Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International
From: minister: Andrew-Clayton: Fidler
Turtle Island (Southbank, province of British Columbia)
No code - not in a revenue district.
Psalms 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
The thirtieth day of the fourth month of the year of our Lord two-thousand and nine
For: Robert Douglas Nicholson, the private man doing business as Attorney General for the de facto
federal government of the company called Canada.
Asseveration and Notice of Denial of Corporate Status
Attention: Robert Douglas Nicholson, the private man doing business as Attorney General for the de
facto federal government of the company called Canada.
RE: This Asseveration and Notice of Denial of Corporate Status Agreement
This is a private, ecclesiastical, non commercial 'Asseveration and Notice of Denial of Corporate Status
Agreement' between minister Andrew-Clayton: Fidler and Robert Douglas Nicholson the private man,
and is offered in truth, honour and good faith, pursuant to my religious beliefs, by the man and
immortal soul, created by Yahweh, as a minister of God pursuant to Exodus 19:6, and is a process that I
am going through to remove any and all assumptions of commercial rule, which is contrary to Romans
13:1, 4 and 6; as well as God's first commandment (Exodus 20:3-5) to note a few, for it is vehemntly
clear that the private men and wo-men doing business as agents, employees, actors, etc., for the de
facto government of CANADA/ BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF appear to have assumed that I
have consented, agreed, and/or given my permission to be bound by the laws of man and mammon in
violation of the laws of my Creator which are written in the King James Bible and have been sworn by
an oath to God to be protected by the reigning Christian monarch Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
Windsor as well as Her Majesty's agents under oath.
By my sending you this good faith agreement, I do attempt to ascertain all the facts in honour. If you
have any reason or proof to suggest or provide to me, God’s minister, officially performing the
functions of my calling, that the following statements of the facts are not true, you are being offered the
opportunity to refute these offered facts so as to clear yourself of any assumptive contractual awareness
of the truth of such facts. Also, be aware this communication of agreement cannot be lawfully inquired
of at public or government expense as it is a provable private matter and government funding cannot
support private contracts. All legal bills must and shall be paid for out of your private pocket no
different than Maurice Duplessis the former Premier and Attorney General of Quebec.
My ecclesiastical role and freewill decision to opt out of the commercial fraud negatively influencing
us all is not contrary to God's laws nor is it at all strange in light of the world wide evidence of
corruption at all levels of the commercially regulated world.
I am that which God created: a private ecclesiastic man under God's law as my creator intended me to
be, and no man or woman has a moral or a lawful right to impose anything upon me without my
informed consent, agreement, and/or permission. I do hereby renounce any fraudulent, corporate,
assumptive contract and I do honour the directive obligation to respect the equal God given freedoms
of other men and women under His law.
I wish for you to be aware that the King James Bible is the rule of law for all commonwealth
courts, bearing the coat of arms of her majesty, and the King James Bible placed with standing at
the right of the judge, justice, or master presiding and must be a letters patent version "cum
priviligio" to give the court it's authority.
I, as God's minister and a believer in the gospels of Jesus Christ have had it come to my attention
that the Government of Canada combined with the provincial governments have, since 1933, been
operating de facto. The word de facto, so we are clear with each other, means illegitimate and
unlawful ( I have attached definitions below). I have no intent to argue or intimidate you by this
private communication but rather intend to make you fully aware that my Christian faith is
defended by the Queen and is based upon the King James Bible and that I, as God's minister, am the
one being intimidated. I do henceforth offer the good faith proclamation of my free born will to live
in peace and declare that, by right of God, the de facto authorities, edicts, codes, obligations,
statutes, taxes, licenses and prohibitions of a de facto commercial entity are not binding on me nor
are they applicable upon God’s ministers and His children.
It is because of this ministerial awareness that I offer this private agreement with you in your
private capacity so that no assumption of detrimental nature can be acted upon in error by either of
us to the anxiety and damage of either our properties or dutiful freedoms as children of God.
It is in honor and reflection of my official ministerial performance of my function as God's minister
to not partake of the false god de facto system and registry created by men of wealth and
predetermined gain that I gain this private agreement with you.
It is my hope that after you read this and observe the facts you will see the light and honourable
position I am seeking and wish you as well will grasp the intent in the honour I am seeking in
respecting my faith in God's laws. As God's minister, I also direct and wish that you will not be
encouraged by anyone inclusive of lawyers (which Christ called vipers and satans followers) and
the members of the R.C.M.P., who have a long history of distorting the truth, to intimidate, extort or
coerce me during my Christian ministry to violate the faith in obeying God's commands.
It is my hope that you and the other men and wo-men who hold de facto offices for the bankrupt
corporations called CANADA/BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF will cease to intimidate me to
violate God's laws, with insinuations that I must submit to the commercial fraud after I have been
diligent in letting you and others know that I cannot violate my faith and religous beliefs by
participating in fraud and the mixing of man's and mammon's laws with God's laws (Deuteronomy 4:2,
The law for Canada, which applies to you while you are employed by the company as a corporate
entity, clearly says that you cannot discriminate against me based upon my religious beliefs,
although many of the men and wo-men who are employed by the company which you work for
have and are continuing to violate the laws that govern their conduct as employees/office holders
and they continue to harass me with arbitrary demands in ignorance of the law that applies to it`s
corporate veil and they need to be aware of how this is seen as blatent intimidation and
Be it known that I heretofore and forever decline all offers to submit to man's laws, and know that
the corporate law of Canada only applies to corporate entities that have registered with it.
Please read sections: 176, 180, and 423 of the Criminal Code for Canada, which I make no use of
(Ezekiel 33:6). The 1953 Samur Decision of the Supreme court of Canada applies to all corporate
entities (persons, individuals, employees, etc.), and may enlighten you if it be your choice to
challenge my beliefs and seriously damage me by continuing to violently and un-lawfully compel
me to participate in a fraud.
The ignoarance of the men and wo-men employed by the de facto government of CANADA / BRITISH
COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF has resulted in the near death of my body (temple) during several
occassions, therefore I am making it clear that I can not violate my faith and religious beliefs by
submitting to false gods and the dictates of laws written in addition to God's laws which indeed are in
violation of God's laws (Deuteronomy 4:2).
This 'Asseveration and Notice of Denial of Corporate Status Agreement' shall not be construed by any
man or wo-man named hereon or who may be viewing this peaceful agreement as a threat of violence
or act of terrorism and shall be solely construed as a truthful, peaceful and loving notice of the facts
This document is filed pursuant to God's laws as written in the King James Bible, Luke 12:58, 1
Corinthians 6:1, sworn to be protected by Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor during her
Coronation Oath, and subsequently having been sworn to be protected by the judges of Her Majesty's
courts pursuant to the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, which is still in force today.
This is written notice of threat, duress and intimidation to myself and my wife: Janet-Arlene: Harms by
Her Majesty's agents, and the evidence does so indicate, that a de facto court of the province of British
Columbia is attempting to obtain jurisdiction over my wife and I, by assuming that I/we have either
made joinder with it or that I/we willingly and with informed consent have agreed to have its de facto
jurisdiction inflicted upon me/us.
I do share this asseveration of my truth and notice in the exercise of my religious beliefs rather than an
affidavit because it has come to my attention that only a bankrupt corporation under the Bankruptcy Act
may file an affidavit.
I am not a bankrupt nor a solvent corporation, nor is my wife, and I deny and dissolve by this private
agreement any such assumptive contract status and categorically deny any contractually valid
relationship with the corporation called: 'BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF’ ( U.S. Securites &
Exchange Commission Central Index Key: 0000014306), and ‘CANADA’ (U.S. Securites & Exchange
Commission Central Index Key: 0000230098 -- Business Address: CANADIAN EMBASSY, 1746
MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW, WASHINGTON DC 20036;) or any other de facto state whatsoever.
I continue to be exposed to more and more otherwise suppressed information that has caused me to
strengthen my spiritual bond with the Great Spirit while exercising my faith and beliefs in my Creator.
As a result of my spiritual awareness and expanded consciousness regarding this new knowledge, I
must quest after your awareness and duty to defend my faith, and hopefully establish a peaceful
agreement with you.
As children of God, it is my understanding that we are all supposed to love our neighbor as we love
ourselves, and to do no harm.
During my life experience, I have fallen from time to time along the often lonely road of faith, and
having reviewed my past, and through my new found awareness of God's laws, I have decided that it is
time for atonement and forgiveness, for I have come to the realization that there exists no forgiveness
within the man-made system of law that has tortured, abused, imprisoned, and nearly killed my body
It is quite clear to me that the laws of man are nothing more than mere worthless ink blots on paper
which none of the employees and office holders for the company which you work for have shown any
desire to follow as "law".
