession act, respectively represents precisely such a breach, and the Lieutenant Governor has now signed it with the false oath using the Royal Prerogative.
The department of justice refuses to offer copies of the signed oath of allegiance in violation of 337 of your majesty’s law the Canadian Criminal code and has instructed all employees to terminate calls I make to their departments. My purpose is in performance of my calling and in defense of my faith in God and his rule of law as per 176 of the Canadian Criminal Code, a coronation promise. Romans 11:29
I have asked why I cannot see the signed oaths and they, the Alberta department of justice, refuse to say. I have asked what the meaning of that oath is and have been sworn at rebuked, laughed at, jailed and rejected by the police because of my faith and unwillingness to accept imposters as having any authority over me. Joanne Menier ,the Governor General’s assistant, will testify that she was told by a Federal Justice official that even the Governor General can not see the signed oaths.
Your majesty, I humbly submit If they refuse to answer my questions of true allegiance in performance of my duties as a minister of God they are indeed imposters and a criminal threat to the defense of the faith and the honor of her majesty’s oath.
Please in ultimate familial dignity cede to my request dear honored Elizabeth and help this minister’s quest of your own Coronations design and honor.
Blackstone’s Commentaries (volume 1, page 239) says of the Royal Prerogative: The splendor, rights, and powers of the Crown were attached to it for the benefit of the people. They form part of, and are, generally speaking, as ancient as the law itself. De prerogative Regina is merely declaratory of the common law...
The duties arising from the relation of sovereign and subject are reciprocal. Protection, that is, the security and governance of her dominions according to law, is the duty of the sovereign; and allegiance
and subjection, with reference to the same criterion, the constitution and laws of the country, form, in return, the duty of the governed.
We have already observed that the prerogatives are vested in her via such glorious coronation for the benefit of her subjects, and that her Majesty is under, directed by, and not above, the rule of law.
For such words of an oath of allegiance to have meaning, the act of swearing that oath of allegiance must be by a man or a woman who knows what it means and is willing to abide by the requirements of that oath, as in any other case it demonstrates that those taking that oath like our alleged ministers, lawyers, and judges have de facto jurisdiction (unlawful) and in perjury have renounced their oaths of allegiance and are void ab initio of any standing or sanction of the Queen as God’s grace and law cannot be applied by nor honored by liars and imposters.
Indeed, it is humbly offered in reverence of my duty to defend the faith that if necessary for the benefit of your majesty’s subjects a clear explanation and Clarification of the oaths meaning and the allegiants duties in accord with section 22 of the confession of faith would be a majestically wise choice in simple remedy.
In light of such factual information of such vital importance to her majesty’s honor and in contractual defense of God’s law, it would be in universal benefit for the commonwealth and her majesty’s subjects to exercise her majesty’s authority to demand that all of her allegiant’s:
1. Have taken a briefing on and truly understand the meaning of their sworn true allegiance to you’re majesty and authorized form of the oath.
2. That all of your majesty’s allegiants must indicate that they know that the allegiance is about defending God’s laws as supreme over mans laws and to provide such awareness in writing with witnesses.
Your majesty could also dissolve the legislatures or Parliament, or for the government to resign and fight an election on the issue.
The ex-officio defacto government would then be faced with seeking elective power to introduce new royally approved oaths of loyalty under a new constitution as part of their new manifesto. This would distil the issues as perhaps nothing else might, since it would allow the people of the Commonwealth to decide whether or not they wished the understood and true lawful oath of integrity or their constitutional and unalienable rights to be breached in this present unlawful manner.
This honorable and light filled royal action would remove the ability of those in power to oppress prevent and curtail your majesty’s subjects from exercising their lawful God given rights and freedoms in demanding a truly allegiant court.
As the Act of Supremacy and the Bill of Rights put it: all usurped and foreign power and authority may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.
So it is clear that no one - neither sovereign, nor parliament, nor government, nor people - may tamper with, dismantle, destroy or surrender our constitution of God’s law. We are all tenants of it, and trustees. We inherited these rights from God, and we have a supreme responsibility to ensure they are safeguarded and that we pass them on in good order to future generations. They are not ours to discard or diminish. Such is why the oath came into existence in the first place. It was to bond all monarchs to defending God’s laws to maintain and preserve those laws for the benefit of all of those men and women who believe unto him and his word of love and those who do not.
Which is why valid understood oaths of true allegiance place an essential limitation on parliament’s power, and the Queens Coronation Oath is crucial as the foundation and origin of that sanction of God’s power and limitation of mans. The Coronation Oath is a multi faceted obligation of Biblical contractual origins and religious power, it is a statutory obligation, a common law obligation, a historically necessary obligation, on all who swear allegiance to the defense of the Christian faith. It is the duty of all of her majesty’s agents overseeing her governance of the King James Bible, and it is sworn for protecting the nation, the commonwealth and all dominions from immoral acts and violations of God’s law.
The Coronation Oath is the Absolute pinnacle of oaths, and all oaths of allegiance to its Monarch or other natures are bound by its limitations. The armed forces must subscribe and swear true allegiance to the sovereign liege lady Queen Elizabeth the second, not to the government of the day. This helps clarify the principle that understood allegiance is mandatory and a must in maintaining the biblical integrity of God’s rule of law, and not an optional item, as it is being an essential part of the checks and balances of our constitutional preamble. Without these oaths, and their lawful enforcement, we have little to protect us from unlawful government, tyranny and the rule of Commercial law.
We return now to our reasons for stating that the unscrupulous act of taking of an sworn oath to gain authority is unquestionably invalid and immoral if the man or woman taking that oath of allegiance does not know what the allegiance means and is insincere in carrying out the requirements of that allegiance.
Our religious freedom is absolute. The Bill of Rights says so. It cannot be limited in any way. Her Majesty is rightfully inscribed on our coins of the realm as Dei Gratia, Fid. Def. and Lib. Def. – Liberates, Defends...By the grace of God Defender of the fidelity/faith/freedom/liberty
We come back to the oath of allegiance.
Magna Carta says: We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men
that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.... How can such unlawful officers of the Crown organize such a referendum or plebiscite on the oath if they do not have true allegiance? Where does their motive and authority originate?
These procedures would also infringe articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill of Rights:
1. That the pretended power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authority without Consent of Parliament is illegal.
(This must include the Coronation Oath Act.)
2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regal Authorities as it hath been assumed and exercised of late are illegal.
3. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crown by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parliament for longer time or in other
manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegal. (This is further protection of our common law rights.)
We respectfully request that Her Majesty grant us an opportunity and power to examine the integrity and opinion of those who seek to alter, trivialize, and diminish the significance of the Oath of allegiance to your Coronation duty contrary to good advice.
Accordingly, under those same terms of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights quoted earlier, we the undersigned would make it clear that these historical documents are men’s agreement’s/contracts with each other and do not purport to supercede God in allowing violations of God’s law. They simply affirm that for all time the Kings of the realm shall obey by the just and right ruling of the agreement/contract/allegiance between the men and women of the realm and the King.
Call it a pact or a covenant or a law it amounts to the same thing a promise to abide by the rules of the agreement.
Now as we can see from what George Orwell exposed us to in the elaborate satire “Animal farm” that we must be seriously and of strong faith on guard and watchful eye for the assistant of Napoleon in the middle of the night, when we are asleep, sneaking in to alter the laws ever so slightly so as to differ the meaning but not alert the reader with obvious notations, to the change.
Such was the fate of Boxer Snowball and the other animals as they were initially of trust in agreement to have Napolean lead them and that trust endured with the axiom “Napolean is always right” They soon found out Napoleon was just like all the rest “troughers” as he selfishly controlled and enslaved the farm.
We know what happened in that story and it is the tale of our modern parliamentarians, much removed from their professed true allegiance to your majesty and the Biblical principles. They are exhibiting arrogant self sanctioned ignorance of the purpose and meaning of their own oaths.
Such is the position of the Canadian parliament and it provincial counterparts. They have not only altered the oath from it’s form but have no idea what the oath means nor do they care. I am not exaggerating this for your majesty, as it is my duty to provide you with the truth.
I have heard foul blaspheming remarks about your majesty made by the lawyers, judges, justices and ministers in this land, they are deliberately challenging your Royal Style and forcing law upon your majesty’s subjects that is in violation of God’s law.
It is with honor and fortitude of faith I petition your majesty for attention to this immensely prominent conundrum of spiritual faith and secular audacity as it appears it has not been spoken to before in such a manner as to honorably petition and afford your majesty the opportunity to comply with her oath bound requirements in defense of the faith.
It is hoped far and wide throughout your majesty’s realm and in my own ecclesia that in this instance your majesty will see the compelling necessity for action fitting and meet with that which a monarch is expected of, required to provide, and of a clear capacity to perform.
It is in the Hebrew name of our God Yahweh and his son Yahushua that I implore and beseech your majesty to rise to the defense of the Christian faith in God’s honor and invoke removal and termination of this historical slander and unlawful usurping of your majesty’s royal style, title and defense of the royal rule of law the King James Bible, God’s law, in this your Coronation Golden jubilee.
I am your humble Christian ministerial servant in same defense and allegiant to all cause to provide faithfully and truthfully such allegiance to defend God’s laws tirelessly and without fail. 1st Peter 2:17
Treason, in my estimation, is attempting to over throw your majesty’s government. It is when the allegiant defies his/her sworn duty to be allegiant to the Monarch and violates God’s laws and forces those ungodly laws, or decisions, upon those subjects of your majesty that are dependant on God’s laws for protection. These non-allegiant impostors are attempting to overthrow your majesty’s government, which is by the rule of the King James Bible. I am sanctioned by God and praying for your majesty’s attention to this International fraud and disgrace upon this your Coronation GoldenJubilee.
I am a living man and no corporate fiction, a minister of Christ in humble repose yet proud and in stalwart defense of God’s laws at your majesty’s service. I would be extremely honored to act as a Judicial Examiner Delegate International (JEDI) for your majesty’s aid of securing in place, in short oral exam, the veracity of the true allegiance that they swore to your majesty and their bonafide capacity to provide said true allegiance and in ecclesiastical honor aid your majesty as high priestess of God’s temple in carrying out your majesty’s duties and commands in God’s service.
Any other service of ministerial order I can offer your majesty, if it please your royal style and comfort, please communicate such need at your earliest convenience.
I wrote my Mp John Williams who does not seem to honor his oath, and laid it before the Prime Minster, and the House of Commons Mp’s. They offered no reply to myself as a Minister. I have no truly allegiant courts of your majesty to turn and am being denied true justice in your name!
I cannot participate in this fraud your majesty and perform my functions as a minister of God in defending his laws. I petition you for aid and honor in this unprecedented ecclesiastical matter of necessitated spiritual guidance and defense.
“A time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men and women do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world...
“Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.
“We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
“Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves in the long and bitter, but beautiful struggle for a new world....”
Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
April 4, 1967, in Riverside Church, New York City
Your humble minister and true professor of the gospels of our master and saviour Lord Jesus Christ in quest to save grace for and aid our Lords most trusted and revered earthly servant Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Minister of Christ
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
Heatherdown Ecclesia near Onoway, Alberta
No code non commercial
CC: Her Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second
C/o Her majesty’s private secretary,
Sir Robin Janvrin
The President of the Privy council of Canada
The Honorable Stephane Dion
66 Slater Street 8th floor Ottawa K1A-0A3
Tel: 613-943-1838 Fax: 613-992-3700
The Treasury Board President
Secretary of the Treasury Board
Tel: 613-996-4984 613-996-4986
Lesplanade Laurier East Tower 9th Flr.
140 O’Conner St. Ottawa, Ont. K1A0R5
613 -957-2666 fax 613 990-2806
The Registrar General of Canada
Gene Edmunds South tower 9th Flr 365 Laurier Ave W. Ottawa K1a0C8
Tel: 613-941-9053 fax 613-941-9047
The Privy Council of Canada Chair: Stephane Dion
The Governor General Of Canada Adrienne Clarkson
Tel:1-800-465-6890 fax: 1-613-920-7636
The Right Honorable Lieutenant Governor of Alberta
C/o 3rd flr Legislature Bldg
The Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chretien
Tel; 1-800-465-6890 Fax 613-998-1664
Prime minister’s office 80 Wellington St.
Ottawa Ont. K1A0A2
The Minister of Finance Paul Martin
Lespanade Laurier East Tower 21st flr.
140 O’Conner St.
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions
Mr. John Palmer 255 Albert Street
13flr Ottawa Ont. K1A0H2
The Minister of Revenue Martin Cauchon
Connaught Bldg 7th flr. 555 Mackenzie ave. Ottawa K1A0L5
Tel: 613-995-2960 Fax 613-952-6608
The Commissioner of the RCMP, Giuliano Zaccardelli
1200 Vanier Parkway Ottawa K1A0R4
Tel: 613-993-0400 Fax:613-993-5297
The Attorney General of Canada, Martin Cauchon
Justice Bldg 284 Wellington St. Ottawa, Ont K1A0H8
The speaker for the House of Commons
House of Commons Ottawa Ont. K1A0A6
Minister of Canadian Heritage
The Honorable Sheila Copps
House of Commons
Fax: (819) 994-1267
Member of Parliament Rob Merrifield
Parliament Building Ottawa Ont.
Senator Thelma Chalifoux
Tel:613-943-0445 Fax:613-943-0450 Chalit@sen.parl.gc.ca
Senate of Canada Parliament Blds
Wellington St. Ottawa, Ont.K1A0A4
Senator Tommy Banks
Senator Nick Taylor
Tel: 613-947-1605 Fax:1-613-947-1607
The Leader of the Opposition
The Registrar for the province of Alberta
3rd flr. Commerce place [T5J4L4]
The Director of Vital Statistics for the Province of Alberta
3rd flr. John E. Brownlee
10365-97th St. [T5J3W7]
The Executive Director of Land Titles for the Province of Alberta
Box 2380,Edmonton,Alberta [ T5J2T3]
Tel: 427-2742 Fax: 422-4290
Minister of Government Services for the Province of Alberta
Tel: 415-4855 Fax: 415-4853
Premier of Alberta
Tel: 427-2251 Fax: 427-1349
Rm 307 Legislature bldg.10800 97ave,
Edmonton, Alberta T5K2B7
Mr. A. Charles Baillie
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
Mr. W. Edmund Clark
President & Chief Operating Officer
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, TD Canada Trust
Mr. G. Montegu Black
Chairman and President
Ms. Eleanor R. Clitheroe
President and Chief Executive Officer
Hydro One Inc.
Mr. Marshall A. Cohen, Q.C.
Cassels Brock & Blackwell
Dr. Wendy K. Dobson
Professor and Director
Institute for International Business
Joseph L. Rotman School of Management
Mr. Henry H. Ketcham
Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd.
Mr. Pierre H. Lessard
President & Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Brian F. MacNeill
Chairman of the Board
Mr. Roger Phillips
President and Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Edward S. Rogers
President & Chief Executive Officer
Rogers Communications Inc.
Ms. Helen K. Sinclair
Chief Executive Officer
BankWorks Trading Inc.
Mr. Donald R. Sobey
Empire Company Limited
Dr. Michael D. Sopko
Mr. John M. Thompson
Vice Chairman of the Board
Mr. Richard M. Thomson
Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
As you can see some very powerful people were put on notice yet in awareness the intimidation continues. We now have Church accounts with the TD with no numbers to connect us to commerce or usury and have total immunity from taxation devils.
This one is From the President of the British Columbia Cariboo Mining Association and is well known by many Conservative members as an honorable man who stands for the freedoms of the miners to gain a livelihood untaxed and intimidated by the de facto power to contribute to a provable fraud.
Good faith introduction
To all concerned parties receiving this as of after September 15th in the year of our Lord two thousand and three. Please take notice that I, the living man with a Christian appellation as Donald Christopher Carter, living on God’s earth in the province of British Columbia, and being a non commercial entity of sound mind and good character, do affirm that as a result of political or religious persecution and intimidation and having exhausted all remedies in commercial law, my diligent research and Christian faith suggests, that the following offer applies. http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm
1.I as a *minister (See Definitions Below) in performing a function of my calling to practice and defend God’s law, and with the knowledge and awareness of the unlawful actions and claims of agents of CCRA upon the created and assumed legal fiction of a name in and for the purposes of executing a fraud upon myself and my brethren , and with the knowledge that such legal fiction debtor number assigned by CCRA to me the flesh is without any informed permission or understanding by myself and with knowledge that it is created by CCRA for the convenience of achieving consent of jurisdiction over my flesh and blood by the Receiver General and Tax court, and also severally with the knowledge that the Queen and all her allegiants are bound to defend the laws of God with all of their power by the tenants of the King James Bible, I must aver: It is as a man of God, not being a *person, that it is under serious issuance of threat, duress and intimidation that I offer this demand via the aid of my clerical *envoy, ambassador and delegate of choice. We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our Brethren. You, reading this as a servant for society as a whole, take account of the ethical commitments that are necessary for a civil society to maintain the integrity and honor of both public and private morality.
2. You are now with the knowledge and awareness that you in pursuit of a fictional debt of Usury (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36; Deuteronomy 23:19) and are with knowledge it is a fiction as per your own files of artificial assessments between 1992 and 1996 and previous years that you have adamantly denied that I have ever filed. Your own records prove your possession of such filings and as such provide evidence of deceit and concealment on your part. I do aver that I am not a corporate commercial legal fiction nor liable to pay a fictional usurious debt. Agents of the CCRA have conspired by fraud to discredit and to fabricate arbitrary assessments that started at $8000.00 and grew on criminal interest and penalties to $32,000.00 against this artificial commercial entity which I cannot by my faith be compelled to participate with or allow. Aiding and abetting a criminal act, albeit unaware, is a crime! failure to be aware of the law is no excuse. Altering a man’s or a woman’s name and using it for a financial purpose without their permission is fraud. By the ignorance of the law that controls the actions of the government the CCRA has supported and enforced a slavery tax of usury being in force contrary to God’s law. Thou shall not raise a false witness or bear a false report! I know that there are compassionate, fair and honest men and women within CCRA and to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, I summon you good and kind folk to assist me at this time in provision of truth. May God’s blessing and spirit be upon you.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exodus 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
Deuteronomy 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Deuteronomy 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Proverbs 12:17 He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.
Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 14:25 A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.
Proverbs 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Proverbs 19:9 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
Proverbs 19:28 An ungodly witness scorneth judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity.
Proverbs 21:28 A false witness shall perish: but the man that heareth speaketh constantly.
Proverbs 24:28 Be not a witness against thy neighbour without cause; and deceive not with thy lips.
Proverbs 25:18 A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.
Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
This Demand notice, being a matter of a religious claim, is not frivolous or vexatious in form and is a serious issue that, if not dealt with, will cause grievous and serious harm to myself and my family and as such the balance of convenience and credibility of the court and its officers favors granting the relief sought. This demand is offered as a result of the CCRA failing to acknowledge that I did supply them with the returns they required when demanded. They denied that I have ever filed those years but their own records of the 1992 and 1996 filings reveal they do indeed have them, showing nil return and no monies owed. These actions, on their part, of violating not only their own laws, but the laws of God by a deliberate attempt to impose a slavery tax unsanctioned in God’s or man's law upon me, are criminal and punishable by their law 46;60;122;126; 180;215;219;336;337;408 ;405 and 403 as well as numerous others not mentioned for lack of paper supply. The effects of a diligent nature, to communicate the facts to agents of the CCRA, have met with indifference and failure to adhere to the terms of their public service employment contract 23. Every deputy head and employee shall, on appointment from outside the Public Service, take and subscribe the oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance and the oath or solemn affirmation set out in Schedule III.R.S., c. P-32, s. 23. and ethical standard as required by the treasury board of Canada policy in favor of public standing. (Any law that is inconsistent with the laws of God is a violation of our faith and we are merely showing you that CCRA and associate departments are breaking their law, among many others.) We also wish all to make note of the fact that, through the admission of agents of the CCRA, the fiction they are applying to me, CARTER DONALD C., is owed in excess of $100,000.00 in child tax credits, GST rebates and other funds. As an alternative CCRA can at its own discretion deduct the claimed owed monies from the actual credit they claim the fictional entity is owed and forward $70,000.00 balance claimed as owing to the Donald C. Carter the man.
False pretence or false statement 362. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) by a false pretence, whether directly or through the medium of a contract obtained by a false pretence, obtains anything in respect of which the offence of theft may be committed or causes it to be delivered to another person; (b) obtains credit by a false pretence or by fraud;
knowingly makes or causes to be made, directly or indirectly, a false statement in writing with intent that it should be relied on, with respect to the financial condition or means or ability to pay of himself or any person, firm or corporation that he is interested in or that he acts for, for the purpose of procuring, in any form whatever, whether for his benefit or the benefit of that person, firm or corporation,
(i) the delivery of personal property, (ii) the payment of money,
As such the cause for the issuance of this Demand notice.
Signed at _________________________________on ________________________for good intent and defense of faith in front of three witnesses of good character and sound mind..
Donald Christopher Carter
Minister Definition: 2 Corinthians 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
one who serves, as distinguished from the master. (1.) Heb.
meshereth, applied to an attendant on one of superior rank, as
to Joshua, the servant of Moses (Ex. 33:11), and to the servant
of Elisha (2 Kings 4:43). This name is also given to attendants
at court (2 Chr. 22:8), and to the priests and Levites (Jer.
33:21; Ezek. 44:11).
(2.) Heb. pelah (Ezra 7:24), a "minister" of religion. Here
used of that class of sanctuary servants called "Solomon's
servants" in Ezra 2:55-58 and Neh. 7:57-60
1 (esp. in Presbyterian and some Nonconformist Churches) a member of the clergy
2 a person appointed to head a government department
3 any diplomatic agent accredited to a foreign government or head of state
4 short for: minister plenipotentiary, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary
See: envoy1 
5 Also called (in full): minister resident a diplomat ranking after an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary
6 a person who attends to the needs of others, esp. in religious matters
7 a person who acts as the agent or servant of a person or thing
8 [intr; often foll by to] to attend to the needs (of); take care (of)
9 [transitive] (archaic)
to provide; supply
[ETYMOLOGY: 13th Century: via Old French from Latin: servant; related to minus less]
1 Formal name: envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary a diplomat of the second class, ranking between an ambassador and a minister resident
[ETYMOLOGY: 17th Century: from French envoyé, literally: sent, from envoyer to send, from Vulgar Latin inviare (unattested) to send on a journey, from in-2 + via road]
Persona A person portrayed in fiction or drama: character, personage
Attention: All the natural men and women as created by God acting as the sworn truly allegiant legal fictions of Federal and Provincial judges, prosecutors, official employees of the Canadian federal and provincial law courts, justice, inclusive and especially Canadian Customs and Revenue officers of her majesty’s service practicing and offering severally the forms of law as being Military Chauncery,(Court of Conscience) Civil, Common Law, Equity, Taxation, Admiralty, Criminally indictable and summary law . Special notice directed to:
The man acting His Holy Eminence Pope John Paul the second
The woman acting the person of Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. The Dejure authority
The man acting as the person The Archbishop of Canterbury
Rowan Williams Diocesan House, Lady Wootton's Green
Canterbury CT1 1NQ
The woman acting as the person of Her Excellency Governor General of Canada
Adrienne Clarkson the Defacto authority of all the below listed recipients
1 Sussex Drive
Role and Responsibilities of the Governor General
The Office of the Governor General, Canada's oldest continuing institution, is a thread that ties Canadians together. From Samuel de Champlain in 1608 to Viscount Monck in 1867 to Vincent Massey in 1952 to Adrienne Clarkson today, the role of the Governor General dates back nearly 400 years.
Today, we celebrate excellence through the Stanley Cup, the Grey Cup, the Governor General's Literary Awards and the Governor General's Academic Medal. These trophies and awards were created by Governors General and are a part of Canada that everyone celebrates.
What is the Governor General's position in Government?
Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy.
This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's 26th Governor General, the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State.
