THE MATRIX AND
THE U. S. CONSTITUTION
By: no name (hidden for his safety)
During my twelve years service as a Judge, I always insisted on the truth and placed justice above law and order! I could have prepared this article indicia of a research paper however; people tend to lose interest when articles of this nature become too technical. Science has taught us that, “For every action there is a positive reaction!” If your life on earth resembles a Matrix, it is because you’re seeing things for the first time, with eyes wide open, but you feel confused! That feeling of confusion is appropriate because the information you are now digesting, contradicts much of the information you have been spoon fed throughout your life! I named this paper after the movie “The Matrix,” written by the Wachowsi brothers. After reading this, watch the movie and you will notice many similarities.
In 2002, my brother ran into a problem with the IRS and to help him out, I began to research the Tax Code. One thing led to another and suddenly I was uncovering information about our government, which was directly in conflict with the U. S. Constitution and what I have been led to believe throughout my life. In time I began to interface with people from every state in the Republic, who was doing the same thing I was doing; some for the same reason and others for different reasons. We began to trade our research and the facts I uncovered was totally in contradiction to the history of America, which had been taught to us in public school and the principals of law, I had absorbed during my service as a Judge. I began to assist people to prepare and file suits in the courts and I filed several of my own. At one point, because of the information I’m about to provide to you; I became extremely depressed. After about three months, I eventually shook it off and continued on with my research.
My hope in writing this is to help you, the reader, make sense of it all, which will require you to wash your mind clean of the brainwashing you were subjected to by our government, our government controlled public schools and church’s and re-educate yourself. When you understand the actions, the reactions will make sense, and it should anger you! Eventually, you will have a choice to make; a choice that will define: “How to survive life in, The Matrix?” In ‘The Matrix’ nothing is real however, your mind has been conditioned to believe it is real! The Matrix is far too big to defeat; no one can escape it, and we haven’t the means or intelligence to beat those in control! Through my research, I discovered that America is a society of functional illiterates! I remind you that this is not my opinion, I’m just the messenger!
The people in charge of the Matrix represent the most powerful and intelligent humans on earth. When gifted children appear in the public schools of the world, they are courted with scholarships, money and eventually memberships into secret societies! They will be introduced to very persuasive intellectuals, who will convince these young gifted people, that it is their place and duty to be a part of the elite who rule the worlds population, because the rest of the worlds population are too stupid to
make decisions for themselves (their comment - not mine)! When the “New World Order” is officially and openly in control, only the extremely intelligent will be allowed to propagate. Everyone else will be sterilized or murdered through staged pandemics, used to eliminate excessive populations! Every Foreign Revolution, the World Wars, the Depression, Prohibition, Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East conflict and the Influenza Epidemic during World War I; was planned and orchestrated by these people!
Many early writers researched much of this history and were forced to fund their own publication and the distribution of their work. Most never received the acclaim they deserved, and never knew our government was responsible for their failures! I am prepared to supply anyone interested with mounds of research in support of what I have written herein!
When I’ve conveyed parts of this information in court documents, the opposition’s lawyer, responds to their clients that, “I’m just crazy,” and if the judge is within ear-shot of that comment, he will nod his head in judicial agreement! Well, I guess that caps it! If a lawyer and a lawyer judge, both contend that I am crazy, then I must be crazy! They wouldn’t lie to you! .......... or would they?
THE motive of our Founding Fathers was totally self-centered. It was their personal greed that inspired them to accept the task of writing the Constitution of the United States and not patriotism! In actuality, the United States is not a land or a place: ‘It is a corporation, a legal fiction that existed well before the Revolutionary War.’ [See: Republica v. Sween, 1 Dallas 43 and 28 U. S. C. 3002 (15)].
The Constitution of the United States was written in secret by the Founding Fathers and was never presented to the Colonists for a vote. Surely, any document as important as this demanded the approval of the people it governed! Well, it wasn’t presented for a vote because the Constitution wasn't created for "We the People," it was created by and for the Founding Fathers, their family, heirs and their posterity! The Constitution is a business plan and any reference contained within it that appears to be the safeguard of a ‘Right’ is there because none of the Founding Fathers trusted each other. The safeguards were intended to prevent any one or group of them from cutting out the others! Proving that; “There’s no honor among thieves!”
Americans are not unlike all other humans who inhabit the earth. All human beings possess malleable minds, which are minds that can be shaped and controlled; and when government shapes and controls a mind, it’s called “brainwashing.” Brainwashing causes the subject to become ‘functionally illiterate.’ In America, our functional ignorance excels in the areas of history, government and law, which really are one in the same. Ninety-eight percent of the officials in public office are lawyers and these so-called representatives set policy and created the laws that govern this society. Their use of Greek and Latin terms in law and the habit of changing definitions and usage of common words is intentional. The intent is to confound and confuse the general public; and to hide the treason they are implementing; and so that members of the public are forced or decide to hire a lawyer out of frustration, rather than try to represent themselves in our, ‘fictional courts of law.’ As you read on I’ll explain to you why and how, our courts and laws are fictional!
There has never been a law on the books created by the Congress, which made it illegal for a common man to practice law. Every Judge of a District, Circuit or Appeal Court, except Justices and Magistrates, is a lawyer and a member of the Bar. These Judges have the authority to establish local rules of court and those mentioned, have created a local rule that prevents common people from representing any other person in their court or ‘to practice law without a license!’ A license requires that you produce your Bar Association number. For those who don’t know, the Bar Association is simply a ‘Lawyers Union,’ and when lawyers are accepted into the Bar, they are required to swear allegiance to a foreign power! The American Bar Association is a branch of a national organization titled; “The National Lawyers Guild Communist Party” and can be found recorded in the United States Code at: [28 U. S. C. 3002, section 15a]. They have become so big and entrenched that they no longer fear reprisal!
Whenever I tell people that there is no actual law that makes it a crime to represent another person in court, their reaction is, “liar!” I remind them that Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow never went to law school or passed the Bar, but their reaction is understandable because the Bar is a very powerful organization and its members have infiltrated every nitch of American life and business. How many times in your life have you heard, “You can’t practice law without a license?” I’ve heard it said in numerous movies spanning one hundred years; in my mother’s soaps and by comedians in jokes and in theatrical skits. I’ve seen the phrase in print in newspaper articles, magazines and heard it on the radio! Before I learned the truth about this fact, even my personal lawyer made that comment to me! We all have been brainwashed to believe a lie and because we’ve heard it so often from people we trust, and who are supposed to have our best interest at heart; we all just assume it must be true! How many other lies have you assumed, “it must be true?”
Our America society has been lied to by their government and lawyers more times than you will sign your name in your lifetime, and we have been indoctrinated “brainwashed” to believe that the Constitution was created for “We the People.” The purpose behind these lies is to make you believe that you are free, safe, protected and secure, and it is all an hallucination! How many of you have studied each line of the Constitution; the Statutes at Large and the Articles of Confederation, armed with a reputable dictionary or a law dictionary from that era?
If you take the time to do this, you will soon discover that the true purpose of the Constitution was to create a business plan and to establish a Military Government, for the protection of the Founding Fathers, the Kings commerce, protection of his Agents and the future control of his subject Slaves! Even the preamble of the U. S. Constitution is a clue to the lie and which states, “...to ourselves and our posterity!” If you never saw the title, “The Constitution,” and you were never told what this document was about; what do you think would be your first impression upon hearing or reading: “...to ourselves and our posterity!” The CONSTITUTION is not for “We the People” and AMERICA is a Matrix of misinformation. In the eyes of those in control; America is nothing more than a large Plantation and “We the People” are the Slaves. In many U. S. and World Treaties, the term “high contracting powers” is used to define your Masters! Everyone else is considered by them to be their Slaves!
All of the Founding Fathers had two things in common. They all shared the gift of a good education or were gifted individuals, and they all came from families of business and or substance. These men all suffered from, “visions of grandeur!” They viewed America as their one opportunity to make them powerful and wealthy “..........to ourselves and our posterity!” Initially, their plan was to steal America away from the King; despite the fact that King George funded the exploration of the New World, which legally gave him first claim to all new continents discovered.
The seizure of the Americas by the Kings explorers was not as it has been depicted in our history books, presented to us by our government, in our government controlled public schools. Native Americans (the Indians) were murdered, their villages burned, many were enslaved, infected by diseases brought from England and their lands taken by force and the threat of force, by these early explorers! The Indians were labeled savages by these immigrant explorers from England, but the true savages were our English ancestors!
One thing the Founding Fathers did not know, was that all of the Kings lands and all future acquisitions such as the AMERICAS, had been given and pledged by King John to Pope Innocent III and the Holy Roman Church, by the Treaty of 1213. After that fact was proven to the Founding Fathers; King George and representatives from the Vatican; decided to use the Constitutional draft created by the Founding Fathers, to further their plan to control the Colonists! Control attained by bringing the Colonists to their knees in debt! Any way you read it, the Constitution was never written with the intent of benefitting the American people!
Did you know that 98% of the Law Schools in America and England do not include Constitutional Law as a part of their law curriculum? The reason for this phenomenon is because Constitutional Law does not apply to or affect the enforcement of statutes, codes or administrative regulations, which have replaced constitutional law, the common law, public law and penal law and which have been designed to control you; [e.g.] Constitutional Law is taught as an elective at Harvard, Yale and Cambridge, and only for students of law who are planning a future career in government. This should make sense to you as you read on.