I have seen many ego-maniacs who believe that they are above the "law(s)" which govern their conduct
as employees/office holders and who continue to poison, abuse, and even kill my brothers and sisters
due to their lack of knowledge in their Creators laws, and a complete lack of liability on the insane,
tyrannical employees/office holders of the company.
My exercising of my faith may conflict with your monetary policies which, in fact, are not law at all
but merely corporate rules and company regulations, so by this agreement I am ensuring no false
assumptions or process may be engaged in which obstructs me and/or intimidates me from having the
ability to practice my faith as a minister of God, harmless from reproach.
I wish for you to be fully aware that this is a sincere expression of what I do know and believe to be
truth and in no way is intended to be mischievous, intimidating, or malicious, for it is a true expression
of my beliefs and of my faith.
I have recently joined an International Church that offers redemption from a system of false god's and
corporate commercial laws which I have never agreed to be bound by.
If you know of any law that can induce me or intimidate me to violate my faith in practicing the laws of
my Creator as written in the King James Bible, of which such faith is founded upon, then I demand that
you either speak up now or forever keep the peace with me as I exercise my faith as a minister of God.
So please get back to me with the information, if you have it available, for if it is not lawful for me to
follow the laws of God then I need to see by whose authority that I can be intimidated to violate them.
If you have no authority to intimidate me to violate Gods first commandment then you have no
authority outside of God's laws as God's first commandment is: 'Do not bow down to false god's nor
Before you reply, I would like you to review some of your governments information.
I feel that the information presented hereon is vitally important for you to be aware of before you can
grasp the significance of what I am endeavoring to tell you, for if you are a believer in your Creator and
His word as shared through his ministers and only begotten son Jesus the Christ as written in the King
James Bible then you may be interested in learning of this truth for your self, for it may increase your
spiritual bond with your Creator and help to spread love and positive energy on this dry land mass
which we call our home.
I would like for you to know what the word "de facto" means so that you may see for your self how the
definition of that one word is a complete demonstration of how a government can act as a false god,
and so that you may see what source it has for it's alleged authority, for it is well established knowledge
that Canada's "government" is a de facto and usurped government, as opposed to a de jure government.
Nearing to the end of the year of our Lord two thousand and five, the following information had been
posted on the website for the Governor-General of Canada. Not long after that it had been removed due
to the truth it did expose:
· Contact Us
· Canada Site
· Visit us
Home : Governor General : Role and Responsibilities
· Governor Genera l
Role and Responsibilities of the Governor General
Submitting a proposa l
· Rideau Hal l
· The Office
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The Office of the Governor General, Canada's oldest continuing
institution, is a thread that ties Canadians together. From Samuel de
Champlain in 1608 to Viscount Monck in 1867 to Vincent Massey in 1952
to today’s Governor General, the institution of Governor General dates
back nearly 400 years.
What is the Governor General's position in
Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a
constitutional monarchy. This means
Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head
of State. Canada's Governor General carries
out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily
basis and is Canada's de facto Head of
Like many other democracies, Canada has clearly defined the difference
between the Head of State and Head of Government.
The Governor General
· represents The Queen who is the Head of State
· is appointed by The Queen on the advice of Canada’s Prime
The Prime Minister
· is the Head of Government
· is the leader of the party with the most support in Parliament
What does the Governor General do?
The Governor General's role is built on four major themes:
· Representing the Crown in Canada
· Representing Canadians and Promoting our Sovereignty
· Celebrating Excellence
· Bringing Canadians together
top of page
Below you will find many definitions for the word:
De facto. [L.] actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. I, page 56.
DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.
A government de facto signifies one completely, though only temporarily, established in
the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625,
Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.
de facto (dë fak’tö). In fact, as distinguished from “de jure,” by right.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 344.
de facto government. A government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by
usurpation,( see below ) been transferred from those who had been legally invested with
them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do
act in their stead. 30 Am Jur 181.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.
De facto. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255,
257, 71 A.L.R. 830.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of
the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the
institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.
Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
de facto (dë fak’tö, da-, de-). [[L]] existing or being such in actual fact though not by legal
establishment, official recognitiont, etc. [de facto government]: cf. de jure.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 360.
Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.
de jure, de facto
De jure is a Latin phrase meaning “by right” or “legally” that English has taken over first in legal
jargon and then adopted into the general language. It usually contrasts with de facto , which means “in
fact but not in law.” A de jure government is one legally in place; a de facto government is one
effectively in power and operating, but without legal authority. Spell both locutions as two words, and
pronounce de either dee, dai, or di, stressing the first syllable of the second word in each phrase,
JOOR-ee (or JOOR-uh) and FAK-to. See FOREIGN PHRASES.
The Governor General for Canada is de facto.
- Rape is a de facto sexual act. Marital coitus is a de jure sexual act.
- They are both sexual acts of identical physical function. One is lawful, one is not.
Below is the World Bank's (Canada's creditor) definition for de facto.
Dealings with De Facto Governments
Note:This OP 7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief
Counsel, Operations Policy.
1. A “de facto government” comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided
for in the country’s constitution, such as a coup d'etat, revolution, usurpation,
abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
Usurpation & Usurp
USURP’, v. t. s. as z. [Fr. usurper ; L. usurpo.]
To seize and hold in possession by force or without right; as usurp a throne; to usurp the
prerogative of the crown; to usurp power. To usurp the right of a patron, is to oust or
Vice sometimes usurps the place of virtue. Denham.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.
USURPA’TION, n. [supra.]
The act of seizing or occupying and enjoying the property of another, without right; as the
usurpation of a throne; the usurpation of supreme power. Usurpation, in a peculiar sense,
denotes the absolute ouster and dispossession of the patron of a church, by presenting a
clerk to a vacant benefice, who is thereupon admitted and instituted. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.
One who seizes or occupies the property of another, without right; as the usurper of a
throne; of power; or of rights of a patron. Shak. Dryden. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.
USURPATION. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to another; an
interruption or the disturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomi.
There are two kinds of usurpation: first, when a stranger, without right, presents to a church
and his clerk is admitted; and, second, when a subject uses a franchise of the king without
lawful authority. Co. Litt. 277 b.
In Governmental Law. The tyrannical assumption of the government by force,
contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 3, page 3380.
USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of
the constitution of the country. Toul. Droit. Civ, n. 32.
One who intrudes himself into an office which is vacant, and ousts the incumbent without
any color of title whatever; his acts are void in every respect; McCraw v. Williams, 33 Gratt.
(Va.) 513; Hooper v. Goodwin, 48 Me. 80.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 3, page 3380.
usurpation (ü-zêr-pä’shon). The absolute ouster or dispossession of a patron by a stranger
who has no right to do so presented a clerk to a benefice who was thereupon admitted to the
living and instituted therein. See. 3 Bl. Comm. 242.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 1324.
usurper (ü-zêr-pêr). A person who assumes possession of an office, who performs the duties,
and who neither lawful title nor color of right. See Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Ore. 456, 3 Am. St.
Rep. 176, 179, 15 Pac. Rep. 778.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 1324.
USURPATION. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to another; an
interruption or the disturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomlins.
The unlawful seizure or assumption of sovereign power; the assumption of the
government or supreme power by force or illegally, in derogation of the constitution
and of the rights of the lawful ruler.
“Usurpation” for which writ of prohibition may be granted involves attempted exercise of power not possessed
by inferior office. Ex parte Wilkinson, 220 Ala. 529, 126 So. 102, 104.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 1713.
USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in
violation of the constitution of the country. Toul. Droit. Civ, n. 32.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 1713.
usurp (yöö zurp’, -surp’) vt. [[ME usurpen < MFr usurper < L usurpare < usus, a use + rapere,
to seize: see rape]] to take or assume (power, a position, property, rights, etc.) and hold in
possession by force or without right – vi. to practice or commit usurpation (on or upon) –
usurp’er n. – usurp’ing|ly adv.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988) page 1470.
usurpation (yöö zer pä’shen, -ser-) n. [[ME usurpacion < L usuparetio]] the act of usurping;
esp., the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988) page 1470.
The Criminal Code for Canada, which I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6), clearly states that:
15. No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission in obedience
to the laws for the time being made and enforced by persons in de facto possession of
the sovereign power in and over the place where the act or omission occurs.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 15.
And the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6),
13. Despite section 15 of the Criminal Code , it is not a justification, excuse
or defence with respect to an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 that the
offence was committed in obedience to or in conformity with the law in
force at the time and in the place of its commission.