The man acting as the person the Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
66 Slater Street
The man acting as the person the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Kent and Wellington Streets
The woman acting as the person the Honourable Elinor Caplan, Minister of National Revenue
7th Floor, Connaught Building
The man acting as the person the Revenue Collections supervisor of clerks; J.M. Inglis Director, The woman acting as the person the Team leader Christine Cook and et al all men and women in Canada acting as the persons of the officers,employees agents or other assignees of the government of Canada assigned to acct# 619-248-214 RI . Northern B.C. and Yukon Tax office 280 Victoria street Bag 7500 Prince George B.C. V2l5N8
To all the men and women acting as the persons of officers of the Supreme Court of Canada and all other formed courts in Canada being:
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., C.J.C. (Chairperson)
Federal Court of Canada
The Honourable John D. Richard, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada
The Honourable Allan F. Lutfy, Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada
Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
The Honourable Barry L. Strayer, Chief Justice of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Alban Garon, Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable Donald G. H. Bowman, Associate Chief Judge of the Tax Court of Canada
The Honourable R. Roy McMurtry, Chief Justice of Ontario
The Honourable Heather J. Smith, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice (of Ontario)
The Honourable Dennis O'Connor, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario
The Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice (of Ontario)
The Honourable J.J. Michel Robert, Chief Justice of Québec
The Honourable Lyse Lemieux, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Québec
The Honourable Robert Pidgeon, Senior Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Québec
The Honourable André Deslongchamps, Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Québec
The Honourable Constance R. Glube, Chief Justice of Nova Scotia
The Honourable Joseph P. Kennedy, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
The Honourable J. Michael MacDonald, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
The Honourable Robert F. Ferguson, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Family Division
The Honourable Ernest Drapeau, Chief Justice of New Brunswick
The Honourable David D. Smith, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
The Honourable J. Edward Richard, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories
The Honourable Richard J. Scott, Chief Justice of Manitoba
The Honourable Marc M. Monnin, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
The Honourable Jeffrey J. Oliphant, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
The Honourable Gerald Mercier, Associate Chief Justice, Family Division, of the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
The Honourable Lance Finch, Chief Justice of British Columbia
The Honourable Donald I. Brenner, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
The Honourable Patrick D. Dohm, Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
The Honourable Gerard E. Mitchell, Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island
The Honourable Armand DesRoches, Chief Justice of the Trial Division, Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island
The Honourable Edward D. Bayda, Chief Justice of Saskatchewan
The Honourable W. Frank Gerein, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
The Honourable Ralph Hudson, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territory
The Honourable Catherine A. Fraser, Chief Justice of Alberta
The Honourable Allan H.J. Wachowich, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
The Honourable Allen B. Sulatycky, Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
The Honourable, Clyde K. Wells, Chief Justice of Newfoundland
The Honourable J. Derek Green, Chief Justice of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court
The Honourable Beverley Browne, Senior Judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice
Staff of the Canadian Judicial Council
Canadian Judicial Council
Att: Denis Guay
Suite 450 - 112 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8
(613) 998-5182, facsimile (613) 998-8889
Executive Director: Ms. Jeannie Thomas
The man acting as the person the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of the Environment
10 Wellington, Floor 28
The man acting as the person the Honourable John Manley,
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
140 O'Connor, 21st Floor, East Tower
The man acting as the person the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Receiver General of Canada Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Place du Portage, Phase III
11 Laurier Street
The man acting as the legal person Honourable Wayne Easter, Solicitor General of Canada
13th Floor, 340 Laurier Avenue West
The woman acting as the legal person Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President of the Treasury Board Secretariat
140 O'Connor Street,
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, Minister of Natural Resources
21st Floor, 580 Booth Street
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable David Michael Collenette, Minister of Transport
Tower C, Place de Ville
330 Sparks Street, 29th Floor,
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National Defence National Defence HQ,
101 Colonel By Drive
The man acting as the legal person the Honourable Robert Thibault, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
15th Floor, 200 Kent Street
The woman acting as the legal person The Honourable Sharon Carstairs, Leader of the Government in the Senate
Parliament Buildings, Room 279-S
The man acting as the legal person of the premier of British Columbia the
Honorable Gordon Campbell
PO Box 9041
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E1
the man acting the legal person of the Minister of fisheries the
Honorable John Van Dongen
PO Box 9058
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
man acting as the person the
Honourable Kevin Falcon
Minister of State for Deregulation
PO Box 9051
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Gary Collins
Minister of Finance
PO Box 9468
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Michael de Jong
Minister of Forests
PO Box 9049
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Bill Barisoff
Minister of Provincial Revenue
PO Box 9065
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Stan Hagen
Minister of Sustainable Resource Management
PO Box 9054
Stn PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The woman acting as the person the
Honourable Judith Reid
Minister of Transportation
PO Box 9055
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The woman acting as the person the
Honourable Joyce Murray
Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection
PO Box 9047
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC V8W 9E2
The man acting as the person the
Honourable Rich Coleman
Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for the province of British Columbia
The woman acting as the person the
Honorable Shirley Bond MLA Prince George
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Richard Harris MP Prince George
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Collin Kingsley mayor of Prince George
The man acting as the person the
Honorable MLA Dr.John Wilson
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Philip Mayfield MP
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Stephen Harper MP
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Jay Hill MP
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Walt Cobb MLA
The man acting as the person the
Honorable Richard Neufeld MLA.
All the men and woman acting as the persons of Chief Prosecutor for the federal Customs and Revenue Justice Department, Chief prosecutor for the civil law department of the provincial government of British Columbia and all subordinate prosecutors and legal advisors of Justice, Revenue and investigators of the risk management departments of federal and provincial revenue.
Chapter 1: Statement of Public Service Values and Ethics
Ethical Values: Acting at all times in such a way as to uphold the public trust.
• Public servants shall perform their duties and arrange their private affairs so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.
• Public servants shall act at all times in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
• Public servants, in fulfilling their official duties and responsibilities, shall make decisions in the public interest.
• If a conflict should arise between the private interests and the official duties of a public servant, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the public interest.
People Values: Demonstrating respect, fairness and courtesy in their dealings with both citizens and fellow public servants.
• Respect for human dignity and the value of every person should always inspire the exercise of authority and responsibility.
• People values should reinforce the wider range of Public Service values. Those who are treated with fairness and civility will be motivated to display these values in their own conduct.
• Public Service organizations should be led through participation, openness and communication and with respect for diversity and for the official languages of Canada.
• Appointment decisions in the Public Service shall be based on merit.
• Public Service values should play a key role in recruitment, evaluation and promotion.
This Code applies to all public servants working in departments, agencies and other public institutions listed in Part I, Schedule I, of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
This Code is a policy of the Government of Canada. Public service institutions not covered by this Code should respect its spirit and should adopt similar provisions for their organizations.
Chapter 4: Avenues of Resolution
Public Service Values and Ethics
Any public servant who wants to raise, discuss and clarify issues related to this Code should first talk with his or her manager or contact the senior official designated by the Deputy Head under the provisions of this Code, according to the procedures and conditions established by the Deputy Head.
Any public servant who witnesses or has knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace may refer the matter for resolution, in confidence and without fear of reprisal, to the Senior Officer designated for the purpose by the Deputy Head under the provisions of the Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace.
Furthermore, any public servant who believes that he or she is being asked to act in a way that is inconsistent with the values and ethics set out in Chapter 1 of this Code can report the matter in confidence and without fear of reprisal to the Senior Officer, as described above.
If the matter is not appropriately addressed at this level, or the public servant has reason to believe it could not be disclosed in confidence within the organization, it may then be referred to the Public Service Integrity Officer, in accordance with the Policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace.
It is expected that most matters arising from the application of this Code can and should be resolved at the organizational level.
From : The Cariboo Sui Juris Church
, being a non commercial, benevolent congregation of respected men and women not being persons, (James 2:9;Deut:10:17;Acts:10:34) having assembled in response to a universal calling for the maintaining of truth liberty and freedom. This assembly of men and women is not to be assumed as purposed in clandestine order nor cultish performance but of quest for open and honest unfettered sharing of truths to ensure integrity and honor prevail. "The one law is to cause no harm" Those who deem faith in God as cultish are obviously without God and discriminating against those who do on a religious basis and with intent to ignore their oath sworn duty and to label a Christian monarch as cultish.
Minister of Christ Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger in official function and performance of a ecclesiastical duty et al the man Donald C. Carter President Cariboo Mining Association asserting no association with a false Fictitious tax file number ITA-1441-01 Acct# 619-248-214
Exodus 19:6 Romans 11:29) as per your legal requirement of your government law (Preamble Section 26; 32 Canadian Constitution)126,176 CCC. complimented by 423CCC and 337 of the CCC and in defense of my parishioners of the formed ecclesiastic body of God’s servants of the Cariboo region
Notice of Demand to all professed allegiants of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II in duty and performance of provision of true allegiance to a Christian monarch, being defender of the Christian faith, via sworn Oath.
Before any conclusions are drawn and assumptions formed upon the previous assumptions of other professed allegiants and those consulted for their opinions about myself as a man and minister I hope you will look at the facts I am presenting. These facts although not comfortable to those in lack of knowledge are still facts of indisputable proportions. If you wish to judge these words please do so with the facts.
The men and women I speak for as their minister have an inherent right and duty , God commanded, to not bow to defacto authority. It is in ignorance that the masses have given over their energy. We cannot contribute to what we have proof of is a fraud. We as followers of God’s word cannot be driven from the scriptural warnings and commandments of God it is only by our free will of allowing deception to prevail that we can ignore them.
In our belief your fictional government form is based upon commerce and we are not to unite with nor serve mammon being commerce. We do not wish to insult any one nor decline our responsibility to pay for road upkeep and maintenance of other usufructs. It is the servicing of a usurious and fraudulently obtained debt that we have issue with. It is pure slavery and forced work outside of God’s laws.
I do hope that by collective communication in open dialogue we can avert any confrontations that would tend to harm our ability and freedom to practice our faith and to maintain our unalienable right of gaining a livelihood. Entrance into the corridor of a mans freedom by any government without probable cause is inhibiting his liberty to provide for himself and family as well as to freely communicate his discoveries in faith to others. Please remember our offer in demand is not in offensive mode but an imperative rendering of the instant matter concerning those of my ministry who are caught in the fictitious trap of taxation in violation of their faith and belief in the no harm ethic of the King James Bible and laws provided.
Justice is in disrepute and I as a non-commercial man and minister of God am required, as of my awareness of corruption within the system, to not contract with any man acting as a Commercial fiction nor un sanctioned by the Christian monarch and anointed of God. I as a performing minister of God cannot receive integral justice or honor of truly allegiant men and women unless their oaths are understood. My duty and performance of a function of my calling as a minister of God in defense of his laws is to enquire of all as to the provision of the legitimacy of their understanding that oath and the validity of its form. (Numbers 30:2; Jeremiah 9:3-9)
Without a truly understood oath in the possession of a truly sworn allegiant to her majesty the anointed of God, I as a minister of God and my parishioners in faith and right unassailable in Christ cannot participate in your unlawful defacto commercial process of assumption that we are commercial debtors. Neither can my parishioners participate as we have no truly allegiant dejure and authentic court of God’s law of defense by her majesty to bring forth the truth in. We cannot bow down to nor serve false defacto authority. (Exodus 20:3-5 ;Luke 16:13) This is the command of God! Read chapter 3 of Daniel.
I hope you will not assume this is avoiding unlawful taxes (Romans 16:17-20 Exodus 30:13-14 Matthew 17:24-27), as we wish to ensure you that you have no need to assume that, as it is absolutely true, no assumption needed. Taxes not instituted by God are not lawful among his children and not of God. (Ezra:7:24-26;1Peter 2:13 only laws written for God’s sake! Acts 5:29 Duet:4:1-2)Only dead commercial entities are taxable not God’s creation! God’s truly allegiant ministers know that his law is the rule of law mentioned of in the preamble to the Canadian Constitution. The Coronation of her majesty in 1953 is clear unavoidable evidence of that. She swore to uphold the laws of God with all of her power!
Colonial Tax Repeal Act (1778) Still in force
it is hereby declared and enacted ... that, from and after the passing of this act, the king and parliament of Great Britain will not impose any duty, tax, or assessment whatever, payable in any of his majesty's colonies ... in North America or the West Indies, except only such duties as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce;
Filings of Kisikawpimootewin North American Signatory Indian as serviced upon the Governor General of Canada as of January 24th 2002 A.D. et al
Filings of Sherwood-T: Rodrigues Notice of Collateral Esttopel May 2003
To be clear, the men and women of this Church are of faith and belief not commercial nor under commercial jurisdiction and we challenge you to prove that we are.
If you proceed against us without proving that, under the provisions of your public service employment act and the terms of your public liability insurance policy via revenue risk management, that it was warranted, we will be forced to file a claim against you. If you can prove you have lawful jurisdiction over the non commercial men and women of a non incorporated sui juris church and its holdings of properties, we demand, as of unalienable unchartered right, that you produce that evidence in good faith so we can submit and not be wasting audited monies with arguments of assumed and fictitious legal nature. To do so would be a fraud . I , as the officiating minister of this religious congregation am demanding in good faith that you validate your jurisdiction "quo warranto veritas". Please remember I am not being adversarial just performing a function of my calling ,an officiating minister of Christ of a formed Church,to protect my parishioners from avoidable offences not of God enforced by imposters.(Acts 5:29; Romans 16:17-20) I am with the authority to be requesting verification of your true integrity and sanctioned authority in God’s law to enforce the Income tax act or any other ungodly law upon my flesh and the ecclesiastical property of God. Please do not be intimidated by this notice, I only want what is right in God’s law for my congregation and their family’s ensured security. The civil laws of man have no force against the ministry of God and the Queen has supported that in law. Please read 176 and 423 of the criminal code and ask how you or any one man or woman can make up a meaning to that true allegiance you promised you would provide. Read the Coronation act of 1688 and the text of the Coronation ceremony of 1953. We just went through the fiftieth Jubilee of her majesty and the oath bound duty is still as ever clear not foggy nor gray you just have to read it.
Matthew 6:24......You are acting as mammon(Commerce) and I cannot bow to you as you are false authority . Exodus 20:3-5. I cannot violate the laws of God. Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32 Numbers 15:15 You are harming my ministry and my right as a man and minister of God to receive truly allegiant justice for my parishioners. There is a value to that harm you are causing my ministry and it’s parishioners. Your liability insurance via Jubilee insurance and other insurance services is in jeopardy.
I,do aver that I officiating as a minister of God in performance of a function of my calling and via the provisions of 337 of the Canadian criminal code am demanding of you, in reciept of this demand notice, to produce the property of a certified copy of your signed oath of true allegiance and authority to have her majesty’s sanction in jurisdiction over the natural body of my parishioners and to inflict a violation of religious beliefs being intimidation (423C.C.C.) upon myself or members of my congregation namely bowing submitting and understanding to false authority. Produce your true authority to invoke taxation upon the Queens subjects that supercedes God’s rule of law.(424C.C.C.) Prove we as members of an international religious body are debtors of a commercially bankrupt corporate body. Prove your created legal fictions (430C.C.C.) are capable of being cross examined. Staufen vs. regina 2001 BCSC
[para9] Whilst there is no evidence before the Court that Mr. Staufen was born in Vancouver or, for that matter, where he was born, the law is riddled with legal fictions, it is said. The Court may do so here, Mr. Azevedo suggests,and create a legal fiction with respect to Mr. Staufen's name and place and date of birth. [para10] As defined by the Oxford Canadian Dictionary a "legal fiction" is "an assertion accepted as true (though probably fictitious) to achieve a useful purpose, esp. in legal matters". In An Historical Introduction to English Lawand Its Institutions (3rd ed.) by Harold Potter, the learned author, at p. 302, groups the fictions used into three classes: (1) fictions used to increase the jurisdiction of Courts; (2) fictions designed to avoid cumbersome and archaic forms of action; (c) fictions having a false assumption of fact in order to extend the remedy the Court could grant. Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (2nd ed.), at p. 787, provides two examples in order to illustrate how the former practice and jurisdiction of the courts rested largely on fictions. Thus, the king's Bench acquired jurisdiction in actions for debt by "surmising" or "feigning" that the defendant had been arrested for a trespass which he had never committed and then allowing the plaintiff to proceed against him for debt. In the second example the Court of Exchequer acquired jurisdiction by permitting the plaintiff in certain actions to plead that he was a debtor to the king and that by reason of the cause of action pleaded he had become less able to pay his wholly fictitious debt to the king.
[para11] Although fictions have been used extensively over the centuries to expand the jurisdiction of the courts and the nature of the relief they can grant, I have not been referred to, and have not in my own research found, an instance where a fiction has been used by a court to invent the facts necessary to decide the very issue before it. Judges are frequently told by appellate courts not to speculate on the evidence. What is sought here would require the Court to do more than speculate.
I, because of discriminatory treatment and knowledge of the lack of sanction by her majesty to enforce the commercial laws of men ( Matthew 6:24) upon me am in lack of trust of your process as it is clearly corrupt and replete with imposters. My religious obligations are clear and I cannot bow down to false authority. I hope you will help me determine your integrity so you are not in total appearance of dishonor.
I am an officiating minister of God ( Of my religious belief no capitalization or alterations of my name are allowed to be formed or attached to any document or to be associated with me or my parishioners) of the Cariboo Sui Juris Church.
It is important that you avail yourselves of this information as of the CBC Airing of the Coronation Ceremony on February sixth 2002. Please take notice and read the following. This is follow up to a notice in the Edmonton Journal 2001 December 19th to all allegiants of her majesty:
TO all private parties acting publicly as oath sworn allegiants of Elizabeth the second, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories Queen, head of the commonwealth, defender of the faith, and all private parties acting publicly or private, relying on oath sworn allegiants to the Queen so mentioned for their professional advise or oath sanctioned protection. Re: The meaning of that sacred oath of allegiance, and statement of faith may be viewed by contacting Minister of Christ
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger in faith of defense of faith for Donald C. Carter et al 1-780-967-3915
CHAPTER XXII.From the Westminster Confession of faith an Act of the British Parliament of 1646
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows.
I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken.
III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels.
V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.
VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise or ability from God. In which respects, monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.
Will you discriminate against my official Ministry, and prejudice my ability to fair defense of my congregation’s men and women? Will you ignore your duty to that oath? Will you fabricate a meaning to that oath? Will you believe someone else’s fabrication? You have seen and are now with the knowledge of her majesty’s law regarding lawful oaths and if you can refute what I am saying do so with in 10 days of receipt of this document and Notice of demand. Failure to rebut or reply, *nihil dicit, to the notice of demand, sent via registered mail for proof of service, will be taken and acknowledged via notice in her majesty’s Royal post office and advertisement locally, of your open acceptance of my lawful sanction as a minister (Exodus19:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6) having only laws in accord with his law as authority over my congregation(Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32;Numbers 15:15) and will be taken and accepted as tacit consent and agreement to the assertions of law and ecclesiastical right contained herein
Please consider your subscribing to and understanding this oath in it’s entirety
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
If your oath is not in this form it is invalid. If you cannot verify what the true allegiance is that you swore you would provide, it is evidence that you are in breach of your obligation and have committed perjury.
Please tell me: If one does not believe in God but takes an oath to be truly allegiant to a Queen sworn to uphold the laws of God with all of her power can they decline to enforce and uphold the laws of God and still be truly allegiant?
Sincerely offered in performance of a function of my calling as an officiating Minister and founder of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International 2001 and of and the Cariboo Grove of the Church of the Reformed Druids 2003, The Head Druid and minister of the Onoway Grove of the Church of the Reformed druids 1993; Received Philosophy Degree in 1992 From the Edmonton Grove of the Church of the Reformed Druids, and Master of law degree in 2000 from Grand Druid Kevin Sisk under a charter mission from the Assembly of the Universe, Honorary Minister of the China Grove of the Church of the reformed Druids 1992 and international law Consulting minister for the Belize Grove of the Church of the Reformed Druids 1993 and a Chartered mission brother and research consultant of the Assembly of the Universe Hamilton Ontario 1969 al and the Center for Self Awareness and the Church of Christian Science being all interfaith churches All glory to God and his infinite wisdom. May we all be humbled by his mysteries.
Minister Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger Ph.d Doctorate of Theosophy and Theocratic law
*Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1045
Judgment taken against party who withdraws his answer is judgment nihil dicit, which amounts to confession of cause of action stated, and carries with it, more strongly than judgment by default, admission of justice of plaintiff's case. See also Nil dicit judgment
This one has been sent out by many of our ministers as it says it all. It is a binding agreement in law.
Good faith agreement July 8, 2005 A.D.
To: The private men, Irwin Cotler Michel Dorais ,John McCallum, and Giuliano Zaccardelli pictured above in order and acting as the Canadian Justice Minister, commissioner of Revenue, The Canadian Minister of Revenue and the Canadian Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. , and to the private man known as or near to being accurate as Steven Wright acting a s a officer of the RCMP from Carnduff Saskatchwan.
Fax: For the private man Michael Dorais:
Fax: For the private man John McCallum:
Fax: For the private man Guiliano Zaccardelli:
Fax : for the private man Steven Wright: 1-306-482-4402
Hello gentlemen I am Minister Matt Lozinski, an officiating minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International , Hyas eccelsia . I wish you to be aware that it is a violation of my faith to bow to men and women acting as de facto gods, being the de facto governments of man creating law in addition to God’s laws and in derogation to his law. This is especially true when it applies to men and women who have no understanding of the established and in force law regarding their oaths of allegiance to the Christian monarch her Majesty the Queen.
As a result of my unavoidable awareness of corruption within the police, judiciary, and various political bodies of this country I am, as of my duty to defend my Christian faith, and in an official performance of a function of my calling, compelled to demand of you the private men, true certified copies of your oath’s of allegiance, to prove to me, in my ministerial function, that you understand the true meaning of your oaths in law.
It is agreed that I make these demands in quest of honor and upholding God’s law.
It is agreed that you know and understand I am performing an official function of my calling as a Christian minister in defense of the faith in making this ministerial demand of honor that you will deliver to me the meaning of the law, regarding your oath, that is still in force and that I make this demand as of the evident corruption in posiitions of power.
It is agreed that the facts will be evident that you are not competent to practice law enforce law or collect taxes if you do not know the true, in law, meaning of your oath to the Queen as defender of the faith.
It is agreed that no man or woman can be competent to practice or enforce law or collect taxes if they do not know or dishonorably refuse to offer the law and definition thereof regarding their own oaths to one in official function of his calling as a minister of God.
Please deliver to me your honor in your intent to uphold your lawful oath as defined in law.
It is agreed by you that one who takes an oath to be truly allegiant to a Christian monarch to get the job and does not know what their oath in active law means when asked, is indicating they are incompetent as they lied or were foolish when they said they would be faithful and bear true allegiance. Can you provide true allegiance if you do not know what it is? It is agreed that this is evidence of either incompetence or perjury in obtaining official status by a deception, and is also known as fraud and impersonating.
Exodus 20:3-5 Leviticus 6:2
It is agreed by you that you will uphold your oath to support and aid her majesty to defend the law of the King James Bible as the rule of Law defended by the anointed of God Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor. It is agreed by you that you honor your oath as an act of religious worship.
I look forward to your simple agreement and acceptance of this privately offered covenant via your honor in good faith tacit consent of failing to rebut the agreed upon terms with a private reply.
It is agreed that you are aware and know that if you do not reply privately you will be advising me as God’s minister, and the members of our faith who will witness this, of your total agreement with all of the terms offered and that you will act as my witness to that fact should I need you to give evidence.
It is agreed that failure to reply will also be taken as proof positive, with no possible rebuttal, of your agreement with me. It is agreed that the private men and women who act as her majesty’s officers are accomplice and party to the enforcement of taxation with de facto law, and have no public authority from her Majesty the Queen to intimidate and extort men and women of Christian faith to violate their faith.
It is agreed that the failure to rebut and dispute this good faith agreement will mean in submission and understanding, by all parties to this private notice, that we have a good faith covenant of terms as indicated above and that the Authorized King James Bible is the Supreme rule of law with uncontested standing in the British Commonwealth and no intimidation by any man or woman to violate it’s commands can be possibly seen as lawful.
Please get my name and general delivery correct as you cannot falsify them for a financial purpose without my consent or full knowledge as to what your purpose was, and as of my faith I cannot accept legal fictions applied to me or accept postal coded mail. I will, in two weeks, if you choose to tacitly accept my position and agree, be sending confirmation of our agreement witnessed by three members of the Church to ensure honor is present. Upon your acceptance of the final covenant of terms we will be, in ecclesiastical duty, posting and advertising our mutually beneficial agreement to all sources pertinent to this situation of faith. Matthew 18:15-20
It is agreed that any and all attempts by your de facto incompetent associates to continue this intimidation and violation of our faiths freedoms will be seen as proof and evidence of your mens rea or to be clear guilty mind. Treason is also a descriptive term that is used. I intend to stand in my faith regardless of your de facto attempt to intimidate me, should that be your private choice, as you will have no public protection from de facto incompetent lawyers as they are in conflict. You may wish to refer to the RonCarelli v Duplessis Decision of 1959. He lost. Ezekiel 33:6
I look forward to your agreement in remembrance of Section 22 from the in force law of the Westminster Confession of Faith from 1646.
Do not assume you have any true authority to intimidate me to accept any de facto process.