In the true History of America, neither side WON the Revolutionary War! At first, the appearance of English troops in the Colonies; was simply a show of force by King George, intended to intimidate the Colonists and force them to pay him taxes. Factually, back in England; English soldiers refused to take up arms against the Colonists because they were English citizens and relatives.
Mr. Mayer Amschel Bauer, founder of the Rothschild Banking Empire; by this time, owned the King! Mr. Bauer had extended unlimited credit to the King and arranged contracts with him, which permitted the Rothschild Tax Collectors to represent and collect the Kings Tax from the Kings subjects. [This is the origin of the concept behind the establishment of the IRS]. It was Bauer who suggested to King George that he enforce a Tax against the Colonists in the New World, since the tax being collected in England was barely enough to pay the interest on the Kings loans. When English soldiers refused to fight; Mr. Bauer negotiated a contract with unemployed Russian/Germanic soldiers, to fight for King George, at a cost of 50¢ a day. Bauer then informed King George that he had hired these soldiers in the Kings name but at a cost of $1.00 a day!
King George utilized these soldiers; dressed them in English soldier uniforms and ordered his career Officers to command them. When his show of force in the Colony’s failed; Mr. Bauer suggested that King George finance the Colonists in their War efforts against him, and bring the Colonists to their knees in debt! The King succeeded in accomplishing this through his appointed civilian figurehead’s in charge of his government of France. Mr. Bauer wanted to expand his Banking Empire into the Colonies. He discovered that the Colonist didn’t trade in gold or silver but used script as the basis of their economy! The script money used, were promissory notes printed by the Colonists. All the Colonists agreed that they would consider these notes, the lawful currency of the colonies. Mr. Bauer wanted gold or silver and induced the King to demand that his Tax in the Colonies be paid in gold or silver! It was that condition, “that broke the camels back” and caused the “Boston Tea Party!” “Whoever controls the money - controls the country!” [Rothschild]
Surreptitiously, King George infiltrated the Colonies and their feudal attempt to form a new government, using spy’s’ composed of English lawyers and English aristocrats, loyal to him. The spy’s assignment was to infiltrate the new government; carry out the plan to defeat the Colonists through debt and establish regular reports to the King! The Church also had their appointed representative in place to protect and insure that their interest is being observed. Much of the loans received from the French, went into the pockets of the Founding Fathers!
The Founding Fathers eventually conceded to King George and the Holy Roman Church’s demands, by and through the intervention and persuasiveness of the Kings spy’s. Ironically, the common denominator or glue that eventually bound King George, the Founding Fathers, the English lawyers and English aristocrats together was a secret society called the “Illuminati.” Even Paul Revere and Benjamin Franklin, were members of the Illuminati! This secret society had a criminal and deadly past in Europe and in America they were eventually renamed, “The Free and Accepted Masons.” The majority of the regular membership of the Free and Accepted Masons; do not know about the “Illuminati influence” within their rank and file! The Illuminati members operate out of special secret societies separate from the regular Masonic membership and are found in every branch of the Free and Accepted Masons of the World!
Think about the Colonists who we have been taught to revere by our public school system! All of these individuals were members of this secret society and all were Traitors. Our history books also instruct us to apotheosize the Founding Fathers, but don't hold them in reverence, hold them in contempt! By and through their intervention, “Slaves you are and Slaves you will ever be!" An example of a man in history we have been taught to revere is Benjamin Franklin. Would it shock you to learn that he was on the Kings payroll and his many trips to England, was actually to report on the colonial government to King George?
The Declaration of Independence is another story omitted from our American history books. Of the fifty-one men involved in the creation of the Declaration of Independence,
twenty-one were actually (traitors) and on the Kings payroll. During the Revolutionary War; English Officers were provided the names, addresses and family members of these thirty (loyalists) involved in the creation and signing of the Declaration of Independence. The English soldiers had been ordered to hunt down and murder all thirty (loyalists), their wives, children and all relatives, with further instructions to burn their bodies inside their homes. The soldiers were to leave no trace of these men and their families; to wipe out their existence for an eternity! The history of civilizations has taught us all that martyrs are dangerous to men of power and King George didn’t want to leave any martyrs! It is pretty obvious who provided the detailed information about the thirty (loyalists), their family and addresses!
At first glance, it appeared that Guy Madison of Virginia; was so concerned about lawyers holding any position in American government, that he championed the 13th Amendment, which barred lawyers from holding any public office in government! The 13th Amendment was ratified, but never made it into print in our government controlled school books and public classrooms. The Amendment was surreptitiously removed and replaced by the 14th Amendment. The 15th Amendment became the 14th and so on. Madison’s efforts appear admirable but his later actions, as a member of the 1st Congress; suggests that his only real concern was to block lawyers from undermining the theft that he and his compatriots’ had planned for America!
Once the cost of the Revolutionary War sufficiently placed the Colonists in debt; the English soldiers were ordered to dispense with their efforts, recover their arms and within the next eight years they eventually returned to England. The Colonists were so glad to see the fighting stop; that they allowed the soldiers to retreat and exit America peacefully. There is an old legal Maxim that states: “The first to leave the field of battle - loses.” Pursuant to this Maxim, the Founding Fathers proclaimed the Colonists the victors! A Maxim is a legal truth that is time honored and incorruptible.
In reality, the War was just a diversion! The Colonists had no chance of succeeding in their efforts. Examine the facts for yourself! During this era; England had the largest Army and Navy in the World. King George owned England, Ireland and France, having a combined population of about 60 million subjects. The Colonists were poorly educated, poorly armed and composed of farmers, tradesmen, bonded slaves, women and children and boasted a total population of only 3 million subjects. And considering the undermining that was occurring to their nation by the Kings spy’s and the Founding Fathers; the Colonists didn’t have a prayer of defeating the English!
Americans have been indoctrinated by our federal and state governments and through government controlled public schools and literature; government controlled media and government controlled churches [YES, EVEN THE CHURCHES]; to believe that America defeated the English! We celebrate that victory and our so-called Independence each year on the 4th of July, and it is all a bunch of propaganda; a carrot to lead the horse and keep this society stupid and passive! We boast today that our country represents the finest schools in the world, but in reality, we’re no smarter than the first Colonists! We only know more about other things because of new technology developments during the last 250 years and yet the average IQ of America is 70.
Documented proof that the Constitution was not for us can be found at: Padelford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, [14 Georgia 438, 520]. This was a Court case wherein the Plaintiffs sued the City of Savannah, for violating what they believed were their constitutionally protected rights! The decision of the Judge says it all: "But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it!" [Emphasis added]
The United States Constitution was converted into a (Trust) and the legal definition of a Trust is: “A legal obligation with respect to property given by one person (donor), to another (trustee), to the advantage of a beneficiary (Americans).” The property in this Trust includes all land, your personal possessions that you believe you own and your physical body. The donor of the Trust is the King of England and the Holy Roman Church. The Trustee’s are all federal and state public officials, which means that they truly are Agents of a foreign power; the King and the Vatican.
The reason the Constitution was converted into a Trust is because, as a non-trust business plan; The Constitution completely bound the hands of our government officials! By their converting it into a Trust, our public officials; were then free to make any changes they desired to this government, without their constituents knowledge! The rules of a Trust are secret and no trustee can be compelled to divulge those rules, and the rules can be changed by the trustees without notice to the beneficiary!
The one pitfall confronting them and their plan was the fact that by converting the Constitution into a Trust, our public officials had to legally assign a beneficiary; and the beneficiary chosen could not offend or be in contrast to the numerous International Treaties that were in force. Our public officials wanted to stay in control of the Trust as the trustees; however a trustee cannot also be a beneficiary! So even though the Constitution was never designed or written for the Sovereign American people; they unknowingly became the beneficiary of this secret Trust and hence, the creation of the “propaganda” regarding our Constitutional Rights!
All high ranking public officials, lawyers and judges; laugh at the ignorance of people who claim that their Constitutional Rights have been violated! Lawyers are actually taught to treat the members of the general public as inferior individuals! This also explains the ‘air of arrogance’ that most lawyers convey in their demeanor and speech!
The more powerful Agents of the states and the federal government however, have been stealing the benefits from the Trust through numerous maneuvers that have the appearance of being lawful. In their defense; many former public officials (Agents) were not corrupt to begin with but, by accepting bribes or as the result of enjoying an arranged extramarital relationship; they became the victim of an extortion plot and succumbed to the threat to expose the bribe or their elicit affair, to their constituents! By becoming an (Agent), all was forgiven and forgotten! The people, who arranged the bribes, also arranged the situations, and applied the pressure to force honest men to become dishonest! [An example of this could be a sudden demand by a Bank to pay off a loan, based upon a hidden clause in the loan contract and which could result in a foreclosure, bankruptcy and scandal]!
There are no remaining public federal employees in America! All employees who you believe to be a part of America’s government, are actually agents of a foreign government and this definition includes the [President]. The federal elections are a joke on us! All of the candidates have been (jointly preselected and prescreened) by the National Boards of the Republican and Democratic Parties, well before the Election process. All of our federally elected officials, appointed administrators, federal police and Judges; receive their paychecks through the Office of Personnel Management. OPM is a division of the International Monetary Fund, which is owned by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and their Banking Empires, which operates in tandem with the United Nations. The IRS and Interpol; are owned by the International Monetary Fund, which has been identified in an earlier version of the U. S. Army Manual, as a Communist Organization!