Sections 4 and 6 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which are mentioned above,
4. (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence who commits
(b) a crime against humanity; or
(c) a war crime.
Conspiracy, attempt, etc.
(1.1) Every person who conspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the
fact in relation to, or counsels in relation to, an offence referred to in subsection (1) is
guilty of an indictable offence.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (1.1)
(a) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, if an intentional killing forms the
basis of the offence; and
(b) is liable to imprisonment for life, in any other case.
(3) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section.
"crime against humanity" « crime contre l'humanité »
"crime against humanity" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
imprisonment , torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or
omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group
and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against
humanity according to customary international law or conventional international
law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a
contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
"genocide" « génocide »
"genocide" means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an
identifiable group of persons, as such, that, at the time and in the place of
its commission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or
conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the
general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it
constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its
6. (1) Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside
(b) a crime against humanity, or
(c) a war crime,
is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.
Conspiracy, attempt, etc.
(1.1) Every person who conspires or attempts to commit, is an accessory after the fact in relation to, or
counsels in relation to, an offence referred to in subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (1.1)
(a) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, if an intentional killing forms the basis of the offence;
(b) is liable to imprisonment for life, in any other case.
(3) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section. "crime against humanity"
«crime contre l’humanité »
"crime against humanity" means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission
that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and
in the place of its commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary
international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the
general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a
contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
"genocide" means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an
identifiable group of persons, as such, that at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes
genocide according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its
being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations,
whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its
The Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website also clearly states that:
From: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Canadian and international defences are available to persons accused of crimes listed in the CAHWCA,
with some exceptions.
Arguing that a crime was committed in obedience to the law in force at the time and in the place
of its commission does not constitute a defence. And though the defence of superior orders is
consistent with the Rome Statute, if the accused's belief is based on information about an
identifiable group of persons that is likely to encourage inhumane acts or omissions against that
group, then the defence of superior orders cannot be based on a belief that the order was lawful.
Proceeds of Crime Offences
The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act also makes it an offence to possess and/or launder
proceeds obtained from crimes listed under the Act. This means that if proceeds from genocide, crimes
against humanity or war crimes are located in Canada, they can be restrained, seized or forfeited in
much the same way as proceeds from other criminal offences in Canada.
(Note: That means profiting from bonds and other valuable securities through imprisonment,
torture, enslavement, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts is a violation of the Crimes
Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (Ezekiel 33:6))
I will also refer you to the repealed section two (2) of the British North American Act, wherein it
reads that the Queens heirs will be bound by and inherit the Act as under their authority.
Footnotes to the Constitution Act, 1867
(Note: These footnotes are taken from the April 1, 1996 Consolidation of The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982)
(1) The Enacting clause was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.).
It read as follows:
Be it therefore enacted and declared by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled,
and by the Authority of the same, as follows:
(2) As enacted by the Constitution Act, 1982, which came into force on April 17, 1982. The section, as
originally enacted, read as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act, 1867.
(3) Section 2, repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14
(U.K.), read as follows:
2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and
Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(4) The first day of July, 1867, was fixed by proclamation dated May 22, 1867.
(5) Partially repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.). As originally
enacted the section read as follows:
4. The subsequent Provisions of this Act, shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence
and have effect on and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the Day appointed for the Union
taking effect in the Queen's Proclamation; and in the same Provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed
or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
(6) Canada now consists of ten provinces (Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba,
British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) and three
territories (the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut).
Statute Law Revision Act, 1893
56-57 Victoria, c. 14 (U.K.)
[Note: Only parts affecting the Constitution Acts are reproduced here.]
An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing Enactments which have
ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary
[19th June 1893]
Whereas it is expedient that certain enactments, which may be regarded as spent, or have ceased to be
in force otherwise than by express specific repeal by Parliament, or have, by lapse of time or otherwise
become unnecessary, should be expressly and specifically repealed:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, as follows:
1. The enactments described in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, subject to the provisions of
this Act and subject to the exceptions and qualifications in the schedule mentioned; and every part of a
title, preamble, or recital specified after the words "in part, namely," in connexion with an Act
mentioned in the said schedule may be omitted from any revised edition of the statutes published by
authority after the passing of this Act, and there may be added in the said edition such brief statement
of the Acts, officers, persons, and things mentioned in the title, preamble, or recital, as may in
consequence of such omission appear necessary:
4. This Act may be cited as the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893.
Reign and | Title
Constitution Act, 1867.
30 & 31 Victoria In part; namely,
c. 3 From "Be it therefore" to "same as follows."
Section four to "provisions" where it last occurs .
Sections forty-two and forty-three.
Section fifty-one. from "of the census" to "seventy-one and" and the word
Section eighty-eight, from "and the House" to the end of the section.
Sections eighty-nine and one hundred and twenty-seven.
Section one hundred and forty-five.
Repealed as to all Her Majesty's Dominions.
I will also offer to you who it is that the Supreme law of Canada corporation applies to as per Heritage
Canada liberal interpretation.
The top law for the government of Canada is the Charter, which is over all the other statutes, bills, etc.,
and says that it only applies to government.
Minister's page | Minister of State (Sport) | Minister of State (Multiculturalism)
Location: Home - Human Rights Program 2005/03/12
GUIDE TO THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND
Part II : The Contents of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Application of Charter
· This Charter applies
o to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all
matter within the authority of Parliament including all matters
relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
o to the legislature and government of each province in respect of
all matters within the authority of the legislature of each
· Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until
three years after this section comes into force.
The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to
governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations.
Excerpts from the BC Constitution Act:
This Act of the BC Legislature sets out the Power
of the Lieutenant Governor of BC and of the Queen of England
This Act stipulates the way government for BC is to be organized, and under it, British Columbians
(persons) are given no political rights.
The Legislature cannot be elected without the permission of the Lieutenant Governor, it cannot meet in
session without his/her permission, it must dissolve on his/her order, and the Legislature cannot spend
one dollar without the permission of the Lieutenant Governor - without his/her prior permission.
Quote # 1 from the BC Constitution Act
"2 Despite anything in this Act to the contrary, this Act must be construed as subject to the
Constitution Act, 1867 and amending Acts applicable to British Columbia, and to the order of Her
late Majesty Queen Victoria in Council for the union of British Columbia with the Dominion of
Canada under the authority of that Act."
Note that the BC Constitution Act, which designates the structure of the BC Government, is subject to the
Constitution Act, 1867. However, the BC Constitution Act is also subject to the order of the late Queen
Victoria of England. In the original BNA Act 1867, all references to the Queen of England were intended
to refer to her heirs, after her death. But in 1893 the British Parliament repealed that intention in the
"Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict, c. 14 (UK), therefore it all ended during 1901 when the
Queen died. Hence, the current de facto government for Canada is a usurped fraud.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 2 from the BC Constitution Act
3 (1) The Lieutenant Governor is a corporation sole.
The office of the Lieutenant Governor is a Legal Person called 'Lieutenant Governor', in the same way
that the usurped de facto government is a Legal Person. Who created this Legal Person in the first place?
Who for British Columbia has the power to create any Legal Person at any time? Who for BC has the
power to make any person the supreme power for British Columbia?
Answer: The (corporate) government has been usurped and is de facto.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 3 from the BC Constitution Act
Appointment to public office
4 (1) The appointment to public office under the government of British Columbia, whether vacant or
created and whether salaried or not, is vested in the Lieutenant Governor, with the advice of the
Executive Council, with the exception of the appointment
(a) of the officials who are also appointed members of the Executive Council, which appointments are
vested in the Lieutenant Governor alone, or
(b) for which other provision is expressly made by an Act.
(2) All officers appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, whether by commission or otherwise, remain in
office during pleasure only.
The Lieutenant Governor is the sole authority (a corporation = mammon's law) vested with the power to
appoint persons to public office for BC - he/she appoints the Executive Council, and they appoint the rest.
And anyone appointed by the Lieutenant Governor (which means everyone) holds his/her office only as
long as the Lieutenant Governor wants him to. This implies the power to fire every public official for the
usurped de facto government for British Columbia.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 4 from the BC Constitution Act
Assent or signification date for legislation
5 (1) The Clerk of the Legislative Assembly must endorse on every Act
(a) the date when the Act was assented to by the Lieutenant Governor,
Nothing becomes law for BC unless the Lieutenant Governor wants it to be law. Everywhere else on the
planet calls that a fascist dictatorship. A clear violation of God's law.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 5 from the BC Constitution Act
7 Executive power continues, so far as it is unaltered by this Act, as it existed on February 14, 1871,
subject to sections 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66 and 67 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and to any other part of
that Act affecting it and to the order of Her late Majesty in Council.