Print name ____________________________________
Address _____________________________________ _____________________________________
Witnesses _____________________________________ _____________________________________
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
c/o 685 Josselyn Court, Kelowna, British Columbia
no code, non-commercial
Tel: 250-491-0552 Fax: 250-491-0594
c/o 4130 Hales Road, Armstrong, British Columbia
no code, non-commercial
This eighth day, of the twelfth month,
in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, two thousand and five
Attn: Wendy Petersmeyer, the private women
acting as counsel for Her Majesty in Right of Canada
c/o Department of Justice Canada
900-840 Howe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
No code non commercial
Offered Under Protest, of Duress, Threat and Intimidation
Ecclesiastical Agreement &
Covenant of Good Faith
TAKE NOTICE that I James-Albert: Hueston, the living soul, living principal, minister unto God, do aver that the use of this communication is not intended for acknowledging or understanding the alleged jurisdiction of corporate fictions formed by private men and women acting as agents for the de facto government of the debtor corporation of Canada. This communication will be of intent to gain your agreement with the provided facts, as known to me to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, correct, complete and certain without the intent to mislead under penalty of perjury. I wish no argument with you but must ensure I only communicate to those in honor and standing in God’s Kingdom of the living.
1. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal that, an alleged debt owing to the de facto corporation A.K.A. Canada Revenue Agency(CRA) and/or Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and/or Revenue Canada by the state created and owned fiction JAMES A. HUESTON, was attempted in honor to be discharged by the best knowledge of me the man of God being James Albert Hueston(myself, I, me), the live flesh and blood sentient soul standing in God’s Kingdom, and that I being that man and the minister of God was put under threat duress and intimidation by the de facto state to act on behalf of the state created and owned fiction in August of 2002, and did attempt satisfy the alleged debt by paying with a verifiable and lawful Bill of Exchange.
2. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that, no notice was given to myself that this good faith offer settlement, via lawful Bill of Exchange, was disallowed nor was the Bill of Exchange ever returned to indicate payment was rejected or refused contrary to 153 of that enactment that applies to the Federal Government and all their departments and agencies.
3. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that another Bill of Exchange was issued in March of 2005 as per the Bills of Exchange Act and that the bill being paid was not returned as cancelled and/or discharged by private men and women acting as agents of Her Majesty employed by CRA.
4. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that no notice was given to me that these good faith offers were disallowed even though it was asked of the private agent via a cover letter to please inform the writer if there was a problem with settlement and to contact the writer immediately.
5. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that provincial court Bailiffs are not lawful deputies of the Federal Attorney General of Canada. (See section 2 Criminal code of Canada and Bruno Decision 2003 British Columbia Supreme Court(BCSC), Ezekiel 33:6) It is further agreed that the private men acting as unlawful deputies with pseudo law and de facto claims descend upon the hanger building located at the Salmon Arm Airport owned by myself and used as a sanctuary and repository for my property, and proceeded unlawfully seizeto all of said property including all contents therein including property not owned by me and being that of other Church members.
6. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that liens on the property of the state created legal fiction owned by Canada being the all capital corporate debtor name known as a nom de gerre, JAMES A. HUESTON, were placed with the Personal Property Registry in the year 2000 in the miscellaneous section of the PPR contrary to section 125 of the British North American Act.
7. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that James Albert Hueston the man acting under threat duress and intimidation on behalf of the unlawful state created fiction JAMES A. HUESTON, licensed and insured several vehicles through the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia(ICBC) even though there were provincial civil law PPR liens placed by Canada Revenue Agency Federal Employee’s on the legal fiction property owned by Canada being JAMES A. HUESTON contrary to the provisions of section 91, 92 and 125 of the British North American Act.
8. It is agreed by you, with no rebuttal to the fact, that the 1994 Ford pick-up bearing serial number ITFEX14N5RKA15012 was registered and insured with ICBC by myself who was under threat, duress and intimidation to do so.
9. It is agreed by you, with no rebuttal to the fact that the de facto provinces and Canada in awareness, consort and collusion unlawfully created and own the legal fiction JAMES A. HUESTON, and this was achieved as a result of the unlawful practice of all provincial registries creating this all capital corporate name for a financial purpose without the permission of the man in full allodial possession of the Christian appellation of upper and lower case lawful formation and as such the registry was done in fraud by specifically refusing to record the Christian appellation accurately in the Queen’s lawful grammar of upper and lower case first name middle name and family name, this action being influenced unlawfully and intentionally directed by the international united nations organization called Huridoc’s.
10. It is agreed by you, with no rebuttal to the fact that such de facto registered Ford pick-up bearing serial number ITFEX14N5RKA15012 was lawfully in unawareness of any dejure claim and in ecclesiastical good faith traded in on a 1994 Ford Cube van bearing serial number 1FDKE30M7RHB19026 and was registered by the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption under protest of threat duress and intimidation to do so and to use flesh based de facto fiat currency recognized and created in fraud by the Bank of Canada.
11. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that a lien search contractually was purchased by myself at the Province of British Columbia Access Center in Vernon, British Columbia on September 1st 2005 A.D., to ensure that no liens existed, and as a result of that diligent effort no liens at all were found to be existing on the 1994 Ford pick-up as confirmed by two subsequent searches on the same vehicle, performed by Jona Emke the owner of the car lot where the trade in and purchase of the cube van took place.
12. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that most car dealers in the province of British Columbia access BC OnLine for lien searches on trade-in of automobiles and trucks to verify that no liens exist. It is further agreed by you the purpose of the registry is to lawfully alert the one being liened that the lien exists and that whatever is liened cannot be sold until the lien is satisfied. It is further agreed by you that entrapment, deliberate deception and unlawful action is being practiced by the private men and women acting as CRA being de facto Federal Employee’s attempting to act as lawful deputies of the Attorney General of the province contrary to the lawful definition of Attorney General’s lawful deputies in section 2 of the criminal code as decided by the BCSC Bruno Decision of 2002. It is further agreed by you that the word de facto used by the Governor General of Canada to describe her position as head of state means unlawful usurped authority.
13. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that the dealer, Jona Emke the private man acting in his capacity as owner of Global Truck Sales, Kelowna, British Columbia. accessed BC OnLine to verify the computer print out of the lien search provided by myself and twice found no lien on file.
14. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that the private men and women acting for the de facto CRA, in unlawful conspiracy and premeditated collusion to effect a damage upon the financial state of myself, placed an unlawful lien on the legal fiction name that they unlawfully in fraud created for a financial purpose without the permission of myself and as such the creation of the all capital legal fiction name is property owned by Canada, such created legal fiction corporate debtor name being, JAMES A. HUESTON. It is further agreed by you those private men and women using de facto law did maliciously place an unlawful claim in an obscure place on the provincial registry failing in duty, contrary to 180 of the criminal code, to lawfully inform any agency or private parties that such obscure unlawful liens were registered on all collateral belonging to the unlawfully created fiction JAMES A. HUESTON possibly placing ICBC in a negligent position, acting in collusion and definitely bringing myself to a point of extreme discomfort which speaks to damages.
15. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that the private man named Donald McPhail in his private capacity acting as a de facto Bailiff for NORTH CENTRAL BAILIFF’S LTD., entered church property near Armstrong, British Columbia. with two other Bailiff’s and did unlawfully seize a 1994 E-350 cube van bearing serial number 1FDKE30M7RHB19026 registered to a benevolent Church and non profit organization being under Threat, Duress and Intimidation.
16. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that Donald McPhail was truthfully informed that the 1994 Ford Cube van was registered to and owned by the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption not the state created fiction JAMES A. HUESTON.
17. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that when informed of the ownership of the van Donald McPhail made an unlawful legal determination in his private capacity to disregard proof of registry and then proceeded to commit an illegal seizure of Church property as verified by ICBC registries in offering their honorable legal opinion on the legality of the seizure. It is further agreed by you that Donald McPhail was warned that some of the contents in the van belonged to a third party. This warning was also disregarded and the contents were removed from the property. It is further agreed that the Criminal Code of Canada was produced for Donald McPhail by an officiating minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International claiming a right under section 39.1 over the property in question being the 1994 Ford cube van.
18. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that when informed of the ecclesiastical ownership of the van Donald McPhail made an unlawful legal determination in his private capacity to disregard this proof of registry and warning and proceeded to commit an illegal seizure of Church property as verified by ICBC registries in offering their opinion on the legality of the seizure. It is further agreed that the Criminal Code of Canada was produced for Donald McPhail by an officiating minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International claiming a right under section 39.1 over the property in question being the 1994 Ford cube van.
19. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that Donald McPhail in his private capacity made another unlawful determination confirming, as witnessed by two men, that the Criminal Code of Canada did not apply to him and that he, Donald McPhail was above the law.
20. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that when Donald McPhail was asked for identification proving who he and the others were, made another legal determination stating that providing identification was not a requirement and refused to identify himself.
21. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact a call to the local RCMP detachment in Armstrong to file a complaint of theft was taken by the officer on duty one Doug Baron, and he did advise this was a civil matter and he would not get involved claiming that 39.1 of the Criminal Code was a very obscure part of the code and that I could get myself in trouble for using it. This was witnessed by two men.
22. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that letters of agreement and notice of my faith were sent to several private men and women acting as employees of the CRA, Donald McPhail, private men and women acting as the private man ministers of government agencies etc. in their private capacity ensuring their private awareness and to date there has been no reply to those letters denying anything in them.
23. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that the license plates and the registration for the cube van evidencing that the van was insured were never returned. It is further agreed by you that the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption was never reimbursed for their plates, their insurance or inconvenience of having their property stolen. It is further agreed that personal possessions not belonging to myself and not listed on the seizure order were never returned to the rightful owners after the van had been unlawfully seized and sold along with all contents enclosed.
24. It is agreed with no rebuttal to the fact that you, Wendy Petersmeyer have a sworn oath of allegiance to a Christian Monarch who by law is defender of the Christian faith. It is further agreed by you, that the Westminster confession of faith from 1646 chapter 22 defines your oath in law. It is further agreed that refusing to provide true allegiance to her majesty incapacitates any lawful sanction you may feel you have. It is further agreed by you that perjury and incompetence are evidenced by one and all who do not know the meaning of their oath in law or refuses to provide it when asked. It is further agreed that nuisance is failing to perform your duty oath sworn and thereby bringing myself, the Christian man to a point of discomfort by you, aiding the deliberate acts of intimidation by private men and women acting as de facto government officials in defiance of their own de facto court decisions being Roncarelli v. Duplessis 1959 SCC.
25. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that you are hereby informed of my faith requirements regarding the formation of my name and not accepting commercial postal codes, as shown above as of my religious beliefs. (2Peter 2:3) It is my hope you will not offend my beliefs with the bad faith and discriminatory act of continuing to use my name for a financial enslavement purpose in an altered form without my permission done primarily for your public convenience as per the postal codes in a manner that amounts to a fraud and associates my flesh with a dead thing which is a violation of my faith.
26. It is agreed by you Wendy Petersmeyer with no rebuttal to the fact that if you, the private woman do not rebut, refute or diligently prove the above points of agreement as untrue within fifteen days from receipt of this Ecclesiastical agreement and good faith covenant (if you need more time please ask) otherwise you will be accepting our ecclesiastical good faith offer and covenant of such truth being binding upon you as a private woman. It is further agreed we have no intent to intimidate you. However I am under threat, duress and intimidation by a group of private men and women some of whom are Jewish lawyers who work for the de facto Justice department who are attempting to enforce talmudic law upon me, in my belief, and I am forced to communicate in this manner, as I am not able to trust the de facto system of justice, due to the massive evidence it is unlawful, corrupt and stands as a false God.
27. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that you the private woman work for some of the private men we have placed liens against and that you are aware of the difference between public and private and that you cannot expend taxpayer dollars on private matters.
28. It is agreed by you with no rebuttal to the fact that this issue has been the subject of a petition to the Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor on September 29th 2002 that was the subject of a briefing of the Treasury Board of Canada in 2003 by Cameron McEwan, Senior Analyst for the Treasury Board of Canada at that time, who informed those private men and women that all material in the Petition was true accurate and correct and that they had no precedent in law to deal with the ecclesiastical matters being the subject matter of the Petition.
God bless you in grasping the instant gravity of these matters of agreement between me, as the Christian man performing a function of my calling, and you the private woman.
Sincerely officiating as God’s ministers the following ministers of our Church , but not limited to number, of those who have been intimidated and will testify to that fact.
James Albert Hueston
all rights reserved in God’s law
all rights reserved in God’s law
all rights reserved in God’s law
Salmon Arm Ecclesia
all rights reserved in God’s law
all rights reserved in God’s law
all rights reserved in God’s law
all rights reserved in God’s law
Penticton,, British Columbia Ecclesia
all rights reserved in God’s law
Toronto Ontario Ecclesia
All rights reserved in God’s law
Red Deer Alberta Ontario Ecclesia
All rights reserved in god’s law
Hyas, Saskatchewan Ecclesia
Jerry Lazoroff and Daniel Gurski
All rights reserved in God’s law
Canora, Saskatchewan Ecclesia
c/o Armstrong Ecclesia State of Awareness Armstrong BC no code non commercial
This one got minister Belanger a visit from National Security Intelligence agent Roger Piper and Edmonton Police special investigator John Hansen who were sent by Jean and threatened Minister Belanger to stop writing the MP’s Re: the following……….
Sent March 20th 2001 A.D.
To The Honourable Jean Chretien
Prime Minister of Canada
From Minister of God: Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger (Copy write, no changes or alterations permitted)
Church of Ecumenical Redemption International Heatherdown ecclesia
C/o general delivery
near Onoway, Alberta no code
I would like amend my previous letter of the 16th of this month with this one to make you aware of the crime of treason being committed by various federal judges I have stood before, in defence of the faith and the Christians I represent. I’m a Minister of God bonafide, and his law as contained in the Royal King James Bible decreed by Royal Letters patent and By Royal decree is in every courtroom in the land as defence of the faith.
The preamble to the Canadian Constitution as consented to as advised by the Lords spiritual, is testament to the supremacy of God and his rule of law, for no other law can be superior to God’s law , as God is supreme.
The oath of allegiance to her majesty stems from hundreds of years ago when in defence of the faith the Christian monarchs of early England were consecrated as those Christian monarchs, in the coronation ceremonial signed oath, promising to uphold God’s law as intent on protecting the integrity and honour of God’s court. As did her majesty the Queen Elizabeth the second in 1953 in the royal coronation oath of acclaim before the whole world.
All agents of the crown, magistrates, justices, Judges, commissioners, masters, police politicians, public servants, and agents of the crown of any sort that are sworn allegiant or doing work for her majesty the Queen, defender the faith, head of the church of England, the Christian monarch of the Commonwealth, must in acknowledgement of an oath to the defender of the faith being Christian , and in acknowledgement of the preamble to the Canadian Constitution, recognize the supremacy of God, if asked by a concerned and affected party with authority such as myself. If that oath allegiant to a Christian Monarch ,fails to acknowledge the supremacy of God when asked by anybody with authority to do so they violate their oath of allegiance and section 337CCC and have no jurisdiction in any of the Queens business. They revert themselves to a private party and if they attempt to proceed against you in her majesty’s name, they commit treason. Treason by attempting to overthrow the Queens Government under Gods rule with mans rule under the authority of a Judge.
The judicial oath of the Judges is stored in the office of Denis Guay acting commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. The clerk that holds the files is Junette Bopla. Judith Bellis is the director of Judicial Affairs, she has told her assistant Karen Cutty to inform me that the judges have no written oaths of allegiance and that they only swear to her majesty verbally. This was after I received information from Junette Bopala that the oaths with the signatures were held in her records. Elizabeth Sanderson is connected with Justice and so is Joy Kane I believe, Georgette Sheridan, and Ann Mclellan herself may to also be connected to an all out to attempt, vacant of any bonafide”law”,to prevent me from gaining access to certified copies of the signed oaths of allegiance to her majesty Queen defender the faith the Christian monarch of Canada by the Judges listed below. They are inclined to hang up when they hear me calling even your office staff will do the same when I ask them those two questions of integrity testing nature as have the staff at Rideau house and the RCMP that work there.
When I as a Minister of God, ask Judges, Justices, Masters, Crown prosecutors members of the RCMP, Federal MP’s police CSIS or any other Crown agent that is sworn allegiant to her majesty the Queen if they recognize the supremacy of God such as the infamous Revenue Canada crew, if they fail to answer in the affirmative they are not agents of the Queen they are imposters.
I hope the vision I witnessed in the church during Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s funeral was that of one that Sincerely has faith in God and does so recognize his supremacy. This will make my job a lot easier as I fear the dark forces spoken on at Ephesians 6: 10-16 have taken hold of our justice system and behind the very doors of the Governor General’s office. I have on my armour (Ephesians 6:10-20)and will repel the darts that these dark skirted Lords have attempted to throw at me in preventing me access to those oaths and the justice Ministers office even telling the Governor Generals aid Joanne Menier that even she could not see them, this the Queens reps assistant! The oath is to the Queen not the Judges! The Queen and anyone else in defence of the faith has the right to ask and be replied to in respect in the affirmative,
I have made deliberate attempts to communicate my intent to the Minister of justice the Solicitor General’s office the Governor General’s office to (governor’s office of Alberta the justice ministers office of Alberta the chief justice of the provincial Court of Alberta Edward Walter the RCMP K. division a Mr. Chill, an inspector I believe who was not it all interested in my claims of treason and my proof via the documents of the Canadian Constitution the statutes of Westminster and coronation oath of 1953. I was not able to convince the RCMP officer telling me he was inspector Schill to at least investigate. I have also attempted to communicate with Jag the military component of the public judiciary. The people I have spoken to at these departments t do not understand their oath of allegiance to the Christian monarch as the Lt. at the Namao JAG office.He told me he only swore allegiance to that part of her majesty that was head of the state of Canada. I asked him “where is your bloody Sword that you just severed her majesty with and who gave you the authority to decide which part of her majesty you consider appropriate to swear an oath of allegiance to?” He was needless to say left speech less and declined any further comment after I asked him if he recognised the supremacy of God. to this date after many requests to Department of Defence to investigate my claims they have expressed little or no interest in pursuing the crime of treason.
If it is the judiciary that are committing treason we can hardly expect judiciary to find them guilty unless the Queen is lying on the floor in a pool of blood and the Judge has a smoking gun in his hand. Since a portion of the judiciary have via the Kol Nidre or the masonic oath ascribed to in the masonic handbook, secretly declined their oaths and have no faith in God as supreme. I must include, in faith of God and in common sense as a man created by God that these Judges have a hidden agenda, a private law that we’re not informed of nor ruled by.
The rule of law in Canada it is as the Queen has proclaimed, God’s law is permanent, as I would turn you to Deuteronomy in the Queens Royal Law the Kings James Bible 4: 1-2: 12:32 and numerous other scriptures wherein God’s law is commanded by God to neither add to nor take away. This intent is further supported by Paul in Romans 16: 17-20, wherein he advises to beware of those that would divide you from the doctrine. Romans 13 states that he is Gods minister several times, any minister of God will proudly proclaim their recognition of that supremacy to anyone that asks. They the judges I am complaining about will not reply when asked indicating extreme arrogance and that they do not feel allegiant to the Queen. This said indicates they have no jurisdiction in any matters before the court as they are not the court formed under her majesty in defence of the faith to be supervised by allegiants that are equipped to know the law! No allegiance, no recognition of God as Supreme = no Canadian Judge!!!
The Queen having sworn to uphold God’s law and having accepted the royal law from the Archbishop of Canterbury as the greatest gift in the world, empowers her allegiant’s with the royal law the lively oracle of God as supreme. Any of those so-called allegiant men or women that fail to recognize the duty of their oath to a Christian Monarch and open recognition of the preamble (inclusive of God’s supremacy ) to the supreme law of Canada must either resign their position or continue in Dishonour and commit treason.
You may say this is a violation of the charter rights and freedoms as religious discrimination, but that charter does not apply to me, but only to you and all the rest of the government Federal and provincial(section32). I have no contract to a relationship that is bona fide with the government of Canada I am not a member of the body corporate or the body politic neither am I an entity or described as a statutory person enslaved to any fiat debt equity structure perpetrated by Canadian customs and revenue or the IMF or the world bank.
I am a Minister of the Most High with Jesus Christ as my saviour as he appears is yours. Our common bond is the same that the Queen defends. I hope this truth and faith in God will get by the red tape and cause you to inquire into this blasphemic attempt at treason and as to just exactly what the Hell is going on!
I even Had the RCMP at Rideau Hall threaten to cut off my phone under 372 of the CC because of my insistence on reporting the crime of treason now that is a conspiracy of a weird nature!
The operators there were instructed to hang up on me as soon as I spoke. They did today leave my line open for over half an hour preventing me from using my own phone without a court order to do so. I hope they taped those calls I wish you to hear what I asked them as a Minister of God. And because of my defence of the faith I have been hung up on or refused to return my calls by all of the aforementioned parties now inclusive of Mr. Guay who was amazed at what I told him and shocked to hear my request. He among the group seemed most sincere aside from Ms. Meneir the GG’s assistant who was told by Justice that even she as the GG’s assistant who wanted to see a Judges oath would to be refused and that the FOIP would not apply in this circumstance!!! I commend Mr Guay for his efforts to not get caught in the cross fire he is an integral man and you should be proud to have him in your judicial staff and as a loyal agent of the crown her majesty the Queen. The worst case of arrogantitis I have ever seen was Master Quinn,of the Alberta court of Queens Bench, he, after being asked the Questions of allegiance and primadeo recognition by a Christian minister in defence of a fellow Christian, told he had no jurisdiction without the courts affirmation of the questions and told that if he proceeded he would be committing treason, then tilted his head sideways and said “what do I care of the Queen I’m Irish, I have a tough neck” This alone if not treason on the record is contempt of court!!!!
Please investigate as the superior public servant in as expedient fashion as treason permits. I will await what a reasonable man would conclude would be enough time to get a oath allegiant response to such a factual allegation of this magnitude from an office of your influence. Please adhere to the tenants of 337 of the criminal code as I as a minister of God and a freeman sovereign under God and in her majesty’s Queen Elizabeth’s name, in defence of the faith, do so hereby make this request of you to tell me what law exists and to provide me with that law that is bonafide in Canada as proclaimed by the Queen, that has the power to prevent me or any other concerned party of faith from gaining access to and receiving a certified copy of these oaths of allegiance to the Queen sworn to by the pending judges of this country’s court system.
I anxiously await your reply
Minister of God Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
March 17th 2001 A.D.
To: Denis Guay: Acting commissioner for the Commission of Federal Judicial Affairs
From: Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger (Copy write, no changes or alterations permitted)
C/o general delivery
near Onoway, Alberta
This is a repeat formal request for the signed oaths of allegiance to her majesty the Queen Elizabeth II of England of the following Federal Judges, justices masters and adjudicating members, that did subscribe to her majesty’s oath upon taking the office of Judge Justice etc.
Justice Costigan of the Alberta Court of Appeals
Master Quinn of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench
Justice Belzil of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench
Member Loreen Clark Adjudicator Adjudication appeal division immigration Canada
Member Paul Kyba Adjudicator Adjudication Appeal division immigration Canada
Daphne Shaw Dyck Adjudication appeal division immigration Canada
Anita Bascariol Adjudicator Adjudication appeal division immigration Canada
Sylvia Albi-Rapaj QC Immigration
Gary Reimer QC Immigration
A Mr. McQuage QC Justice Canada Alberta
Elinor Caplan MP Minister of Immigration
If you choose denial of access, I demand the reasons, in legislation format, in line with 337 of the CCC that you may deny me access to these proudly proclaimed documents of integrity..
Without free public access to these documents it challenges and brings justice to disrepute. The Judges will not want to let anyone to see them as some of them are committing treason in her majesty’s name and wish to be immune to any reproach.
As a Minister of God and in defence of the faith I demand in her majesty Queen Elizabeth’s name that certified copy’s of the oaths of the allegiants of the crown listed above so hereby requested in good faith and expectation be released to me immediately in the administration of justice and the sanctity of our judicial system.
The criminal code has provision that these documents must be released not withstanding superceding legislation and allows for a prison penalty if not complied with.
Public servant refusing to deliver property
337. Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty
in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and
entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or
control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is
authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
R.S., c. C 34, s. 297.
Please do not get caught up with aiding and abetting a crime, ask for the originating authority that may have the audacity to suggest that you cannot release them. Please do not obstruct justice, these documents are to be used in a test prior to criminal proceedings involving treason on the part of certain judges justices etc.
Please take the time to read the preamble to the Canadian Constitution and then read section 32.
This will tell you who is in charge as the first line tells you.
Looking forward to your reply in an expeditious manner as the reason for it’s request is treason taking place in the courts and must be dealt with post haste.