Those Americans, who do not know how to assert their beneficiary status; are treated by the government and their courts, as a corporate fiction! The corporate governments and their courts, only have jurisdiction over corporations. Corporations have no rights or jurisdiction over living people and are only provided considerations, which have been pre-negotiated in contracts by their directors. Otherwise, they’re governed totally by commercial law, and so are you!
At this point, I believe I should address a “corporate fiction” for you by creating a situation you can relate to.
SITUATION: [You’ve decided to go into business for yourself and you thought up a clever name for your business. Everything you’ve read and the advice received from a lawyer or friend; suggests that you should incorporate your business! To incorporate is to create a business on paper. It isn’t real; it is a business in theory, which makes it a fiction! The lawyer or accountant you hired to prepare your corporation; records your business with the state as a state corporation and identifies you as president of the board of directors, not the owner. Your business is now “a corporate fiction” and by recording the business as a state corporation; you no longer own it, the state owns it! You just gave your business away and made yourself an employee]!
Our presumed government representatives have done the same thing to each of us. They changed each of us from “a sovereign” into “a corporate fiction.” Your corporate name is easily identifiable, in that it is expressed in all capital letters on all your documents and all communications received from every government agency!
The reason for converting every Sovereign American into a corporate fiction dates back to the Principal of Law under the King! The King is a Sovereign Monarch and dictator, who by his authority, creates the laws that govern his subjects. He is the Source of Law and therefore the law cannot be enforced against him! In America, the Source of Law is the Sovereign People and therefore no laws can be enforced against the Source, except for those specifically agreed to or defined by the original Constitution. Those laws are defined as Theft, Assault and Criminal Mischief; but since the Colonists never voted on the Constitution, none of these offenses are enforceable against a living Sovereign! They are enforceable however against a corporation or corporate fiction!
In theory and according to the common law; before any Sovereign can be arrested for one of these crimes; a complaint must be filed with the elected Sheriff. The Sheriff, by his own authority, assembles (a common law jury) of the accused Sovereigns immediate neighbors, called a Grand Jury. The neighbors hear the complaint and evidence presented to them by the complainant. They are permitted to ask questions of any witness and can subpoena anyone else who can shed light on the allegations. A majority must then decide if the accused Sovereign is to be tried by a court. All of this is done without [a judge or prosecutor in attendance]! This is a real Grand Jury proceeding, which is far removed from the joke perpetrated by our corporate government and courts today!
What happened to our Grand Jury rights of old? The Bar Association has successfully stolen that right away from the Sovereign people, little by little, through rewrites of the Judiciary Act, so that now the American public believes that the Grand Jury is an instrument subject to the jurisdiction, right and whim of the prosecuting attorney! The prosecuting attorney controls the entire proceeding and who testifies. The judge then tells the jury what the law is and the members of the panel are always denied the opportunity to view the written law!
All of our governments are corporations and are responsible for the creation of about 800 thousand laws called statutes, which are designed to control the Sovereign people of America. Just like the King; these statutes cannot be enforced against the Source of Law, which are the living, breathing, flesh and blood Sovereign people.
All of the Agents in power beginning with the King, the Vatican, the Founding Fathers and now our presumed public officials, wanted to obtain power and control over America and the Constitution pretty much prohibited them from achieving those ends! So they began to devise ways to change the Sovereign Americans into [a corporate fiction]. These Agents also decided and reasoned that they cannot educate the masses, without exposing their treachery, and so our private and public education must be controlled!
Without any real Constitutional basis, the U. S. Department of Education was created. The Constitution made it the responsibility of each state to educate their people and several states challenged the Congress in the courts. The matter was eventually heard by the U. S. Supreme Court, which has never been a Constitutional Article III Court from its inception, which I will explain. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was entitled to oversee the educational requirements of “United States Citizens” by virtue of their Constitutional powers to regulate Commerce! Bad law is bad law, no matter how you turn the paper and that ruling gave the federal government the green light to initiate its “brainwashing” process of the American public.
Let me explain how the Court arrived at its ruling because these are not ignorant men! On every form you file to receive “government benefits” and even the “voter registration form,” there is a question that asks: Are you a United States Citizen? YES / NO and everyone circles the YES answer. Didn’t you? Now look up the definition of a “United States Citizen,” in a reputable law dictionary. You will discover that a United States Citizen is a phrase designed to identify a “corporate fiction!” Clever, isn’t it? You and every other American had no idea that you were admitting you were a corporate fiction when you circled that YES answer, and you did it under penalty of perjury!
The sovereign states had been abolished in 1790 by the adoption of Article 1 of the Statutes at Large, which converted all the sovereign states into federal districts and gave the federal government lawful jurisdiction everywhere. In consideration of the fact that the federal government is a corporation and that corporations can lawfully own other corporations; and all the American subjects to be educated have admitted under penalty of perjury that they are corporations; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the corporate federal government. [See how sneaky and tricky lawyers can be? And all the more reason why lawyers should never be allowed to serve in government or in judgment of us]!
Under our corporate governments, no Sovereign can lawfully be tried or convicted of any statutory crime! I recently discovered how to avoid prosecution under the Trust, when a Sovereign is taken before a corporate prosecuting Attorney or a Judge:
First: “the Sovereign must inquire if we are on the record, and if not, insist upon it! Say nothing, sign nothing and answer no questions until you are convinced that the proceedings are being recorded!”
Secondly: all a Sovereign has to say for the record is: “I am a beneficiary of the Trust, and I am appointing you as my Trustee!”
Thirdly: the Sovereign then directs his Trustee to do his bidding! “As my Trustee, I want you to discharge this matter I am accused of and eliminate the record!”
Fourthly: if the Sovereign suffered any damages as a result of his arrest, he can direct that the Trust compensate him from the proceeds of the Court by saying; “I wish to be compensated for [X] dollars, in redemption.”
This statement is sufficient to remove the authority and jurisdiction from any prosecuting attorney or judge. The accused will be immediately released from custody, with a check, license or claim he identifies as a damage. It doesn’t matter what the action involves or how it is classified by the corporate law as a civil or criminal action! It works every time!
All of the Codes, Statutes and Regulations throughout the United States are a Will from the Masters to their Slaves. A Will is defined as, “An express command used in a dispositive nature.” When individuals in America are charged with a crime and warehoused in a jail; it is because they went against the Will of the Masters, and not because they harmed another person! Remember that: The Will demands from us, all that we are; keeps us in check and promises us nothing!
The police officer, who arrested you, has been “brainwashed” into believing that he is doing the right thing, when in fact he is nothing more than an “armed slave acting as a henchman” and hired to bully and intimidate all other Slaves into submission of the Masters Will! This statement will probably offend most police officers but this is fact and it is not their fault! Most police officers believe they are performing a public service and doing the right thing in the performance of duty. They have been lied to by the government and in most cases police officers are pumped full of lies more so than anybody else!
Recently, the Police have all been ordered to complete (paramilitary training) and were told that this is essential because of the new threat of Terrorism! The people responsible for this training and brainwashing are the same people and foreign Agents who have been controlling all of us since our birth! NOTE: I’ll bet that nobody told these police officers that these suspected Terrorists may come at them from their very own government officials!
So now our government officials have our police officers training to act as a military unit. [e.g.] Follow our orders and don’t think! They have succeeded in placing these officers on edge, so that their every reaction; will be an over-reaction to the situation, just like Hitler’s Gestapo! Near the end of this paper, I will disclose to the reader about a situation that has been planned by our government officials and is soon to unfold! The police paramilitary training and their extensive brainwashing has been implemented specifically for this event!
It is expected that police officers will over-react and begin killing innocent Americans, and once they are no longer of use, the officers and their families will all be ordered to receive vaccinations that will kill all of them! My guess is that after this planned mass genocide has occurred, the Russian and Chinese military will replace them in the field.
Part of the Fraud perpetrated against “We the People” by this Will, is the fact that there are actually no criminal laws in America. The Rules of Procedure used by every Local, State and Federal Court are Civil Rules, not Criminal! Court officials simply substitute the word criminal for civil, depending upon the case at hand. Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure Reads: “There shall be but one form of action, a civil action.” This means that the Criminal laws promulgated and enforced by the police and our corporate governments are all civil and are being fraudulently enforced against our “corporate fictions” as criminal. When anyone goes to jail, it is for a civil infraction of the Masters Will. That makes all of our jails, debtors prisons! “Does that Ring a Constitutional Bell?”
Title 18, Federal Crimes and Offenses: was never voted on by the Congress, which means that these federal laws are NOT positive law in America! Now, if you were a part of a government conspiracy to destroy America and soon to commit a mass genocide of its population; would you really want to vote Title 18 into positive law? My belief is that the Congress intentionally omitted its passage, so that members of Congress could use that as a defense, should they be caught and tried for Treason!
Do you believe the lawyers hired or appointed to represent all the individuals accused of federal crimes, knew about this fact?
You bet they know!