Executive power for BC is controlled by the provisions of the BNA Act 1867, and is subject to the order of
Her late Majesty in Council?
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 6 from the BC Constitution Act
9 (1) The Executive Council is composed of the persons the Lieutenant Governor appoints,
including the Premier of British Columbia, who is president of the Executive Council.
(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council must from among those persons appointed under subsection
(a) those officials with portfolio and must designate the portfolio for each official, and
(b) those officials without portfolio.
Note that the Premier is not the person elected. The Lieutenant Governor has not given any person a
political right to vote for a Premier. The Premier is the person that the Lieutenant Governor appoints, and
the Lieutenant Governor appoints all the Cabinet too.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 7 from the BC Constitution Act
Transfer of powers and duties
10 (1) Any of the powers and duties assigned by law to any of the officials constituting the Executive
Council may, by order in council, be assigned and transferred for any period to any other of the
"Any of the powers assigned by law" means assigned by the law of the BC Constitution Act, which means
assigned by the Lieutenant Governor. When did a usurped de facto government become superior to God's
law? The term "order in council", means a dictator’s power to give an order without consulting anyone.
This power of issuing orders in council is how all usurped de facto governments these days operate outside
the control of elected officials under God's law - in the us of A they call them "Executive Orders".
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 8 from the BC Constitution Act
Organization of executive government
13 (1) Despite any Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may determine the organization of the
executive government and the various ministries.
In spite of what the elected representatives of the people may want ("Despite any Act"), the Lieutenant
Governor may organize the executive government of BC in any way he/she wants.
The "Lieutenant Governor in Council", which means the Cabinet, only hold office as long as they do what
they are told ( "(2) All officers appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, whether by commission or
otherwise, remain in office during pleasure only.")
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 9 from the BC Constitution Act
17 There must be in British Columbia a Legislative Assembly constituted as provided by this Act, and
the Lieutenant Governor has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative
Assembly, to make laws in and for British Columbia in all cases, subject to the Constitution Act, 1867,
and to the order of Her late Majesty in Council.
"By and with the advice and consent " is meaningless. The Lieutenant Governor has the supreme
corporate de facto authority to remove the premier and the executive council. "By and with the advice and
consent" is also contradictory. It contradicts a later section of the BC Constitution Act that prevents the
Legislature from spending any money without the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 10 from the BC Constitution Act
Demise of the Crown
20 (1) A Legislative Assembly summoned or called is not determined or dissolved by a demise of the
Crown, but continues, and may meet, convene, sit, proceed and act, despite the demise of the Crown, as
if the demise had not happened.
(2) This section does not alter or abridge the power of the Crown to prorogue or dissolve the
This seems to make it clear that persons are under the power of the Crown. The Crown can terminate any
session of their elected representatives at any time the Crown wants. Perhaps that is why the corporate
"government" openly admits that it is de facto. Because it is not a lawful government under God's law, it
is usurped and de facto. It is mammon's/man's law, not God's.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 11 from the BC Constitution Act
Summoning and proroguing
21 (1) The Lieutenant Governor must, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, summon and call
together the Legislative Assembly.
(2) It is not necessary for the Lieutenant Governor, in proroguing the Legislative Assembly, to name
any day to which it is prorogued, or to issue a formal proclamation for a meeting of the Legislative
Assembly, unless it is intended that the meeting is to be for the dispatch of business.
23 (1) The Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, prorogue or
dissolve the Legislative Assembly when the Lieutenant Governor sees fit.
It seems that the elected representatives can not even meet without permission from that Lieutenant
Governor, acting for the Queen of England. Or the elected representatives cannot meet without the
permission of the Queen of England, acting through her Lieutenant Governor. And he/she can end the
session and send them all home when he/she feels it necessary.
And paragraph 23 seems to make it clear that the Lieutenant Governor is the personal representative of
Her Majesty, who swore an oath to God to protect my faith and to uphold His laws.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 12 from the BC Constitution Act
Oath of allegiance
24 (1) A member of the Legislative Assembly must not vote or sit until he or she has taken and
subscribed the following oath before the Lieutenant Governor, or some other person authorized by the
Lieutenant Governor to administer the oath:
I, A.B., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II [or
her successor], her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Those are the words (above) in the BC Constitution Act, indicating prima fascia an unlawful,
unsanctioned deficient form by the omission of the word “do” in the BC oath of Allegiance thus effectively
invalidating the oath by making the oath grammatically incoherent.
These are the words (below) from the federal Oath of allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as
to how the oath is to be worded for Canada, it is
(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of
the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the
Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have
administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Quote # 13 from the BC Constitution Act
Lieutenant Governor may initiate Bills
46 The Lieutenant Governor may transmit, by message to the Legislative Assembly, the draft of any
law that appears to the Lieutenant Governor desirable to introduce, and all drafts must be taken into
consideration by the Legislative Assembly in a manner provided by the rules and orders.
Appropriation by message of Lieutenant Governor
47 The Legislative Assembly must not originate or pass any vote, resolution, address or Bill for the
appropriation of any part of the consolidated revenue fund, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that
has not been first recommended by a message of the Lieutenant Governor to the Legislative
Assembly during the session in which the vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed.
Lieutenant Governor may return Bills
48 If a Bill is presented to the Lieutenant Governor for the Lieutenant Governor's assent, the
Lieutenant Governor may return it, by message, for the reconsideration of the Legislative Assembly,
with amendments the Lieutenant Governor thinks fit.
The elected representatives are forbidden to spend money without the Lieutenant Governor’s permission.
Control of the purse strings is the ultimate control.
The Lieutenant Governor can keep on refusing to sign a Bill or may sign a Bill which is in violation of
God's law because the government is usurped, de facto, and the sworn oath is a fraudulent oath.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Excerpts from the BNA Act 1867
9 The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be
vested in the Queen.
Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor swore an oath to God
to protect my faith and to uphold His (God's) laws.
Romans 13:1 - ...there is no authority except for God.
Here are a few more important notes regarding "Canada":
Myth of Canada
"Throughout the world ... we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well:
'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures"
- Canada is not a federated nation.
- 1864, The Quebec resolution, which expressed the desire for the provinces to confederate under
the British Crown based upon the principles of the British constitution, was never included in the
British North America Act. As a matter of fact, the British Parliament rushed the BNA Act
through in four days reading and then foisted it upon Canada at that time, and hence the
dominion of Canada was born, or, the consolidation of four colonies in to one. (Still remained a
colony of the British empire, until 1931 Statute of Westminster).
- 1893 Revisions Act took the Crown away as part of the British North America Act
- Queen Victoria, after she passed away in 1901, the monarchy ended in Canada.
- The Statute of Westminster, put together by King George the 5th, delivered December eleventh
1931, removed the British Parliament from Canada and allowed Canada to become a sovereign
nation and confederate. In 1935, the mandarins in the legislature went to Delaware and did an
incorporation called 'CANADA' instead.
- CANADA is a privately traded company.
- The Statue of Westminster ended the British North America Act.
- The provinces became 12 sovereign nations.
- 1982 "repatriation" of the Constitution Act was a commercial document. It does not apply to
men. It only applies to corporate entities (legal fictions). A man can not lawfully be compelled to
be a party to a corporation.
- Canada has not been a democracy since 1931.
- Bar licensed lawyers practice commercial law. Within their purview they deliver the person and
it's property unto the state.
- Social insurance is an application for benefits which was created by the corporation.
- The Birth Certificate is a bond (debenture) which is sent to the bank of Canada. The
government of Canada gets its "money" by borrowing off of the bonds. It uses the bonds to make
corp. CANADA run off of a man's life from birth until death.
- The Order of the Garter owns the corporation called CANADA.
Therefor the Criminal Code for CANADA is null and void to all who reject it. Section 91(27) of
the Constitution Act, 1867 is of no force and effect. It is affirmed in section 8:
Application to territories
8. (1) The provisions of this Act apply throughout Canada except
(a) in Yukon, in so far as they are inconsistent with the Yukon Act;
(b) in the Northwest Territories, in so far as they are inconsistent with the Northwest Territories
(c) in Nunavut, in so far as they are inconsistent with the Nunavut Act.
(Note: The Criminal Code for Canada clearly states that "The provisions of this Act apply
throughout Canada... ".
The fact is, Canada is a security at Washington, District of Columbia, so it only applies to
corporate members who have wilfully agreed to be bound by the corporate CODE.
The Interpretation Act for Canada defines "land" as well as "Canada" as water. (Definitions are
"Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God", therefore, if the
Supreme law of the bankrupt corporation called CANADA is superior to all of the subordinate laws and
only applies to the (de facto) government, can you tell me how the subordinate laws apply to me when I
am not government nor a partner, employee, and/or office holder with your government?