Sincerely in defence of the faith and in God’s light to cut the darkness
Minister of God
CC: Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth 011-44-207-839-5950
The Archbishop of Canterbury 011-01-227- 450964
Governor General Adrienne Clarkson 1-613-998-1664
Privy Council of Canada 1-613-992-3700
The House of Commons 1-613-992-1273
The Senate 1-613-992-1995
Prime Minister Jean Chretien 1-613-941-6900
Solicitor General Lawrence McAuly 1-613-952-2240
Justice Minister Mclellan 1-613-990-7255
Judith Beliss Director Judicial Affairs 1-613-990-7255
Elinor Caplan Immigration Minister 1-613-952-5533
Loreen Clark Immigration Adjudicator1-613-6666582
Elinor Caplan Minister of Immigration1-613-952-5533
Daphne Shaw-Dyck > Immigration Adjudication1-613-6666582
Anita Bascariol.Immigration Adjudicator1-613-6666582
The Governor General of Alberta Lois Hole
The Attorney General of Alberta Dave Hancock
Justice Costigan Alberta
Justice Belzil Alberta
Master Quinn Alberta
Canadian Council of Churches 1-416-236-4532
Cannabis Culture MAgazine 1-425-795-7189
Judges as Criminals
CIRCUIT COURT A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).
The United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge "Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through 'Operation Greylord', a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago". Bracey v. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).
Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges. The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge Greylord II (Chief Judge Donald O'Connell). The Circuit Court of Cook County
is a criminal enterprise
Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/
ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with, aiding and abeting, another judge's criminal activity.
TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW
The Illinois Supreme Court has held that "if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court "could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, - it had no authority to make that finding." The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.
When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law,and are engaged in treason (see below).
The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. ... it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse."
When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original].
By law, a judge is a state officer.
The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states "Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.'"
In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that "The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.'"
Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...".
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What is the penalty for treason?
Citizens for Legal Responsibility suggest that the following judges may have acted without jurisdiction and therefore may have engaged in an act or acts of treason:
Judge Philip L. Bronstein
Justice Robert Chapman Buckley
Judge Grace G. Dickler
Judge Thomas C. Dudgeon (DuPage County)
Presiding Judge Timothy C. Evans
Judge Lester D. Foreman
Chief Judge Michael Galasso (DuPage County)
Justice Michael J. Gallagher
Judge Francis A. Gembala
Justice Thomas E. Hoffman
Judge Moshe Jacobius
Judge Thomas James
Judge Aubrey F. Kaplan
Judge Philip S. Lieb
Judge Veronica B. Mathein
Justice Sheila M. O'Brien
Chief Judge Donald O'Connell (Cook County)
Judge Edmund Ponce de Leon
Judge Daniel J. Sullivan
Justice Mary Jane Theis
Judge William F. Ward, Jr.
Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprison of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.
Please let us know shortly if you intend in honor to bring this issue up to defend the foundation of the law in this country or in fact you will just like the liberals continue the Intimidation and deliberate violation of the criminal code by doing nothing…We in honor need to know your fully aware intent very soon..
Blessings From Minister Hueston et al!!!
City University of New York Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 1 Winter 2005 Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision-Making Sanja Zgonjanin CUNY School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons The CUNY Law Review is published by the Office of Library Services at the City University of New York. For more information please contact email@example.com. Recommended Citation Sanja Zgonjanin, Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision-Making, 9 N.Y. City L. Rev. 31 (2005). Available at: 10.31641/clr090102 Quoting the Bible: The Use of Religious References in Judicial Decision- Making Acknowledgements The author thanks Professor Ruthann Robson for her invaluable comments and suggestions. This article is available in City University of New York Law Review: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/clr/vol9/iss1/3 QUOTING THE BIBLE: THE USE OF RELIGIOUS REFERENCES IN JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING Sanja Zgonjanin* INTRODUCTION The use of religion in judicial decision-making is the subject of an ongoing debate.1 Whether and to what extent a decision is based on religious argument or influenced by religious convictions is a difficult question to answer. While scholars disagree on the appropriateness of religious arguments or influences in judicial decision- making,2 they commonly recognize that explicit reference to religious authority in a written opinion is problematic.3 Many * J.D. Candidate, City University of New York School of Law, May 2006; M.A., Columbia University, 2000; M.L.S., Queens College, 1999. The author thanks Professor Ruthann Robson for her invaluable comments and suggestions. 1 See Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, S. 520, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 1070, 109th Cong. (2005). 2 Scholars differ on the issue of the appropriateness of religion in judicial decision- making. However, most legal literature on the issue is written from the perspective advocating the use of religion in judicial decision-making. That viewpoint is shared by moderates and conservatives alike. See generally MICHAEL J. PERRY, RELIGION IN POLITICS: CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL PERSPECTIVES 102-04 (1999); KENT GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND POLITICAL CHOICE 239-41 (1988) [hereinafter GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS]; Scott C. Idleman, The Concealment of Religious Values in Judicial Decisionmaking, 91 VA. L. REV. 515 (2005) [hereinafter Idleman, Concealment]; Teresa S. Collett, “The King’s Good Servant, but God’s First”: The Role of Religion in Judicial Decisionmaking, 41 S. TEX. L. REV. 1277 (2000); Mark B. Greenlee, Faith on the Bench: The Role of Religious Belief in the Criminal Sentencing Decisions of Judges, 26 U. DAYTON L. REV. 1 (2000); Daniel G. Ashburn, Appealing to a Higher Authority?: Jewish Law in American Judicial Opinions, 71 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 295 (1994). 3 GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 239 (“Judicial opinions are formalized justifications for decisions. Opinions are supposed to refer only to what is legally relevant . . . . What is legally relevant is generally conceived to be the same for all judges, so neither personal religious convictions nor any other idiosyncratic convictions are legally relevant. Given this understanding about judicial opinions, it follows that opinions should not contain direct references to the religious premises of judges.”); Mark C. Modak-Truran, Reenchanting the Law: The Religious Dimension of Judicial Decision Making, 53 CATH. U. L. REV. 709, 814 (2004) (“In addition, judges are not insincere by leaving their religious or comprehensive justifications out of their opinions but consistent with the Establishment Clause (i.e., the ‘rule of law’) and a proper understanding of religious pluralism. Leaving out religious justifications also facilities [sic] consensus on legal results and lower-level legal rules and principles without raising the thorny philosophical, theological, and hermenuetical [sic] questions implicated by religious justifications.”); Scott C. Idleman, The Limits of Religious Values in Judicial Decisionmaking, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 537, 542-43 (1998) (“In fact, given that religious bases may be less than universal in their acceptance among the relevant audiences to the opinion, it is quite sensible that the judge would not necessarily 31 32 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 judges are religiously active and outspoken about the impact of religion on their work.4 Some well-known Supreme Court justices were, and are, deeply religious.5 Unlike the past, today’s Supreme Court Justices, such as Antonin Scalia, speak publicly about their religious faith.6 Some judges have explicitly stated in their opinions that “[c]ourts must recognize that the state is but one of several spheres of government, each with its distinct jurisdiction and make reference to them in the act of justification.”); Bruce A. Green, The Role of Personal Values in Professional Decisionmaking, 11 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 19, 35 (1997) (“One would expect that a savvy judge who bases his or her decision on personal morality will not do so explicitly, but will cite only legally relevant grounds for the decision.”); Kent Greenawalt, Religious Expression in the Public Square—The Building Blocks for an Intermediate Position, 29 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1411, 1419 (1996); see generally David Barringer, Higher Authorities, A.B.A. J., Dec. 1996, at 68. 4 See, for example, Raul A. Gonzalez, Climbing the Ladder of Success—My Spiritual Journey, 27 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 1139, 1157 (1996), in which Texas Supreme Court Justice Gonzalez describes his religious re-awakening and the impact his faith had on his decisions, including Nelson v. Krusen, 678 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1984); Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. 1984); In re Unnamed Baby McLean, 725 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1987); Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1988); Cox v. Thee Evergreen Church, 836 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1992), Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home, 847 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1993); Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. 1993); Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1996); and Krishnan v. Sepulveda, 916 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. 1995). He concludes: In each of the above cases, my relationship with God impacted the way I considered and wrote about the issues presented. How we experience God and our level of religious commitment (or lack of commitment) impacts our work. One’s views on how the world began, sin, forgiveness, and redemption influences our attitudes, behavior, and everything that we do. Gonzalez, supra, at 1157. 5 See generally James W. Gordon, Religion and the First Justice Harlan: A Case Study in Late Nineteenth Century Presbyterian Constitutionalism, 85 MARQ. L. REV. 317 (2001); Thomas C. Berg & William G. Ross, Some Religiously Devout Justices: Historical Notes and Comments, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 383 (1998); Stephen L. Carter, The Religiously Devout Judge, 64 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 932 (1989). Some judges believe that they have a right to use religious references in justifying their decisions. Judge Griffen, who is also a Baptist pastor, explains why he thinks he has that right: Finally, devout judges must remain sensitive to the important role that religious values and their proper expression serve within a pluralistic society. If the devout judge does not remind society that certain conduct is condemned as offensive to domestic tranquility, contrary to the laws of nature, or inconsistent with truth, then society is denied the value of that information and judgment in its pursuit of justice. The give-and-take of competing moral, behavioral, intellectual, and cultural philosophies is how a pluralistic society operates. The devout judge, as a citizen of two societies, helps society remain pluralist by thinking and acting in a holistic way, not by trivializing religious conviction. Wendell L. Griffen, The Case for Religious Values in Judicial Decision-Making, 81 MARQ. L. REV. 513, 520 (1998). 6 See Joan Biskupic, Scalia Makes The Case for Christianity; Justice Proclaims Belief in Miracles, WASH. POST, Apr. 10, 1996, at A1; see also, e.g., Michael Stokes Paulsen & Steffen N. Johnson, Scalia’s Sermonette, 72 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 863 (1997). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 33 limited authority granted by God,”7 and “that God, not the state or any government established by man, is the source of all our rights.”8 Some judges use religion as an alternative to traditional sentencing such as jail or rehabilitation for drug and alcohol offenders. 9 Other judges go as far as prohibiting the parents in a divorce decree from exposing their child to “non-mainstream” religious beliefs and rituals.10 Despite the unprecedented presence of religion in the lives of ordinary American citizens,11 some scholars12 continue to maintain “a modern myth that religion is somehow persecuted in American life.”13 Responding to the argument that explicit religious references are rare or absent from judicial opinions,14 this Article will demonstrate that judges’ personal religious beliefs and religious education very often find a place in decisions they write.15 A quick 7 Ex parte G.C., No. 1040001, 2005 WL 1793345, at *22 (Ala. July 29, 2005) (Parker, J., dissenting). 8 Id. at *14 (Bolin, J., concurring specially). 9 See Alan Maimon, Judge Lets Some Defendants Attend Worship as Sentencing Option, COURIER-J. (Louisville, KY), May 31, 2005, at A1. Michael Caperton, a Laurel district judge since 1994 and a devout Christian, offered the option of attending worship for ten services “about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders.” Id. 10 See Kevin Corcoran, Father Appeals Anti-Wicca, INDIANAPOLIS STAR, May 26, 2005, at A1. 11 See generally Faith Based and Community Initiatives, http:// www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/index.html (last visited Jan. 24, 2006). In the field of legal theory, one author suggested it is time to develop a Christian jurisprudence. Jonathan Edward Maire, The Possibility of a Christian Jurisprudence, 40 AM. J. JURIS. 101, 101-02 (1995). 12 Paulsen & Johnson, supra note 6, at 867 (commenting that Justice Scalia’s speech at a prayer breakfast at the First Baptist Church in Jackson, Mississippi, on April 9, 1996, was “about the clash of world views between Christianity and today’s dominant culture. It was about the difficulties of being a Christian in a secular world—our culture and, especially, our legal culture.”). 13 Biskupic, supra note 6, at A7 (quoting James Dunn, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs). 14 Idleman, Concealment, supra note 2, at 520 (“To most observers of the American legal system, including its participants, the absence of overt religious language or reasoning in judicial decisionmaking is unremarkable. In all likelihood, it is not even noticed.”); Modak-Truran, supra note 3, at 786-87 (“[e]xplicit religious references rarely appear in judicial opinions.”); Berg & Ross, supra note 5, at 387 (“Note, however, the limits on the importance of religious arguments. First, such arguments do not appear as often as one might expect in an age of pervasive Christianity: one can basically count them on two hands.”); Richard H. Hiers, The Death Penalty and Due Process in Biblical Law, 81 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 751, 752 (2004) (“Biblical texts occasionally are even cited as authority in judicial opinions.”). 15 See generally J. Michael Medina, The Bible Annotated: Use of the Bible in Reported American Decisions, 12 N. ILL. U. L. REV. 187 (1991). This annotation collects cases where a court directly cites a biblical passage, and the author lists the following doctrines for which the Bible is cited as the foundation: “the sequestration rule, punitive damages, forgiveness of debts, due process, forfeiture, alien rights, statutory construc34 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Westlaw online survey of federal and state cases for the use of biblical books, such as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, produces a high number of results.16 Interestingly, courts of the nineteenth century rarely quoted the Bible, despite the fact that many judges were devoutly religious and active in their local congregations. 17 Quoting the Bible is much more characteristic of twentieth-century American courts and is a matter of great concern to anyone who believes that judicial decision-making should not be based on comprehensive doctrines such as religion.18 The first part of this Article discusses the judicial use of the Bible in criminal sentencing by trial courts. The second part examines some of the ways in which courts undermine the religious character of biblical quotations. The third part examines the variety of purposes for which courts use biblical quotations. The fourth part is a case study of judicial use of two specific biblical tion, basic agency doctrine, tenancy by the entirety, the two-witness rule, the right of confrontation, judicial impartiality, criminalization of sodomy, the necessity defense to criminal charges, the right of free travel, usury, eminent domain, impeachment of witnesses, the law of apportionment, property tax exemptions, double jeopardy, and various elements of past and present domestic relations law.” Id. at 189-91. 16 For example, a Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006 resulted in the following: Genesis 1 is quoted in 10 state and 11 federal cases; Exodus 21 is quoted in 59 state and 27 federal cases; Leviticus 24 is quoted in 5 state and 8 federal cases; Deuteronomy 19 is quoted in 16 state and 7 federal cases. In the same search, the word Leviticus appeared in 126 state, 89 federal, and 4 Supreme Court cases; the word Deuteronomy appeared in 173 state, 100 federal, and 5 Supreme Court cases. This author’s review of search results showed that only a small number of quotations are part of the facts of a case. Due to the lack of more precise search methods in Westlaw and Lexis databases that would allow comprehensive inquiries of biblical quotations, this Article was limited to a discussion of a very narrow scope of biblical quotations in judicial opinions. 17 See infra Appendix. 18 John Rawls based his theory of justice on the concept of public reason shared by all citizens, “independent of opposing and conflicting philosophical and religious doctrines,” and “an overlapping consensus of reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines.” He said: The religious doctrines that in previous centuries were the professed basis of society have gradually given way to principles of constitutional government that all citizens, whatever their religious view, can endorse. Comprehensive political and moral doctrines likewise cannot be endorsed by citizens generally, and they also no longer can, if they ever could, serve as the professed basis of society. JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM 9-10 (1993). Rawls viewed the Supreme Court as the best exemplar of public reason in a society of constitutional regime with judicial review and argued that public reason is “well suited to be the court’s reason in exercising its role . . . .” Id. at 231. But see generally GREENAWALT, Publicly Accessible Grounds of Decision and Religious Convictions, in RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 49-84; and Richard Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory, 111 HARV. L. REV. 1637 (1998). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 35 passages, Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13. The fifth part considers the judicial use of religious references other than the Bible. The Article concludes that the use of religious references in judicial decision- making should be prohibited.19 “The Christian state knows only privileges.”20 Christian faith is privileged in the United States.21 Because a privilege is not a right, the government is under no obligation to confront the injustice and discrimination created by it.22 On the contrary, since the religious beliefs of a majority of Americans are associated with Christianity, 23 such privilege is largely invisible and sustained by the power it creates.24 As is often the case, the characteristics of the majority become so internalized that they are considered the social norm.25 In a way, they “domesticate” the minority.26 Additionally, 19 “The justices cannot, of course, invoke their own personal morality, nor the ideals and virtues of morality generally. Those they must view as irrelevant. Equally, they cannot invoke their or other people’s religious or philosophical views.” RAWLS, supra note 18, at 236. 20 KARL MARX, On The Jewish Question, in 3 KARL MARX & FREDERICK ENGELS: COLLECTED WORKS 1843-44, at 146, 146 (Jack Cohen et al. trans., 1975). 21 Joseph R. Duncan, Jr., Privilege, Invisibility, and Religion: A Critique of the Privilege that Christianity Has Enjoyed in the United States, 54 ALA. L. REV. 617, 626 (2003). See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952) (upholding a New York City program permitting public schools to release students to attend religious instruction and stating, “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”); Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892) (holding that a statute prohibiting the contracting of foreigners to perform labor and services did not apply to clergy, and stating that “this is a Christian nation”). 22 See Duncan, supra note 21, at 621. 23 See BARRY A. KOSMIN ET AL., THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY 12 (2001), http:// www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf (on file with the author). According to the most comprehensive study of religious identification of American adults, done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 76.5% of the U.S. population self-identifies as Christians. Id. See also Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America, http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html (last updated Jan. 24, 2006). 24 Duncan, supra note 21, at 622. See also Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 2005). Applying Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the court held that the county board’s invocation policy excluding a county resident’s Wiccan religion was constitutionally sound and that the Wiccan religion was not monotheistic, did not “fit broadly within ‘the Judeo-Christian tradition,’” and lacked “the unifying aspects of our heritage.” Id. 25 See Stephanie M. Wildman with Adrienne D. Davis, Language and Silence: Making Systems of Privilege Visible, 35 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 881, 890 (1995). See also STEPHANIE M. WILDMAN, PRIVILEGE REVEALED: HOW INVISIBLE PREFERENCE UNDERMINES AMERICA 141 (1996). [O]ur social system is not supposed to privilege organized religion or religious belief over the secular realm. But this protection of the secular creates a peculiar vacuum, in which religion is supposed to be invisible, yet Christmas is a national holiday. Even the phrasing ‘church [but 36 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 religious practices and expressions are widely accepted and sanctioned by courts based on their context27 or tradition.28 It is now accepted that religious practices and expressions that are deeply embedded in the nation’s history and tradition do not violate the Constitution.29 They include, among others, opening the Supreme Court session with “God save the United States and this honorable not synagogue or mosque] and state’ privileges Christianity as the defining religion for constitutional drafting. Systems of privilege and the religious/ secular dichotomy intertwine with the rule of law to contribute to the undermining of justice. Systemic privileging and oppression remain invisible and undiscussed, in accordance with the unwritten rules of our society. The rule of law does nothing to end this invisibility and may even contribute to its continuation. Thus the very act of seeing that the rule of law and systems of privilege undermine justice is itself problematic. A full attack on privileging and oppression can begin in earnest only when the legal profession recognizes this privileging dynamic. But this reality—privilege—that we must see has not even found articulation in legal vocabulary. Id. 26 The term “domestication” is borrowed from lesbian legal theory. “Domestication also describes a process of substituting one way of thinking for another. Domestication has occurred when the views of the dominant culture, in this case legal culture, are so internalized they are considered common sense.” Ruthann Robson, Mother: The Legal Domestication of Lesbian Existence, 7 HYPATIA 172, 172 (1992). 27 See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 621 (1989) (holding that a display of the cr`eche in a county courthouse violates the Establishment Clause while the display of a menorah in front of a county building, in a particular setting next to a Christmas tree, does not); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (holding that “notwithstanding the religious significance of the cr`eche,” its display by the city did not violate the Establishment Clause). Justice Burger stated: It would be ironic, however, if the inclusion of a single symbol of a particular historic religious event, as part of a celebration acknowledged in the Western World for 20 centuries, and in this country by the people, by the Executive Branch, by the Congress, and the courts for 2 centuries, would so “taint” the city’s exhibit as to render it violative of the Establishment Clause. To forbid the use of this one passive symbol— the cr`eche—at the very time people are taking note of the season with Christmas hymns and carols in public schools and other public places, and while the Congress and legislatures open sessions with prayers by paid chaplains, would be a stilted overreaction contrary to our history and to our holdings. Id. at 686. 28 See Freethought Soc’y of Greater Phila. v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247, 269 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that a Ten Commandments plaque affixed to a courthouse is not a real threat to the Establishment Clause). The court noted that “the age and history of the plaque provide a context which changes the effect of an otherwise religious plaque.” Id. at 264 (citing County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 630 (O’Connor, J., concurring)). 29 See Marsh, 463 U.S. at 788-89. Justice Burger held that a century-old practice of opening legislative sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid with public funds does not pose a real threat to the Establishment Clause. Id. at 795. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 37 Court;”30 opening a legislative session with a prayer;31 recognizing the nation in the pledge of allegiance as “one Nation under God;”32 and printing “In God We Trust” on our money,33 and posting it in court rooms, Congressional chambers, and other places of government business. After all, “In God we trust” is our national motto,34 and Thanksgiving and Christmas are national holidays.35 President Reagan even once proclaimed 1983 the year of the Bible.36 The privilege of Christian religion is also affirmed and supported by Congress. For example in 2005, members of Congress introduced a House resolution directing the Speaker of the House to display the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber in case the Supreme Court was to rule that the government display of the Ten Commandments in public places is unconstitutional.37 Advanced by Representatives King, Chabot, Bartlett, Norwood, Pitts, Westmoreland, Blackburn, Fox, Gingrey, Hostettler, Goode, and Alexander, the resolution was introduced in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on two Ten Commandment cases argued during the April 2005 term: Van Orden v. Perry38 and McCreary County v. ACLU.39 The resolution states, among other things, that the House “recognizes that posting the Ten Commandments in the House Chamber is a constitutionally protected expression of our Nation’s heritage and the foundation of our laws.”40 The statement that biblical commands are the foundation of our laws may come as a surprise to law school students who, upon entering law school, first 30 County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 630 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (reaffirming the secular purpose of “ceremonial deism” of the phrase, “God save the United States and this honorable Court,” which, despite its religious roots, does not convey endorsement of a particular religious belief). 31 Marsh, 463 U.S. at 795. See also Simpson, 404 F.3d at 282 (applying Marsh, which “teaches[ ] legislative invocations perform the venerable function of seeking divine guidance for the legislature”). But see Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2990 (2005) (holding that the Town Council’s invoking of Jesus Christ while excluding deities associated with other faiths was “not constitutionally accepted legislative prayer like that approved in Marsh”). 32 4 U.S.C. § 4 (2000). 33 31 U.S.C. § 5112 (2000). 34 36 U.S.C. § 302 (2000). 35 5 U.S.C. § 6103 (1990). 36 S.J. Res. 165, 97th Cong., 96 Stat. 1211 (1982). 