Armed with this fact: Now look at the number of convicted people sitting in federal prisons, who believe they have been lawfully convicted of violating a federal crime! How many do you imagine have been put to death? How many were shot and killed during the arrest? How many were killed attempting to escape from their illegal confinement?
The Internal Revenue Code relies upon Title 18 to convict people of Tax Evasion, which (only applies to corporations). Look at all the people sitting in federal prisons who were convicted of this so-called crime? What makes it worse is the fact that the Queen of England, entered into a Treaty with the federal government for the taxing of alcoholic beverages and cigarettes sold in America. The Treaty is called The Stamp Act and in this Act, the Queen ordained that her subjects, the American people, are exonerated of all other federal taxes! So the federal income tax and the state incomes taxes levied against all American’s is contrary to an International Treaty and against the Sovereign Orders of the Queen! Like it or not, the Queen is our Monarch and Master! The Tax is illegal and still people have been prosecuted and imprisoned, contrary to law!
One hundred percent (100%) of the people sentenced and held in all American Jails have either been convicted of crimes that are not positive law or were convicted of civil crimes, and are being detained there by their consent! That’s Right! The lawyers and judges representing our legislature and judicial system; created maneuvers to insure that anyone who is accused of a so-called crime and posts bail, (signs a contract to appear and consents by that contract to the proceedings scheduled). Anyone who applies for a public defender, signs the same contract without knowing it and anyone who privately hires a lawyer to represent them in a Court proceeding, consents to the same contract upon the lawyer filing a “Notice of Appearance!” When you hire a lawyer, you signed a Power of Attorney. He is required to file his Notice of Appearance in that case and that Notice of Appearance offers your consent and binds your appearance to the proceedings!
Absent these aforementioned contracts; the Court cannot proceed against you! When that occurs; the Judge and the Prosecutor, attempt to trick and intimidate you into giving your consent! If you don’t know how to invoke your Sovereignty, and you take what they throw at you, and stand your ground; they will be forced to release you after 72 hours has elapsed!
I’m not a bleeding heart liberal who believes that we should open up the jails and let everyone out! There are people in our jails who need to be there, despite the fact that they have been incarcerated illegally! My vote is to leave that hornets nest alone!
We American’s are so proud of the fact that we live in a Democracy! Now look up the word “Democracy,” in a reputable Law Dictionary and see the legal meaning. Democracy is defined as: “A Socialist form of government and another form of Communism.” Do you remember the lies that President Reagan, the Congress and the Media told America? The lie was that, “The Iron Curtain fell without a shot being fired!” The truth is that the Iron Curtain came down because Communist Europe found an ally in the West and there was no longer a need for walls! PS/ Your Federal Taxes constructed the Worlds largest automated vehicle and munitions plant for the Soviet Union, during the dismantling of the Berlin Wall! PPS/ The attempt to assassinate President Reagan occurred because he had disclosed to the American people that: “None of the federal income tax paid by the American people is ever deposited into the United States Treasury and is being deposited into the Federal Reserve Bank for its use and benefit!” Shortly after making that statement, Reagan was shot by John Hinkley, who was quickly declared insane, so that there never would be a public trial! If you recall, President Reagan was never the same after that incident! The Masters don’t play around - they eliminate problems or radically curve attitudes!
On September 17, 1787, twelve State delegates of the Thirteen State Colony’s approved the United States Constitution, not the Colonists, and by their doing so, the States became “constitutors.” A “constitutor” is defined under civil law as, “One who by simple agreement becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt.” [See: Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition].
Many early immigrants to the United States arrived here as Bonded Slaves. A person of wealth or substance became the [payor] by offering to pay or promising to pay or [bond] the debts of another person, and usually paid the cost of his or her voyage to America. This made the payor a [constitutor] and gave him title as [master] over the debtor [slave] by written contract. A “Bonded Slave” is a corporate fiction. The payor’s new title and power as the “Bond Master” of the debtor, causes the immigrant to become “a Bond Slave” and the property of the Master until such time he is paid back his investment by the Bond Slave or by someone else. This means that the Bond Master can buy and sell these contracts!
If a Bonded Slave was mistreated by his Bond Master; the law did not represent him because the Bond Slave (a corporate fiction) had no human rights afforded to him by any law! Corporate fictions have no rights. If the Bonded Slave desired rights, he was obligated to negotiate them in his contract with the Bond Master before accepting the contract. If the Bonded Slave runs away from his abusive Bond Master; the law in place however, attached a bounty, hunted him down and returned him to the Bond Master. Remember also that the first Slaves in America were (Indian) and then Caucasian, of English, French, Irish and German ancestry.
The Constitution is not for “We the People:”
As mentioned before, the Colonists were never presented the Constitution to vote on its passage and approval because the Constitution was never written for them and has been rewritten two more times since then, but only our government officials know about that! And now, so do you!
1) Article ONE of the Constitution allows the Congress to borrow against the full faith and credit of the American people without end. It keeps us eternally in debt and makes all loans the government received from the King or any other entity, valid and enforceable against “We the People!” How is that good for us?
2) Article ONE, Section EIGHT, Clause (15) of the Constitution reads that it is the Militias job to execute the laws of the Union. The Militia is a military unit something like the Police or National Guard, and is composed of members of our local community. The new State Constitutions however, make Militias illegal except in time of war and authorizes the Police to arrest the members of a Militia, should they attempt to reform their ranks! How is that good for us?
3) Article ONE; Section EIGHT of the Constitution gives the Congress complete power over the Military. What do we do when it’s the Congress, who we need to have arrested for Treason and Peonage? How is that good for us?
President Obama has changed the Military Oath. Soldiers no longer swear to support or defend the Constitution but rather to support and defend the President! Now, isn’t that convenient?
4) Article SIX, Section ONE of the Constitution is the law that makes American Citizens responsible to file income tax returns and not because of Title 26 of the United States Code. Parts of our flawed history, taught to you by our government controlled school system, accurately described that the English people had been taxed into a state of poverty by King George and was one of the reasons the Colonists fled Europe for the New World. So how is this good for us?
The IRS is not a U. S. Government Agency, they are Agents of a Foreign Power, operating under a private contract and your obligation to pay and file federal taxes is a scam! Only federal employees and persons born in Washington, DC and the federal territories were ever obligated to pay and file, prior to The Stamp Act but we were never informed of that fact!
Our government has brainwashed us into believing that the National Debt is all our responsibility, and a patriotic responsibility to pay our fair share! Here’s the Truth about that subject!
The National Debt is a Federal Debt, and always has been! The name change was the clever use of “propaganda” intended to invoke our civil patriotic pride! The foreign Agents in charge of our government; have been borrowing funds to line their pockets with, to buy influence, make business deals and seal Treaties with communist Third World Countries and Dictators, which will never benefit “We the People.” They have lied to us, enslaved us, imprisoned us and sold our gold to the Vatican in 1933 and invested the proceeds for their selves! The money they have been borrowing since 1933; is not real money but, “negotiable debt instruments,” which is the same thing as monopoly money! This means that in order to pay off the Federal/National Debt; all they ever had to do was print a money order, without any account numbers on it, for the entire debt, sign it and present it to the lender [The Federal Reserve Bank] and the debt is paid in full!
The foreign agents who purport to be our public officials; are responsible for eliminating the strength of the American Labor Unions, the elimination of our jobs, the erosion of our inalienable rights, and have instigated every war or conflict we have ever become involved with in history and (they convinced us that it was the other guys fault)! They have converted us into corporate fictions, and sold us as securities to foreign corporate investors, and have denied us our heritage! Everything they have been doing is designed to undermine our freedom, liberty and representative form of government! Their goal and final blow against, “We the People,” is our mass genocide and the total conversion of our government to communism!
5) The SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT to the Constitution, regardless of the dispute of how it was adopted; permits the Federal Government to assess and collect a direct tax against “We the People.” Most Americans do not know that the Federal Government is and always has been financially self sufficient, the result of tariff’s imposed upon imports, exports and commerce. Not one penny of the Direct Federal Income Tax, paid through the IRS, is ever for or deposited into the United States Treasury. Those Taxes are deposited into the Federal Reserve Bank for the Masters use. So how is this direct tax good for us?
You may be wondering about now, how the United States government can collect taxes
from, “We the People,” when we are Slaves, own nothing and are not a party to the Constitution? Despite its legality, it is done under a process known as “debt collection” through private contractors [the IRS] and through a private contract, the United States Constitution. The IRS belongs to the International Monetary Fund, who also owns the Federal Reserve Bank. The IMF holds the controlling interest in all the banks in America! The IMF is the Rockefeller and Rothschild Empires, along with the eleven wealthiest families in the World. When you see or hear of a Bank closing - it is a diversion and is intended to injure and panic the public! The condition of the economy in the World today is being manipulated by these people! Their schedule for the adoption of the New World Order is close at hand and these public Agents need to scare us into believing that this new form of government is our salvation! Factually, it will only be good for them and it will be our ruin!
6) Article 12 of the Articles of Confederation promises the full faith and credit of the American people to repay all loans made by the United States government. The money borrowed by the United States to finance the Revolutionary War came from France. Who owned France? (King George!) Who was the opposition in the Revolutionary War? (England.) Our Founding Fathers promised our labor, equity, full faith and credit, to repay those debts that will, in theory, never come to an end! So how is that good for us?