The writers of that alleged "law" make it difficult to read, but I am not the author of that confusion and
deceit. My God given dutiful freedoms to not bow to a false god is a law from my God which I intend
You, with a competent eye and an open mind, can readily see that the de facto government of Canada
was usurped and taken over by wealthy international bankers when in January 22, 1901 at Osborne
house on the isle of wight Queen Victoria died. This effectively brought the British North American Act
to a Sudden death as of the repeal of section two (2) that took place in 1893. You have seen above that
section two (2) was originally intended to bind her heirs to the enforcement of that enactment. The
repeal, as you have read in the Statute law revision act of 1893, was of the consideration of the drafters
of that enactment that they no longer needed the Queen or her heirs to continue their plunder and as
such you have a de facto and usurped unlawful and tyrannical "government" acting as if they were
lawfully in a de jure position of law, which as you must know is clearly a fraud.
Servants, obey your fleshly masters in all things--not with eye service as pleasing men; but with
singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatever you do, do heartily, as to the Lord and not to men.
So, here is the agreement I offer to you in in the hopes that neither of us violates the laws which we are
I aver that the following facts of our private agreement of honour and good faith are the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, correct, complete and certain, without the intent to mislead, under
penalty of perjury and where I believe and do present fact of something to be true I do state my belief:
1. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, am a
living, breathing, flesh and blood man created by Yahweh, in His image, and have been
ordained as His minister through his only begotten son Jesus Christ, to protect His laws.
2. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, am
not, nor do I represent myself to be, a corporation or any form of fictitious legal entity referred
to as a “person”, for it is a violation of the laws of my Creator and my faith, as written in the
King James Bible: Deuteronomy 1:17, 10:17; Ephesians 6:9; Romans 2:11; Acts 10: 34; James
2:9; Colossians 3:25; sworn to be protected by Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor and
Her Majesty's judges and agents.
3. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, am not the
legal representative of the fictitious corporate entity known as FIDLER, ANDREW CLAYTON
or any other combination of partial or all capitalized letters or reversed name.
4. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that the said fictitious entities as created by the Crown without my informed consent are
the property of Her Majesty as evidenced by government documents such as: a driver’s license,
birth certificate, social insurance card, medical service card, etc., etc., all of which I make no
5. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that all the private men and women acting as crown
counsel and all provincial lawyers, that may wish to advise you in a public capacity, have by
law sworn an oath to God to be truly allegiant to the Queen as de jure Christian monarch styled
as "Defender of the Faith" and cannot defend or advise private parties using public taxpayer
6. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that any man or woman who takes an oath to a Christian
monarch who does not know the law regarding the meaning of their oath when asked is
incompetent to provide the true allegiance as they simply do not know what it is.
7. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that corruption is evident and existing within all sectors
of government be it municipal, provincial, or federal and that no man, woman, or Church can
lawfully be compelled to participate with or contractually submit to a corrupt and admitted de
facto government, it's registries, or it's agents.
8. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that any intimidation by any man or woman to violate
my faith based in the King James Bible, as defended by the Queen, is treason upon her
majesty's government and is a breach of trust that the oath to God promised to faithfully provide
as found in section 122 of the Criminal Code for Canada, which I make no use of (Ezekiel
9. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the first commandment of God in the King James
Bible, as defended by her majesty the Queen, is specifically to not bow to nor serve false god's
10. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact, that the eleventh commandment of God in the King
James Bible is to not add to his law nor take away from it. Deuteronomy 4:2 ;12:32
11. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that any attendance I may make or may have made in a de facto COURT of "law", or a de
facto statute court of British Columbia, is done under threat and duress, contrary to the holy
nature and righteous law of God, as written in the King James Bible: Romans 16:17; Acts 5:29;
and without my informed consent, agreement, and/or permission, and without having
knowledge of or a required understanding of the lawful reasons for the de facto proceedings or
any assumed CHARGES that may be brought against the said fictitious entity/person.
12. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that any document which I may have signed promising to attend and/or appear in any said
court was signed under protest of duress, threat and intimidation, contrary to the statutes and
codes which govern the conduct of your company's agents, ie. s.423 and s.176 of the Criminal
Code, which I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6); and that my signature is evidence of intimidation,
extortion, coercion and threat of unlawful arrest, shackling, persecution, torture and
imprisonment, contrary to s.4, s.6, and s.13 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes
Act, which I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6), being un-lawfully demanded of me by an agent of
13. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that in a financial relationship the creditor has control
over the debtor and that the world bank is the creditor for Canada (being the debtor) and all of
it's enitities (persons, employees, citizens, etc.).
14. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the world bank, being Canada's creditor has defined
a de facto government, in it's operational policy manual, as being usurped authority as in a coup
d'etat, being a military revolution or abrogation of the constitution. It is further agreed that all
the law dictionaries of the world define de facto as being unlawful, usurped, illegitimate
authority as opposed to dejure government which means lawfully formed and ruled.
15. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the laws for Canada specifically prohibit the act of
intimidation to do a thing you have a right to not do and that my faith in Christ cannot be
16. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I, as a minister of Christ, am officially performing a
function of my calling by avoiding the de facto false god registry of the de facto provincial and
municipal military style governments as per Exodus 20:3-5 Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32; Matthew
6:24; Acts 5:29; Romans 16:17-20; and Colossians 2:8-22 and by doing so, as Christ directed,
practicing my Christian faith unmolested. It is further agreed with no rebuttal to the fact that
you now are irrevocably aware it is a violation of God's commands and my faith as defended by
the Queen to submit the property of the church or my property to a de facto registry.
17. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that I am officiating in my ministerial capacity and performing my ministerial function of
professing my calling at all times in all locations, pursuant to God's laws as written in the King
James Bible, Exodus 19:6, sworn by an oath to God to be protected by her majesty Queen
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor and her majesty's agents.
18. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that I stand in the Kingdom of God wherever I am at all times.
19. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that the Holy King James Bible has official standing in all courts of British Columbia and
represents the rule of law so stated in the preamble to the Canadian Bill of Rights and Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, the latter Sections of which apply only to her majesty’s agents.
20. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that Section 423 of the Criminal Code for Canada
applies to all government employee's as well as sections 15,19,122 126,176 and 180 of that
21. It is agreed with no rebuttal to the fact that any man/wo-man trespassing against me, vi et armis
or otherwise, under the guise of prosecuting the said fictitious entity/person in a civil/criminal
matter regarding corporate commercial codes, acts, and statutes does commit a crime of
obstructing me as an officiating minister performing a function of my calling (Exodus 19:6).
22. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that any man/wo-man trespassing against me, vi et armis or otherwise, under the guise of
prosecuting the said fictitious entity/person in a civil/criminal matter regarding corporate
commercial codes, acts, and statutes does commit a crime of intimidating me, contrary to section
423 of the Criminal Code for Canada, which I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6), to accept the
unlawful jurisdiction of the said court and the joinder with the said fictitious entity/person.
23. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that any man/wo-man trespassing, vi et armis or otherwise, against me the minister and
creation of God, under the guise of prosecuting the said fictitious entity/person in a
civil/criminal matter regarding corporate commercial statutes, acts, and codes does commit a
crime of common nuisance, contrary to section 180 of the Criminal Code for Canada, of which
I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6).
24. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that any man/wo-man trespassing, vi et armis or otherwise, against me the minister and
creation of God, under the guise of prosecuting the said fictitious entity/person in a civil matter
regarding corporate commercial statutes, acts, and codes does commit a crime of obstructing or
violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman, contrary to section 176 of the Criminal Code for
Canada, which I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6).
25. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that any man/wo-man trespassing against me, vi et armis or otherwise, under the guise of
prosecuting the said fictitious entity/person in a civil/criminal matter regarding corporate
commercial codes, acts, and statutes does commit a crime of disobeying a statute: Canadian Bill
of Rights Section 1(c), which I make no use of (Ezekiel 33:6).
26. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that any man/wo-man trespassing against me, vi et armis or otherwise, and thereby
obstructs my freedom to travel privately and/or the enjoyment of my private property does
commit a crime of disobeying a statute: Canadian Bill of Rights Section 1(a), which I make no
use of (Ezekiel 33:6).
27. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I: Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler, do hereby
aver that I have evidence and good reason to believe that the court formed in her majesty’s
name is de facto, an impostor, and acts as a false god and as such it is clearly a false authority
that, as of my faith in Yahweh’s Law, I cannot submit to nor lawfully be intimidated to bow
down to (Exodus 20:3-5).
28. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that any birth registry and financial bonding to effect
jurisdiction over my body (temple) was formed in fraud as it was without my fully informed
and wilfull consent, agreement, and/or permission, and as such is null and void.
29. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that you are with the knowledge that ministers of the
Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International cannot, as of our faith to follow God's first
command as defended by the Queen, register with de facto government entities.
Note: The following can be read at the website of Ministry of the Attorney General:
"6.5 Special situations of religious organizations
Religious organizations should consider certain issues carefully before incorporating.
If a religious organization becomes incorporated, its ecclesiastical, canon or church laws, rules or
regulations may be subject to the Corporations Act . This means that if any ecclesiastical, canon or
church law, rule or regulations conflicts with the Corporations Act , the organization, once
incorporated, must comply with the Corporations Act and will no longer be able to use that law, rule or
regulation in administering its affairs."
30. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that registration, with dead de facto regimes, requires and
contracts to provide servitude. I cannot, by my faith, submit to de facto regimes as it is my contention
and belief as a Christian minister that de facto government's are false gods and have no de jure
31. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that a wilfull appearance at the corrupt, de facto
commercial equity COURT(S) for CANADA/BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF is an acceptance
of mammons and man's law and a violation of my faith and religious beliefs as well as a violation of
the oath of her majesty Queen Elizabeth II, therefore I can not wilfully appear and participate at any
aforementioned COURT for it is un-lawful and fraud. Be it known that any attendance I may make at
the aforementioned COURT(S) is under threat, duress, and intimidation and in violation of section 176
and section 423 of the Criminal Code for Canada to name a few, which I make no use of (Ezekiel
32. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the de facto authority of the judges, prosecutors, and
agents of CANADA/BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF will not be tolerated for it is a violation
of God's laws as written in the King James Bible which Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor has
sworn an oath to protect.
33. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that Paul in Romans 13 says they are ministers of God
three times and that any minister of God when asked of the meaning of his oath will immediately know
it is to uphold all of God's laws as per Ezra 7:25-26.
34. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that judges, prosecutors, and agents of CANADA /
BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF are impostors who have sworn false oaths and are acting as
false gods without authority to make me bow to them, and I can not be compelled to violate God's
commands nor participate in fraud.
35. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I am a man created by God in his service and ministry
ordained by Christ and I can not be compelled to operate my life as a commercial entity created by de
facto governments known as a "person".
36. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the alteration of my name, without my consent,
agreement, and/or permission, for a financial purpose and/or in association with persons in law by any
man, wo-man, or entity inclusive of de facto governments is fraud and is a violation of my faith and
37. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the Government of Canada or the province are false
corporate gods that have no force and effect upon non commercial ecclesiatically engaged ministers of
Christ following the commandment to not bow to or serve false gods.
38. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that it is a violation of my faith to submit to man's laws as
many of the men and wo-men holding de facto offices for the corporations called CANADA/BRITISH
COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF seem to dictate and impose upon me in a discriminatory practice.
39. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that Jesus never paid tax to Caesar who had declared
himself a god (a false god), but quite to the contrary, Jesus/Yashua paid the Hebrew temple tax with a
coin from a fishes mouth equal to one shekel , being the Hebraic covenanted temple tax tribute for two
men, himself and Peter.
40. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that many of the men and women who have been
employed and who are employed as members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by the usurped,
de facto government of Canada and many of the men and women who have been and who are members
of it's registered Catholic Churches are responsible for the genocide of the indigenous men, women,
and children of the dry land mass called Turtle Island.
41. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that "British Columbia" owns no dry land for the land
known by some as "British Columbia" has been unlawfully stolen from the indigenous protectors by
false and fraudulent claim(s) and/or contract(s) contrary to God's law wherein during the year of our
Lord 1858 "Governor" James Douglas deceitfully manipulated many men and women to use violence
to destroy the homes of the indigenous men and women of the dry land called: 'Turtle Island'. See
Leviticus 25: regarding land laws.
42. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that a de jure government rules with the Bible or other
religious text such as Torah and is lawful as long as no harm befalls the men and women who are
subject to that form of government as a result of adding to or taking away from God's law.
"Love your brother as yourself" is the golden rule.
43. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the debtor corporation of Canada has been a bankrupt
country since 1931 and has had no gold to back the paper fiat money since 1933 when receivership for
the creditor, being the world bank, kicked in, and has bonded the men and women registered with
Canada for 8 million dollars a piece and classified the Bonded men and women as sureties for the debt
and as fiduciaries for the legal fiction persons (strawmen) created by provincial and federal statute as
per the regulations of the Canadian Ownership Control and Determination Act of 1982, formerly the
Foreign Investment Act of 1933 created by the debtor corporation of Canada.
44. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that legal fictions are creations of law for the convenience
of the court and are done with out gaining permission from the one whose name is being monetised.
R.v. Staufen BCSC 2001
45. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the debtor commercial corporation of Canada assumes
a financial interest in such registrant after the applicant has consented to registry and issues a certificate
of Birth, drivers licence, property registration, etc., as the birth certificate resulting from such
commercial registry proves, having been printed on Canadian Banknote paper reserved under law for
security documents and valuable securities such as currency.
Jubilee of Leviticus 25: is supported by the Levitical high priest being Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
Windsor the Queen of the Commonwealth.
To one of faith in God's law, we are to not ignore knowledge. Hosea 4:6
The creditor makes the commercial rules. The World Bank is the Creditor. The World Bank,
Canada's commercial creditor, says de facto is usurped power like under military rule. It is
unlawful. Corporate Canada's creditors are a private for profit venture owned by Bankers all having
the same religious affiliation using Talmud, fraud and usury to quite literally enslave the nations
46. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that you can not provide me with the proof as to which
legislation of man can abrogate God's law. Exodus 20:3-5 Numbers 15:15, Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32
In good faith, I share with you the following to investigate for your self: the Westminster
Confession of Faith from 1646, section 22. Lawful oaths;. And section 126 from the Criminal
Code for Canada. The Acts? Bills of Exchange Act and the Oaths of Allegiance Act, Royal
Styles and Titles Act, Statute of Westminster 1931, Confession of Faith Act 1646, and the
Coronation Act of 1689 for starters. The act below is from 1778 and the reign of King George
the Third and is still on the books as in force law for Canada. Note how it says no tax
whatever shall be imposed except for commerce. Commerce is described as the worldly
pursuit of wealth for self gain and enrichment. It is also known ecclesiastically as mammon,
and Christ for-warned us we cannot serve God and Mammon. Matthew 6:24
47. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that an oath to a Christian Monarch is an act of
religious worship and all who refuse to acknowledge and submit to that fact are impostors who lied
to get their job.
48. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that an agent of her Majesty when failing to
acknowledge they have an oath of allegiance to the defender of the faith and recognition of the
supremacy of God relieves themselves from sworn duty and reverts themselves to a private man or
woman with no more judicial authority than the sovereign inheritance of birth as they have by lack
of recognition of those prime points of law indicated they perjured themselves when swearing their
oath to God.
49. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that a minister once notifying whoever obstructs them
that he is a minister not bound by commercial law in performing the functions of his calling and
that unless proof to the contrary is evident the man or woman once made aware of the ministry
being performed has no sanction in law or from the Christian monarch they swore to be truly
allegiant to, to obstruct intimidate or act as a nuisance to him while performing the official
functions of his calling.
50. It is agreed with no rebuttal to the fact that we as men and women of the Christian faith and
confession are not commercial entities.