37 H.R. Res. 214, 109th Cong. (2005). 38 125 S. Ct. 2854, 2864 (2005) (holding that the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas state capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause). 39 125 S. Ct. 2722, 2745 (2005) (holding that displaying the Ten Commandments at a Kentucky county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause). 40 H.R. Res. 214, 109th Cong. (2005). 38 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 learn about the history and sources of American law. One of the most popular law school books on this topic is the Historical Introduction to Anglo-American Law in a Nutshell.41 In tracing American legal history, this book starts by pointing out that most of the concepts of Anglo-American law were developed in the last eight hundred years,42 thus excluding the Bible as a direct source of our laws. The book also lays out two main sources of law upon which the American legal system relies: cases and statutes.43 The Bible is not mentioned as a source of American law. The privilege of Christianity as the predominant religion in the United States is vigorously supported by the media. While the author was working on this Article, Pope John Paul II died on April 2, 2005.44 Shortly thereafter, on April 11, 2005, Maurice Hilleman, one of the greatest scientists of modern times, died.45 While Pope John Paul II was considered by many to be one of the most important “spiritual leaders and moral teachers of the Modern Era”46 and probably one of the most famous people in the world, microbiologist Maurice Hilleman remained “the world’s best kept secret.” 47 The discrepancy in the print media coverage of the deaths of these two important persons speaks for itself and is stunning. A search of the term “Pope John” in the “Major Newspapers” section of the Lexis News & Business online database produced 1086 entries for the period between April 2, 2005, when the Pope died, and April 3, 2005, when the news was announced. In contrast, a search for “Maurice Hilleman” in the same database for the period between April 11, 2005, when the scientist died, and April 12, 2005, when the news was released, produced only four results: the Balti- 41 FREDERICK G. KEMPIN, JR., HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW IN A NUTSHELL (3d. ed. 1990). 42 Id. at 2. 43 See id. at 95-125. For a detailed explanation of sources of Anglo-American law, see generally CARLETON KEMP ALLEN, LAW IN THE MAKING (1927); and SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW BEFORE THE TIME OF EDWARD I (2d ed. 1923). 44 See After 26-Year Reign, Pontiff Dies at 84, CNN, Apr. 2, 2005, http:// www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/02/pope.dies/index.html; Ian Fisher, Pope John Paul II Dies at 84, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 3, 2005, at A1. 45 Lawrence K. Altman, Maurice Hilleman, Master in Creating Vaccines, Dies at 85, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 12, 2005, at A1. 46 S. Res. 95, 109th Cong. (2005). See also S. Res. 94, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. Res. 186, 109th Cong. (2005). 47 Patricia Sullivan, Maurice R. Hilleman Dies; Created Vaccines, WASH. POST, Apr. 13, 2005, at B6. Maurice Hilleman “invented over 40 vaccines, including those for mumps, chickenpox, measles, rubella, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, and countless variants of the flu virus.” Caroline Richmond, Obituary, Maurice Hilleman; Inventor of More than 40 Vaccines, INDEPENDENT (London), Apr. 20, 2005, at 35. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 39 more Sun, the New York Times, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Seattle Times. While religious expression is recognized as part of American tradition and history, no court has yet provided a reasonable explanation of how the passage of time makes religious expression less religious and more secular so that it becomes a primary source of constitutional legitimacy.48 The proposition that religious practices and expressions do not violate the Constitution because they are accepted by a majority of society or are somehow “secularized” is a dangerous one.49 The government’s endorsement and use of religion encourages the oppression of minorities because it makes religious privilege invisible, allowing the majority in power to use the law according to its own beliefs.50 Congress is the biggest threat today to both judicial independence from religion and the court’s traditional role as the interpreter of the law. Members of Congress introduced the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.51 48 Charles Gregory Warren, No Need to Stand on Ceremony: The Corruptive Influence of Ceremonial Deism and the Need for a Separationist Reconfiguration of the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, 54 MERCER L. REV. 1669, 1691-92 (2003). See also State v. Ceballos, 832 A.2d 14, 55 (Conn. 2003) (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). [N]ot all religious references, including allusions to the Bible, God or other biblical characters, are impermissible. This is because many words and phrases traditionally viewed as religious in nature or derived from religious sources have become, over time, an integral part of the English language, and no longer may be recognized by either prosecutors or jurors as having purely religious connotations or derivations. Consider, for example, the phrases “raising Cain” and “for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” Both phrases are common expressions derived from the Bible. Still other expressions, such as “an eye for an eye,” have both religious and secular origins. Id. (citation omitted). 49 Warren, supra note 48, at 1692-93. 50 See generally Duncan, supra note 21. 51 S. 520, 109th Cong. (2005); see also H.R. 1070, 109th Cong. (2005). The Constitution Restoration Act was first introduced during the 108th Congress. See S. 2082, 108th Cong. (2004); S. 2323, 108th Cong. (2004); H.R. 3799, 108th Cong. (2004). During the 108th Congress, many other bills and resolutions were introduced recog40 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 By imposing its own religious values, the conservative religious right movement is destroying two of the most important values of American society: tolerance and pluralism.52 Attempts by conservative members of Congress to deprive the Supreme Court and the federal courts of their jurisdiction in solving disputes with religious subject matter are without precedent in our history. These attempts undermine the long-standing principle of judicial review articulated in Marbury v. Madison.53 At the same time, courts’ use of religious references and religious convictions in their decisionmaking is on the rise.54 It is hardly worth noting that, in a society with a Christian majority, the majority of judges are Christians.55 The power of the nizing the privilege of Christianity. See also H.R.J. Res. 39, 108th Cong. (2004) (constitutional amendment proposing “[a] law that prescribes the Pledge of Allegiance or provides for United States coins or currency is not a law respecting an establishment of religion because it refers to God in the Pledge or includes a reference to God on coins or currency.”); S. 1558, 108th Cong. (2003) (Religious Liberties Restoration Act proposing: the power to display the Ten Commandments on government property; the power to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on government property; the power to recite the national motto “In God We Trust” on government property; and the power to except this subject matter from the jurisdiction of federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court); S. Con. Res. 91, 108th Cong. (2004) (proposing to designate April 2005 as American Religious History Month and requesting that “the President issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe the year with appropriate ceremonies and activities”). 52 Abraham H. Foxman, Foreword to ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: THE ASSAULT ON TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM IN AMERICA, at iii-iv (1994). This book provides an insight into the grassroots organizing and political commitment of the religious right that led to its enormous power and influence over all three branches of the government in the 1990s. The author defines the religious right as an: array of politically conservative religious groups and individuals who are attempting to influence public policy based on shared cultural philosophy that is antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation. The movement consists mainly of Protestants, most of them evangelical or fundamentalist, a far smaller number of Catholics, and a smattering of Jews. Id. at 7. 53 See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Id. 54 See infra Appendix. 55 The first Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court, Louis D. Brandeis, was appointed in 1916 by President Wilson. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg, From Benjamin to Brandeis to Breyer: Is There a Jewish Seat?, 41 BRANDEIS L.J. 229, 233 (2002). See also Religious Affiliation of the U.S. Supreme Court, http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html (last modified Jan. 31, 2006) (noting that with the confirmation of Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court consists of seven Christian (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Souter, Stevens, and Thomas) and two Jewish (Breyer and Ginsburg) justices). Statistics show that the Supreme Court is 78% Christian, with a Catholic majority of 56%; while 76.5% of the total U.S. population is affiliated with Christianity. Id. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 41 courts to use religious references as they see fit should not be underestimated. Speaking about the power of judicial review, Alexander Bickel once said, “[t]he least dangerous branch of the American government is the most extraordinarily powerful court of law the world has ever known.”56 Judges should be mindful of the power they are vested with and the public trust in their impartiality and refrain entirely from using religious references in their decision-making. Judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which, in addition to its canons requiring that judges uphold the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary,57 clearly states: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.58 The arbitrariness, inconsistency, and lack of law on the use of religious references in decision-making are some of the main reasons why such use should be proscribed. I. RELYING ON THE BIBLE IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING While the use of religious references in judicial decision-making is generally unjustified and inappropriate, the most disturbing and harmful invocation of the Bible takes place in criminal sentencing decisions. The Bible is regularly quoted during the criminal sentencing phase of trials by prosecutors and defense attorneys. In their closing arguments, both sides often invoke the Bible in order to convince juries that defendants deserve or do not deserve punishment. Even those defendants who do not wish to use biblical passages in their closing arguments, or for whom such use may be inappropriate, are coerced into doing so in response to prosecutorial use of religion. Such biblical invocation poses a great threat to a defendant’s constitutional rights.59 However, attorneys 56 ALEXANDER M. BICKEL, THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS 1 (2d. ed. 1986). 57 ANNOTATED MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canons 1 & 3 (2004). 58 Id. at Canon 3 (B)(5). 59 See generally Marcus S. Henson, Carruthers v. State: Thou Shalt Not Make Direct Religious References in Closing Argument, 52 MERCER L. REV. 731 (2001). But see Elizabeth A. Brooks, Thou Shalt Not Quote the Bible: Determining the Propriety of Attorney Use of Religious Philosophy and Themes in Oral Arguments, 33 GA. L. REV. 1113 (1999). 42 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 are not alone in quoting the Bible. They are increasingly joined by trial judges, who use religious references in their decision-making process and their written opinions.60 While no court has yet specifically addressed whether judicial reliance on religious convictions in written opinions violates the Establishment Clause,61 some courts have considered the issue of whether a defendant’s due process rights are violated when judges rely on religious convictions or religious texts during the sentencing phase. In one well-publicized case, televangelist James O. Bakker, convicted of fraud and conspiracy, challenged his forty-fiveyear sentence claiming a due process violation because the trial judge made personal religious remarks during sentencing.62 The Fourth Circuit held that the trial judge’s comment, “[h]e had no thought whatever about his victims and those of us who do have a religion are ridiculed as being saps from money-grubbing preachers or priests,” made during sentencing, violated Bakker’s due process.63 The Bakker court recognized that the Constitution does not require judges to relinquish their religious beliefs when they assume the office, but it stated that “[c]ourts, however, cannot sanction sentencing procedures that create the perception of the bench as a pulpit from which judges announce their personal sense of religiosity and simultaneously punish defendants for offending it. Whether or not the trial judge has a religion is irrelevant for purposes of sentencing.”64 While Bakker does not involve explicit religious reference by a judge, it serves as a good example of a decision validating the utmost importance of judicial impartiality. However, judges differ on their approach to the use of religious references by their colleagues. The Ohio case of James Arnett is illustrative of the opposing views that judges hold about the use of religious references in judicial decision-making. James Arnett was sentenced to fifty-one years in prison after pleading guilty to ten counts of rape and one count of pandering obscenity to the minor daughter of his live-in girl- 60 See Lis Wiehl, Judges and Lawyers Are Not Singing from the Same Hymnal When It Comes to Allowing the Bible in the Courtroom, 24 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 273, 274 (2000). 61 Modak-Truran, supra note 3, at 783. For a discussion about the lack of Establishment Clause violation challenges in capital cases involving religion during the penalty phase, closing arguments, and jury deliberations, see Gary J. Simson & Stephen P. Garvey, Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door: Rethinking the Role of Religion in Death Penalty Cases, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 1090, 1104-30 (2001). 62 United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 740 (4th Cir. 1991). 63 Id. at 740-41. 64 Id. at 740. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 43 friend.65 On appeal, the court remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial judge acted outside the state’s sentencing guidelines and that she violated the defendant’s due process when she used a specific text from the Bible as a determining factor in sentencing.66 The trial judge explained to the defendant that when she had recently imposed a twenty-year sentence for a murder, at least the victim was gone and there was no pain to suffer, but in his case the victim would hurt for the rest of her life.67 The judge proceeded by describing her struggle the night before the sentencing decision about what sentence to impose when she found the answer in a biblical passage.68 The judge then quoted a passage from Matthew 18:5-6: “And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, [sic] receiveth me. But, [sic] whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that [sic] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”69 It is interesting to note that Judge Painter, who wrote the Ohio Court of Appeals opinion, added a footnote after the above quotation, in which he noted: We must quote from the trial transcript, which is not entirely consistent with the Bible, King James Version. The notation “sic” indicates instances where words should have been italicized and where commas should not have been added. We assume that the court reporter added these errors and that the judge read the passage correctly.70 The apologetic tone of this footnote about quoting from a nonauthoritative version of the Bible and the care taken to achieve compliance with the King James Version is most striking. The authoritativeness of the King James Version71 appears to be self-evident for readers familiar with Christian religious texts, but this is most peculiar for someone who does not belong to that majority. It is not entirely clear why the judge took such care to correct the 65 State v. Arnett, Nos. C-980172, C-980173, 1999 WL 65632, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 5, 1999), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 66 Id. at *2. 67 Id. at *1. 68 Id. 69 Id. 70 Id. at *1 n.1. 71 More than fifty English translations were printed before the King James Bible was published in 1611. DAVID CRYSTAL, THE STORIES OF ENGLISH 271-75 (2004). The King James Version, popularly known as the “Authorized Version,” was selected to be read in churches. Id. Most of its vocabulary and phrasing derived from the first English translation by William Tyndale, printed in 1525-1526. Id. 44 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 errors, namely italics and misplacement of commas, or why there was a concern with whether the judge read the passage correctly. It seems almost as if there was a legal requirement that when a court cites the Bible, the King James Version must be used. After the state appealed, the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the sentence, holding that a sentencing judge’s quotation of a religious text and the acknowledgement of its use during the deliberation process is not impermissible per se and does not violate a defendant’s due process.72 The defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause and his due process rights.73 The district court held that the First Amendment claim was waived due to failure to include it in a brief and argument before the state appellate court, but that the judge’s reliance on a biblical passage as the final source for determining the sentence warranted conditional habeas relief until resentencing by a different judge.74 Subsequently, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the habeas petition, holding that the trial judge’s quotation of Matthew 18:5-675 in determining the sentence did not violate the defendant’s due process right because the biblical passage relied upon was just an “additional” source, rather than the “final” source of the decision.76 However, the dissent noted that the trial judge’s reliance on the New Testament provision to determine the sentence was dispositive because, according to the record, the judge admitted that her struggle over the final sentence was answered by this biblical passage. 77 Relying on Bakker, the dissent concluded that the use of a religious text as an authoritative source for reaching a legal result violated the defendant’s fundamental expectation of due process and expressed this related concern: If the Constitution sanctions such direct reliance on religious sources when imposing criminal sentences, then there is nothing to stop prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers from regularly citing religious sources like the Bible, the Talmud, or the Koran to justify their respective positions on punishment. The 72 State v. Arnett, 724 N.E.2d 793, 804 (Ohio 2000), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 73 Arnett v. Jackson, 290 F. Supp. 2d 874, 875 (S.D. Ohio 2003). The court found that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the standard of review set forth in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Id. at 877-78. 74 Id. at 878. 75 Arnett v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 681, 684 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 126 S. Ct. 207 (2005). 76 Id. at 688. 77 Id. at 689 (Clay, J., dissenting). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 45 judge would be placed in the position of not only considering statutory sentencing factors, but also deciding which religious texts best justify a particular sentence. Under this approach, the judgments of trial courts could begin to resemble the fatwas of religious clerics, and the opinions of appellate courts echo the proclamations of the Sanhedrin.78 The Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that “[t]here is nothing in the totality of the circumstances of Arnett’s sentencing to indicate that the trial judge used the Bible as her ‘final source of authority,’ as found by the district court,”79 is contrary to the trial judge’s own words: Because I was looking for a source, what do I turn to, to make, to make that determination, what sentence you should get . . . . And in looking at the final part of my struggle with you, I finally answered my question late at night when I turned to one additional source to help me.80 Although the trial judge said she turned to “one additional source,” she used the words “make that determination” when she referred to the sentence to impose.81 More importantly, she used the words “final part” and “finally answered” which clearly emphasized that the finality of her sentencing decision was solved by that one additional source.82 The plain meaning of the language “final” and “finally” was simply dismissed by the Sixth Circuit. The court justified its conclusion by reasoning that, “The [b]iblical principle of not harming children is fully consistent with Ohio’s sentencing consideration to the same effect.”83 The fact that the judge did not impose the maximum sentence commanded by the Bible proved that she did not actually sentence the defendant based upon her religious belief.84 As is obvious from the Arnett case, courts often justify the use of religious references on the grounds of consistency with the statutory law applied in the case. That is an unnecessary and disturbing practice. In considering the defendant’s due process 78 Id. at 691 (Clay, J., dissenting). 79 Id. at 688. 80 Id. at 684. 81 Id. In discussing what constitutes reliance on religious convictions, Kent Greenawalt states, “[t]he clearest instances of reliance on religious convictions occur when the person is certain that he would make a different choice if he disregarded those convictions. . . . A person is clearly not relying on religious convictions when his choice rests firmly on independent grounds.” GREENAWALT, RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, supra note 2, at 36. 82 Arnett, 393 F.3d at 684. 83 Id. at 688. 84 Id. 46 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 violation claim in Arnett, the Sixth Circuit used the Supreme Court rule that a defendant’s due process rights are violated when the death sentence is based on “factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process, such as for example the race, religion or political affiliation of the defendant.” 85 The Sixth Circuit then said, without any additional explanation, that the trial judge in Arnett did not base her decision on an impermissible factor, and that the factor used was not “totally irrelevant” because it was consistent with the sentencing statute.86 Nevertheless, before it reversed and remanded the case, the Sixth Circuit recognized the following: “We reach this conclusion despite the fact that reasonable minds could certainly question the propriety of the trial judge making mention of the Bible at all in her sentencing decision.”87 Whether the biblical passage quoted in an opinion is consistent or inconsistent with the statutory provision governing the case is irrelevant and, as such, should not be considered or included in a written opinion justifying a decision. Another example of the judicial use of biblical passages in criminal sentencing is the Nebraska case State v. Pattno.88 In Pattno, the defendant pled guilty to the sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to a minimum of twenty months and a maximum of five years in prison by the trial court judge.89 Before he imposed the sentence, the trial judge recited an extensive biblical scripture against homosexuality90 followed by the comment that he also con- 85 Id. at 686 (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 885 (1983)). 86 Id. at 686-87. 87 Id. at 688. 88 579 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 1998). 89 Id. at 506. 90 Id. at 505-06. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his external power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him as God, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever [sic]. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 47 sidered the “nature . . . of the defendant.”91 The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a reasonable person could have questioned the trial judge’s impartiality because he relied upon his personal religious beliefs in deciding the sentence.92 The court also pointed out that the defendant was convicted of having sexual contact with a minor, which is a crime, and not of having sexual contact with a person of the same gender, which is not a crime in the state of Nebraska.93 It is not unusual for judges to inject biblical passages in their opinions as justification for supporting the harsh punishment of certain crimes such as child sexual abuse. In People v. Jagnjic, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced to no less than five and no more than fifteen years in prison.94 However, the New York Appellate Division found that, absent a professional psychiatric evaluation, the sentence was excessive. 95 In a dissenting opinion, Justice Lupiano pointed to the heinous nature of the crime, arguing that the sentencing decision should not be disturbed and quoted a biblical passage to support that view: The condemnation of crimes against the young is deeply ingrained in the ethical and moral history of western civilization. Indeed, the bible is replete with references to this universal condemnation as, for example, the following scriptural passage concerning children—“Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones . . . it were better than a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6).96 Quoting the Bible in support of a judicial decision is in clear violation of the judicial code, and it prejudices defendants not only by the content of the religious reference, but by the very fact that an irrelevant, extralegal source is used in the decision-making process. Id. (quoting the Bible). 91 Id. at 506. 92 Id. at 509. 93 Id. at 508. No statute in this state criminalizes sexual contact between consenting adults of the same gender. Thus, Pattno’s crime is that he had sexual contact with a minor; not that he had sexual contact with another male. Therefore, the biblical scripture which the judge read was not relevant to the crime to which Pattno pled guilty, and it should not have been considered by the judge in determining an appropriate sentence. Id. 94 447 N.Y.S.2d 439, 439 (App. Div. 1982). 95 See id. at 439-40. 96 Id. at 443 (Lupiano, J., dissenting). 48 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 As the Arnett, Pattno, and Jagnjic cases illustrate, any reliance on the Bible as a direct or supporting source of authority in the decisionmaking process jeopardizes the integrity of the criminal justice system and, if not proscribed, encourages further use of the Bible by judges and other officers of the court. II. UNDERMINING THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF RELIGIOUS REFERENCES There are many cases where judicial reference to a biblical passage is justified by the use of language that undermines the religious character of the text or its authority.97 This type of qualifying statement is in direct contradiction to the actual meaning of the text and to courts’ use of the Bible to support their arguments in countless cases in which the biblical references are used in their proper meaning. It is only logical to conclude that any use of biblical references in judicial decision-making, especially in written opinions, must be entirely arbitrary. On one hand, judges invoke the Bible as serious support for their propositions, and, on the other, their use of the Bible is trivialized. Judge Hildebrandt, who dissented in the State v. Arnett Ohio Court of Appeals decision finding a violation of due process, used the “mere”98 language justifica- 97 By qualifying a statement with “mere” or “merely,” courts undermine the religious value of the source from which the quotation is taken, despite the fact that the Bible is cited as the authority. This trend is consistent with the Supreme Court’s “secularization” of religious expressions. See generally Ashley M. Bell, “God Save This Honorable Court”: How Current Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Can Be Reconciled with the Secularization of Historical Religious Expressions, 50 AM. U. L. REV. 1273 (2001). Bell criticizes the Supreme Court’s secularization approach to religious expression: In addition to being an inconsistent solution, secularization does a great disservice to both religion and society. . . . Moreover, the Court seems more apt to secularize practices derived from Christianity, thus preferring Christianity over other religions. This consequence results in ‘religious divisiveness, violating the fundamental principles behind the religion clauses.’ Thus, the entire purpose of secularization backfires in its process. While attempting to neutralize religious influence, the Court in actuality prefers some religions, namely Christianity, over others. Id. at 1305-07. This critique is consistent with the famous quote of the Supreme Court that, “The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact.” Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980). 98 The Oxford English Dictionary defines “mere” and “merely” as follows: “mere- Having no greater extent, range, value, power, or importance that the designation implies; that is barely or only what it is said to be;[ ] insignificant, ordinary, foolish, inept” and “merely-Without any other quality, reason, purpose, view, etc.; only (what is referred to) and nothing more.” SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES 1750 (5th ed. 2002). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 49 tion twice in a very short opinion. Hildebrandt stated that “[t]he language quoted from the Bible merely reflects society’s interests in protecting its most vulnerable citizens, a laudable goal that is incorporated into the sentencing guidelines enacted by the General Assembly.”99 The dissent concluded, “[t]he mere citation of scriptural material in pronouncing the sentence should not be permitted to obscure the fact that the trial judge based her decision on the proper statutory considerations and that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice resulted from the judge’s statements.”100 In reinstating the sentence, Supreme Court of Ohio Judge Cook used the “mere” language to distinguish general principles from personal beliefs: “Several state supreme courts, though they cite Bakker with approval, have declined to vacate sentences where the judge’s religious comments merely acknowledge generally accepted principles, as opposed to highly personal religious beliefs that become the basis for the sentence imposed.”101 In conclusion, the court found that “Arnett’s sentencing judge cited a religious text merely to acknowledge one of several reasons—‘one additional source’—for assigning significant weight to a legitimate statutory sentencing factor.”102 The court’s distinguishing of Bakker from Arnett is unpersuasive when it states that “Bakker merely prohibits a judge’s personal religious principles from being ‘the basis of a sentencing decision.’”103 There is no explanation of how the trial judge’s personal religious principles in Arnett were not implicated within the general principles when she turned to the book of Matthew for final help in determining the sentence. A judge’s personal perception of the meaning of biblical passages seems to be crucial in determining whether the use of the Bible is authoritative or symbolic. A judge’s use of the word “mere” often determines whether a defendant’s due process challenge succeeds. For example, in State v. Cribbs, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence of a defendant convicted of premeditated first degree murder.104 On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution’s use of biblical references to justify the death sentence violated his due process rights.105 The state argued 99 Arnett, 1999 WL 65632, at *3 (Hildebrandt, J., dissenting). 100 Id. 101 Arnett, 724 N.E.2d at 803. 102 Id. 103 Id. at 804. 104 967 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Tenn. 1998). 105 Id. at 783. 50 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 that although biblical quotations were impermissible, the prosecutor’s use of the language “‘whatever a man sows, so shall he reap’ was merely a metaphor for individual accountability, rather than a justification for imposition of the death penalty.”106 Noting that a biblical reference in this case was inappropriate, the court nevertheless accepted the state’s argument finding that it did not prejudice the defendant.107 The court justified its finding by calling attention to the consistency of the biblical principle with the statute: “[W]e view the comments by the prosecutor which implied that Tennessee law embraced the principle of ‘reap what you sow’ as merely an extension of that metaphor.”108 Similarly, the dissent in People v. Harlan used the “merely” phraseology to point out the trial court’s misquoting of biblical passages in the trial record. Harlan was sentenced to death for first-degree murder, but his sentence was vacated because the jury was permitted to bring “the Bible into the jury room to share with others the written Leviticus and Romans texts during the deliberation.” 109 According to the dissent, the trial court concluded that one of the jurors used Romans 13:1, “which requires that one look at government authorities as God’s representative on earth and follow their lead as agents of ‘wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer.’”110 The dissent did not contest that the juror used Romans 13:1, but it explained that the passage “merely states ‘Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.’”111 The judge said that the trial court actually imported the language “wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer” from Romans 13:4 and criticized the majority for not correcting “these overstatements.”112 The thrust of the Romans passage is an absolute submission to the authorities—and only those established by God. The trial court’s use of language from 106 Id. 107 Id. at 784. 108 Id. 109 109 P.3d 616, 632 (Colo. 2005). This case immediately caught the attention of the media. See Kirk Johnson, Colorado Court Bars Execution Because Jurors Consulted Bible, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 29, 2005, at A1; Thane Rosenbaum, Is Court a Place for Morals?, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 30, 2005, at B11; Eric Gorski, Book, Not Faith, Broke Court Rules, DENV. POST, Mar. 30, 2005, at 1A; Suzanne Goldenberg, US Jury’s Bible Death Sentence Quashed, GUARDIAN, Mar. 30, 2005, at 11; Bible-Influenced Death Penalty Ruling Rejected, IRISH TIMES, Mar. 30, 2005, at 10. 110 Harlan, 109 P.3d at 635 (Rice, J., dissenting). 111 Id. 112 Id. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 51 Romans 13:4 about the consequences of wrongdoing that would be imposed by God’s appointees neither changed the nature of the command from Romans 13:1 nor undermined the main idea of divine authority this biblical passage conveyed. The juror’s reference to Romans 13:1 alone was sufficient as an improper invocation of an extra-legal authority and cannot be undermined by the dissent’s language “merely states.” This case exemplifies how a judge’s personal view and interpretation of the Bible may affect the outcome of a case. There are many other ways courts qualify the use of religious references in order to find it justifiable or to undermine the impact of such references. One example of the characterization of the use of a biblical passage is found in Bussard v. Lockhart.113 In that case, the court denied a habeas petition for a defendant who escaped from arrest after committing murder, remaining at-large for four years.114 The prosecutor in Bussard used a biblical passage to support the inference of guilt from the escape: “Proverbs 28:1 fits it just as clear as it can be. ‘The guilty flee when no man pursueth while the righteous stand bold as a lion.’ He fled to avoid coming to trial. That shows guilt.”115 In addressing the use of the biblical passage, the court stated: The prosecutor did not use the Bible to invoke the wrath of God against Bussard or to suggest that the jury apply divine law as an alternative to the law of Arkansas. Instead, the prosecutor simply resorted to Proverbs for a more poetic version of a commonsense connection expressly recognized by Arkansas law: flight suggests consciousness of guilt.116 The court cited two cases Killcrease v. State117 and Ward v. State118 in support of the proclamation that Arkansas law expressly recognizes that flight suggests consciousness of guilt.119 A careful reader will notice, however, that only in the Killcrease case was there an issue of flight from arrest.120 Although in Ward the court discussed the fact that the defendant fled the scene upon the arrival of the police, nowhere did the court indicate that the flight was an issue in the case, nor did it state a particular rule related to flight other than “it 113 32 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 1994). 114 Id. at 323. 115 Id. at 324. 116 Id. 117 836 S.W.2d 380, 382 (Ark. 1992) (flight from arrest corroborates other evidence of guilt). 118 816 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Ark. Ct. App. 1991) (flight from scene of crime). 119 Bussard, 32 F.3d at 324. 120 Killcrease, 836 S.W.2d at 381. 52 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 may be considered with other evidence in determining guilt.”121 In Killcrease, the defendant was convicted of raping his minor daughter and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal he contended that the evidence of his arrest in Louisiana was irrelevant because no warrant was issued or any charges filed when he left Arkansas.122 The court held that it was up to a jury to determine whether the defendant fled to avoid arrest and that “[f]light to avoid arrest may be considered by the jury as corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”123 In support of this rule, the Killcrease court cited two opinions, Riddle v. State and Ferguson v. State.124 The long line of cases using this rule leads to Stevens v. State, the first case that formulated it as follows: “Flight of the accused is admissible as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”125 Although many courts followed the rule as articulated in Stevens,126 the court in Ferguson changed the language by omitting the word “circumstance” from its holding that flight may “be considered as corroboration of evidence tending to establish guilt.”127 The difference between the biblical proverb used by the prosecutor in Bussard to support the demonstration of guilt and the rule as originally formulated by the Supreme Court of Arkansas is evident. The language in the proverb sends the message that fleeing is evidence of guilt, while the language of the court’s rule states that fleeing may be considered as a circumstance in corroboration of evidence tending to prove guilt. Even if one compares the modified language of the rule that fleeing suggests consciousness of guilt, the difference is still insufficient for the court to conclude that the biblical passage was a “poetic version” of the rule. The Bussard case is an illustration of the judicial slippage from biblical text to legal rules without realizing the impact such conflation actually has on the life of a human being. Concerned with the confounding of morality and law, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in his famous essay The Path of the Law, “[t]he law is full of phraseology drawn from morals, and by the mere force of language continually invites us to pass from one domain to the other without perceiving it, as we are sure to do unless we have the 121 See Ward, 816 S.W.2d at 175. 122 Killcrease, 836 S.W.2d at 382. 123 Id. 124 Id. (citing Riddle v. State, 791 S.W.2d 708 (Ark. 1990), and Ferguson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 418 (Ark. 1989)). 125 221 S.W. 186, 188 (Ark. 1920). 126 See Smith v. State, 238 S.W.2d 649, 655 (Ark. 1951); Mason v. State, 688 S.W.2d 299, 300 (Ark. 1985); Yedrysek v. State, 739 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Ark. 1987). 127 Ferguson, 769 S.W.2d at 419. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 53 boundary constantly before our minds.”128 However, there are a variety of ways in which religious references are used in the decision-making process and in reasoning justifying decisions. Courts quote the Bible in order to support their propositions and to show that they are consistent with traditional morality. They sometimes use biblical passages as metaphors or to illuminate a particular common law principle. The Bible often becomes part of the historical explanation of a particular law or practice. In some instances, a biblical passage appears as a rule upon which a decision is based or accompanies a common law or statutory rule as a confirmation of the consistency of our law. The next part will show different ways in which the Bible is used in judicial opinions. III. QUOTING THE BIBLE FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES In some instances, judges use the Bible to express their personal religious and moral beliefs, and former Chief Justice Moore of the Supreme Court of Alabama may be the best example of this practice. In Ex parte H.H., a lesbian ex-wife was denied custody of her children despite the fact that there was evidence of her exhusband’s excessive disciplinary punishment of children.129 Justice Moore’s special concurring opinion is an illustration of inappropriate judicial decision-making using the Bible as law. He starts his opinion with a strong statement: [T]he homosexual conduct of a parent—conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender— creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.130 Justice Moore’s perspective that a parent’s homosexual conduct is unfit per se is founded entirely on religious teachings against samesex sexual relationships.131 Unlike the gender-based tender years presumption that the Supreme Court of Alabama found unconstitutional, 132 the sexual orientation-based presumption is still valid in some states.133 The main justification for the per se rule is ex- 128 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, 459-60 (1897). 129 830 So. 2d 21, 25-26 (Ala. 2002). 130 Id. at 26. 131 See Romans 1:18-32 (New International). 132 See Ex parte Devine, 398 So. 2d 686, 696-97 (Ala. 1981). 133 See, e.g., Roe v. Roe, 324 S.E.2d 691 (Va. 1985). Some courts require that a 54 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 plained by Justice Moore: “Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated.”134 Justice Moore finds support for his proposition in Blackstone’s Commentaries135 and proceeds to quote from the Bible and various other sources condemning homosexuality.136 He concludes his opinion with the following words: “The common law adopted in this State and upon which our laws are premised likewise declares homosexuality to be detestable and an abominable sin. Homosexual conduct by its very nature is immoral, and its consequences are inherently destructive to the natural order of society.”137 By quoting biblical passages in support of their decisions, judges like Justice Moore perpetuate homophobia and the legitimacy of laws based on religious morality138 without any concern for the parties involved and the actual legal standards governing our society. One of those standards directly disregarded by Justice Moore in the Ex parte H.H. case is the best-interest-of-the-child standard. This case demonstrates the judicial misconduct present in invoking personal religious beliefs and morality as a basis of judgment. It is most interesting that Justice Moore was never disciplined for basing his decisions on his personal religious beliefs, but was actually removed when he refused to comply with a court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument he displayed in the rotunda of the state judicial building.139 In commenting on the controversy around Justice Moore, one author contrasted the invisibility of the judicial use of religious references to the physical appearance of impropriety, making the following point: parent involved in a same-sex relationship prove absence of harm. See, e.g., Thigpen v. Carpenter, 730 S.W.2d 510, 513-14 (Ark. 1987). Other courts use a “nexus test” requiring only proof that a parent’s sexual conduct will have or has had an adverse impact. See, e.g., A.C. v. C.B., 829 P.2d 660, 664 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992). 134 Ex parte H.H., 830 So. 2d at 26. 135 Id. at 32, 34, 37. 136 Id. at 33-37 (quoting biblical passages Genesis 1:27, 2:24; Leviticus 20:13). 137 Id. at 38. 138 See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Upholding a Georgia sodomy statute, the Court stated that “[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots,” referring to Judeo-Christian moral standards. Id. at 192. Concurring Justice Burger reiterated that, “Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian [sic] moral and ethical standards,” id. at 196, validating the state’s invocation of the biblical books of Leviticus and Romans to justify the sodomy statute, id. at 211 (Blackmun, J. dissenting). 139 See Glassroth v. Moore, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2003), aff’d 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1000 (2003). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 55 While the plaintiffs, media, and judicial ethicists were earnestly setting their sights on this highly conspicuous jurist, they were devoting little if any attention to the question of the proper relationship between religion and the decisions judges actually render, including religiously devout judges like Chief Justice Moore. To be sure, the Chief Justice’s fundamental mistake, at least from a job retention perspective, appears not to have been his firm and guiding belief that God’s law ought to inform human law, or even his clear expression of that belief in judicial opinions, which is to say that he was not and would not obviously have been removed from office for actually implementing and manifesting his religious beliefs in his judicial capacity. His apparent mistake, instead, was to manifest them by erecting a granite monument in his administrative, and in many respects less important or less influential, role.140 Often courts use biblical references to explain the historical background of a legal concept. For example, tracing the origin of an in rem forfeiture proceeding by the government against the property involved in or acquired by crime, the Supreme Court cited Exodus 21:28: “[i]f an ox gore a man or a woman, and they die, he shall be stoned and his flesh shall not be eaten.”141 After locating the original source of this legal concept in the Bible, the Court traced the development of the forfeiture further to the common law concept of “deodand,” citing to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England and Holmes’s The Common Law.142 While it is a fact that Blackstone cited Exodus in his Commentaries,143 Holmes and other authors did not go that far.144 Other federal and state courts have also used the biblical passage Exodus 21:28 to explain not only the origin of the law of forfeiture, but also other tort actions, despite the availability of other sources of legal history upon which American law is actually founded.145 140 Idleman, Concealment, supra note 2, at 517-18. 141 Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 681 n.17 (1974). See also United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 330 n.5 (1998). 142 Calero-Toledo, 416 U.S. at 681 (citing to “O. Holmes, the Common Law, c. 1 (1881)” and “1. W. Blackstone, Commentaries *300”). See also Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 330 (citing to “1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 290-292 (1765); O. Holmes, The Common Law 10-13, 23-27 (M. Howe ed. 1963)”). 143 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES *291. 144 See OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR., THE COMMON LAW 1-38 (45th printing 1923, 1909, 1881); FREDERICK POLLOCK & FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 473-74 (2d ed. 1923). 145 Federal courts citing or quoting Exodus 21:28: United States v. All Funds in Account Nos. 747.034/278, 295 F.3d 23, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002); United States v. Gilbert, 244 F.3d 888, 918 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. One Parcel Prop., 74 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. 785 St. Nicholas Ave., 983 F.2d 396, 401 (2d 56 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 The controversial Justice Moore of Alabama provides another example of biblical invocation in support of a historical analysis of a particular concept. Dissenting in Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, he engaged in a historical discussion of the concept of separation between the church and state, quoting from numerous biblical passages.146 Other judges also turn to the Bible in order to solidify the idea that a particular law is rooted in history. In a case involving a defamation suit, the West Virginia Supreme Court used Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 19:16-21, and Ecclesiastes 7:1 as historical evidence that slander was prohibited since the beginning of time.147 After quoting the Bible as its first source, the court proceeded by listing numerous legal sources on defamation, libel, and slander. The historical concept of subjecting “illegitimate” children to legal discrimination is also explained using Deuteronomy 23:2: “Throughout history, illegitimate children were precluded from, among other legal rights, entering certain professions. The Book of Deuteronomy states: a bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to this tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Deut. 23:2.”148 Supreme Court justices join lower court judges in quoting the Bible when they resort to providing a historical review of certain Cir. 1993); United States v. Seifuddin, 820 F.2d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Sandini, 816 F.2d 869, 872 (3d Cir. 1987); United States v. $39,000 in Canadian Currency, 801 F.2d 1210, 1218 n.4 (10th Cir. 1986); United States v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, 618 F.2d 453, 454 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Funds from Prudential Sec., 362 F. Supp. 2d 75, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2005); United States. v. Croce, 334 F. Supp. 2d 781, 786 n.13 (E.D. Pa. 2004); United States v. Funds From Prudential Sec., 300 F. Supp. 2d 99, 100 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2004); United States v. 38 Whalers Cove Drive, 747 F. Supp. 173, 177 (E.D.N.Y. 1990); United States v. Haro, 685 F. Supp. 1468, 1473 (E.D. Wis. 1988). State courts citing or quoting Exodus 21:28: Allen v. State, 605 A.2d 994, 998 n.3 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992); Prop. Clerk of N.Y. City Police Dep’t v. Molomo, 583 N.Y.S.2d 251, 253 (App. Div. 1992); Duren v. Kunkel, 814 S.W.2d 935, 937 n.3 (Mo. 1991); Commonwealth v. One 1988 Ford Coupe, 574 A.2d 631, 636 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990); Holtzman v. Samuel, 495 N.Y.S.2d 583, 585 n.1 (Sup. Ct. 1985); Dist. Attorney of Queens County v. McAuliffe, 493 N.Y.S.2d 406, 411 (Sup. Ct. 1985); Dir. of Fin. v. Cole, 465 A.2d 450, 456 n.2 (Md. 1983); New Jersey v. One 1977 Dodge Van, 397 A.2d 733, 734 n.1 (Middlesex County Ct. 1979); Prince George’s County. v. Blue Bird Cab Co., 284 A.2d 203, 205 (Md. 1971); Magrine v. Spector, 241 A.2d 637, 639 n.2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968); Robidoux v. Busch, 400 S.W.2d 631, 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966); Johnson v. Olson, 67 P.2d 422, 425 (Kan. 1937). 146 847 So. 2d 331, 350-53 (Ala. 2002) (quoting the following chapters from King James: 2 Chronicles 26:16-21, 2 Chronicles 26:18, 1 Samuel 13:13-14, Ezra 7:21-24, Matthew 22:21, Matthew 18:15-20, Matthew 16:19, 1 Corinthians 6). 147 Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 70, 76 (W. Va. 1984). 148 Miscovich v. Miscovich, 688 A.2d 726, 728 n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). See also Kohler v. Bleem, 654 A.2d 569, 572 n.1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 57 legal principles. While such biblical references are usually placed in footnotes, occasionally they are prominently displayed in the main body of the opinion. For example, in Payne v. Tennessee, holding that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the admission of victim impact evidence in jury sentencing,149 Chief Justice Rehnquist quoted Exodus 21:22-23, proscribing “[a]n eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” to demonstrate how the guiding principles in criminal sentencing varied over time.150 In his review of the historical principles guiding criminal sentencing, Justice Rehnquist started with the Bible before he moved on to the English law and legislative enactments.151 Sometimes, a court quotes the Bible as support for a proposition using a “cf.” as a citation signal. “Cf.” is an abbreviation for the Latin word “confer,” which means “compare.”152 Black’s Law Dictionary states, “As a citation signal, cf. directs the reader’s attention to another authority or section of the work in which contrasting, analogous, or explanatory statements may be found.”153 Such support was used in the United States v. Ryan case by a dissenting judge to interpret the statutory meaning of “the building used . . . in . . . any activity affecting interstate . . . commerce.”154 The dissenting judge argued that the statutory requirement of “activity” was missing in respect to the building in question.155 The dissent cited the Bible, stating, “The building here was just cumbering the ground. Cf. Luke 13:7 (King James). It was not being ‘used’ in any ‘activity.’” 156 The biblical passage cited states: “So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’”157 The judge used this citation assuming the reader’s familiarity with a biblical passage of this length and on this particular topic, which was listed under the chapter “Repent or Perish” in Luke. This assumption seems to be a long stretch if the extralegal authority was used as an analogy to show that there was no use for the building in question. Another example of the use of a biblical citation with a cf. citation signal is in the Conklin v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ. 149 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991). 150 Id. at 819. 151 Id. 152 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 243 (8th ed. 2004). 153 Id. 154 41 F.3d 361, 369 (8th Cir. 1994) (Arnold, C.J., dissenting). 155 Id. 156 Id. 157 Luke 13:7 (New International). 58 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 case.158 Parents of a dyslexic child challenged the county’s program as not being in compliance with the Education of the Handicapped Act.159 In a footnote, discussing the fact that the board took advantage of the child’s temporary progress (which was actually due to private tutoring) to show its compliance with the statute, the court quoted this passage from the Bible when it said: “Annual grade promotion may, as a result, be a reasonable barometer for measuring the progress that this handicapped child can achieve in the coming years. . . . Cf. Matthew 26:52 (King James) (‘[A]ll they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’).”160 The court took the board’s argument and created a standard to which the board should adhere in the future, consisting of annual grade promotion and additional tutoring provided by the board.161 The court assumed that the reader was familiar with the biblical passage it partially quoted. The passage is part of the chapter on Jesus’s arrest and its idea only becomes clear if one knows its entire context: Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”162 The fact that judges resort to citing the Bible in support of their arguments shows the privilege that Christianity enjoys in our society. The invisibility of that privilege is enhanced by the judges’ assumptions of their audience’s familiarity with the Bible and by their disregard of the need for a full explanation of a cited source and its relation to the proposition at hand. Courts also use the Bible to explain the origins of a word. For example, in Bok v. McCaughn, the court explained that “[c]harity, derived from the Latin caritas, originally meant love. In the thirteenth chapter of first Corinthians the revised version uses the word ‘love’ in defining the third of the three cardinal virtues, which, in King James’ version read ‘Faith, Hope and Charity.’”163 The term “sodomy” also finds its origin in the Bible, as the court noted in Stone v. Wainwright, citing Genesis 13:13 and 18:20 and quoting Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: 158 946 F.2d 306 (4th Cir. 1991). 159 Id. at 309. 160 Id. at 315 n.6. 161 Id. 162 Matthew 26:50-52 (New International). 163 42 F.2d 616, 618-19 (3d Cir. 1930). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 59 it is abomination.”164 Similarly, Justice Breyer quoted the Bible to explain the origin of the word “carries” in a drug trafficking case where the statute included the phrase “carries a firearm.”165 Arguing that the word includes “conveyance in a vehicle,” he said, “[t]he greatest of writers have used the word with this meaning. See, e.g., The King James Bible, 2 Kings 9:28 (‘[H]is servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem’); id., Isaiah 30:6 (‘[T]hey will carry their riches upon the shoulders of young asses’).”166 The Bible has also been called upon to determine the meaning of seemingly simple words such as “daytime.” In a criminal prosecution, a defendant moved to quash a search warrant because it was not served during daytime as required by law.167 He claimed that the warrant was served at 7:15 p.m. and that the sun set at 6:53 p.m. on that day.168 Before citing Shakespeare, Webster’s Dictionary, and finally federal and state courts, the court resorted to the Bible as its first source of interpretation: “In the Bible, Genesis 1:5, we find ‘And God called the light day and the darkness he called night.’”169 The court dismissed the motion to quash the warrant, concluding that it had no merit because of the general rule that daytime is determined by the presence of light.170 While today’s courts are comfortable using biblical passage as a rule, the courts in the past refrained from actually quoting the Bible. For example, in a famous 1872 case, the Supreme Court held constitutional Illinois’s refusal to admit a woman to practice law, stating, “[t]he paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.”171 The Court did not specify what exact legal source it was referring to when it invoked “the law of the Creator.” 