7) The Bill of Rights was not for your protection. They’re laws that represent one mans ability, with the assistance of the State, to control another mans actions, and since they’re included under the U. S. Constitution, they’re not for you! So how is that good for us?
8) The Thirteenth Amendment barred lawyers from ever holding a seat in public office. The Amendment was ratified however, during the second secret writing of the Constitution, this Amendment was dropped and replaced by the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment was replaced by the 15th Amendment and so on. The replacement wasn’t done by a Constitutional Convention, it was simply omitted! The original Constitution is the Law of the Land and was designed to regulate our government! The 13th Amendment still is positive law but now about 98% of our public officials are lawyers; so if we filed motions to remove them from office, who would sign them? Wasn’t that convenient for them?
9) On August 4, 1790; Article ONE of the U. S. Statutes at Large, pages 138 - 178, abolished the States of the Republic and created Federal Districts! In the same year the former States of the Republic reorganized as Corporations and their legislatures wrote new State Constitutions, absent defined boundaries, which they presented to the people of each State for a vote! Why this time? Because the new State Constitutions fraudulently made the people “Citizens” of the new Corporate States.
A Citizen is also defined by law as a “corporate fiction.” The people were bound to the Corporate State and the States were bound to the Corporate United States and fraudulently obligated all of us to pay the debts of the Federal Government owed to the King! This was necessary because the United States was officially bankrupt on January 1, 1788 and the politician’s (our Founding Fathers) who benefitted the most by these Revolutionary loans, required a guarantee to present to the King! Absent that guarantee, they were personally obligated to repay the debts!
The state constitutions were rewritten again during the Clinton Administration, except now they are called the Constitutions of Interdependence! These Constitutions read just like the Declaration of Independence, except that “We the People” have been eliminated. This is the Magna Carta of the public officials, to protect them under The New World Order Communist Government! The public was never informed of this, like everything else and the media never reported any of the Fraud being perpetrated against America by their public officials!
I could go on and on, discussing Articles and Amendments of the Constitution but suffice it to say that the ‘benefits’ the government dangled in front of our “naive noses,” has been used as an inducement for us to volunteer; and that all of these ‘benefits’ are received by us at a terrible cost! When we apply for government benefits, the foreign government in charge; converts our living sovereign person into a corporation and then records our person as, “government asset property”! The States use to provide protection, stability and security for the people but over time the focus of their attention has changed to the control of our minds, bodies, spirit and assets. To take a loyalty oath to support, defend and obey the Constitution; now is to swear an oath to your Masters to be ever loyal to them! "Slaves you are and slaves you will ever be!"
More evidence of our Slavery is as follows:
a) The primary control and custody of infants is with the corporate state government through the filing of government issued Birth Certificates, which are held in a State Trust and therein each applicant is recorded under the Department of Transportation as a State owned Vessel and financial asset. A government issued Birth Certificate was never needed as proof of birth because a baptismal record or a family bible entry of birth, was and is an exception to hearsay and constitutes legal proof of birth! Had your parents never applied for a government issued Birth Certificate, none of the Federal or State Statutes, Codes or Regulations in place, would be enforceable against you, and no government official or agency could ever tell you how to raise your children; declare you an unfit parent, or take your children away from you!
We all made fun of the Amish of Pennsylvania and yet the government cannot touch them because they do not participate in anything these corporate governments have to offer. The title to their land is recorded as an Ecclesiastical Trust. The Vatican (the Holy Roman Church) actually owns all the land, territories and insular possessions called America and as long as the Amish remain an Ecclesiastical Trust and remain a passive Christian Society, the Vatican will protect them. The Holy Roman Church possesses the power to protect or crush anyone and anything! [See: Tillman v. Roberts, 108 So. 62 [and] Title 26 U. S. C. 7701 [and] 18 U. S. C. Section 8].
b) Social Security is not a Trust or Insurance policy or Insurance against disability. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security is a government giveaway program funded by a government Tax; which is why and how the Congress can periodically dip into the assets of the fund anytime they want and never have to pay it back! The back of the Social Security card states that the card is the property of the government and not you!
Your birth name appears on the front of that card and has been modified, the same way as your birth certificate; from upper and lower case letters to all capital letters, pursuant to the U. S. Government Printing Manual, which instructs government agencies on how to subtly convert a living man into a corporation. The actual Director of our Social Security Fund and Administration is the Queen of England and from which she is paid a generous salary. Your Social Security Card is issued by the United Nations through the International Monetary Fund and your Social Security Number is actually your International Slave Number! On the reverse side of that card is an “E” letter followed by eight numbers. That is a “cusip” number, which is required on all securities! Yes! You have been converted into a marketable security, like a bond, and your person was offered for sale and sold to domestic and foreign corporate investors!
c) A Marriage License Application is a request to your “Masters” for permission to marry. If you ever had any claim of sovereignty before that date; you lost it completely when you applied for and married under a marriage license. Sovereignty means: “To assert ones independence and to claim to be self-governing.” The license isn’t necessary and never has been because a marriage has always been just a contract, witnessed by God, between a man and a woman! Who told you that you must apply for a license? It is the official you chose to conduct your ceremony? The official just happens to be a licensed government official and his license prevents him from conducting marriage ceremonies without the issuance of a marriage license. Did Moses or Jesus ever say or profess that a marriage is not recognized by God, without a license?
Here’s the Fraud behind the License:
Those who apply for and marry pursuant to a marriage license have now added a third party to their marriage contract! The third party is the Master, by and through his Agent, the Corporate State. The marriage license bestows the State with the legal right to decide the fate of the husband, wife and the possessions they procured during their marriage, should the marriage fail. Their divorce must now be decided by and through the States Corporate Court by a Corporate Judge, and the Judges first and foremost concern is the “interest of the State.” The interest of the bride and groom is now secondary.
[See: VanKosten v. VanKosten, 154 N.E. 146]. A comment by the Judge deciding this divorce says it all! “The ultimate ownership of all property is the State: individual so-called ownership is only by virtue of government, [i.e.] laws amounting to mere use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state.” [Also See: Senate Document No. 43 of the 73rd Congress, 1st Session] and [Brown v. Welch, U. S. Superior Court].
d) The term “license” is defined in law as, “A permit to do something illegal.” [See: Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th or 7th Edition]. Therefore, all licenses are permits to violate the only real law! Inalienable rights are the rights bestowed upon all living men, by God at birth! All other laws are subordinate to God’s law. The controlling government wants us to rely on their laws, so they demand that we apply for a license! Another example is a “Drivers License.” It is your God given right to travel the roadways of this nation and no government has any right to restrict, tax or license your pursuit of happiness! The only exception is a Driver of a Commercial Vehicle. The governments have a right to regulate Commerce, which means trade. Anyone operating a vehicle in Commerce must be licensed but all others are absolutely free to travel without one! The foreign Agents in power; have changed the common meanings of words to encapsulate and control every Sovereign. They succeed in this intimidation through the corporate courts and police enforcement by officers who have been brainwashed and reinforced by mandatory training programs.
e) The use of “Trusts” by the Masters and their Agents; is for a good reason! A Trust by law is secret and neither the Masters nor their agents [the Corporate Government and Courts] can be compelled to expose the rules or regulations of the Trust and those regulations can change with the wind, without notice to the participants! [See: The Law of Trusts].
f) Slaves cannot own property. Look at the Deed to your home. You are identified as the [Tenant] of the property and never the Owner and your Local and State land tax is actually a “rent or use fee” assessed by the State for the lease on the land. You gave them the land after closing via your Lawyer. Did he ever tell you that?
After closing, your Lawyer recorded the deed with the Court. The law only suggests recording the deed, it doesn’t mandate it! Upon recording, you gave the land back to the State, who then leases it back to you for as long as you live there! Isn’t that where you have constructed your home, your castle? I’m paying for it, doesn’t that make the land mine, you ask?
If you fail to pay the States assessed “rent or use fee,” which has been cleverly disguised as a direct state tax; you will be evicted from your castle and land, and the state will take title and sell your home under commercial law. Commercial Law ordains that, "Anything permanently attached, is retained by the owner!” Who is the owner of the land? Why the State because you so graciously donated it to them.
Oh, I almost forgot; your Lawyer receives a fee from the State for recording your deed for their use and benefit! How do you feel about your lawyer now? Didn’t you pay him to represent “your interests” at the closing?
Now you see why lawyers are the brunt of numerous jokes and have such a poor reputation! Its because they deserve it!
g) Foreclosures are nothing more than evictions, based on a different kind of fraud. The illusion of a debt [Mortgage] that never existed! No individual or family who has been foreclosed on and evicted from their home in the United States is legal! The only exception to this is owner-financing!
Other than owner-financing, the people who purchased their homes through a Mortgage Company, actually owned their homes “completely” on the day of the closing. The real legal definition of a “closing” means that all legal interest as to title is concluded. [See: any reputable Dictionary from the 1800’s]. The definition has been changed by our government lawyers to conceal the fraud.
[Explanation of the above statement]
First you must know that the federal government took America off the gold standard in1933, during a staged bankruptcy called the “Great Depression” and replaced the gold with an economic principle known as, "Negotiable Debt Instruments." [YES, THE GREAT DEPRESSION WAS STAGED!] The government needed to create a catastrophe to implement standards that were designed to steal your possessions and God-given rights!