XLIII. ''And whereas by an Act passed in the Eighteenth Year of the Reign (1778) of His late
Majesty King George the Third, instituted An Act for removing all Doubts and Apprehensions
concerning Taxation by the Parliament of Great Britain in any of the Colonies, Provinces, and
Plantations in North America and the West Indies; and for repealing so much of an Act made in the
Seventh Year of the Reign of His present Majesty as imposes a Duty on Tea imported from Great
Britain into any Colony or Plantation in America, or relating thereto, it was declared, that "the King
and Parliament of Great Britain would not impose any Duty, Tax, or Assessment whatever, payable
in any of His Majesty's Colonies, Provinces, and Plantations in North America or the West Indies,
except only such Duties as it might be expedient to impose for the Regulation of Commerce, the net
Produce of such Duties to be always paid and applied to and for the Use of the Colony, Province, or
Plantation in which the same shall be respectively levied, in such Manner as other Duties collected
by the Authority of the respective General Courts or General Assemblies of such Colonies,
Provinces, or Plantations were ordinarily paid and applied:'' And whereas it is necessary, for the
General Benefit of the Empire, that such Power of Regulation of Commerce should continue to be
exercised by Her Majesty and the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
subject nevertheless to the Conditions herein before recited with respect to the Application of any
Duties which may be imposed for that Purpose;'' be it therefore enacted, That nothing in this Act
contained shall prevent or affect the Execution of any Law which hath been or shall be made in the
Parliament of the said United Kingdom for establishing Regulations and Prohibitions, or for the
imposing, levying, or collecting Duties for the Regulation of Navigation, or for the Regulation of
the Commerce between the Province of Canada and any other Part of Her Majesty's Dominions, or
between the said Province of Canada or any Part thereof and any Foreign Country or Stint, or for
appointing and directing the Payment of Drawbacks of such Duties so imposed, or to give to Her
Majesty any Power or Authority, by and with the Advice and Consent of such Legislative Council
and Assembly of the said Province of Canada, to vary or repeal any such Law or Laws, or any Part
thereof, or in any Manner to prevent or obstruct the Execution thereof
Note: I make no use of mans laws (Ezekiel 33:6). I merely provide them for your benefit to show
those laws apply to you when at work for the corporate fiction and not to members of our church.
(See above: section 32 of the supreme law of Canada)
51. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the Coronation Ceremony of Queen Elizabeth
Alexandra Mary Windsor declares that the Bible is the Royal rule for the government of Christian
princes and the Westminster Confession of Faith from 1646 still in force law in Canada has, as the
whole purpose of the Monarchy, in defending the Christian faith from covetous actions of vain men
of commercially minded gain.
52. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that any man or woman who has sworn an oath to the
Christian Monarch to be truly allegiant to the “Defender of the faith” then obstructs, intimidates, or
acts as a nuisance to the ability of an officiating minister of God, has acted against the Queens
ability to defend the faith and is attempting to overthrow her majesty’s government, being the King
James Bible, by force.... and that Section 46 of the Criminal Code for Canada (which I make no use
of - Ezekiel 33:6) applies to all sworn allegiant officers of her majesty.
53. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the “Rule of law” spoken of in the preamble to the
1982 de facto Constitution, being a rule for debtors, (that clearly only applies to all registered
corporate government employee’s via section 32 of that charter), is indisputably God’s law, being
the King James Bible, as defended by the Christian monarch you the private man/wo-man swore to
be truly allegiant to via the Canadian oaths of Allegiance Act and Coronation Act of 1689. Any
other act that dares speak contrary or may have altered the authorized form is not withstanding nor
54. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that all de facto authorities are impostors and have no
sanction from the Queen to intimidate any man or woman from practicing their Christian faith.
55. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that if you ignore this good faith ecclesiastical
agreement and proceed to intimidate me while in your de facto capacity that you consent to the fact
and admit to be actively and irrefutably involved in a conspiracy to violate my faith in the King
56. It is agreed by you, with no rebuttal to the fact you consent to pay me one (1) million Dollars
$1,000,000.00 in Gold Maple Leaf coin for the damages to my ability to practice my faith
unimpeded and that you will, once our agreement is witnessed and published, provide me the name
and address of your liability insurance bond agent to pay for damages due to your intimidation
should you choose to break the laws and violate your oath.
57. It is agreed, understood, and with no rebuttal to the fact that the Sikh's from Quesnel British
Columbia sued the RCMP in 1980 and easily recouped $10,000,000.00 for the rejection of one man
from RCMP employment as of his faith to wear a turban.
58. It is agreed, that the Queen's defence of the King James Bible as of oath and duty is decidedly
more powerful as standing and defence than the turban.
59. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I am of the kingdom of God and of private faith
and religious nature, and I am not the legal person created by the usurped de facto government nor of
commercial corporate profit motivated quest. I follow God’s laws as defended by the Queen.
God’s first commandment in her majesty’s Bible is: do not bow to false gods. Exodus 20:3-5
60. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that God’s law has been added to if no man/wo-man has
been harmed and there is no private complaint by a man (not a "person").
King James Bible
Deuteronomy 1:17 - Ye shall not respect persons in judgment .
Deuteronomy 10:17 - For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great
God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons , nor taketh
Acts 10:34 - Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons :
Romans 2:11 - For there is no respect of persons with God .
Ephesians 6:9 - And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing
threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is
there respect of persons with him .
Colossians 3:25 - But the one who does wrong shall receive for the wrong he has done, and there is no
respect for persons .
James 2:9 - But if ye have respect to
persons , ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors .
The Word "person" is defined by the Interpretation Act of "Canada" as:
"person" includes (is/means) a corporation, partnership or party, and the personal or other legal
representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law.
"corporation" means an incorporated association, company, society,
municipality or other incorporated body, where and however incorporated,
and includes (is/means) a corporation sole other than Her Majesty or the Lieutenant Governor.
Canadian LAW Dictionary
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS - Lat: the express mention of one person or
thing is the exclusion of another.
The Canadian Style
A guide to Writing and Editing
by Dundurn Press Limited in co-operation with Public Works and
Government Services Canada Translation Bureau
12.03 Words commonly confused or misused:
"include, comprise- Include implies only part of a whole ; comprise implies all"
If you were to say, "The price includes bed and breakfast,"
you are basically saying "the price means bed and breakfast." It does not
mean ( include ) a limo ride from the airport, free booze and a massage with a
Canadian LAW Dictionary
ARTIFICIAL PERSON - A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a
person in law to whom legal rights and duties may attach- e.g., a body
corporate. The Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. I. 11, s.29(1), states
that "person" includes a corporation and the heirs, executors,
administrators, or legal representatives of a person to whom the context
can apply according to "law".
Canadian LAW Dictionary
NATURAL PERSON - "A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and
duties." Hague v. Cancer Relief & Research Institute,  4 D.L.R. 191 at 194 (Man.K.B.).
The word 'human' does not exist by definition in Black's, Bouvier's, and Canadian Law
Dictionaries. In 'Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary', 1948, page 389, "Human Being" is
defined as: "See Monster". On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, the word: "Monster", is defined
as: "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."
In 'Webster's New World dictionary', Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, "monster" is defined
as: "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."
From the 'Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, "Human Being"
is defined as: "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate", and on 1461, "unregenerate" means: "not
regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular
religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."
In 'Webster's New World Dictionary', Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, "Humanitarianism" is
defined as: "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."
In 'Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language', 1928, "Humanitarianism" is defined as: "a
philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."
And in the 'Random House Webster's College Dictionary', 1990, page 653, "Humanism" is defined as:
"any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate,
especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."]
Therefore, when a man or woman says that he/she is a "human being" or a "humanitarian", they are
saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to law), "I am an animal; I am a
monster; I am not saved; I am unrepentant; I am an unregenerate sinner; I am not converted; I am
wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I am cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the
importance of a belief in the Creator or a higher power.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 25: Individual criminal responsibility
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.
The "person" is corporate property. A "CHARGE" from a bankrupt corporation is:
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
CHARGE, contracts. An obligation entered into by the owner of an estate which makes the estate
responsible for its performance. Vide 2 Ball & Beatty, 223; 8 Com. Dig. 306, Appendix, h. t. Any
obligation binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a
discharge. T. de la Ley, h. t.
2. That particular kind of commission which one undertakes to perform for another, in keeping the
custody of his goods, is called a charge .
Canadian LAW Dictionary
CHARGE - In property law, a charge is an encumbrance, lien, or claim, a burden on the land. As
such, it is a form of security for the satisfaction of a debt or performance of an obligation .
In it's broadest sense, it means simply to entrust with, by way of responsibility, duty, etc. F.C. Rickert
Co. v. Larkin  3 W.W.R. 305 (Alta.S.C.A.D.); Dominion Creosoting Co. v. T.R. Nickerson Co.
(1917), 55 S.C.R. 303.
61. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that those who may be empowered de facto have falsely
and fraudulently assumed things about me that unlawfully take away my dutiful freedoms through the
use of violence, intimidation, and without my consent, agreement, and/or permission. This
'Asseveration and Notice of Denial of Corporate Status Agreement' proves that assumption is wrong
and that I can not be lawfully compelled to submit to false god's and mammon's/man-made laws that
are contrary to God's laws.
(Note: "Canada" is defined by an amendment to the Interpretation Act, which can usually be found at
the back of the private, copyrighted "Criminal Code" of "Canada", excluding the following
amendment, which is cleverly and deceitfully hidden at the back of the Ocean's Act, as:
87. Subsection 35(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
Ocean's Act - Interpretation Act
<< Canada >>
"Canada", for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of
62. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the so called provinces, just like in the Canada Land
Surveys Act, are not included in acts of the federal government as they have no jurisdiction in areas
outside of Canada as declared in the boundaries described within the Surveys enactment. The
jurisdiction of the federal government of Canada, according to their own enactments, is only upon
Canada lands (non-existent bodies of water) and owned territories as per the surveys act clear definition
and is only applicable to government controlled entities.
63. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that only by an unlawful, de facto memorandum of
agreements between the provinces and the federal government in league with the World Bank, who’s
soul motivation is profit, that the debt ridden Canadian corporate structure using the souls of men and
women as sureties bonded for millions of dollars can float the paper issued as money. Every dollar
struck by the Canadian mint is backed by a birth value of each and every child that was registered with
the provincial and federal governments since 1933. Each one was bonded, without full disclosure, and
listed as a security value with the treasury board of Canada and assigned a number. Each certificate was
issued on banknote paper which is listed to only be used for as security items of value such as a
certificate of listed value as an evidence of a bonded debt to the world bank.
64. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that there is no valid existing legislation to enforce federal
law in the provinces and the Bruno decision in BC federal tax court in 2002 settled that. The crown
never appealed as through the difference between “province” and “Province” which was key in the
defense and the Judge remarked he did not like his own decision but the law was before him. Only the
federal attorney general has jurisdiction over criminal code prosecutions and then only on Canada
(Note: Canada Land Surveys Act defines "Canada Lands" as:
24. (1) In this Part, "Canada Lands" means
(a) any lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada or of which the Government of
Canada has power to dispose that are situated in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut
or in any National Park of Canada and any lands that are
(i) surrendered lands or a reserve, as defined in the Indian Act,
(b) any lands under water belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada or in respect of any
rights in which the Government of Canada has power to dispose.
65. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the word province in section 2 of the Criminal Code
for Canada (which I make no use of - Ezekiel 33:6) refers to a geographical land mass and not a
legislature defined as Province with a capital “P”.
66. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the geographical limits of “Canada” are delineated in
the Canada Land Surveys Act, Section 24, and that Canada being the land mass spoken of in that
enactment only includes the North West Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon as provinces as concurred
in section 2 of the Criminal Code for Canada and section 30 of the de facto Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (of which I make no use of - Ezekiel 33:6).
67. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I am not a member of a dead legal fiction entity
corporation known as CANADA or BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF and that specifically my
name, being my ecclesiastical possession under the exclusive authority of Yahweh, is not allowed by
my faith in God’s commands as defended by the Queen you swore an oath to be truly allegiant to, to be
used, recorded, registered, or altered or exchanged for a financial purpose without my permission and
that it has never been offered or pledged to be for any of those reasons or to be used as a surety or as a
commodity with my fully informed consent.
68. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that Romans 16:17-20 tells us clearly as those of faith in
the word of God that her majesty the high priest of the Church of Christ and defender of the mosaic law
knows any law not in line with God’s law is invalid against men and women of faith in Yahweh and his
son Yashua and the law of loving your brother.
69. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that any man or woman in office who is hired to up
hold the law of the land and thereby have taken an oath to the Christian Monarch to be Truly
allegiant, if they do not know what that true allegiance is when asked, then they have provided
irrefutable evidence that they lied to get their job.
70. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that you have seen no proof of any malevolent act from
me and hearsay or assumption is not admissible in court.
71. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that I cannot be forced to violate my faith and register
with a false god de facto government.
72. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that you are aware that I reserve my right under God’s law
not to be compelled to perform under any fraudulently obtained contract or commercial agreement that
I did not enter knowingly, with informed consent, voluntarily and intentionally.
73. It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that you are aware that I do not accept the liability of
the compelled benefit of any unrevealed de facto contract or unlawful commercial agreement,
which is my ministerial duty pursuant to God’s law to divide myself from.
11:12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from
them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found
even as we.
11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ.
It is agreed, with no rebuttal to the fact that the anointed of God Queen Elizabeth Alexandra
Mary Windsor will act as witness to our agreement along with three other witnesses to
confirm our good faith covenant in twenty (20) days time from your receipt of this contractual
agreement that will then be advertised, posted, and circulated to as many as can benefit from
it's honourable position.
Blessings and thank you for honouring the Defence of the Christian Faith
The Bible does indeed declare the existence of a being with a personality who is called Satan, the
devil. In fact, between thirty-five and forty names have been attributed to him in the Scriptures.
He is called not only "Satan" and "devil" but "Abaddon" (Rev. 9:11); "The accuser of our
brethren" (Rev. 12:10); "Your adversary" (I Peter 5:8); "Apollyon" (Rev. 9:11);
"Beelzebub" (Matthew 12:24); The father of lies (John :44); "Belial" (II Corinthians 6:15); "the
dragon" (Rev. 20:2); "murderer" (John 8:44); "the power of darkness" (Colossians 1:13); "the
prince of this world" (John 14:30); "the prince of the devils" (Matthew 12:24); "the prince of the
power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2); "the rulers of the darkness of this world" (Ephesians 6:12);
"that old serpent" (Rev. 20:2); "the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2); and on and on. According to the Scriptures he is powerful
(Ephesians 2:2), wicked (I John 2:13), malignant (Job 1:9), subtle (Genesis 3:1) and cruel (I Peter
However the sophisticated people of this age regard Satan, Christ excepted him as a real being.
The apostles did likewise, as did all the Bible writers who mentioned him at all. According to the
Scriptures, Satan is an apostate angel. He is the source and promoter of all evil. His chief
designations show this; for instance, "Satan" means "adversary"; and "devil" from the Greek
diabolos, "Calumniator". The New Testament is full of allusions to the personality and agency of
the evil one.
Malachi - 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all
the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the
day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it
shall leave them neither root nor branch.
The Book of the Prophet Isaiah - 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give
thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard
bondage wherein thou wast made to serve, 14:4 That thou shalt take up
this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the
oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! 14:5 The LORD hath broken
the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
The Book of the Prophet - 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine
iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring
forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will
bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that
behold thee. 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at
thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
God does not want people to rebel against what he himself has set up. However, God's people must
remember that the final authority is always God himself. If those with power do not honour God, the
followers of Jesus will have to obey God rather than men.
Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities because there is no authority
except from God;
So in closing, I await any proof you may have that anything I have written and presented hereon is
untrue or false, and that the authority you and the other men and wo-men who are employed by
CANADA/ BRITISH COLUMBIA PROVINCE OF may have to intimidate me to violate my faith is
not contrary to God's laws, for if you do not I will be continuing my life as a minister of God united
with the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International as one of an international group of
ministers promoting faith in God's law and not bowing to false gods.
I welcome your provision of any proof you have of error or omission in the agreement hereon and
your tacit consent will be graciously received should no proof of error in our agreement be
forthcoming from you within twenty (20) days time. At that time I will confirm my honor in
gaining this ecclesiastical agreement with you by having witnesses signing an Ecclesiastical Notice
of Dishonour as per Matthew 18:15-20 and effect service of the confirmed agreement with you to
ensure our agreement is accepted and un-rebutted and as confirmation that we have an agreement
that you have no authority to intimidate me in the exercising of my faith. I will allow three days
time beyond the service date of the witnessed agreement which will be posted to make aware our
covenant in as many local papers and media as possible to ensure diligence is observed for the
benefit of all concerned men and women and in sealing our agreement historically.
Blessings upon your patience in discovering words have origins to their meanings and are applicable in
law (2 Peter 2:3) and, in fact, are being used to deceive us, and blessings upon your expeditious reply
shall you have any law, regulation, and/or court case or other authority that says you can tell me how to
practice my faith or obstruct me from the official performance of the functions of my calling.
I do sincerely thank you for your focused attention to this, my honest effort at officially
performing the function of my calling in establishing this agreement with you as per Matthew
5:25 and 18:15-20.
It is agreed by you with full understanding that failure to refute or disprove the facts provided
above as agreed upon by you will be witnessed in 20 days time.
Ecclesiastically autographed, non commercial, on Turtle Island at the dry land mass known as
Southbank, province of British Columbia the geographical location, during the
_______________ day of the fourth month of the year of Our Lord two thousand and nine (six),
uberummi fides, towards all the private men and wo-men who receive it and in defense of my
faith in front of these witnesses of good and moral character and of sound mind.
Dutiful freedoms reserved under Yahweh’s Law
minister Andrew-Clayton: of the family Fidler
le style c'est l'homme, meum et tuum
7:23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be
diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should
there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?
7:24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers,
porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be
lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.
7:25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine
hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that
are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach
ye them that know them not.
7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the
king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto
death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to
Thursday, January 14, 2010
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...