172 Modern courts, however, are more explicit in the invoca- 164 478 F.2d 390, 393 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1973). The text of the cited passages state, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD,” Genesis 13:13 (New International), and “Then the LORD said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous,’” Genesis 18:20 (New International). 165 Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 128-29 (1998). 166 Id. 167 United States v. Liebrich, 55 F.2d 341, 342 (M.D. Pa. 1932). 168 Id. 169 Id. 170 Id. at 343 (stating “it is reasonable to hold that it is daytime for at least thirty minutes after the time when the sun sets, and it is nighttime from then until thirty minutes before the time when the sun rises”). 171 Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130, 141 (1872). 172 Id. 60 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 tion of biblical passages when formulating rules upon which they decide cases. The Second Circuit, in a suit for a securities violation, discussed the doctrine of “offensive collateral estoppel (more recently called offensive issue preclusion),” pointing to judicial efficiency as a primary “virtue” of the doctrine.173 It then indicated its disadvantage: Its virtues do not come without a price, however. Just as occasionally ‘the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong . . . but time and chance happeneth to them all,’ Ecclesiastes 9:11 (King James ed.), so too the results of an earlier resolution of an issue may simply be wrong.174 Some courts, when formulating standards, go directly to the Bible for support. In a dual adultery divorce suit, the husband filed a counterclaim alleging that the wife’s lesbian relationship constituted adultery.175 The court started its inquiry this way: To better understand the underlying issue it is helpful to briefly review both the legal and social standards and to distinguish between adultery as a crime as opposed to a private civil wrong. The [S]eventh [C]ommandment states that “Thou shall not commit adultery” Exodus 20:14. A biblical definition of “Adultery” is “the lying with a woman married to a husband.” See Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus, 20:10. . . . If a married man be “lying with a woman not betrothed” the biblical crime was fornication and punishment by a fine of 50 shekels of silver. Deuteronomy 22:29 (The commentators generally opine that even the thought of adultery was an offense under the biblical code, an issue which we need not deal with today.)176 After the court quoted the above biblical passages, it proceeded with common law and New Jersey statutory treatment of adultery. Despite announcing that it would review “legal and social standards,” the court started with religious moral authorities on the issue, assuming that religious morality is a synonym for a social standard. These are just some of the various ways in which courts use biblical references in written opinions. The next part of this Article will demonstrate the many different forms in which a particular biblical passage enters judicial opinions. 173 Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Monarch Funding Corp., 192 F.3d 295, 303 (2d Cir. 1999). 174 Id. at 303-04. See also Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fag Bearings Corp., 335 F.3d 752, 763 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting the same biblical passage from Monarch Funding, 192 F.3d at 303-04). 175 S.B. v. S.J.B., 609 A.2d 124, 124 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. 1992). 176 Id. at 125. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 61 IV. REFERENCING “NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS”177 While the Supreme Court has never cited either Matthew or Luke, federal and state courts prominently do so when using the phrase “no man can serve two masters” to express the rule against an attorney’s dual representation.178 In Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Foster, a state court invoked the following sources of authority: “The [b]iblical mandate that ‘No man can serve two masters’ has its modern-day application in cases of this nature. See Canon 6, Canons of Professional Ethics, 31 F.S.A.”179 Canon 6 of Professional Ethics, entitled Adverse Influences and Conflicting Interests, imposes a duty on a lawyer to disclose to a client any potential interest that might adversely affect the client.180 Contrary to biblical mandate, Canon 6 does not prohibit a lawyer from representing two clients, but instead permits such representation by express consent of all parties after full disclosure of the facts.181 The invocation of a biblical mandate in this case is unclear because the court held that the insured who was represented by the insurer’s attorney was not harmed by any breach of fiduciary duty in failing to provide information about settlement offers.182 Thus it follows that not only can a man serve two masters, but even when such servitude constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty, the attorney will only be liable when the plaintiff who is suing suffered harm. Some judges are willing to disregard existing legal standards, instead quoting biblical teaching as a primary source of the authority for their decision. In People v. Williams, a case charging a husband and wife for sex offenses upon their minor adopted child, a court held that there was no conflict of interest that would make joint representation of the defendant and codefendant improper. 183 Dissenting in an extensive opinion, Justice Pincham stated: Civilization’s most sacred, learned, dedicated and staunchest advocate of all times, centuries ago, admonished: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other.” The advocate was the Christ Jesus; the admonition was to his disci- 177 See infra Appendix. 178 See infra Appendix. 179 528 So. 2d 255, 277 (Miss. 1988) (citing Spadaro v. Palmisano, 109 So. 2d 418 (Fla. App. 1959)). 180 CANONS OF PROF’L ETHICS Canon 6 (2004). 181 Id. 182 Foster, 528 So. 2d at 276. 183 538 N.E.2d 564, 566 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989). 62 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 ples and the multitude during His Sermon on the Mount; the admonition is cited in the most dynamic, accurate and prestigious of all law books, The Holy Bible, at Matthews the 6th Chapter and the 24th Verse.184 After citing the highest authority to support his argument, the dissenting judge then proceeded to cite Canon 5 (5-1, 5-14, 5-15, 5- 17) of The Model Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association.185 A significant number of cases state that the biblical mandate “no person can serve two masters” is consistent with the Restatement of the Law on Agency and reflects the current legal framework within which courts operate. Contrary to what many judges state in their opinions, however, the Restatement of the Law of Agency does not prohibit dual servitude. The rules regulating the relation of agency explicitly provide that “[a] person may be the servant of two masters, not joint employers, at one time as to one act, if the service to one does not involve abandonment of the service to the other.”186 The comments for this section further elaborate on this issue, allowing for a servant to be employed by joint masters.187 The most important issue in the servant’s relationship with a master is the master’s consent to service188 and not, as the courts suggest, whether there is one or multiple masters. The same is true for the law governing lawyers. The Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers clearly establishes that a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation involves a conflict of interest189 unless the client consents to such representation.190 Consent, and not the number of clients or masters, is the key element in a lawyer’s representation of a single or multiple clients in civil and criminal litigation.191 Similarly, the ABA Model of Professional Conduct Rule 1.13 allows an attorney to represent an organization and “its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7.”192 It is also worth noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include one of the most important rules allowing for 184 Id. at 569 (Pincham, J., dissenting). 185 Id. at 569-570. 186 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 226 (1958). 187 Id. § 226(b). 188 Id. § 221. 189 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS § 121 (2001). 190 Id. § 122. 191 See id. §§ 128, 129. 192 MODEL RULES OF PROF’L CONDUCT R. 1.13(g) (2004). 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 63 multiple representation: Rule 23 governing class action.193 The Restatement of the Law of Agency and the Law Governing Lawyers, together with the ABA Rules of Conduct, represent legal authorities upon which judges should rely. Any extralegal authorities, especially those that conflict with legal standards established by the accepted authoritative legal sources of statutory or common law, are constitutionally suspect and their invocation in judicial opinions is unsound. V. USING OTHER RELIGIOUS REFERENCES While citations to the King James version of the Bible are numerous, courts rarely use other religious authorities. A search for the word “Talmud,” a collection of Jewish civil and canonical laws,194 returns only three results in the Supreme Court cases database in Westlaw: County of Allegheny v. ACLU,195 School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania. v. Schempp,196 and Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of New Orleans.197 The word “Torah,” the first five books of the Old Testament, appears only five times in Supreme Court opinions: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,198 Lee v. Weisman,199 County of Allegheny v. ACLU,200 Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,201 and Miranda v. Arizona. 202 The word “Halakhah,” a Jewish law book consisting of the 193 FED. R. CIV. P. 23(g). 194 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1494 (8th ed. 2004). 195 492 U.S. at 583-84 (using the Talmud in describing certain Jewish practices). 196 374 U.S. 203, 273 (1963). “There was ample precedent, too, for Theodore Roosevelt’s declaration that in the interest of ‘absolutely nonsectarian public schools’ it was ‘not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in those schools.’” Id. (citation omitted). 197 44 U.S. 589, 604-05 (1845). “In the case of The Commonwealth v. Abram Wolf, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 48, Chief Justice Tilghman affirmed the validity of an ordinance of Philadelphia, imposing a fine for working on a Sunday, against a Jew; though under the teachings of the Jewish Talmud and the Rabbinical Constitutions, the Jew deemed Saturday as the Jewish Sabbath, and felt it both as a privilege and a duty to labour for six days, and to rest on the seventh, or Saturday.” Id. 198 512 U.S. 687, 691 (1994) (part of the facts). 199 505 U.S. 577, 639 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 200 492 U.S. at 584 n.24. “A Torah scroll—which contains the five Books of Moses—must be buried in a special manner when it is no longer usable. App. 237- 238.” Id. 201 490 U.S. 680, 701 (1989). “We also assume for purposes of argument that the IRS also allows taxpayers to deduct ‘specified payments for attendance at High Holy Day services, for tithes, for torah readings and for memorial plaques.’” Id. (quoting Foley v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 844 F.2d 94, 96 (1988)). 202 384 U.S. 436, 458 n.27 (1966). “Thirteenth century commentators found an analogue to the privilege grounded in the Bible. ‘To sum up the matter, the principle that no man is to be declared guilty on his own admission is a divine decree.’ 64 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Torah and the law instituted by the rabbi, appears in only one opinion: Garrity v. New Jersey.203 The Supreme Court used the words “Koran,” “Kuran,” “Qur’an,” or “Qor’an,” a Muslim book of revelations, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris,204 O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz,205 Clay v. United States,206 and Lemon v. Kurtzman.207 The Book of Mormon, a Mormon scripture, is cited in two decisions: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris208 and Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.209 Statistical evidence demonstrates that the appearance of references from Jewish or Muslim religious authorities is rare. Federal and U.S. Supreme Court case law mentions “Talmud” in 63 cases, “Torah” in 155 and “Halakhah” in 4 cases.210 The same search in the state case law database produces “Talmud” in 151 cases, “Torah” in 306 cases, and “Halakhah” in 2 cases, a pale comparison with the words “King James,” which produce 599 cases in state case law, and the word “Bible,” which is not possible to search due to an extremely high number of cases in which it appears.211 The various versions of the word “Koran” produce 499 cases in federal law and 349 cases in state law, but in most of those cases the word actually appears as a personal name.212 One needs go no farther than statistical data to conclude that the Bible is by far the most bellowed religious authority that judges use in their decision-making process and their written opinions. The apparent disparity in the use of different religious sources re- Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (Code of Jewish Law), Book of Judges, Laws of the Sanhedrin, c. 18, ¶ 6, III Yale Judaica Series 52-53.” Id. 203 385 U.S. 493, 497 n.5 (1967) (comparing Jewish law with the Fifth Amendment). 204 536 U.S. 639, 713 n.24 (2002) (quoting the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Pentateuch, and the Koran). 205 482 U.S. 342, 345 (1987). “Jumu’ah is commanded by the Koran and must be held every Friday after the sun reaches its zenith and before the Asr, or afternoon prayer. See Koran 62:9-10; Brief for Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin et al. as Amici Curiae 18-31.” Id. 206 403 U.S. 698, 708 n.2, 709 (1971) (quoting the Koran 61:10-13 to define “jihad as an injunction to the believers to war against non-believers”). 207 403 U.S. 602, 630-31 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). “The advantages of sectarian education relate solely to religious or doctrinal matters. They give the church the opportunity to indoctrinate its creed delicately and indirectly, or massively through doctrinal courses. Many nations follow that course: Moslem nations teach the Koran in their schools . . . .” Id. 208 Zelman, 536 U.S at 713 n.24. 209 490 U.S. at 709. 210 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 211 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 212 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 65 affirms the privileged status that Christianity enjoys in the United States. It is a constant reminder of the composition of the judiciary and the lack of diversity that contributes to the ongoing proliferation of the use of biblical references by the courts. CONCLUSION Language analysts recognize that the Bible had a substantial impact on standard English language.213 Many biblical passages, having been read at home and in church for generations, entered the popular linguistic milieu of the majority of Americans. However, not all of them became independent lexical units: A usage has to have achieved some degree of linguistic autonomy; it must be capable of being meaningful outside of its original biblical context, usable by English speakers who do not read (or even know) the Bible as well as those who do. (The same point applies to expressions derived from Shakespeare or any other author.) . . . A usage that does not meet this criterion is really only a quotation.214 One of the standard English expressions derived from the King James version of St. Matthew’s Gospel is, “No man can serve two masters.”215 However, courts continue to quote the Bible when referring to this expression. The variety of ways in which courts use biblical passages from Matthew and Luke is impressive.216 If the biblical passage that “no man can serve two masters” is part of folk wisdom, there would seem to be no need to quote the Bible. If, on the other hand, it is important to cite the ultimate source of this proverb, referencing the Bible seems logical. While this biblical quotation and citation to Matthew or Luke by courts may be trivial, the continuous use of the Bible by judges to support their arguments in written opinions is unjustified and should be barred. The Bible contains many passages as simple as the one above, but the scope of their impact on decision-making is impermissibly broad, including such decisions as life or death in capital cases. The arbitrariness of judicial choice to use some biblical passages as traditional folk expressions and to quote others as authoritative sources 213 CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 274. See also Ashburn, supra note 2, at 343-47 (citing examples of courts using aphorisms from Jewish law). 214 CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 276. “The King James Bible . . . has contributed far more to English in the way of idiomatic or quasi-proverbial expressions than any other literary source. . . . Matthew’s Gospel alone, for example, yields over forty locutions which, directly or indirectly, are part of Modern English.” Id. 215 Id. at 277. 216 See infra Appendix. 66 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 is analogous to the arbitrariness in which some biblical passages entered the everyday speech.217 Additionally, the use of the same biblical passage as a folk expression by some courts and as a biblical quote by the others creates a sense of arbitrariness and subjectivity, bringing into question judicial impartiality. The use of religious references in judicial decision-making is not rare and cannot be underestimated. The numerous ways in which the Bible finds its way into judicial opinions are a direct result of judges’ willingness to disregard the rules of judicial conduct and apparent constitutional violations stemming from such misuse. Since there is no bright line between a common expression such as “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”218 and the biblical mandate “[i]f anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death,”219 courts should never use either text, especially not during a sentencing phase. Courts should be prohibited from using religious references in judicial decision-making because any reliance on extralegal sources of authority is contrary to the basic principles of the American justice system. Using religious references in judicial opinions is an impermissible exercise of a privilege that coerces the minority to accept the norms of the majority. Whether disguised as morals, proverbs, principles, tradition, or history, religious references undermine judicial integrity and impartiality. Long ago, Justice Holmes expressed one of the most creative ideas in respect to delineating morality and law. Although his idea may sound radical today to moderate and conservative proponents of the use of religion in decision-making, it is one that should resonate with any person who is genuinely concerned with the American justice system: For my own part, I often doubt whether it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether, and other words adopted which should convey legal ideas uncolored by anything outside the law.220 217 See CRYSTAL, supra note 71, at 278. What is really intriguing, of course, is why some expressions entered English in this way, and others did not. Why did such similes as wise as serpents or harmless as doves ([Matthew] 10:16) not become everyday phrases? As always, when we consider lexical innovation, the bigger puzzle is to explain why so many apparently vivid or useful items did not appeal. Id. See also BARTH D. EHRMAN, MISQUOTING JESUS: THE STORY BEHIND WHO CHANGED THE BIBLE AND WHY (2005) (discussing intentional and accidental alterations of the Bible made by translators throughout history). 218 Leviticus 24:20 (New International). 219 Leviticus 24:17 (New International). 220 Holmes, The Path of the Law, supra note 128, at 464. 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 67 APPENDIX CASES USING “NO MAN CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS”221 “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Matthew 6:24 (New International). “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” Luke 16:13 (New International). Terms Used by Courts to Refer to “No Man Can Serve Two Masters” Admonition Familiar scriptural quotation Ancient admonition Fundamental law Ancient axiom Fundamental rule Ancient injunction Fundamental truth Ancient maxim Fundamental proposition Ancient principle General rule Ancient truth General principle Authority of Holy Writ Good Authority Authoritative declaration Gospel Axiom Hallowed petition Biblical admonition High authority Biblical advice Highest Authority has said Biblical expression Infallible declaration Biblical doctrine Biblical mandate Infallible truth Biblical quote Injunction Biblical teaching Jesus said Christ said Law for two thousand years Christian morality Legal maxim Centuries-old scriptural passage Maxim Common experience Moral maxim Declaration Moral rule Divine declaration Old adage Divine injunction Old as Holy Writ Divine precept Old principle Doctrine of the Holy Writ Old proverb Divine saying Philosophy Eternal truth Philosophy of the Galilean Expression Phrase from the Bible Fact Principle 221 Westlaw search performed on February 10, 2006 using a sesarch phrase “can serve two masters.” 68 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Proposition of the Highest and best Scriptural references authority Scriptural teaching Proverb Statement Public policy rule Theory Quoted from the Bible Truth Rule Truth of the biblical admonition Rule of the moral law Truth of the Scriptural injunction Rule of law Unanimous verdict of mankind Saying Universal moral rule Scriptural maxim Utterance of the divine Nazarene Scriptural pronouncement Very high authority has said Scriptural quotation Wisdom of the ages SUPREME COURT CASES NLRB v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 511 U.S. 571, 595 n.14 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (“No man can serve two masters. If you are negotiating a contract, a lawyer does not represent both clients. That is all that is involved here.”) Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 197 n.50 (1963) (Justice Goldberg quoting from United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 550 n.14 (1961)) United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 550 n.14 (1961) (Warren, J.) (“The reason of the rule inhibiting a party who occupies confidential and fiduciary relations toward another from assuming antagonistic positions to his principal in matters involving the subject matter of the trust is sometimes said to rest in a sound public policy, but it also is justified in a recognition of the authoritative declaration that no man can serve two masters; and considering that human nature must be dealt with, the rule does not stop with actual violations of such trust relations, but includes within its purpose the removal of any temptation to violate them.” (quoting Mich. Steel Box Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 421, 439 (1914))) Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Withers, 177 U.S. 260, 269 (1900) (Brown, J.) (“But if the insured is to be now bound as having thus contracted, there must be mutuality in the contract. No man can serve two masters.”) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 69 CITING TO MATTHEW Federal Court Cases Freund v. Butterworth, 117 F.3d 1543, 1572 n.67 (11th Cir. 1997) United States v. Mett, 65 F.3d 1531, 1538 (9th Cir. 1995) Sanjour v. EPA, 56 F.3d 85, 100-01 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Chapman v. Klemick, 3 F.3d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1993) Sanjour v. EPA, 984 F.2d 434, 447 (D.C. Cir. 1993) United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency, 873 F.2d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 1989) United States v. Gambino, 864 F.2d 1064, 1074-1075 n.1 (3d Cir. 1988) U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Louis A. Roser Co., 585 F.2d 932, 938 n.5 (8th Cir. 1978) Cinema 5, Ltd. v. Cinerama, Inc., 528 F.2d 1384, 1386 (2d Cir. 1976) Phelan v. Middle States Oil Corp., 220 F.2d 593, 619 (2d Cir. 1955) Armstrong Cleaners, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 364 F.Supp. 2d 797, 815 (S.D. Ind. 2005) Rocchigiani v. World Boxing Counsel, 82 F.Supp. 2d 182, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Union Ins. Co. v. Knife Co., 902 F. Supp. 877, 881 (W.D. Ark. 1995) ESM Gov’t. Sec., Inc. v. ESM Group, Inc. 66 B.R. 82, 84 (S.D. Fla. 1986) United States v. Bergmann, 47 F. Supp. 765, 767 (S.D. Cal. 1942) In re BH & P, Inc., 103 B.R. 556, 560 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1989) In re Tampa Chain Co., 35 B.R. 568, 579 n.10 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983) United States v. Short, 50 M.J. 370, 374 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (phrase from the Bible) 70 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 United States v. Nabisco, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 40, 44-45 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) Kamean v. Local 363, 109 F.R.D. 391, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) United States v. Agosto, 528 F. Supp. 1300, 1310 (D. Minn. 1981) United States v. Garafola, 428 F. Supp. 620, 621 (D.N.J. 1977) (Biblical teaching) Vance Trucking Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 249 F. Supp. 33, 38 n.2 (D.S.C. 1966) United States v. Kawakita, 96 F. Supp. 824, 836 (S.D. Cal. 1950) State Court Cases Office of Consumer Counsel v. Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Util. Control, No. CV020513718S, 2002 WL 31319517, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 24, 2002) Wis. Patients Comp. Fund v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 620 N.W.2d 457, 461-62 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 998 P.2d 856, 877 (Wash. 2000) State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Traver, 980 S.W.2d 625, 634 (Tex. 1998) In re Estate of Koch, 849 P.2d 977, 993 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993) Geauga County Bar Ass’n. v. Psenicka, 577 N.E.2d 1074, 1074 (Ohio 1991) Friends of La Vina v. County of L.A., 284 Cal. Rptr. 171, 178 n.1 (Ct. App. 1991) (Gates, Acting P.J., dissenting) Ex parte Weaver, 570 So.2d 675, 682 (Ala. 1990) J.K. & Susie L. Wadley Research Inst. & Blood Bank v. Morris, 776 S.W.2d 271, 284 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989) People v. Williams, 538 N.E.2d 564, 569 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (admonition) Collins v. Citizens & S. Trust Co., 373 S.E.2d 612, 617 (Ga. 1988) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 71 Swartz v. State, 429 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988) SHV Coal, Inc. v. Cont’l Grain Co., 545 A.2d 917, 921 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) Brickner v. Normandy Osteopathic Hosp., Inc., 746 S.W.2d 108, 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) Jim Royer Realty, Inc. v. Moreira, 363 S.E.2d 10, 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988) Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. v. Hinds County, 445 So.2d 1330, 1356 n.25 (Miss.1984) In re Conduct of Samuels and Weiner, 674 P.2d 1166, 1171 (Or. 1983) Webb v. State, 433 So.2d 496, 499 (Fla. 1983) Ellis v. Flink, 374 So.2d 4, 5 n.4 (Fla. 1979) Conn. Comm’n on Special Revenue v. Conn. Freedom of Info. Comm’n, 387 A.2d 533, 537 (Conn. 1978) Harford County v. Tatar, Lininger, Clark & Wood, Inc., 363 A.2d 501, 505 (Md. 1976) In re Runals’ Estate, 328 N.Y.S.2d 966, 978 (Sur. Ct. 1972) Onorato v. Wissahickon Park, Inc., 244 A.2d 22, 25 (Pa. 1968) Spratlin, Harrington & Thomas, Inc. v. Hawn, 156 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967) (Biblical expression) State v. 62.96247 Acres of Land, More or Less, in New Castle, 193 A.2d 799, 806 n.7 (Del. Super. Ct. 1963) State v. Brewer, 129 S.E.2d 262, 277 (N.C. 1963) Martin v. Hieken, 340 S.W.2d 161,165 (Mo. Ct. App. 1960) Hughes v. Robbins, 164 N.E.2d 469, 473 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1959) (“It has been well written that ‘no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) 72 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Powers v. Johnson, 306 S.W.2d 616, 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957) Fruchtl v. Foley, 84 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla. 1956) (admonition) Lexington Insulation Co. v. Davidson County, 90 S.E.2d 496, 498 (N.C. 1955) City of Miami v. Benson, 63 So.2d 916, 920 (Fla. 1953) Ridgway v. Super. Ct. of Yavapai, 245 P.2d 268, 271 (Ariz. 1952) Safeway Stores v. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, 234 P.2d 678, 682 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951) State ex rel. Young v. Niblack, 99 N.E.2d 839, 845 (Ind. 1951) Bossler v. Wilson, 65 Pa. D. & C. 164, 171 (Phila. Mun. Ct. 1949) City of Jackson v. McLeod, 24 So.2d 319, 325 (Miss. 1946) (“The public interest requires the undivided loyalty of police officers to the public service and we were told long ago by One whose judgment was infallible that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) Barr v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 200 So. 240, 244 (Fla. 1941) Century Indem. Co. v. Carnes, 138 S.W.2d 555, 560 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940) Moffett Bros. P’ship Estate v. Moffett, 137 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Mo. 1939) Caudle v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 182 So. 461, 464 (Ala. 1938) Whitlow v. Patterson, 112 S.W.2d 35, 41 (Ark. 1937) (“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”) Hood ex rel. N.C. Bank & Trust v. N.C. Bank & Trust, 184 S.E. 51, 62 (N.C. 1936) Olson v. Gaddis Inv. Co., 39 P.2d 744, 747 (Utah 1935) City of Leesburg v. Ware, 153 So. 87, 89 (Fla. 1934) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 73 State ex rel. Union Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 62 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Mo. 1933) Harris v. United Serv. Co., 32 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Ark. 1930) (general principle) Robson v. Hahn, 277 P. 507, 508 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1929) Schwartzman v. London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. of Liverpool, Eng., 2 S.W.2d 593, 602 (Mo. 1927) Castellanos v. Castro, 289 S.W. 104, 105 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926) (“It was said by the Great Teacher that ‘no man can serve two masters . . . .’”) Rezos v. Zahm & Nagel Co., 246 P. 564, 565 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1926) Carolina Bagging Co. v. Byrd, 116 S.E. 90, 92 (N.C. 1923) Hume v. Baggett & Baggett, 221 S.W. 1002, 1003 (Tex. Civ. App. 1920) (“This rule of law not only rests on an understanding of human nature but on the utterance of the Divine Nazarene, when he said: ‘No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.’”) Murray v. Lizotte, 77 A. 231, 238 (R.I. 1910) (“No matter how high his motives or how honorable his intention, ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other.’”) Shamokin Mfg. Co. v. Ohio German Fire Ins. Co., 39 Pa. Super. 553, 556 (Super. Ct. 1908) (“It involves a question whether the same person may be an agent in a private transaction for both parties, without the consent of both, so as to entitle him to compensation from both or either. We have the authority of Holy Writ for saying that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’ All human experience sanctions the undoubted truth and purity of this philosophy, and it is received as a cardinal principle in every system of enlightened jurisprudence.“) U.S. Tel. Co. v. Middlepoint Home Tel. Co., 19 Ohio Dec. 202, 208 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1908) (“It is as true today as when first spoken in the 74 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 parable, and has become a fundamental rule that ‘No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’”) Gann v. Zettler, 60 S.E. 283, 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908) (Powell, J.) (“It is recorded of Him ‘who spake as never man spoke’ that, ‘seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set his disciples came unto him; and he opened his mouth and taught them; saying: “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”’ So, also, is our law. Whoso, having undertaken the service of his master, counsels with another and agrees also to serve him in those same things wherewith he has been trusted, cannot claim the reward promised by his master unless he makes it plain that he has not acted privily, but that his master was consenting thereto.” (internal citations omitted)) City of Philadelphia v. Durham, No. 1, 1907 WL 3343, at *13 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 30, 1907) (“We have the authority of Holy Writ for saying that ‘no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’ All human experience sanctions the undoubted truth and purity of this philosophy, and it is received as a cardinal principle in every system of enlightened jurisprudence.”) McDowell v. First Nat’l Bank of Sutton, 102 N.W. 615, 617 (Neb. 1905) Nat’l Tube Co. v. Eastern Tube Co., 13 Ohio Cir. Dec. 468 (Cir. Ct. 1902) Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Evans, 53 S.W. 1104, 1105 (Tenn. Ct. Ch. App. 1899) Moore v. Grow, 1 Pa. Super. 125, 127 (Super. Ct. 1896) Northrup v. Phillips, 99 Ill. 449, 454 (1881) Dickson v. People ex rel. Brown, 17 Ill. 191, 193 (1855) CITING TO LUKE State Court Cases Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bourlon, 617 S.E.2d 40, 60 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 75 Barefield v. DPIC Cos., 600 S.E.2d 256, 281 (W. Va. 2004) Rose ex rel. Rose v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 599 S.E.2d 673, 688 (W. Va. 2004) People v. Graham, 794 N.E.2d 231, 236 (Ill. 2003) Myer v. Preferred Credit, Inc., 117 Ohio Misc. 2d 8, 24 (Ct. Com. Pl. 2001) State v. Reddick, 534 S.E.2d 473, 477 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) Brooks v. Zebre, 792 P.2d 196, 200 (Wyo. 1990) Watkins v. Floyd, 492 S.W.2d 865, 870 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973) Wise v. S. Pac. Co., 77 Cal. Rptr. 156, 160 (Ct. App. 1969) Pac. Indem. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 81 P.2d 572, 575 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938) Smith v. Harvey-Given Co., 185 S.E. 793, 796 (Ga. 1936) Jordan v. Austin Sec. Co., 51 P.2d 38, 58 (Kan. 1935) State v. Gautier, 147 So. 240, 246 (Fla. 1933) Never Fail Land Co. v. Cole, 149 S.E. 585, 588 (N.C. 1929) Patterson v. De Haven, 263 P. 568, 572 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) Chippewa Power Co. v. R.R. Comm’n of Wis., 205 N.W. 900, 902 (Wis. 1925) Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 119 S.E. 315, 317 (Ga. 1923) Pagel v. Creasy, 6 Ohio App. 199, 206 (Ct. App. 1916) McCudden v. Brockmeyer, 26 Ohio Dec. 432, 436 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1915) Carr v. Ubsdell, 71 S.W. 112, 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902) Bell v. McConnell, 37 Ohio St. 396, 399 (1881) 76 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 NO QUOTATION MARKS Federal Court Cases United States v. Freyer, 333 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2003) (no lawyer can serve two masters) United States v. Levine, 794 F.2d 1203, 1205 (7th Cir. 1986) Ottawa Tribe v. United States, 166 Ct. Cl. 373, 379 (Ct. Cl. 1964) (gospel) Speeter v. United States, 42 F.2d 937, 940 (8th Cir. 1930) (old principle) Parkerson v. Borst, 264 F. 761, 765 (5th Cir. 1920) (scriptural maxim) United States v. Krafft, 249 F. 919, 928 (3d Cir. 1918) Curved Electrotype Plate Co. of N.Y. v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 258, 272 (Ct. Cl. 1915) (authoritative declaration) Crites, Inc., v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 134 F.2d 925, 927 (6th Cir. 1943) (principle) Rankin v. United States, 98 Ct. Cl. 357, 367 (Ct. Cl. 1943) (authoritative declaration) Mich. Steel Box Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 421, 439 (Cl. Ct. 1914) (authoritative declaration) Bramhall v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 51, 59 (Cl. Ct. 1868) Klein v. Miller, No. Civ.A.SA-02-CA-687FB, 2004 WL 1118725, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2004) (biblical advice) Costa v. U.S. Dep’t of Veteran’s Affairs, 845 F. Supp. 64, 69 (D.R.I. 1994) (biblical advice) Overfield v. Pennroad Corp., 42 F. Supp. 586, 608 (E.D. Pa. 1941) In re Int’l Match Corp., 20 F. Supp. 420, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 1937) (truth of the biblical admonition) John Conlon Coal Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. of N.Y., 16 F. Supp. 93, 95 (M.D. Pa. 1936) (principle) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 77 Marshall v. Lovell, 11 F.2d 632, 639 (D. Minn. 1926) Brookings State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of S.F., 281 F. 222, 228 (D. Or. 1922) Brookings State Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of S.F., 277 F. 430, 432 (D. Or. 1921) Brown v. Pa. Canal Co, 229 F. 444, 452 (E.D. Pa. 1916) In re Va. Hardwood Mfg. Co., 139 F. 209, 218 (W.D. Ark. 1905) Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Winona & Sw. Ry. Co., 59 F. 957, 961 (C.C.D. Minn. 1893) Putnam v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 4 F. 753, 760 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1880) In re Tinley Plaza Assocs., 142 B.R. 272, 279 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.1992) In re Huddleston, 120 B.R. 399, 401 (Bankr. E.D. Tex.1990) United States v. Hubbard, 43 C.M.R. 322, 325 (C.M.A. 1971) (truth of the Scriptural injunction) Midwest Farmers v. United States, 64 F. Supp. 91, 102 (D. Minn. 1945) State Court Cases People v. Hardin, 840 N.E.2d 1205, 1212 (Ill. 2005) Coronado v. Schoenmann Produce Co., 99 S.W.3d 741, 753-55 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003) State ex rel. S.G., 814 A.2d 612, 616 (N.J. 2003) Barrett v. Union Twp. Comm., 553 A.2d 62, 65 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989) (moral rule) Siegman v. Bd. of Educ., 477 N.E. 2d 241, 243 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) Copple v. City of Lincoln, 274 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Neb. 1979) Pa. Labor Relations Bd. v. E. Lancaster County Sch. Dist., 1973 WL 16227, at *3 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. May 18, 1973) (fundamental truth) 78 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 City of Montgomery v. Brendle Fire Equip., Inc., 279 So.2d 480, 486 (Ala. 1973) Procidano v. Mautner, 335 N.Y.S.2d 17, 24 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1972) St. Paul at Chase Corp. v. Mfrs. Life Ins. Co., 278 A.2d 12, 25 (Md. 1971) Bd. of Educ. v. Wilton, 273 A.2d 44, 50 (N.J. 1971) Caddie v. Warden, Md. Correctional Inst., 238 A.2d 129, 129 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1968) (theory) Hasbrouck v. Rymkevitch, 268 N.Y.S.2d 604, 606 (App. Div. 1966) Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 176 A.2d 641, 643 (Pa. 1962) Van Dyke v. White, 349 P.2d 430, 437 (Wash. 1960) Md. Credit Finance Corp. v. Hagerty, 139 A.2d 230, 233 (Md. 1958) Jedwabny v. Phila. Transp. Co., 135 A.2d 252, 255 (Pa. 1957) (scriptural references) Coble v. Econ. Forms Corp. 304 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957) Aldom v. Borough of Roseland, 127 A.2d 190, 194 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956) (moral rule) Jersey City v. Hague, 115 A.2d 8, 13 (N.J. 1955) Henshie v. McPherson & Citizens State Bank, 280 P.2d 937, 947 (Kan. 1955) In re Ridgely, 106 A.2d 527, 530 (Del. 1954) (injunction) Cornale v. Stewart Stamping Corp., 129 N.Y.S.2d 808, 814 (Sup. Ct. 1954) Shernoff v. Schimel, 112 N.Y.S.2d 333, 347 (Sup. Ct. 1952) Klein v. Twentieth Century-Fox Int’l Corp., 108 N.Y.S.2d 767, 768 (Sup. Ct. 1951) (fact) State ex inf. Taylor v. Cumpton, 240 S.W.2d 877, 884-85 (Mo. 1951) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 79 Petition of Topham, 58 Pa. D. & C. 649, 654 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1947) Nagel v. Todd, 45 A.2d 326, 328 (Md. 1946) City of Lincoln v. First Nat’l Bank of Lincoln, 19 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Neb. 1945) (moral rule) Alabama State Fed’n of Labor v. McAdory, 18 So.2d 810, 829 (Ala. 1944) Phillips v. Phillips, 13 So.2d 922, 923 (Fla. 1943) Almon v. Am. Carloading Corp., 38 N.E.2d 362, 363-64 (Ill. App. Ct. 1941) (rule of law) Cowan v. Hamilton Nat’l Bank, 146 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Tenn. 1941) Jarrett v. French & Co., 3 N.Y.S.2d 227, 228 (App. Div. 1938) (theory) Valley & Siletz R.R. Co. v. Thomas, 48 P.2d 358, 383 (Or. 1935) Beatty v. Employers’ Liab. Assurance Corp., 168 A. 919, 924 (Vt. 1933) Greenfield v. Bausch, 263 N.Y.S. 19, 21 (App. Div. 1933) (fact) Elco Shoe Mfrs. v. Sisk, 183 N.E. 191, 191-92 (N.Y. 1932) Kane v. McClenachan, 159 A. 61, 64 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1932) Pac. Fin. Corp. v. City of Lynwood, 300 P. 50, 53 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1931) (principle) New England Oil Ref. Co. v. Can. Mex. Oil Co., 174 N.E. 330, 337 (Mass. 1931) Terrell v. Town of Tempe, 274 P. 786, 788 (Ariz. 1929) Lucas Realty Co. v. Franks, 6 S.W.2d 273, 274 (Ky. 1928) Eastham v. Stumbo, 279 S.W. 1109, 1110 (Ky. 1926) C.M. Condon & Co. v. Richardson, 232 P. 1070, 1071 (Kan. 1925) De Crette v. Mohler, 127 A. 639, 642 (Md. 1925) 80 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Smith v. Ward, 197 N.W. 684, 685 (S.D. 1924) Williams v. Bolling, 121 S.E. 270, 273 (Va. 1923) Grady v. Pink Hill Bank & Trust Co., 113 S.E. 667, 669 (N.C. 1922) In re Moses, 195 N.Y.S. 358, 360 (App. Div. 1922) (old as Holy Writ) Meeks v. Fink, 89 So. 543, 544 (Fla. 1921) Wilson v. S. Pac. Land Co., 46 Cal. App. 738, 745 (Ct. App. 1920) Clarksburg Light & Heat Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 100 S.E. 551, 555 (W. Va. 1919) State v. Nichols, 166 N.W. 813, 813 (N.D. 1918) Southampton Twp. v. Johnson, No. 3, 1916 WL 4261, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 17, 1916) Schenectady Illuminating Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 151 N.Y.S. 830, 831 (Sup. Ct. 1914) Hirsh v. Twyford, 139 P. 313, 316 (Okla. 1913) Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v. State, 142 N.W. 847, 852 (S.D. 1913) (fundamental proposition) City of Minneapolis v. Canterbury, 142 N.W. 812, 814 (Minn. 1913) Hill v. Whiteside, 85 A. 425, 425 (Pa. 1912) Bell v. Riggs, 127 P. 427, 430 (Okla. 1912) (high authority) Langford v. Issenhuth, 134 N.W. 889, 894 (S.D. 1912) (fundamental law) Salene v. Queen City Fire Ins. Co. of Sioux Falls, 116 P. 1114, 1115 (Or. 1911) (principle) Cobe v. Coughlin Hardware Co., 112 P. 115, 117 (Kan. 1910) Mitchell v. Schreiner, 1910 WL 4143, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1910) (quoted from the Bible) Lightcap v. Nicola, 34 Pa. Super. 189, 202 (Super. Ct. 1907) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 81 Harper v. Fidler, 78 S.W. 1034, 1035 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904) (authoritative declaration) Hier v. Miller, 75 P. 77, 77 (Kan. 1904) Edwards v. Home Ins. Co., 73 S.W. 881, 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 1902) In re Reifschneider, 69 N.Y.S. 1069, 1074 (App. Div. 1901) Murphy v. Indep. Order of Sons & Daughters of Jacob of Am., 27 So. 624, 625 (Miss. 1900) McFarland v. Gordon, 41 A. 507, 508 (Vt. 1898) Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Hardy, 34 A. 986, 987 (N.J. 1896) Shepard v. Hill, 34 P. 159, 160 (Wash. 1893) State v. Hastings, 55 N.W. 774, 789 (Neb. 1893) Huggins Cracker & Candy Co. v. People’s Ins. Co., 41 Mo. App. 530, 541 (1890) (authoritative declaration) Whited v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 76 N.Y. 415, 420 (1879) Roll v. Riddle, 5 Ohio Dec. Reprint 232, 655 (Super. Ct. 1874) Ex rel. Dawson, 39 Ala. 367, 404 (1864) In re Miller, 30 Pa. 478, 494 (1858) Laight St. Baptist Church v. Noe, 12 How. Pr. 497, 497 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1855) Buckles v. Lafferty’s Legatees, 41 Va. (2 Rob.) 292, 302 (1843) Gayden v. Gayden, 1842 WL 2414, at *5 (S.C. Ct. App. Eq. 1842) (eternal truth) State v. Hunt, 20 S.C.L. (2 Hill) 1, 64 (Ct. App. 1834) Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 361, 371 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1826) Carter v. Harris, 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 199, 204 (1826) (principle) McAllister v. Marshall, 6 Binn. 338, 350 (Pa. 1814) 82 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 QUOTATION MARKS WITHOUT CITATION Federal Court Cases United States v. Bowens, 108 F. App’x 945, 971 (5th Cir. 2004) Berwind Corp. v. Fyfe, No. 89-55880, 1990 WL 208794, at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir. 1978) Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 233 (2d Cir. 1977) Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Mitchell, 190 F.2d 308, 308 (5th Cir. 1951) (scriptural pronouncement) Va. Ferry Corp. v. NLRB, 101 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir. 1939) (high authority) Turner v. Kirkwood, 49 F.2d 590, 594 (10th Cir. 1931) (infallible truth and divine saying) Crawford v. United States, 30 App. D.C. 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 1907) Olcott v. Rice, 69 F. 199, 202 (5th Cir. 1895) (truth) McGlothlin v. Connors, 142 F.R.D. 626, 635 (W.D. Va. 1992) (biblical admonition) Schwartz v. O’Grady, No. 86 CIV. 4243, 1990 WL 156274, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 1990) SEC v. Commonwealth Sec. Investors, Inc., No. 2161, 1970 WL 202, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 1970) (Biblical quote) Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Keyes, 46 F. Supp. 181, 185 (W.D. Ky. 1933) (Jesus said) United States v. Walter, 291 F. 662, 663 (S.D. Fla. 1921) United States v. Del. & Hudson Co, 164 F. 215, 258 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1908) United States v. Booth, 148 F. 112, 116 (C.C.D. Or. 1906) (principle) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 83 Symmes v. Union Trust Co. of N.Y., 60 F. 830, 864 (C.C.D. Nev. 1894) United States v. Sippel, 8 C.M.R. 698, 745 (C.M.R. 1953) (principle) In re Grand Jury Investigation, 436 F. Supp. 818, 821 (W.D. Pa. 1977) (ancient axiom) Dobbins v. Local 212, 292 F. Supp. 413, 451 n. 19 (S.D. Ohio 1968) In re W.T. Byrns, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 442, 445 (E.D. Va. 1966) Shapiro v. Stahl, 195 F. Supp. 822, 825 (M.D. Pa. 1961) (infallible declaration) Livingston v. Shreveport-Texas League Baseball Corp., 128 F. Supp. 191, 199 (W.D. La. 1955) (axiom) State Court Cases People v. Woidtke, 729 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) Winmark Ltd. P’ship v. Miles & Stockbridge, 674 A.2d 73, 87 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996) Friendship Heights Citizens Comm. v. Barlow, 329 A.2d 122, 125 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974) Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Ky. Bar Ass’n, 917 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Ky. 1996) Md. Metals, Inc. v. Metzner, 382 A.2d 564, 568 (Md. 1978) In re Brown, 559 P.2d 884, 889 (Or. 1977) Drenning v. Kuebel, Inc., 327 So. 2d 571, 575 (La. Ct. App. 1976) In re Boivin, 533 P.2d 171, 174 (Or. 1975) Commonwealth v. Shank, 54 Pa. D. & C.2d 602, 605 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1971) Elizabeth Fire Officers Ass’n v. City of Elizabeth, 274 A.2d 817, 819 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971) Warminster Twp. Appeal, 56 Pa. D. & C.2d 99, 111 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1971) 84 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Claughton v. Bear Stearns & Co., 156 A.2d 314, 319-20 (Pa. 1959) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) McCall v. Johns, 294 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Ct. App. 1956) State v. Haesemeyer, 78 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 1956) (ancient truth) In re Bond & Mortg. Guar. Co., 103 N.E.2d 721, 725 (N.Y. 1952) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Ky. State Fair Bd. v. Fowler, 221 S.W.2d 435, 439 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949) (philosophy) In re Buder, 217 S.W.2d 563, 574 (Mo. 1949) Kurtz v. Steinhart, 60 Pa. D. & C. 345, 360 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1947) (old adage) In re Laegen’s Estate, 43 N.Y.S.2d 924, 926 (Sur. Ct. 1943) Rotzin v. Miller, 277 N.W. 811, 817 (Neb. 1938) (hallowed petition) Int’l Serv. Union Co. v. People ex rel. Wettengel, 70 P.2d 431, 436 (Colo. 1937) Haines v. Biddle, 188 A. 843, 844 (Pa. 1937) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Richter Jewelry Co. v. Schweinert, 169 So. 750, 753 (Fla. 1936) (general rule) Whelan v. Bailey, 36 P.2d 709, 710 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1934) (saying) Bland v. Smith, 33 P.2d 25, 27 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1934) (rule) Clawans v. Ordway Bldg. & Loan Ass’n., 164 A. 267, 283 (N.J. 1933) (wisdom of the ages) Mees v. Grewer, 245 N.W. 813, 815 (N.D. 1932) Hall v. Williams, 50 S.W.2d 138, 140 (Mo. 1932) (ancient maxim) Neb. State Bank of Norfolk v. Sch. Dist. of Pierce, 240 N.W. 570, 571 (Neb. 1932) (good authority) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 85 Wick v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 1930 WL 2386, at *5 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. Dec. 29, 1930) Cent. Nat. Bank of Lincoln v. First Nat. Bank, 219 N.W. 894, 895 (Neb. 1928) (philosophy) McDaniel v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 240 Ill. App. 535, 549 (App. Ct. 1926) In re Water Rights in Silvies River, 237 P. 322, 358 (Or. 1925) Shealy v. S. Ry. Co., 120 S.E. 561, 568, 575 (S.C. 1924) Koons v. Richardson, 227 Ill. App. 477, 484 (App. Ct. 1923) (rule of the moral law and expression) Tex. Ref. Co. v. Alexander, 202 S.W. 131, 134 (Tex. Civ. App. 1918) (very high authority has said) Tusant v. Grand Lodge A.O.U.W., 163 N.W. 690, 693 (Iowa 1917) (law) Kirby-Sorge-Felske Co. v. Doty, 157 N.W. 273, 276 (Mich. 1916) (infallible declaration) Peterson v. Lewis, 154 P. 101, 106 (Or. 1915) In re E. Cameron Twp. Auditors’ Report, 1915 WL 3321, at *7 (Pa. Com. Pl. Aug. 11, 1915) (statement) (general principle) In re Krauthoff, 177 S.W. 1112, 1125 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915) (Highest Authority has said) King v. Reed, 141 P. 41, 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 1913) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Clopton v. Meeves, 133 P. 907, 910 (Idaho 1913) (common experience and unanimous verdict of mankind) Jacobs v. Beyer, 125 N.Y.S. 597, 599 (App. Div. 1910) (rule) Biddle v. Cumberland County, No. 15, 1908 WL 2834, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Oct. 20, 1908) Commonwealth ex rel. Kutz v. Witman, 66 A. 986, 987 (Pa. 1907) (statement) 86 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Evans v. Rockett, 32 Pa. Super. 365, 369 (Super. Ct. 1907) (infallible declaration) Commonwealth v. Miller, 1906 WL 3769, at *4 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1906) (expression) Wilkinson v. McCullough, 46 A. 357, 358 (Pa. 1900) (infallible declaration) Leathers v. Canfield, 75 N.W. 612, 616 (Mich. 1898) (infallible declaration) Addison v. Wanamaker, 39 A. 1111, 1111 (Pa. 1898) (proposition of the highest and best authority) Deutsch v. Baxter, 47 P. 405, 405 (Colo. App. 1896) (fact) Wildberger v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 17 So. 282, 283 (Miss. 1895) Finch v. Redding, 26 A. 368, 369-70 (Pa. 1893) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Caswell v. Jones, 26 A. 529, 530 (Vt. 1893) Harkness v. Briscoe, 47 Mo. App. 196, 198 (Ct. App. 1891) (principle) Pearson v. Concord R.R., 62 N.H. 537, 545 (1883) Memphis, Kan. & Colo. Ry. Co. v. Parsons Town Co., 26 Kan. 503, 509 (1881) Haxton v. Harris, 19 Kan. 511, 512 (1878) Draper v. Moore, 1872 WL 6072, at *4 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1872) BIBLICAL MANDATE State Court Cases Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Foster, 528 So.2d 255, 277 (Miss. 1988) (ancient principle) Kirby v. Cruce, 688 S.W.2d 161, 171 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985) (Christian morality) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 87 In re Hershberger, 606 P.2d 623, 627 (Or. 1980) (biblical admonition) Citizens Bank v. C & H Constr. & Paving Co., 600 P.2d 1212, 1217 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Twp. Comm. of Hazlet Twp., Monmouth County v. Morales, 289 A.2d 563, 565 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1972) (moral rule) State v. Goode, 171 N.W.2d 733, 733 (S.D. 1969) (ancient admonition) State ex rel. Londerholm v. Schroeder, 430 P.2d 304, 314 (Kan. 1967) (ancient injunction) Riviera Congress Assocs. v. Yassky, 264 N.Y.S.2d 624, 634 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Schear v. City of Elizabeth, 196 A.2d 774, 778 (N.J. 1964) (universal moral rule) Naftalin v. John Wood Co., 116 N.W.2d 91, 99 (Minn.1962) (truth of the biblical admonition) Dick & Reuteman Co. v. Doherty Realty Co., 114 N.W.2d 475, 479 (Wis. 1962) (centuries-old scriptural passage) Schauer v. City of Miami Beach, 112 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 1959) (familiar scriptural quotation) Spadaro v. Palmisano, 109 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (biblical mandate) Raymond v. Bartlett, 175 P.2d 288, 289 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1946) (biblical doctrine) Higginbotham v. Pub. Belt R.R. Comm’n, 181 So. 65, 71 (La. Ct. App. 1938) (biblical doctrine) In re Flavin’s Guardianship, 18 N.E.2d 514, 518 (Ohio Ct. App. 1938) (law for two thousand years) Adams v. Hearn, 178 A. 606, 611 (Md. 1935) (divine injunction) Stubbs v. Fla. State Finance Co., 159 So. 527, 528 (Fla. 1935) (familiar scriptural quotation) 88 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Mangels v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Balt., 173 A. 191, 197 (Md. 1934) (divine precept) State v. Williams, 68 S.E. 900, 902 (N.C. 1910) (scriptural teaching) Hamilton v. Allen, 125 N.W. 610, 612 (Neb. 1910) (philosophy of the Galilean and declaration) Beasley v. Swinton, 24 S.E. 313, 322 (S.C. 1896) (Christ said) Funk v. Washington Twp., No. 196, 1893 WL 2925, at *4 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. July 15, 1893) (authority of Holy Writ) Pa. R.R. Co. v. Flanigan, 4 A. 364, 367 (Pa. 1886) (authority of Holy Writ) Everhart v. Searle, 71 Pa. 256, 259 (1872) (authority of Holy Writ and principle) Scheible v. Bacho, 41 Ala. 423, 450 (1868) (Divine declaration) Herman v. Martineau, 1 Wis. 151, 158 (1853) (doctrine of Holy Writ) PRINCIPLE OR PROPOSITION State Court Cases People v. Dobrino, 592 N.E.2d 391, 401 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) People v. Arnold, 577 N.E.2d 1355, 1362 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) Fed’n of State Cultural & Educ. Prof’l v. Commonwealth, 546 A.2d 147, 150 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988) People v. Spreitzer, 525 N.E.2d 30, 34 (Ill. 1988) State v. Basham, 170 N.W.2d 238, 255 (S.D. 1969) (principle) Batson v. Strehlow, 59 Cal. Rptr. 195, 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) Holmes v. McKey, 383 P.2d 655, 664 (Okla. 1963) In re Guardianship of Angell, 167 N.E.2d 711, 713 (Ill. App. Ct. 1960) Battle v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 168 N.E.2d 915, 918 (Ohio Ct. App. 1959) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 89 Fred Tuke & Son v. Burkhardt, 156 N.E.2d 490, 491 (Ohio Mun. Ct. 1958) State v. Hambrick, 196 P.2d 661, 667 (Wyo. 1948) Callahan v. Jones, 93 P.2d 326, 330 (Wash. 1939) Gallin v. Nat’l City Bank of N.Y., 273 N.Y.S. 87, 101 (Sup. Ct. 1934) Rossi v. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J., 165 A. 16, 18 (Pa. 1932) Garibaldi Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Atlantic City v. Garibaldi, 162 A. 419, 423 (N.J. Ch. 1932) Swearingen v. Moore, 280 P. 295, 299 (Okla. 1929) Johnson ex rel. McCarter v. Nippert, 144 A. 404, 406 (Pa. 1928) Adams v. Kennard, 253 P. 1048, 1049 (Or. 1927) Quell v. Boyajian, 90 Pa. Super. 386, 389 (Super. Ct. 1926) (ancient principle) Murray v. Stuart, 247 P. 187, 188 (Colo. 1926) (ancient principle) W.R. Pickering Lumber Co. v. Sherritt, 233 P. 179, 180 (Okla. 1924) Rowe v. Freeman, 172 P. 508, 511 (Or. 1918) Livermore Falls Trust & Banking Co. v. Riley, 78 A. 980, 981 (Me. 1911) Wolford v. Upper Salford Twp. Sch. Dist., 46 Pa. Super. 1, 4 (Super. Ct. 1910) Clark v. Hubbard, 44 Pa. Super. 37, 42 (Super. Ct. 1910) (public policy rule) Edwards v. Meyers, 76 A. 510, 511 (Pa. 1910) Marshall v. Reed, 32 Pa. Super. 60, 61 (Super. Ct. 1906) (declaration and general principle) Maxwell v. West, No. 603, 1900 WL 4333, at *1 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Feb. 3, 1900) 90 NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 9:31 Cincinnati, H. & D. R.R. Co. v. Morris, 10 Ohio C.C. 502, 520 (Cir. Ct. 1895) Rice v. Davis, 20 A. 513, 514 (Pa. 1890) (infallible declaration and public policy rule) Bensley v. Moon, 7 Ill. App. 415, 421 (App. Ct. 1880) Bassett v. Monte Christo Gold & Silver Min. Co., 15 Nev. 293, 299 (1880) (general principle) Eur. & N. Am. Ry. Co. v. Poor, 59 Me. 277, 277 (1871) Morrison v. Ogdensburgh & Lake Champlain R.R. Co., 52 Barb. 173, 173 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1868) PROVERB OR MAXIM State Court Cases In re Estate of Shano, 869 P.2d 1203, 1210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) Plaquemines Parish Com’n Council v. Delta Dev. Co., 502 So.2d 1034, 1040 (La. 1987) Alexander v. Super. Ct., 685 P.2d 1309, 1315 (Ariz. 1984) Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1052 v. Pub. Employment Relations, 630 P.2d 470, 474 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981) In re Adkins’ Estate, 319 P.2d 512, 515 (Mont. 1957) (old proverb) Shell Oil Co. v. Bd. of County Com’rs, 231 P.2d 220, 224 (Kan. 1951) (maxim) Engle v. Dist. Ct., 85 P.2d 627, 629 (Utah 1938) In re Union Real Estate Inv. Co. First Mortgage 6% Gold Bonds Due July 1, 1941, 1 A.2d 662, 666 (Pa. 1938) Howard v. Potts, 233 N.W. 909, 912 (S.D. 1930) (moral maxim) Horan v. Varian, 265 P. 263, 267 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1928) Cameron v. White, 262 P. 664, 668 (Okla. 1927) Salata v. Dylewski, 207 N.W. 895, 896 (Mich. 1926) 2005] QUOTING THE BIBLE 91 Farnsworth v. Hatch, 151 P. 537, 541 (Utah 1915) In re Ramsey, 123 N.W. 726, 728 (S.D. 1909) (moral maxim) Casey v. Donovan, 65 Mo. App. 521, 529 (Ct. App. 1896) Burke v. Bours, 32 P. 980, 981 (Cal. 1893) Piatt v. Longworth’s Devisees, 27 Ohio St. 159, 195 (1875) (legal maxim)https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=clr City University of New York Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 1 ...
Translation It takes the average person about 90 days to ingest the full 60 gram treatment. I suggest that people start with three doses pe...