The process of creating a catastrophe was discovered by behaviorists! Take away a persons food, comfort and safety long enough and they won’t care or question the illusion provided, as long as their stomach is full, they have shelter, a comfortable bed and the means (real or imagined) to keep or continue their comfort!
President Roosevelt unconstitutionally collected America’s gold by Executive Order and sold it to the Vatican by way of China, to conceal its true ownership. The gold in Fort Knox belongs to the Vatican and not the United States! Absent a gold base, Commerce now essentially trades in “debts.” So if you borrowed money for a Mortgage and there’s no gold or real value to support the paper called U. S. Currency; what did you actually borrow?
Factually, you borrowed debt! The Mortgage Company committed the ultimate fraud against you because they loaned you nothing to pay off the imaginary balance, not even their own debt instruments. They then told you that you owe them the unpaid balance of your home and that you must pay them back with interest, in monthly installments!
Here’s how they did it.
At your Closing, the Mortgage Company had you sign a “Promissory Note” in which you promised your sweat, your equity, full faith and credit against an unpaid balance. Then without your knowledge, the Mortgage Company sold your Promissory Note (your credit) to a Warehousing Institution such as, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The Warehousing Institution uses your Promissory Note (your credit) as collateral and generates loans to other people and corporations with interest. Collateral is essential to a corporation because corporations have no money or credit. They’re not real, they’re a fiction and require the sweat, the equity, the full faith and credit of living individuals to breathe and sustain the life of the corporation. Corporate Governments operate under the same principle.
The Warehousing Institution makes money off the “Promissory Note” (your credit) and
even though the profits made are nothing more than new (Negotiable Debt Instruments), those instruments still have buying power in a (Negotiable Debt Economy). These debt instruments are only negotiable because of the human ignorance of the American people and the human ignorance of people in other countries of the World, who have all been lied to, told this has value, and the people don’t know the difference!
Did you ever give your permission to the Mortgage Company to sell your credit? So where is your cut of the profits? If the Mortgage Company invested nothing of their own in the purchase of your home, why are you making a monthly Mortgage payment to them with interest? And where do they get off foreclosing on or against anyone or threatening to foreclose?
They do it by fraud and the Masters and their Agents (the governments, the courts and the banks) all know it! Everything done to us and against us is about sustaining their lives, the lives of the corporate governments they command and to keep “We the People” under their complete control! They accomplish this control by taking away or threatening to take away your comfort and independence! They all use fraudulent means, disguised as law!
Note: When you applied for a Mortgage, the Mortgage Company ran a credit check on you and if you had a blemish on your credit record, they charged you points (money) to ease their pain and lighten the risk (a credit risk) of their loaning you a Mortgage! More Fraud! Why are you paying points, when they never loaned you a dime! The credit report is just another scam. If you have a high credit report, the government and banks identify you as an “Obedient Slave” and yet your “Promissory Note” sold for the same value as the “Promissory Note” endorsed by the man who is (a credit risk)! Credit didn’t matter. The fact that you are a living person is what matters!
The Mortgage Company maintains two sets of books regarding your Mortgage payments. The local set of books, is a record that they loaned you money and that you agreed to repay that money, with interest, each month. The second set of books is maintained in another State office, usually a Bank because the Mortgage Companies usually sell your loan contract to a Bank and agree to monitor the monthly payments in order to conceal the fraud!
In the second set of books, your monthly Mortgage Payment is recorded by the bank as a savings deposit because there is no real loan! When you pay off the fraudulent mortgage, the Bank waits (90) days and then submits a request to the IRS. The request states: “That someone, unknown to this facility; deposited this money into our facility and has abandoned it! May we keep the deposit?” The IRS always gives their permission to the bank to keep the deposit and your hard earned money just feathered the nest of the Rockefeller, Rothschild and eleven other wealthy families in the world!
Equity Law, which once controlled Americas’ Corporate Courts, has been replaced with Admiralty/Maritime Law, pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code and the Judiciary Act of 1789. This is the Law of Merchants and Sailors.
Under Admiralty/Maritime Law; the Courts presume you owe the Mortgage or the Tax or that you committed a crime defined as a Criminal Statute and it is your obligation to prove you’re innocent! (This means, you’re guilty until you prove you’re innocent), which is the same standard and procedure used in a Military Court Martial. Haven’t we always been told that, “You are innocent - until proven guilty?” Lies, Lies and more Lies!
We are not free men; we are slaves, and bound to our Masters by adhesion contracts and secret Trusts. The goal of the Masters and their (agents) our elected officials, is to keep the people oppressed and subservient to them! As the Masters agents, they utilize propaganda techniques through government controlled schools; churches; the media and mind control by force and or the threat of force through the courts and police enforcement!
Police officers in America have been pumped full of more bullshit than a manure spreader and because of their trust, public school conditioning and training, they haven’t the ability to see what is going on! Many have been conditioned by previous military service, not to think for themselves but just follow orders, which makes many of them as dangerous as a Terrorist! Now ask yourself; who are the real Terrorists in America?
Guess what; “the Constitution isn’t for the Police either” and still they are forced to swear an oath to defend it!” The more regulations, statutes and codes created, and the greater the number of regulatory officers and agencies created to enforce them; the greater the Masters control over their Slaves and that is mind control by force and threat of force, by the very people we rely on, to protect and serve!
At some point in history the foreign Agents in control of our Federal Government, decided that they needed to create Federal Police Agencies to protect them! I can’t blame them! If I was a part of a conspiracy that could result in the American people hanging me for Treason, I’d want bodyguards too! Now, if you are one of these public officials; how do you justify the employment and expense of bodyguards, when nobody is trying to injure you, and you don’t want anyone to know that you are committing Treason? Instead of confessing your motives; you must find a way to accomplish your objective and blame it on someone else!
HENCE: The birth of a bad law, The Volstead Act and the beginning of “Prohibition!” Enterprising people began to make money and others organized. Those who organized became mobs and when the mobs began killing each other, the free lance boot-legers and innocent people in drive by shootings; our federal officials sat back and enjoyed the show! They did absolutely nothing until the public was literally breaking down the doors of the Capitol Building: [Just like they had planned it!]
The FBI existed before this time. They were a small investigative unit under the Attorney Generals Office. The Agents had no arrest powers and were prohibited from carrying guns. Their only authority was to investigate federal employees and make reports to the attorney general, who then decided if the matter was serious enough to concern the government and whether to prosecute the employee! The FBI was eventually armed, expanded and provided national jurisdiction to fight the gangsters! None of which would have been necessary had it not been for The Volstead Act! Slowly, the agency has grown into the giant it is now and ironically; the Legislature never authorized their expansion. Everything was done by the AG administratively! Where does it say in the Constitution that a federal employee has the authority to create law, create a police authority or expand a current one?
Do you see how our government has circumvented the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution and manipulated the American people? Every catastrophe, calamity or disaster has been planned and financed by our so-called public representatives with an ulterior motive in mind. The creation of Homeland Security was done in the same way! A Terrorist attack was staged by hired men having connections to the Middle East. I’m not going to go into the conspiracy, other than to say that President Bush and the FBI were as guilty as the men who high-jacked the commercial airplanes! The director of the FBI confessed to the Congress of his Agencies involvement under Presidential Order. He was relieved of his position and Congress took no action against President Bush and the media did not report any of this to the American people! Treason charges were filed against President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and the FBI by a two star General from the Pentagon and no action has ever been taken and nothing was ever reported to the American public, upon the orders of President Obama.
This was just another government catastrophe designed to make you (the public) beg the government to come to your aid and protect you! Each time one of these catastrophe’s are staged; our representatives steal more of our liberty and freedom from us, but America doesn’t care because now they feel safe once again! And that’s what these foreign Agents want us to believe and feel!
We complain today that government has eroded our rights! It’s true because we were lied to directly and indirectly and told to believe something other than truth! The correct term here is: "Propaganda" and all government controlled entities and institutions mentioned, are quite expert in the use of it! When I was a child; during a period labeled “the Cold War;” I remember my teacher’s telling the class how expert the Communists are in the use of “propaganda!” I can say now with absolute certainty that no one is as expert as the American government! In fact I believe that our government officials taught the World!
I don’t blame my teachers. Most of them were subjected to and spoon fed the same propaganda under direction of these foreign Agents and corporate entities that now employ them. Our teachers are simply spoon feeding our children with the same propaganda that was fed to them! Naturally, if a teacher becomes too creative and steps outside the box, or thinks outside the box, the penalty for such creativity is the termination of employment, their future profession and benefits! Generally, the reason used for termination is: “Failure to adhere to the established curriculum and or meet the needs of this establishment!” Who established the needs and curriculum? Why the government agents under the U. S. Department of Education, acting through the foreign Agents representing the Masters!
During the Bush Administration, a Treaty called the North American Alliance was negotiated and signed but the content was not reported to the American public. The Treaty guarantees that the boundary lines dividing Mexico, the United States and Canada will dissolve and become one country to be called North America, upon the installation of the New World Order Government! The currency for North America is being manufactured by the United States Mint. They are gold coins called AMEROS. I have pictures of these coins being minted, that were taken by an employee and smuggled out!
Everything in your life has been controlled from birth and you’re still being controlled! The free-thinkers of the world have either been murdered or institutionalized in asylums. Free-thinkers are a detriment to the Masters and their Agents! They have the potential to become (Martyrs), especially if the populace begins to pay attention to what the free-thinkers have to say or teach! Look at what happened to Jesus; John Kennedy; Bobby Kennedy; John Kennedy, Jr. and Martin Luther King, Jr.! If you believe John Kennedy, Jr. was an accidental death, then you probably believe that on 911, the attack on the twin towers was a real Terrorist attack!
[If you still think this way, after what you have read: Please stop reading; put your thumb in your ass and close your eyes! You are much too gullible, ignorant and brain dead to be helped and you deserve the treatment you and your family are certain to receive!]
Contrary to popular belief, nothing has changed since the day of Jesus! If Jesus was alive today, he would be declared a Terrorist and locked up in an asylum and slowly poisoned to death through the use of drug combinations that are designed to slowly consume life instead of heal. As long as free-thinkers profess their thoughts, they will be institutionalized until their death! Society will be told that these men are dangerous and or they will be classified as Terrorists!
The entire World is a ‘Slave Plantation’ and is set up under this same principle by the Masters, “the high contracting powers,” who have been identified in certain International Treaties as the Pope/Vatican, the United Nations, the King/Queen of (England or United Kingdom) and principals of the International Monetary Fund.
The coming of a “One World Government,” which public representatives and the media have been talking about, actually began in 1790 with the passage of the Articles of Confederation! These Articles and the principles therein, were first suggested in the Magna Carta and later became the foundation of the U. S. Constitution but, “there not for you!”
The Capitol City of the World has been identified as New York City, according to the United States Code. The United Nations with the blessings of the Vatican, keeps the World divided and in flux, under the principle of "Divide and Conquer," and all religious orders within the United States are instructed to keep us passive! People, populations, economies, religions and political agendas of every country on earth are manipulated by the Masters, which keep each Country in a euphoric flux against the other.
Partial proof of such Power:
We are presently living under the Babylonian Talmud, which was introduced to England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, various Kings and every religious Order since. This Babylonian Talmud represents total and relentless mind control in that people are taught to believe in fictions, things that do not exist [e.g.] Private International Law is now Commercial Law, which only deals in fictions; “fictions called persons, money, politics, government and authority.” The Uniform Commercial Code, known as the Law of Merchants, which is 6000 years old, was derived from ancient Babylon and is now Private International Law. [See: The Uniform Commercial Code, section 1-201]. PS/ Human rights do not exist in fictions!
Prior to 1066, many of the Kings subjects [Lords and Dukes] held allodial deeds to land, which are land grants from the King or past Kings and which prevented the present King or his agents from taxing, trespassing or enforcing his will upon those subjects. Land protected by an allodial deed and improved by a home made the subjects, Sovereigns in their own right and the king of his castle. In 1066, William the Conqueror defeated England and stole the Kings Title, his lands and the lands belonging to his subjects. From William I (1066) to King John (1199), England found itself in dire straights because it was bankrupt! During this span of time, parishioners routinely passed their land onto their family or to the church without the Kings permission. So the King invoked the ancient, “Law of Mortmain,” also known as “the dead man’s hand,” which is our modern day probate law.
The Pope and the Vatican objected to the “Law of Mortmain” because the King owed the Vatican a lot of gold he had borrowed and this law now prevented the church from receiving gifts of land. In 1208, England was placed under Papal interdiction (prohibition) and King John was excommunicated. King John was ignorant of the teachings of the Bible and was made to believe by Pope Innocent III, that the Pontiff was the “Vicar of Christ;” the ultimate owner of everything on earth, and the only one who could grant the King absolution for his sins; providing the King make a suitable gesture of repentance to the Pope and the Holy Roman Church!
The word “VICAR” is defined in Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary, to mean, “A person deputized or authorized to perform the function of another, a substitute in office,” and thereafter, all of the Popes since Pope Innocent III, pretend to be Jesus Christ on earth.
In his attempt to regain his stature, King John offered the Pope and the Holy Roman Church his Kingdom, plus 1000 gold marks each year as payment of a lease on the land, and he accepted the Pope’s appointed representative [appointed ruler] and swore submission and loyalty to Pope Innocent III and the Holy Roman Church. In 1213, a Treaty was entered into between the King and the Pope. The Treaty made the King a tenant of his former Kingdom and a trustee to the Pope and the Holy Roman Church. The Kings ancestors were later appointed Treasurer of the Vatican Bank and continue to serve in that capacity to date. [See: Treaty of 1213; and the Papal Bulls of 1455 to 1492; and The Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England from 1198 - 1216, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd. 1956].
In 1215, the Barons of England reacted to the loss of their rights and privileges they once enjoyed before the 1213 Treaty, and so they revolted against King John and stormed the castle. Under the threat of death, they forced him to sign a document that recognized their stature and spelled out their individual rights! The document was named the Magna Carta. When Pope Innocent III was informed by King John about the Barons revolt and the Magna Carta; the Pope condemned the document and declared it null and void. In his written declaration to the Barons, the Pope stated that, “The Declaration of Human Rights embodied in the Magna Carta, violated the tenets of the church.” Imagine that--- a church that does not believe in human rights --- but has a prohibition against abortion! I believe that is called an, Oxymoron! [See: The Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198 - 1216, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd. 1956].
The Treaty of 1783, known as the Treaty of Peace, signed subsequent to the Revolutionary War; was a Treaty between King George, the Holy Roman Church and the representatives of the Corporate United States. The opening statement is written in Olde English and when interpreted means: “The King claims that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that God gave the King the power to declare that no man can ever own property because it goes against the tenets of his Church, the Vatican/The Holy Roman Church and because he is the Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.” [This is why no person or company can ever own real estate in America!] And the Founding Father’s agreed to that Declaration!
The Treaty of Verona, which took place on November 22, 1822, was another Treaty between the King of England, the Pope and the “high contracting powers” of the World and exemplifies the power that the Pope and the Vatican weld in the World and magnifies their interest in the Republic of the United States. It also explains what has happened to us in America.
The Treaty of Verona:
Article I: Basically states that the “high contracting powers” [the Masters] agree and decree that all representative forms of government and governments that recognize the individual sovereignty of ordinary people, is incompatible with “divine right” and all agree to use all of their efforts to bring an end to such governments, wherever they may be found or exist. [Isn’t the United States supposed to be a representative form of government, which recognizes individual sovereignty? At least that’s what the Declaration of Independence promised].
Article 2: That the “high contracting powers” agreed and decree that freedom of the press is a detriment to there existence and all promise to adopt measures to suppress the press in all of Europe. [If Americans want to know what is happening in the United States, they need to tune into the Foreign News Service because the American Press is suppressed beyond belief, ever since the Nixon administration and the Watergate scandal. Americas Press however, will talk badly about other countries and the Foreign Press reciprocates the favor. Do you remember my earlier comment about, “Divide and Conquer?” If you want to know what is happening in America, you need to watch and listen to the Foreign Press!
Article 3: Convinced that religion contributes powerfully to keep the people in a state of passive obedience, all of the “high contracting powers” agree to take measures to insure its continuation and a written accolade is directed to the Pope for his efforts to create and continue those measures. [An example of the measures they are speaking of involves the King James Bible.]
[e.g.] The King James Version of the Bible was concocted by the King under the guidance of Pope Innocent III. [This is the same King who was convinced by the Pope, that the Pope was God’s representative on earth!] This collaboration was kept secret to conceal the truth of their manipulation of the prophet’s written word. If you can locate an ancient manuscript of the Bible, which predates the King James Version; you will discover that [during the crucifixion of Christ], it is written in the ancient text that Jesus said: “Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do!” In the King James Version, it is written that Jesus said: “Forgive them Father, for they know NOT what they do.” The King James interpretation represents a passive version and is in keeping with the purpose and the accolade mentioned in Article 3 of the Treaty of Verona.
The King James Version of the Bible is the most popular version today and is presented to the masses by all government controlled Christian religions.
[Passive obedience however is not taught or practiced in the Muslim religion]. What was the lie our government used to explain the involvement of the armed forces of the United States and England, in the Middle East? I remember Muslim leaders screaming that this was a “Jihad,” [a holy war] and our so-called leaders denied the allegations. When the American people were later questioned by the media, they responded with disdain and disbelief!
Is there any wonder why there are now Muslim paramilitary camps being formed on American soil? And when our government officials were questioned why they permit these paramilitary camps to exist; their response was, [The U. S. Constitution protects their right to exist!] I remind you that this is the same Constitution that we are not a party too; has been circumvented by our government officials and fails to protect any rights of, “We the People!” The reason the foreign Agents posing as our federal representatives, are not concerned by the formation of these camps, is because of the mass genocide planned for the American population in the fall!
Korea is now in the news for testing nuclear weapons. Our government is making Korea look like the aggressors when in fact Korea does not want to be a part of the New World Order government and they are reacting out of fear! They simply want to live their lives as they see fit and our government officials and the United Nations are trying to bully them into submission!
The following further exemplifies the power of the Vatican in America:
“If the Sovereign Pontiff should nevertheless, insist on his law being observed, he must be obeyed.” [Bened. XIV, De Sgn Dioec., lib., ix, c vii, n 4. Prati., 1844].
“Pontifical laws moreover become obligatory without being accepted or confirmed by secular rulers.” [Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44].
“Hence, the jus nationale, (Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States; may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff.” [Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Volume I, pages 53 and 54].
[This passage is saying that the government has no authority to abolish or change ecclesiastical law in America and that only the Pope has the power to do that].
Keys to the Conspiracy:
“Alice in Wonderland,” a famous children’s story written by Leo J. Carroll, which was his pen name. The author’s true profession was that of a lawyer, a lawyer who had a conscience, “another oxymoron!” Leo J. Carroll was English and was privy to the early scheme and conspiracy to destroy all the Worlds governments and eventually replace them with a “One World Government!” So he instituted his own plan to inform the Worlds population about this nefarious conspiracy, by writing about it in a children’s story! He figured that parents would buy his book, read the story to their children and when the real conspiracy began to unfold; the parents would identify with his story and rise up against this evil!
Kudos to Leo J. Carroll, but unfortunately his plan was too quick and the pace of the conspiracy was too slow and methodical for anyone to make the connection!
Consider this information:
1) During my research, I discovered a Congressional Record from the 1930’s, which was a report compiled by an expert in counter intelligence hired by the British Parliament. The report detailed a plan or method to be employed by Parliament and the United States government, for the complete take over and destruction of the U. S. representative form of government! The report was sent to our Congress for review and then there was an argument from certain members of Congress who insisted that the report be recorded as “Top Secret,” out of a fear of reprisal, should the American people discover its existence!
The opposition members of Congress argued that the American people are functionally illiterate and too preoccupied with their own personal comfort, to be concerned about what we do! The report was entered into the open record of Congress and was never discovered until 2002! I have this Congressional Record in my computer documents!
WARNING: [BEWARE AMERICA]!
2) I met a man who was once employed by Military Intelligence. He is now diseased. We became close friends and over time he confided in me something that had been bothering his conscious for many, many years! During his employment in the Military; he happened upon a scientific report by MI, prepared for the Congress. The report detailed a plan titled; “How to reduce the population of the United States.” The conclusion reached in the report was through mass vaccinations to cure a fictitious pandemic!
NOTE: As of June 2009, a former scientist, once employed by a large pharmaceutical company in the United States; has disclosed that before resigning from his employer, former President Bush, signed legislation that defers and eliminates the Federal Food and Drug Administrations mandatory product testing; defers and eliminates disclosure of possible dangers to the public; and defers and eliminates civil liability on the part of the FDA and the pharmaceutical company.
NOTE: This scientist revealed that the President and Congress are expected to order mass vaccinations for a (fictitious swine flu pandemic) in the fall of 2009 and that the vaccine to be used; contains small amounts of Bird guano, a substance known to cause serious illness and death and in several tests, killed the lab animals that were injected! This scientist suggested that most of the soldiers, who have died in the Middle East conflict, have died from these vaccinations, but no one is talking!
NOTE: The people who have died of (swine flu) so far, died because they were vaccinated with the vaccine that is planned to be given to the American population in the fall of 2009 and half of the Worlds population. The World Health Organization is expected to declare a (pandemic) and will request that President Obama and Congress order mandatory vaccinations in the United States! Any one who refuses to take the “death vaccine,” will be arrested as a Terrorist and will be committed into internment camps!
As a Terrorist, no one is permitted a lawyer, a hearing or a judge, pursuant to the new Patriot Act passed by Congress after 911.
The World Health Organization is owned by and under the direction of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families! Do you now see the pattern unfolding?
NOTE: Police officers, Sheriff’s Deputies, U. S. Military personnel and their families will not escape this mass genocide! All will be compelled to take the “death vaccine” right along with the rest of the general public!
My guess is that the federal or state governments will install another police authority to replace our Police, Sheriff’s Deputies and Military. My belief is that they will be using army personnel of the USSR and China. These armies are now occupying former military bases in each state that was closed down under the guise of budget cuts. Fort Dix in New Jersey now occupies a battalion of the Russian Army. I don’t know which bases are being occupied in the other states.
NOTE: One closed military base in each state, has also been converted into an “Internment Camp.” The Halliburton Corporation was hired by the federal government to modify each base and install maximum security buildings. Why would the United States require so many large Internment Camps? One camp should be sufficient!
Because these camps are expected to receive thousands of innocent Americans who simply refuse to submit to the “death vaccine!”
NOTE: Homeland Security is in charge of these camps and they have been training personnel to man these facilities since 911. According to one informant, the personnel have been told that anyone committed into their custody are members of a home grown Terrorist organization suspected of inflicting biological warfare upon America! The innocent people shot or interned will be blamed for the planned mass genocide being committed by our own government leaders!
The “want ads” in the newspapers, and on the internet by Homeland Security, seeking to employ people to help fight Terrorism, are the jobs they are attempting to fill at these Internment Camps!
What I don’t understand is why the members of the Press continue to follow Orders by not reporting anything when, from what my group of Internet Researchers have been able to determine; only members of the Congress, the Bar, Federal Police and their families will be protected and exempt from these vaccinations! The members of the press will be forced to submit to this “death vaccine” the same as everyone else!
NOTE: I have pictures of hundreds of thousands of plastic coffins purchased by our government, which are being stockpiled in New Jersey. These coffins are for the burial of dead Americans during this planned mass genocide.
I also have the statement by the scientist. He has been making Radio Announcements from a Pirate Radio Station in Chicago, attempting to warn the public of this planned mass genocide!
And I have copies of a complaint and restraining order, recently filed with the FBI, by an Australian Journalist, charging that the FDA, the World Health Organization and the
U. S. Federal Government is planning a World Pandemic against the population of the earth and that the United States population is expected to be decimated!
[BEWARE - BEWARE]
3) I met an elderly gentleman while living in Virginia. Somehow our conversation moved from the weather to the death of JFK and then the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. I confessed to the gentleman that I had located Executive Orders signed by President Kennedy, six months before his assassination and that in those Executive Orders, President Kennedy disclosed that he and his brother Bobby, the Attorney General, have uncovered evidence that the Federal Reserve Bank was instituting a plan to undermine the American Economy!
President Kennedy “Ordered” the dismantling of the Federal Reserve Bank by these Executive Orders and “Ordered” that the U. S. Mint begin printing and circulating Silver Certificates to replace the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. These facts were never presented to the special commission appointed to investigate JFK’s assassination and these Executive Orders were never repealed however, the Federal Reserve was never dismantled and after JFK’s assassination, the U.S. Mint ceased the printing of Silver Certificates. In the years to follow, the Federal Reserve Bank attempted to remove all of those Silver Certificates from circulation and destroy them. Only coin collectors possess any of the original Silver Certificates. The Collectors can trade or sell them between each other but they are prohibited now by law, from circulating them back into the American economy! Imagine that, the Congress passed a law prohibiting the circulation of lawful currency!
4) This same elder gentleman told me that when he was a child of 12, his father was a Mortician in Washington, DC and his family resided at the Funeral Home where his father was employed. This Funeral Home was eventually engaged by the White House to embalm the corpse of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, upon his death.
The elder gentleman then asked me; “Do you know why FDR’s funeral was a closed casket, when he died of natural causes?”
I didn’t know the answer! Then the elder gentleman responded: “Because my father didn’t know how to hide a bullet hole to the head!”
The man went on to elaborate how the Secret Service and FBI had visited the funeral home during this timeframe and made everyone swear under threat of death, not to reveal what we saw or knew! Nothing was ever reported to the public or printed about it in the history books and, “I’m too old now to give a shit about their threats!”
Just in case the old guy was simply trying to best my research on JFK; I wrote down the name of the Funeral Home and his last name, once I entered my vehicle. Later that afternoon I began to research FDR’s death and burial and discovered that the name of the Funeral Home matched! I then found a censes report for Washington, DC of that year and discovered that the old gentleman’s father was in fact a Mortician and he resided at the Funeral Home with his wife and two children!
5) Not knowing as much then as I do today; I telephoned the Washington Post and spoke to Bob Woodward, who was one of the two famous investigative reporters responsible for bringing down the Nixon Administration. I told Mr. Woodward about the possibility that FDR had been assassinated in office and was covered up! I gave him what information I could and told him that I hoped he would be able to solve this incident as well! This was seven years ago and nothing was ever printed, discussed in the Post or was ever released by any news service! Two years ago, I found the evidence of the Treaty of Verona and many other details discussed herein, which strongly suggests that freedom of the press no longer exists in America, (if it ever did!)
Some of you “Doubting Thomas’s” may want to argue with me that: “If this is such a huge conspiracy; how is it that you and your Internet friends can research everything on computers and write about it?”
The answer is that our Masters and their government agents are quite full of themselves! They have intelligence, wealth, influence and absolute power and control over everything and everyone on this earth but, they are human and suffer the same common frailties that every powerful leader has endured since the beginning of time; “fame and the desire for recognition!” They can’t talk or brag about their conspiratorial accomplishments while they are alive out of a fear of retaliation, which is in direct conflict with their human egos! So they are forced to settle for their accomplishments to be recorded in expectation that one day the MATRIX will be revealed and they will be recognized, revered and ogled by future generations of their kind!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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...